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

[cbwjm]

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

Which is a shame, because now you're limited in the characters you can use barbarian to define. One of the concepts I had for a character ages ago was that the rage was just a power up, sort of like going super-saiyan or gaining a battle focus that lets you dish out more damage without getting really angry.

 

[SkidAce]

Which is a shame, because now you're limited in the characters you can use barbarian to define. One of the concepts I had for a character ages ago was that the rage was just a power up, sort of like going super-saiyan or gaining a battle focus that lets you dish out more damage without getting really angry.

Oh i agree with you. I had a barbarian/monk that flavored raging as "zen martial trance".

Worked great.

 

[mellored]

Second making an attack of forcing a save also extends it another turn, so you can choose not to extend it and it would extend itself anyway if you did one of these things.

Not quite.

"you can extend the Rage for another round..."

Doesn't say those action must to extend it.

So you could.
Turn 1: cast a spell, bonus action rage
Turn 2: attack, don't extend rage (can't cast a spell)
Turn 3: cast a spell

 

[Older Beholder]

Not quite.

"you can extend the Rage for another round..."

Doesn't say those action must to extend it.

So you could.
Turn 1: cast a spell, bonus action rage
Turn 2: attack, don't extend rage (can't cast a spell)
Turn 3: cast a spell

This was my reading as well, although I can see how others would interpret it differently.
Which is why I suggested checking with the DM.

 

[Stalker0]

This was my reading as well, although I can see how others would interpret it differently.

If people start interpreting CAN as MUST, that is going to create a whole nest of problems in 5e. Lots of places where CAN is used, and is intended to be voluntary.

 

[Older Beholder]

If people start interpreting CAN as MUST, that is going to create a whole nest of problems in 5e. Lots of places where CAN is used, and is intended to be voluntary.

My apologies, I must have brain fog this morning, no matter how many times I read this, I can't work out if you're arguing or agreeing with me?

 

[Stalker0]

My apologies, I must have brain fog this morning, no matter how many times I read this, I can't work out if you're arguing or agreeing with me?

You opened the door for "others may interpret it differently". And while in the natural language of 5e there are certainly big honking grey areas....there is no grey in the words "can" and "must" in 5e language. If people start interpreting a can statement as a must statement, that creates a whole mess of problems beyond this example.

 

[Older Beholder]

You opened the door for "others may interpret it differently". And while in the natural language of 5e there are certainly big honking grey areas....there is no grey in the words "can" and "must" in 5e language. If people start interpreting a can statement as a must statement, that creates a whole mess of problems beyond this example.

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?

 

[Clint_L]

Because nothing says raging barbarian like strategic use of bonus actions in order to facilitate the seamless transition to scholarly wizard.

To me, that combo is way too game-ist, and so I like that the rules don’t encourage it.

 

[GobHag]

Because nothing says raging barbarian like strategic use of bonus actions in order to facilitate the seamless transition to scholarly wizard.

To me, that combo is way too game-ist, and so I like that the rules don’t encourage it.

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?