D&D 5E Barbarian wants to damage himself to keep rage going

[commandercrud]

No, just no.

 

[Worrgrendel]

Guns run out of bullets in action movies?

Only when it fits the narrative. For example. All the Rambo films: there was no narrative so he never ran out of ammo. OK. OK. The first movie was great. The rest of them were terrible.

 

[Flamestrike]

Only when it fits the narrative. For example. All the Rambo films: there was no narrative so he never ran out of ammo. OK. OK. The first movie was great. The rest of them were terrible.

The first movie was a tale about how the Government discards its soldiers after war, and the effects of PTSD on those men fitting back into society.

Then in the next movie they... sent him back into Vietnam to kill more guys on his own.

Like... wut?

 

[Worrgrendel]

I agree with this completely. Raging to get “over the top” in an arm wrestling contest, should be a valid use. A rare social pillar win for the Barbarian should be an event that is encouraged.

Couldn't agree more and we have always house-ruled it that way. If the raging fits the narrative then we allow it to continue. Raging during an arm wrestling contest? You bet! Raging to hold up a heavy portcullis while your party tries to slide underneath? Hells yeah! Raging whilst charging an overwhelming hoard of enemies that are out of melee range? Frak yeah! Raging while watching the dumpsterfire that was the M. Night Shyamalan version of The Last Airbender? Oh wait. That was Nerd Raging. Still... you get my point.

 

[Worrgrendel]

The first movie was a tale about how the Government discards its soldiers after war, and the effects of PTSD on those men fitting back into society.

Then in the next movie they... sent him back into Vietnam to kill more guys on his own.

Like... wut?

That's because you can't suffer from PTSD if you are still being stressed. It's POST Traumatic Stress Disorder. The government psychologists figured out that if all the fighting and killing and trying to survive is what caused the problem, then the solution would be to keep them fighting and killing and surviving until they die and then they will never suffer from PTSD. They found the freaking cure to PTSD in Rambo II. Who knew.

 

[Dausuul]

When somebody uses a game mechanic in an unexpected way, the first thing to do is stop and ask if it makes sense.

Why does taking damage allow rage to continue? Because pain fuels the rage. Does it hurt if you cut yourself? Yes. So: Makes sense.

The second thing is to ask if it causes balance issues. Presumably the barbarian is using some kind of action to damage himself, plus he is, y'know, taking damage, so there is definitely a cost. And being able to sustain a rage for the duration of combat is normal and expected for barbarians. So I don't see any balance problems.

I feel like a lot of people reflexively yell "NO!" whenever a mechanic is used in a way they aren't used to seeing. But just because you aren't used to seeing it doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Hriston]

So in a game I am DMing a PC wanted to stab himself (just a flesh wound) so he would take damage and not lose rage because there was no enemy in melee range. I really did not like that and made him end rage. First, was that the right ruling in your opinion?

As others have said, was there no hostile creature within range? Even if the barbarian has no weapon with a range, if there's a hostile creature within 60 feet, the barbarian can throw a melee weapon or other convenient object as an improvised weapon.

If inflicting damage on him/herself is the only option to keep rage going (or if the barbarian just wants to do it), I'd allow it, but the barbarian would have to roll (and take) critical damage. An unarmed strike could be used.

That brought up another potential option - What if he "attacks' something else, like a chair, the door, a wall. I could see that working. It would be an action so he could not dash or do anything else that round.

Those are not hostile creatures, so it wouldn't work in my game.

 

[Krachek]

A barb should be able to pump himself using its action to keep the rage stance on.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I wouldn't allow damaging yourself, personally. Throw a spear or something at your enemy. Then again, I'm playing a barbarian so the situation might come up and I might change my mind.

I do agree that it sucks that you can't maintain your rage to lift a boulder off an ally, or hols up a portcullis, so maybe letting the player damage themselves makes sense.

My barbarian doesn't use the 'rage' fluff. He uses different fighting styles so it was harder to justify why having no-one to attack would prevent him from being able to use specific styles. I just said they are dependent on timing attacks and dodging the enemy. If there's no enemy nearby and can't attack, he loses the timing and has to reset his stance.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't really have a problem with PC doing damage to themself to keep the Rage going, myself. It only lasts 1 minute anyway. Even if you let him, say, do 1HP damage to himself each six seconds to keep it going, that's potentially several HP of damage for absolutely no benefit (assuming another combat doesn't happen within seconds), and if a combat does happen within seconds, it seems fairly reasonable to keep it going, because it's not like Barbarians are worth much without Rage. If they're going to do it to reduce falling damage or whatever, well, okay, that's a really corner-case situation and not likely to be a problem. It's not like they couldn't just Rage and jump off a cliff and be entirely within the rules (assuming the cliff is less than 550ft high) in taking half damage anyway (it does do bludgeoning damage, right)? If you made them, say, punch themselves for full damage, that's bludgeoning reduced by Rage so probably 1+2+3 (at low levels), halved, so 3 damage each round to keep it going (rising as they get higher STR etc.), which again, seems reasonable to me.