Interpreting Barbarian Rage in Non-combat Situations

[MNblockhead]

As DM, I'd probably know about how many checks there'd be more or less or how much time it would take, based on your approach to the goal. At this point I'd probably say that in order to keep up a rage in this situation you have to take some damage attempting this rescue. This seems like a reasonable trade-off to me. Then each check to rescue a comrade would test how much damage you took. If you succeed, you take less damage. If you fail, you still rescue another PC, but you take more damage (relatively speaking).

You're approach is even kinder. While I wasn't taking damage, if I had failed any of my checks, party members would likely have died.

 

[iserith]

You're approach is even kinder. While I wasn't taking damage, if I had failed any of my checks, party members would likely have died.

Yeah, I don't run AL, but this seems like the proper call to me in that kind of game. Rather than send the players packing or wait will they roll up new characters. Worst case scenario is maybe you get knocked unconscious trying to save them but this is unlikely if the damage is bludgeoning. I'm seeing it mainly as one PC burning up resources (rage, hit points) to make up for the failures of others, which seems fair to me. You'll be a little weaker in subsequent challenges is all.

 

[epithet]

...
Not sure how World of Warcraft is relevant here. Never played it. ...

Only in that there are abilities in World of Warcraft (and many other online games) which can only be used "out of combat" or "in combat." Eating, for example, cannot be done while "in combat." A rogue cannot activate stealth while in combat, unless using the "vanish" ability. There is an indicator, part of the UI, that will tell you when you're in combat.

My point is that none of that exists in D&D, and that "in combat" is not a condition that applies to characters. You don't need a target to swing your sword, you can cast a fireball into the air to make pretty lights, etc.

 

[clearstream]

"There are things known and there are things unknown..."

So... Charisma (Perception) check?

Charisma (Arcana) check?

And then there is the Bard's god-given right to evade death with panache... Charisma (Athletics) check!

 

[S'mon]

I certainly allow raging outside combat, eg to break a door. Nothing in the rules forbids it.

>>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 guess, though it seems odd that the PC is taking damage every round.

 

[Jester David]

I'd absolutely allow a barbarian to rage outside of combat.

There's no combat limitation to enter a rage. It's be totally fair to enter a rage to jump farther, climb faster, or smash down a door.
The catch is duration, as it would only last a turn. RAW unless they take damage or attacked a hostile creature, the rage ends. So even in a time of exploratory stress where the barbarian is trying to smash down the door of a flooding room before they die, they can't maintain a rage.

Now, this is where the advantages of 5e comes into play. Because the game is rulings and not rules, I can say that provided there is a source of stress and adrenaline, and the barbarian continues to be active each round, they can maintain a rage. If they're climbing frantically, than Athletics checks count, and if they're battering down a door those attack rolls count, and if they're competing in a tense arm wrestling match than as long as that goes on they can rage.
After all, the limitation is there so you drop out of rage if stunned, held, or generally inactive. It encourages you to always being doing something and not being overly cautious or readying your attack. Because that would be weird. It's not there to put a damper on creative uses if the DM permits.

If the barbarian player wants to spend a limited resource increasing their odds of success, then it should work. Because that seems like fun.

But I also have the freedom of the DM to shoot it down if it seems like the player is trying to take advantage of the rules. "You try and rage, but the tension isn't there and you don't feel the same sense of pressure or danger. You think you could rage, but it would be short lived."

 

[clearstream]

I'd absolutely allow a barbarian to rage outside of combat.

There's no combat limitation to enter a rage. It's be totally fair to enter a rage to jump farther, climb faster, or smash down a door.
The catch is duration, as it would only last a turn. RAW unless they take damage or attacked a hostile creature, the rage ends. So even in a time of exploratory stress where the barbarian is trying to smash down the door of a flooding room before they die, they can't maintain a rage.

Now, this is where the advantages of 5e comes into play. Because the game is rulings and not rules, I can say that provided there is a source of stress and adrenaline, and the barbarian continues to be active each round, they can maintain a rage. If they're climbing frantically, than Athletics checks count, and if they're battering down a door those attack rolls count, and if they're competing in a tense arm wrestling match than as long as that goes on they can rage.
After all, the limitation is there so you drop out of rage if stunned, held, or generally inactive. It encourages you to always being doing something and not being overly cautious or readying your attack. Because that would be weird. It's not there to put a damper on creative uses if the DM permits.

If the barbarian player wants to spend a limited resource increasing their odds of success, then it should work. Because that seems like fun.

