Does Barbarian rage end if Barb goes unconscious?

[Caliban]

It has been pointed out, that it is not detrimental to the class, rather, slightly more limiting than your intrepretation.

In your opinion. Many people seem to hold a different opinion on that score.

If it works for your group, that's all well and good. But I would guess that barbarians are fairly rare in your group.

 

[green slime]

In your opinion. Many people seem to hold a different opinion on that score.

If it works for your group, that's all well and good. But I would guess that barbarians are fairly rare in your group.

But then you would guess wrong. They are more common than Bards, Druids, Psions, Sorcerers and Rangers... Don't ask me why. I do notice that many players IMC prefer to play a certain role, rather than experiment with the various classes. Still, whatever works for them.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You're missing the point, green slime. The barbarian in your game does not have the benefit of entering the dying condition and every other class does. This is a penalty, not a benefit. A 5th level barbarian merely has the equivalent of diehard. You're turning a useful class feature into a potential killer, especially for a roleplayer. Any other higher level barbarian has the equivalent of diehard + 2L-10 hit points. Lower level barbarians have a limited form of diehard, which is actually worse because you can't function at all levels of negative hit points. Your only solution is to tell the player of the barbarian to act like he's not in a rage and seek medical help. It's not against the rules, I'll grant you that, but it's a little fishy. You also seem to want to shift the blame on the barbarian dying to the cleric's shoulders. This is the primary reason why clerics in 3.x have been increased in power, because no one wants to play a class who's sole responsibility is for keeping others alive. So, when the barbarian goes into combat to hold of the onrushing dragon for a round or two and gets killed, it's suddenly the cleric's fault? Heck, you make it a must have for the cleric to prepare greater status and shield other on the barbarian.

I don't like it, and although I don't think you'll change your game, I'd like if you actually considered what we're saying rather than just dismissing our comments. Point your players to this thread, especially the barbarian.

 

[Endur]

Infiniti2k, you are being hard on Green Slime.

You are making the assumption that there is a healer ready to heal the Barbarian ... if there is no healer, the barbarian is dead when he enters the dying condition under either approach.

Furthermore, you are making the assumption that the Barbarian is going to be knocked into negative hit points often enough to make the game less fun. I have played with parties where some party members were not knocked into negative hit points between levels 1 and 9 (i.e. until the party gained Raise Dead, the characters were never knocked into negative hit points ... that includes combat-intensive campaigns such as Living Greyhawk).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well, when you make a class's special ability a detrement to the class...

I personally rule that the Rage doesn't end until the duration expires, regardless of the barbarian's condition. But I think "detrimental" is a bit of an overstatement. Aside from the hit point advantage under discussion here (which is an advantage under either interpretation, just less of an advantage by one interpretation than the other,) let's not forget the rather significant Strength bonus, which stacks with magical strength enhancements. Fort and Will Saves also improve.

The Fighter10/Barbarian2 in the game I currently play in can hit a 30 strength while raging. Even by the weaker interpretation of Rage, he'd be in love with the ability, I think.

Saying that by the RAW Rage should continue after unconsciousness is a valid argument that I personally agree with. But let's not wax hyperbolic in describing green slime's adjudication. His Rage is still a decent ability. It's just not as good as it could be, or as some believe it should be.

 

[Endur]

Having thought about this a lot, I'm of the opinion that it makes sense to have unconscious barbarians lose their rage benefits.

But ... if we take away rage benefits from someone driven into unconsciousness by going into negative hit points, then that PC dies.

Whereas a Raging Barbarian with the Die Hard feat who goes into negative hit points, would keep his rage benefits and stay alive.

Since that major difference does not seem fair to me, I'm inclined to agree with letting barbarians who go into negative hit points keep their rage benefits.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Whereas a Raging Barbarian with the Die Hard feat who goes into negative hit points, would keep his rage benefits and stay alive.

Since that major difference does not seem fair to me, I'm inclined to agree with letting barbarians who go into negative hit points keep their rage benefits.

Right, and in such a situation, the Diehard feat isn't a nice-to-have feat, it's an absolute must-have for a barbarian. Barbarians above 4th-level (heck, even 3rd-level) without Diehard are simply not an option.

You are making the assumption that there is a healer ready to heal the Barbarian ... if there is no healer, the barbarian is dead when he enters the dying condition under either approach.

I'm not making that assumption, green slime is. I think it's safe to assume that there is a healer in the party (it's the basic 4-man composition), but my assumption is not that it's the cleric's responsibility to keep the barbarian alive. My assumption is that anyone with a healing potion could keep the barbarian alive, just like for any other class.

 

[green slime]

You're missing the point, green slime.

>snip<

I don't like it, and although I don't think you'll change your game, I'd like if you actually considered what we're saying rather than just dismissing our comments. Point your players to this thread, especially the barbarian.

No, you are missing the point. Together, we have already had this discussed in my group. There is no further point. I dismiss your comments, because they have already been considered, in the discussion with my players. It was not a descision forced upon the players, no matter what you may think. My group consists of:

A 4th year medical student,
A MSc of Theoretical Physics
A MSc of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
A BSc of Computer Science.
And my self.

3 of 5 have been enjoying DnD together since sometime during the 80's. 1 since the 90's and one "recently" joined about 3 years ago.

I think they have the capability to read the rules, are capable of telling me when I make a bad call, and the ability to argue their case. The game we play, is our game. Not yours. Your arguments mean nothing to me. Theirs do. If you get invited to join our game, then we will consider your PoV.

Until then, some people have a real snotty attitude here; Why is it the player of the Barbarian who always calls wondering how soon he can get his gaming fix? I guess it can't be because playing a barbarian in my game could possibly be fun?!? Must be because he has no other social activities, and is lacking a life.... Guess his studies, fiancee, travels, frisbee-golf, billiards, and musical activities must all be really boring too.......

 

[Jhulae]

And, on the flip side of the coin...

While it works for your group, it's not RAW.

I'm glad it works for your group and they're happy with it. That doesn't change that it's not what the RAW says and it's a house rule.

And, I have to say, your last post looks pretty 'snotty' as you say. Telling us the professions of your players is supposed to what, exactly?

Anyway, as long as your group is having fun, great. But, again, that doesn't give you the right, either, to dismiss other's statements as wrong or inconcequential to the discussion as a whole just because *your* group is having fun with your house rules, because other groups certainly might not.

 

[green slime]

And, on the flip side of the coin...

While it works for your group, it's not RAW.

I'm glad it works for your group and they're happy with it. That doesn't change that it's not what the RAW says and it's a house rule.

And, I have to say, your last post looks pretty 'snotty' as you say. Telling us the professions of your players is supposed to what, exactly?

Anyway, as long as your group is having fun, great. But, again, that doesn't give you the right, either, to dismiss other's statements as wrong or inconcequential to the discussion as a whole just because *your* group is having fun with your house rules, because other groups certainly might not.

Because the RAW doesn't explicitly state one way or the other? I put forward my view, and I am the one that gets attacked for it. I have not condemed others for how they intrepret the rules.