Interpreting Barbarian Rage in Non-combat Situations

[clearstream]

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/​

He seems pretty consistent, although agreed his thinking seemed to crystallise as he went along.

Flatly, the Barbarian must attack a hostile creature, or take damage. It's moot how the damage is caused, but damage must indeed, somehow, be caused. This means that in the absence of a hostile creature to attack, the Barbarian needs to be sacrificing HP to sustain the Rage. Additionally, if the Barbarian can't spare actions to attack themselves, they will need to be taking damage from other creatures or the environment.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you said "barbarians can rage whenever they like, for as long as they like up to one minute" would anything actually break?

 

[Ristamar]

If you said "barbarians can rage whenever they like, for as long as they like up to one minute" would anything actually break?

Probably not. I imagine it was written that way for flavor and to avoid granular time keeping.

 

[clearstream]

If you said "barbarians can rage whenever they like, for as long as they like up to one minute" would anything actually break?

A) Is it satisfying at the table?
B) Is it entailed by RAW?
C) Is it balanced?

There's a cogent argument that balance in RPGs means ensuring more strategies are viable. I think that includes the question of whether some DM-strategies, i.e. challenges that can be presented to players, become trivialised? And it includes whether the strategy at hand - Rage - is viable without the change?

C1 - breadth of strategies - Other things that can enhance Strength checks and saving throws include Guidance (1 ability check, at will), Resistance (1 saving throw, at will), Bardic Inspiration (long rest), Bless (level 1+ spell slot) and Enhance Ability (level 2+ spell slot). I don't think any of those are marginalised by 10 versus 1 turn of Rage. EDIT - I missed something here - what is Rage like in combat if it auto-sustains for one minute? The issue here is that it then cannot be turned off by either fleeing for awhile, staying at range, or temporarily halting the barbarian. That does reduce breadth of strategies (for opponents of the raging creature) and therefore is bad balance.

C2 - trivialised challenges - Looking at Using Each Ability / Strength, there also doesn't seem to be anything there that is trivialised by having advantage on Strength for a minute. Of course, all those sorts of tasks will become more doable, but Rage isn't increasing Strength so it is not altering what can be achieved, only how likely that achievement is.

C1 - viable without the change - So is Rage only viable if it amounts to Strength advantage any time for a minute, between Long Rests? For me the answer to that is - Rage is a solid feature. I have players in my campaign dipping Barbarian for Rage + Bear totem. So I don't feel like Rage needs to be stronger than what is entailed by RAW. If it came up, I would probably stick to RAW. I don't think this is a big deal; but if it isn't a big deal, why make the change? Revert to question A) to answer that for your campaign.

In summary, yes, I think there is a balance problem. Not out of combat, but in combat, if you make Rage auto-sustain for a minute.

 

[clearstream]

A) Is it satisfying at the table?
B) Is it entailed by RAW?
C) Is it balanced?

There's a cogent argument that balance in RPGs means ensuring more strategies are viable. I think that includes the question of whether some DM-strategies, i.e. challenges that can be presented to players, become trivialised? And it includes whether the strategy at hand - Rage - is viable without the change?

C1 - breadth of strategies - Other things that can enhance Strength checks and saving throws include Guidance (1 ability check, at will), Resistance (1 saving throw, at will), Bardic Inspiration (long rest), Bless (level 1+ spell slot) and Enhance Ability (level 2+ spell slot). I don't think any of those are marginalised by 10 versus 1 turn of Rage.

C2 - trivialised challenges - Looking at Using Each Ability / Strength, there also doesn't seem to be anything there that is trivialised by having advantage on Strength for a minute. Of course, all those sorts of tasks will become more doable, but Rage isn't increasing Strength so it is not altering what can be achieved, only how likely that achievement is.

C1 - viable without the change - So is Rage only viable if it amounts to Strength advantage any time for a minute, between Long Rests? For me the answer to that is - Rage is a solid feature. I have players in my campaign dipping Barbarian for Rage + Bear totem. So I don't feel like Rage needs to be stronger than what is entailed by RAW. If it came up, I would probably stick to RAW. I don't think this is a big deal; but if it isn't a big deal, why make the change? Revert to question A) to answer that for your campaign

I suddenly realised that I missed something - what is Rage like in combat if it auto-sustains for one minute? The issue here is that it then cannot be turned off by either fleeing for awhile, staying at range, or temporarily halting the barbarian. That does reduce breadth of strategies (for opponents of the raging creature) and therefore implies bad balance.

 

[Grognerd]

C1 - breadth of strategies - Other things that can enhance Strength checks and saving throws include Guidance (1 ability check, at will), Resistance (1 saving throw, at will), Bardic Inspiration (long rest), Bless (level 1+ spell slot) and Enhance Ability (level 2+ spell slot). I don't think any of those are marginalised by 10 versus 1 turn of Rage. EDIT - I missed something here - what is Rage like in combat if it auto-sustains for one minute? The issue here is that it then cannot be turned off by either fleeing for awhile, staying at range, or temporarily halting the barbarian. That does reduce breadth of strategies (for opponents of the raging creature) and therefore is bad balance.

Ironically, I'd argue this is one of the reasons that Rage should be allowed for one minute. The idea that since the enemy is running away for six seconds, or needle-pricking the barb at range would cause his rage to dissipate is silly, IMHO. If I (speaking as if I was a barbarian) was chasing down a foe who had the nerve to run rather than face me like a man, I'd stay angry. If I was enduring slings and arrows from weaklings too cowardly to face me in melee, not only would I stay mad, I'd probably get even angrier at them for their cowardly ways. If a mage overruled my body and forced me to stay still against my will, my anger would simmer like a pot and once that spell dropped I'd tear him limb from limb.