But I also have the freedom of the DM to shoot it down if it seems like the player is trying to take advantage of the rules. "You try and rage, but the tension isn't there and you don't feel the same sense of pressure or danger. You think you could rage, but it would be short lived."

I agree the DM does what they like. Still, I have to lodge the thought that the game is rulings and rules.

From Sage Advice

Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM can just make a ruling? Rules are a big part of what makes D&D a game, rather than simply improvised storytelling. The game’s rules are meant to help organize, and even inspire, the action of a D&D campaign. The rules are a tool, and we want our tools to be as effective as possible.

Rules for games are constitutive, meaning that they enable something that couldn't exist without them. We can play an RPG with only rulings, but we can't play D&D without rules.

If I decide that a barbarian can maintain rage without taking damage, that isn't an interpretation of a rule, that is a modification of it. However, it is important to acknowledge the overall framing: I'm still using most of the rules of rage to formalise the player's leverage on the narrative. Some like to see this as a superior/inferior relationship: rulings over rules. In the sense of DM trumps rule, rulings are superior. In the sense of enabling D&D, rules are superior.

 

[Jester David]

I agree the DM does what they like. Still, I have to lodge the thought that the game is rulings and rules.

Rulings over rules refers to the philosophy of whether or not to include clarifying rules or subrules. Subsystems on what happens if you do X or Y happens or you combine A and B.
3e and 4e tried to have rules cover every conceivable situation. 5e has decided those were unnecessary.

Rules for games are constitutive, meaning that they enable something that couldn't exist without them. We can play an RPG with only rulings, but we can't play D&D without rules.

Agreed. But what counts as a "D&D rule" is pretty broad, with OD&D, Advanced, Basic, 3e, 4e, 5e, Gamma World, etc.

If I decide that a barbarian can maintain rage without taking damage, that isn't an interpretation of a rule, that is a modification of it. However, it is important to acknowledge the overall framing: I'm still using most of the rules of rage to formalise the player's leverage on the narrative. Some like to see this as a superior/inferior relationship: rulings over rules. In the sense of DM trumps rule, rulings are superior. In the sense of enabling D&D, rules are superior.

I prefer to think of it as an "augmentation" more than a "modification". I'm not altering the rules, I'm adding an extra bullet point that clarifies stressful situations outside of combat can also sustain rage.

 

[clearstream]

Rulings over rules refers to the philosophy of whether or not to include clarifying rules or subrules. Subsystems on what happens if you do X or Y happens or you combine A and B.
3e and 4e tried to have rules cover every conceivable situation. 5e has decided those were unnecessary.

I think if you look at what designers wrote about previous editions, there was as much awareness in the past that rules couldn't cover every situation, as there is now.

Agreed. But what counts as a "D&D rule" is pretty broad, with OD&D, Advanced, Basic, 3e, 4e, 5e, Gamma World, etc.

What counts as 5th edition D&D, far less so

I prefer to think of it as an "augmentation" more than a "modification". I'm not altering the rules, I'm adding an extra bullet point that clarifies stressful situations outside of combat can also sustain rage.

The rule says damage is needed to sustain rage more than six seconds: I think removing that requirement isn't adding a bullet point. Obviously people slice this different ways so let's assume we can't agree. What continues to puzzle me is why, if its rulings over rules, one needs to argue that its not an alteration?

 

[Jester David]

I think if you look at what designers wrote about previous editions, there was as much awareness in the past that rules couldn't cover every situation, as there is now.

Sure, but what the rules covered was much more comprehensive. Especially in 3e where you had an entire column of modifiers for tracking based on variant conditions and DCs were set and established by very firm rules.

What counts as 5th edition D&D, far less so

If you mean amount of rules, when compared to 3e and 4e, absolutely. When compared to OD&D and Basic, far more so. When compared to 1e… probably pretty comparable.

The rule says damage is needed to sustain rage more than six seconds: I think removing that requirement isn't adding a bullet point. Obviously people slice this different ways so let's assume we can't agree. What continues to puzzle me is why, if its rulings over rules, one needs to argue that its not an alteration?

The rule states:
Your rage lasts for 1 minute. Lt ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven't attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then. You can also end your rage on your turn as a bonus action.
It's easy to add:
"You rage also doesn't end if you are under sufficient stress that is equivalent to taking damage or your life is in imminent danger."
That's not a change, that's an addition. Which fits with 5e's exception based design.

If formally written like that, it is more a "house rule" than a "ruling". But terms of additive house rules, that's minor. I run my 5e game with several much more dramatic and impactful house rules.

If the player just chooses the rage in a non-combat situation and asks the DM if it will last, and the DM allows it, then that's a ruling, because it lasts for that single instance.