Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 7485394" data-attributes="member: 6796661">Is it ever appropriate per RAW for a Barbarian to rage outside of combat?In my home campaign, the rule of cool would dictate hell yes. But in AL games, one must be more of a stickler for the rules. In a recent AL game I joined a Tier 1 table playing a one-off (DDAL07-04 A Walk in the Park, if you are interested) with my 3rd-level Barbarian tortle (make whatever snide comments you want, he's awesome). During the adventure, there was an environmental challenge -- a flash flood, involving strength saving throws. The party was rolling terribly and we soon had several members floating away making death saving throws. I asked the DM if I could rage and make athletic checks with advantage to attempt to swim out and grab someone and take them to safety. He made a comment that it wasn't combat but in this instance, he would allow it. With my high athletics modifier, advantage on strength checks from rage, my racial hold-breath ability, and Tymora blessing my dice, I managed to drag three unconscious, drowning party members to shore, where other players stabilized them. It was one of the most fun non-combat moments I've had in a game. Several of the other players were first-time players and most had 1st level characters. So there was a lot of tension built up in what was probably meant to be a throwaway environmental encounter. There were high fives and it felt like we got through it by the skin of our teeth. So, I am very happy that the DM made the call he did. But the rules lawyer in me wonders if the DM was ignoring the rule in favor of the rule of cool. By RAW, is the above scenario possible. I *think* so. The rule for "Rage" in the Barbarian section of the PHB states (highlighting mine):I read the RAW as saying that I can rage for any reason and can continue the rage for up to one minute so long as I take damage. This makes sense to me. If my party and I have rubble fall on us, hurting us and pinning us to the ground, the pain of that, and the concern for my comrades, should allow me to "hulk out" -- to burn a rage and get advantage on my athletics check to push the boulder off of me or a party member. It also makes the barbarian more interesting out of combat. Out of combat, the rage may end sooner if I'm not taking ongoing damage, but that is fine. Now the rage section does begin with the phrase: "In battle, you fight with primal ferocity." But I argue that this is obiter dicta. It is a remark about the typical scenario but not a necessary part of the rules. It is flavor, not crunch. The rule does not specifically state that you must be in a battle to rage. I can see why a DM may argue that rage is only discussed in the PHB in the context of battle, but it doesn't specifically spell out a requirement that you have to be in combat to rage. If you accept that, then the next question is whether you can continue a non-combat rage beyond one turn. To continue my rage, I need to attack a hostile creature OR I need to take damage since my last turn. 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. I see nothing unbalancing about this. It is unlikely that a barbarian is going to use rage outside of combat. But when life-and-death non-combat strength checks are required, it just seems right to allow a barbarian to hulk out and burn a resource to help a party continue forward.</blockquote>

Verification