Interpreting Barbarian Rage in Non-combat Situations

[clearstream]

The rule does not state that damage must be dealt by a hostile creature. It simply states that if I have taken damage, my rage continues. I would argue then, that if I'm in a flash flood that is buffeting me against rocks and trees and I'm taking damage every time I swim out, my rage should be allowed to continue. I would also argue that a party member could make an unarmed attack against me, e.g., punch me and deliver a small amount of damage, to allow me to continue my rage.

Did the DM have the flood deal HP damage to your character?

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is a Role Playing Game. Characters play a role in a story. If this is cnsidered to be a point of rule ambiguity, ask whether the situation tells a good story. If so, go with it.

To me, a tortle druid screaming at the river that it shall not take his friends as it batters and throws him against the rocks is a perfectly fine use of rage. However, I would not consider this an ambiguous situation. As long as there is damage he is taking that is actually a threat to him, or he is fighting against something, I'd allow it. I have also been known to allow it in other situations, such as when the barbarian was in a weight lifting competition and had a huge crowd cheering him on.

 

[clearstream]

D&D is a Role Playing Game. Characters play a role in a story. If this is cnsidered to be a point of rule ambiguity, ask whether the situation tells a good story. If so, go with it.

To me, a tortle druid screaming at the river that it shall not take his friends as it batters and throws him against the rocks is a perfectly fine use of rage. However, I would not consider this an ambiguous situation. As long as there is damage he is taking that is actually a threat to him, or he is fighting against something, I'd allow it. I have also been known to allow it in other situations, such as when the barbarian was in a weight lifting competition and had a huge crowd cheering him on.

It seems like two questions are being asked here.

Question 1) Is it fun/reasonable for a DM to allow this at their table?
Question 2) Is it entailed by RAW that this should be possible?

The answer to question 1) is easy - yes - but that cannot be mixed up with question 2. The answer to question 2) rests on whether the Barbarian was taking HP damage to sustain their rage. The OP has hinted at, but not supplied that precise detail.

I think we can answer the second question once we know if actual HP damage was being inflicted.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, he would still have to make an attack or take damage every round. Mike might not be too happy with that.

The point is, it's silly. Gerald the Barbarian is in a bar room brawl, and can rage as much as he likes. The next day the Temple of Hamish Gloom is collapsing on his head. He can't rage because he isn't in combat, so he is crushed to death under the collapsing ceiling.

A more sensible ruling is that anyone can initiate combat mode and make an initiative roll at any point in the game. Thus, RAW and rule of cool/common sense are reconciled.

 

[clearstream]

The point is, it's silly. Gerald the Barbarian is in a bar room brawl, and can rage as much as he likes. The next day the Temple of Hamish Gloom is collapsing on his head. He can't rage because he isn't in combat, so he is crushed to death under the collapsing ceiling.

Why isn't the ceiling falling on his head doing any damage? Thus satisfying RAW for Rage.


[EDIT In case it wasn't clear, I'm agreeing with you about any putative divide between combat/non-combat being essentially non-existent. IIRC Crawford or Mearls clarifies that in one of their interviews, perhaps with Mike Shea?]

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why isn't the ceiling falling on his head doing any damage? Thus satisfying RAW for Rage.

RAW rage doesn't require damage, it requires you be in battle. You can rage in a battle even if the barbarian, the party, and the enemy have taken no damage.

Really I have no problem allowing a player to use rage any time they like: it has a cost in uses per day, and really, Barbarians aint that great anyway.

 

[clearstream]

RAW rage doesn't require damage, it requires you be in battle. You can rage in a battle even if the barbarian, the party, and the enemy have taken no damage.

To clarify, I am not arguing that the Barbarian cannot go into Rage.

I'm asking how it was sustained? He was not making attacks, so he needed to be taking damage. The OP does not tell us if he was taking damage (he hints at it, but what I'm asking is, concretely, was the DM having HP damage dealt to the character?)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sustainance is a problem rules as written indeed.
But I as a DM did allow the use of rage to help a drowning child. I could have made the cld water deal 1 damage per round, but I don´t think that is necessary. The earlier ending condiditions are just there to prevent rules abuse which I can´t see here.

 

[Ristamar]

The barbarian's Rage is mostly limited to the confines of combat by RAW. RAI, I can only speculate since Crawford flip-flopped on his own advice:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/09/27/can-a-barbarian-hit-himself-to-keep-his-rage-going/
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/05/27/could-a-barbarian-hurt-himself-to-maintain-rage/​

As a DM, I'd allow a use of Rage outside of combat given a clearly stated "rage appropriate" goal (e.g. bash in a door, lift heavy rubble to save an ally, etc). Once one minute has passed or the effort stops (the goal is achieved or the barbarian stops), the Rage would end. If there is a good reason to continue the Rage immediately after the goal is achieved (e.g. enemies ambush the party as the barbarian frees the last of his allies from the rubble), I'd likely allow the barbarian to transition the Rage to a new goal or combat, but the clock would still be ticking on one minute duration.

FWIW, Crawford encouraged/endorsed a similar ruling:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/05/08/barbarian-rage-2/​

 

[clearstream]

Sustainance is a problem rules as written indeed.
But I as a DM did allow the use of rage to help a drowning child. I could have made the cld water deal 1 damage per round, but I don´t think that is necessary. The earlier ending condiditions are just there to prevent rules abuse which I can´t see here.

A) Was it satisfying at the table?
B) Was it entailed by RAW?

The intent of RAW is to enable satisfaction at the table, but as Sage Advice puts it - "When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent."

Studying what the text says in context, without concern about intent, what is entailed by RAW is roughly this - you can enter Rage any time, you can sustain that Rage if and only if you make attacks or take damage. Right? The OP wasn't making attacks, so were they taking damage?