D&D 3E/3.5 Anoter 3.5 Barbarian question

[Dandu]

Then how can a barbarian "prematurely end his rage" as the rules state he can?

Whoosa.... whoosa....

 

[Jimlock]

Falling unconscious does not immediately flush the adrenaline overload from his system.

Then how can a barbarian "prematurely end his rage" as the rules state he can?

It is not really rules lawyering but reading what is written down in the book.

When 3.0 came out we ran it that when a barbarian went unconscious then his rage ended and we had a PC die because of it. Only years later after reading the FAQ and then checking the actual text (basically the same in 3.0 as it is in 3.5) we realized the error of our ways.

This is a game and not a real life situation after all, everything in D&D is fantasy and the combat system is extremely vague and simple when compared to real life.

Flying into a rage entails a reaction in respect to some sort of stimuli. The barbarian sees the enemy, "rages" and attacks. The enemy (and everything related to the enemy) is the stimuli.

Once one falls unconscious, the stimuli ceases to exist. People that wake up from being unconscious not only do they not know where they actually are!!... but they also do not remember the reasons they lost consciousness in the first place!!!... Incidents related to their "falling unconscious" are, if not completely lost, surrounded by such thick a fog in their minds, that there is no way for the above-mentioned stimuli to survive. It's a brain's defense mechanism so as to protect us from further harm.

what i'm saying is that while i see how the adrenaline can keep him alive, there is no reason he should be enraged when he recovers (in case he has rounds left)

My previous post was poorly formatted, i admit.
My comments were meant for what happens once he regains consciousness, not for falling unconscious.


Having said that...and after giving it some though...i'd probably rule that waking from unconsciousness ends the rage... i prefer it that way for it puts the barbarian in less a danger...while i also avoid the image of someone waking up enraged/pissed-off (which is kinda funny if you think of it)... I'd still keep the "A barbarian may prematurely end his rage" for i can see how "self control", etc, etc can do that, but once he she shuts down once... its over... no switching on again in the same encounter (that's how the rule has it anyway..)

 

[Ranger19k]

Having said that...and after giving it some though...i'd probably rule that waking from unconsciousness ends the rage... i prefer it that way for it puts the barbarian in less a danger...while i also avoid the image of someone waking up enraged/pissed-off (which is kinda funny if you think of it)... I'd still keep the "A barbarian may prematurely end his rage" for i can see how "self control", etc, etc can do that, but once he she shuts down once... its over... no switching on again in the same encounter (that's how the rule has it anyway..)

This could also bring some unintended levity to the combat: if whatever healing brought the barbarian back to consciousness was not enough to heal +2hp/level, you would get him up, the rage would end, and he'd immediately drop again. That's good for a laugh for everyone at the table not named Barbarian!

 

[Mystic Lemur]

D&D rage somehow gives you *more* self control, in the form of heightened Will saves. Real world berserk rage is a total loss of self control. I can see an argument for the person ignoring some effects, but the general boost to Will saves seems weird.

IIRC, it's a Morale bonus, which makes perfect sense. Basically, when the Barbarian is in his rage he is either too focused or just too far gone to be affected by silly things like fear or magical compulsions.

Besides, as has been pointed out, adrenaline doesn't go away just because you go into shock from blood loss or whatever. Knock someone out when they're hopped up and I guarantee their pupils will still be dilated and they'll still be breathing shallow and heavy.

If your DM enforces this silly houserule/Paizo rule, just pick up Diehard. Problem avoided.

 

[Dandu]

Spending a feat slot on a poor feat with another poor feat as a prerequisite seems painful.

 

[Mystic Lemur]

Agree 100%, but if dying from losing your Rage hp is a common occurrence with your DM it might be worth it.

 

[Dandu]

It may be more effective to solve the problem at the source.

 

[Jimlock]

This could also bring some unintended levity to the combat: if whatever healing brought the barbarian back to consciousness was not enough to heal +2hp/level, you would get him up, the rage would end, and he'd immediately drop again. That's good for a laugh for everyone at the table not named Barbarian!

Then i'd rule that his 0 hit points for purposes of waking up are his actual 0 hit points +2hp/level. Case solved No more situations to laugh about at the table now...(as far as the barbarian's resurrection goes anyway!)

 

[irdeggman]

Then i'd rule that his 0 hit points for purposes of waking up are his actual 0 hit points +2hp/level. Case solved No more situations to laugh about at the table now...(as far as the barbarian's resurrection goes anyway!)

Just to point out something. . .

Did you notice how many subsequent "rules" you would have to change based on your initial house-rule that a barbarian's rage would end when he went unconscious?

This is the often onforseen conseqence of house-rules in themselves. They often force subsequent house-rules for balance purposes.

Essentially you have ended up treating his rage hit points as temporary ones since they are in effect the first ones that go away if he goes unconscious and then wakes up.

Sometimes, alright usually, it causes more churn in someone's brain when they try to analyze the D&D rules from a real life/world perspective instead of merely treating it as a game with assumed differences that don't require detailed explanation.

 

[Jimlock]

Just to point out something. . .

Did you notice how many subsequent "rules" you would have to change based on your initial house-rule that a barbarian's rage would end when he went unconscious?

This is the often onforseen conseqence of house-rules in themselves. They often force subsequent house-rules for balance purposes.

Essentially you have ended up treating his rage hit points as temporary ones since they are in effect the first ones that go away if he goes unconscious and then wakes up.

Sometimes, alright usually, it causes more churn in someone's brain when they try to analyze the D&D rules from a real life/world perspective instead of merely treating it as a game with assumed differences that don't require detailed explanation.

I think you are overreacting a bit...

As far as house-ruling is concerned i'm neither pro nor against it. When i do it, i go very thoroughly into the rules so as to make sure i don't create a chained reaction that proves to be disastrous.

I must admit that i reacted somewhat impulsively to the pharse "Basically it is a conscious action to prematurely end his rage - being unconscious does not allow him to make such a conscious decision." because it didn't make sense as an argument that reaches a decent conclusion.

Moreover i have not encountered this problem with a barbarian before, therefore i apologize for my inexperience with this matter.

However, after reading the barbarian's rage, i thought of it, and i came to the conclusion that i wouldn't like a barbarian (in my game) who wakes up enraged after having fallen unconscious, because that breaks my "in-game" realism and because i believe it is somewhat more fitting to a comedy than my game(s) and the mood i want to establish.

So, by ruling that a barbarian's rage ends once he awakes (so as to protect the character from dying), IMO does not change things a great deal nor does it provoke a chained reaction to my game.

As far as hit points go, curing the barbarian to the point where he regains his consciousness (0 hit points), while taking into account that his rage ends at the same time, means that the healing process has to heal enough of his actual hit points (without the +2/lvl into account).
Personally i do not see how this treats his "rage" hit points as temporary.
In case it does (perhaps i fail to see something here...) i still do not see how this affects "actual" temporary hit points, or how this change would affects the game beyond that one ruling.