D&D 5E (2024) No way to end Rage on your turn with 2024 rules?

[Stalker0]

I still can't tell if you're arguing or agreeing, lol.
Just to clarify, do you think the Barbarian has to give up a complete round in order to end their rage under the new rules as per the OP interpretation?

The quote:

"The Rage lasts until the end of your next turn, and it ends early if you don Heavy Armor or have the Incapacitated condition. If your Rage is still active on your next turn, you can extend the Rage for another round by doing one or more of the following"

This sentence gives the Barbarian the ability to extend their rage, but as the statement is "can", it is not a mandate. The barbarian can choose to extend their rage, or they can choose not to.

 

[Stalker0]

Also playing the Barbarian as if they're just a dumb brick and just getting yourself surrounded is gonna get them killed so what's the point?

I think you meant get them surrounded so they can showoff how ridiculously awesome and tanky they are.

Seriously, its literally the entire point of the class to me. You can just run into danger and not give a crap because you are just that tanky and awesome.

 

[Retreater]

I've ended my Rage with the 2024 rules. Recently got all three books from my LGS (using store credit).

 

[Clint_L]

Look if the only people that can make good decisions are the ones with hig wis/int, that'd be a massive blow to roleplaying. Also playing the Barbarian as if they're just a dumb brick and just getting yourself surrounded is gonna get them killed so what's the point?

I didn’t suggest either of those things, so I’m not sure why you’re quoting me?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm willing to bet most DMs either don't even know the true rules or couldn't care about them enough to be concerned if a player was raging one round and then next round said they are ending their rage to cast a spell. The DM would just nod and say "Okay, sure", and never waste any of their time actually looking up the rules to see if they have changed. It's such a nitpicky rule distinction that most people I don't think give a darn.

 

[James Gasik]

Look if the only people that can make good decisions are the ones with hig wis/int, that'd be a massive blow to roleplaying. Also playing the Barbarian as if they're just a dumb brick and just getting yourself surrounded is gonna get them killed so what's the point?

I'm reminded of 1e Cavaliers, who, as I recall, not only must run up to the toughest enemy available, but think retreat is for cowards. Cavalier PC's didn't seem to last very long as a result.

Not to mention low-level 1e Barbarians, who might attack a Cleric for offering a Cure Light Wounds...

 

[pukunui]

I'm reminded of 1e Cavaliers, who, as I recall, not only must run up to the toughest enemy available, but think retreat is for cowards. Cavalier PC's didn't seem to last very long as a result.

Not to mention low-level 1e Barbarians, who might attack a Cleric for offering a Cure Light Wounds...

How about 3e barbarians, who started out illiterate and had to spend skill points to be able to read and write?

 

[Scribe]

Sounds like they made raging madly and wildly a little less controllable.

Imagine, a feature that reflects the lore instead of just a boost do be abused with multi classing.