So yes, it reduces enemy strategies. But IMHO it should do so, because the idea that any of the above would cause a barbarian to suddenly become less angry is absurd. And since nothing is broken mechanically by allowing the 1 minute rage, I'd say that in this case, it should be allowed.

 

[Ristamar]

For an interesting critique of the Barbarian class and its dependency on rage, I'd recommend this article from Colin McLaughlin (frequent contributor at tribality.com):

https://standsinthefire.com/2018/02/13/rage-against-the-barbarian/

I don't plan on implementing any major changes to the class, but he does make a lot of good points regarding Rage dependency to stay competitive with its peers.

 

[clearstream]

Ironically, I'd argue this is one of the reasons that Rage should be allowed for one minute. The idea that since the enemy is running away for six seconds, or needle-pricking the barb at range would cause his rage to dissipate is silly, IMHO. If I (speaking as if I was a barbarian) was chasing down a foe who had the nerve to run rather than face me like a man, I'd stay angry. If I was enduring slings and arrows from weaklings too cowardly to face me in melee, not only would I stay mad, I'd probably get even angrier at them for their cowardly ways. If a mage overruled my body and forced me to stay still against my will, my anger would simmer like a pot and once that spell dropped I'd tear him limb from limb.

I like your descriptions, but bottom-line they are narrative concerns, and not balance ones, right? My post was focusing on balance.

So yes, it reduces enemy strategies. But IMHO it should do so, because the idea that any of the above would cause a barbarian to suddenly become less angry is absurd. And since nothing is broken mechanically by allowing the 1 minute rage, I'd say that in this case, it should be allowed.

Again, I think "cause a barbarian to suddenly become less angry is absurd" is a narrative objection - speaking to my question A) (is it satisfying at the table?) rather than to C (is it balanced?). I'm not disputing your narrative points, only saying that what I was asked was essentially - is it balanced?

For an interesting critique of the Barbarian class and its dependency on rage, I'd recommend this article from Colin McLaughlin (frequent contributor at tribality.com):

https://standsinthefire.com/2018/02/13/rage-against-the-barbarian/

I don't plan on implementing any major changes to the class, but he does make a lot of good points regarding Rage dependency to stay competitive with its peers.

Really good points in that article, I particularly like the idea of a die rather than a flat add for the damage bonus. Also, the refresh on Long Rest is a sore thumb, definitely. Compared with say Warlock spell slots!

He also, obliquely, points out that Barbarian is a narrow class. Auto-advantage on Strength checks in and out of combat rounds broadens them. The thing about a minute is that I think it becomes a bit moot. How long does it really take to swim out each time, retrieve someone, bring them back? Out of combat, the question becomes more - how many Strength checks does the DM want the Rage to span? If they only want it to span 1, they can say "Given a minute of levering and bashing, you can make a check to break through the portcullis" i.e. make one check. Or they can say - "make 10 checks (1/turn) to break through the portcullis" - which in my experience can come to feel not quite right, outside combat.

 

[Grognerd]

I like your descriptions, but bottom-line they are narrative concerns, and not balance ones, right? My post was focusing on balance.

Thanks!

Again, I think "cause a barbarian to suddenly become less angry is absurd" is a narrative objection - speaking to my question A) (is it satisfying at the table?) rather than to C (is it balanced?). I'm not disputing your narrative points, only saying that what I was asked was essentially - is it balanced?

Fair enough; they are narrative objections. But in your ABC list, I would argue A is just as important as C, since it is a role-playing game. But to keep it focused just on C...

I don't think you can argue that it is not balanced. It is not mechanically broken. The argument that limiting tactics is 1) subjective in their value (both quantitatively and qualitatively), and 2) applicable to every single special ability out there. All of them in some way allow a character to overcome or impose a limiting tactic. And since the barb's rage - even if auto-successful for 1 min - not unbalanced to any of those special abilities, any supposed limitations to tactics is somewhat moot from the perspective of game balance.

Either way, I get what you are saying. I'm just providing an alternative to anyone who cares. In my game, I'll have no problem if a player brings up 1 min auto-success in combat. Cool. If you want to keep the barb limited, that's cool too.

All the cool kids prefer fighters anyway. ;-)

 

[Ristamar]

He also, obliquely, points out that Barbarian is a narrow class. Auto-advantage on Strength checks in and out of combat rounds broadens them. The thing about a minute is that I think it becomes a bit moot. How long does it really take to swim out each time, retrieve someone, bring them back? Out of combat, the question becomes more - how many Strength checks does the DM want the Rage to span? If they only want it to span 1, they can say "Given a minute of levering and bashing, you can make a check to break through the portcullis" i.e. make one check. Or they can say - "make 10 checks (1/turn) to break through the portcullis" - which in my experience can come to feel not quite right, outside combat.

The focus outside of combat would be primarily for the damage resistance, not the strength advantage. If there were no threats to the Barbarian or his allies from the environment or otherwise, I agree that the Rage is largely thematic and mechanically moot.

As for strength related checks to bash doors or lift objects, I often don't ask the players to roll. If time isn't a factor, they're either strong enough or they're not. If it needs to be executed properly on the first attempt, then I'm going to ask for an approach so I can adjudicate the potential use of a skill.