Rage stops when unconscious?

[Hypersmurf]

And looking through the Main 3.5 official FAQ it does not have any answer.

It isn't in the main 3.0 FAQ either.

Didn't I already say that?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Didn't I already say that?

-Hyp.

Guess it was in the Sage Advice in Dragon then. I know I read it there, and must have assumed that it made it into the FAQ.

In any case, the Rage ability lists the conditions under which it ends. Unconciousness is not one of those conditions.

If you force them to end their rage when they are unconcious, you are making it actually harmfull to rage when you are low on hit points. A primary class feature isn't supposed to be tantamount a death sentence at higher levels.

 

[brendan candries]

If you force them to end their rage when they are unconcious, you are making it actually harmfull to rage when you are low on hit points.

Makes perfect sense. Use rage at your own risk.

You don't loose hit points due to rage, iow, if you die because rage ends consider you would already have died if you didn't rage to begin with.

 

[Darklone]

Makes perfect sense. Use rage at your own risk.

You don't loose hit points due to rage, iow, if you die because rage ends consider you would already have died if you didn't rage to begin with.

For some people it makes sense, for others not. Certainly the 5th level border for being dead at once as soon as you fall unconscious does not make sense for anyone.

The rules were pretty clear about the Rage duration, the fact that many people "houseruled" it, even if they didn't realize it, does not mean it should be done that way.

 

[swrushing]

And saying 'it doesn't say so', is just plain foolish.

Absolutely, just like when you try and tell some irate player whose character just died that his rage ended because everyone knows rage ends when a barbarian sees the color pink.

geesh, the nerve of some players who think "the rules don't say so" is anything but foolish!

I must admit tho, the rule about barbarian rage ending when someone nearby sneezes and he fails to say bless you is one that more often takes them by surprise.

 

[Ysgarran]

Can't give an official reference but my friends and I play such that the rage does NOT end with unconscious. Want a rational? OK, doesn't make much sense for a fantasy world but we just say all those adrenals are still in your blood-stream and just because you are unconscious doesn't mean those adrenals disappear from your blood stream.

Here is an unofficial reference.
http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DnD/DnDRulesFAQ.html

 

[KarinsDad]

To me, it is a matter of conscious acts versus subconscious acts.

The barbarian can turn rage on. The barbarian can turn rage off. Hence, the barbarian is consciously controlling it. Just like he consciously decides to swing his sword or run or do anything else.

Once asleep or unconscious, he can no longer consciously control it. To me, the question then comes down to whether the subconscious then continues to control it.

The answer can go either way. So, I look to the book for clues. The first clue I see for unconscious is:

Knocked out and helpless.

If he is able to maintain his rage, it does not sound like he is totally helpless to me. This implies that the rage should turn off.

The second clue is that the rage "lasts for a number of rounds equal to ... The barbarian may prematurely end the rage voluntarily.".

Out of these two clues, the first is an interpretation on the definition of helpless. The second is a set duration specified in the book. Hence, I have to literally interpret rage to have a duration which can prematurely be ended by the barbarian, but will not prematurely end in any other way. Even death will not stop the duration of the rage, although at that point, it is moot.


However having said that, one element of the "rage does not end when unconscious" interpretation is that some of the people who prescribe to that interpretation are doing so since they do not want PC barbarians to die because they get knocked unconscious or fall asleep. My take on this is that this is an ok "campaign reason" to take this interpretation, but this rationale really has nothing to do with the real rules. If the rules implied that the rage would end, that is how I would play it, regardless of whether the PC barbarian risks death while raging when low on hit points.

Since the rules state it has a duration, however, allowing them to rage while asleep or unconscious or under any other conditions until the duration expires is how I will play it.

 

[jgsugden]

There is no completely clear 3.5 answer to this question. A pure rules (no real world logic involved) reading of the rules allows it to continue when unconcious. A second view, flavored by one interpretation of the logic of the real world, says that it ends when unconcious. If you're looking for a final answer, give up. WotC failed to give one and is refusing to give clarifications and errata to fix the problem.

Sage advice in 3.0 (that never made the FAQ apparently) said that rage continued. Custserv@wizards confirmed for me that rage continues when unconcious, though many people take their recent advaice with a grain of salt considering they have given dirrectly conflicting answers within a single day.

A house rule that has been gaining acceptance recently (I even adopted it), even though it is not supported by the rules at all, seems to be a pretty good compromise:

If a raging barbarian loses conciousness, his rage ends at the beginning of his next turn.

This allows some time for him to be healed before death. I've seen two variants of this rule. One allows the rage to continue if he is healed to positive hit points before his next turn. The other says that rage ends at the beginning of his next turn, regardless of healing.

 

[KarinsDad]

There is no completely clear 3.5 answer to this question. A pure rules (no real world logic involved) reading of the rules allows it to continue when unconcious. A second view, flavored by one interpretation of the logic of the real world, says that it ends when unconcious.

Where is there real world logic in the second view?

In the real world, no sane person can "Rage" (although some but not most insane people can do something similar).

Hence, how can you apply real world logic to a fantasy world only concept?

 

[jgsugden]

Where is there real world logic in the second view?

In the real world, no sane person can "Rage" (although some but not most insane people can do something similar).

Hence, how can you apply real world logic to a fantasy world only concept?

Again, I remind you that this is *one of a few* interpretations based upon real world logic. You may not agree with this one, but there is nothing that strictly denies it to be true, either.

Rage is an emotional state. Emotional states (except when dreaming - which a barbarian beating into unconciousness would not be doing) do not occur when asleep. That would be the real world logic applied to the situation.

In other words, the wounded character is living on the emotion of rage. That rage is impossible for someone that has lost conciousness. Thus, the character has nothing to live on if he is unconcious and unable to experience the emotion of rage.

As for pure rules based backing, rage is described as a screaming blood frenzy. Unconcious people can not be frenzied or screaming (unless dreaming). Further, a barbarian can end his rage (it is not listed as a free, standard or full ropund action, but most people assume it is a free action) at will, so it is obviously not beyond mental control. In addition, the calm emotions spell immediately suppresses a barbarian rage. The idea that calming one's emotions ends a rage falls directly in line with the idea that unconciousness ends the rage.

Clearly, there are arguments on both sides. You need to pick one, but I wouldn't make it a habit of getting upset that other people don't agree with your analysis. There is so many shady rules in the core books with multiple possible interpretations that getting upset over them is a good way to give yourself some rage - or a stroke.