Rage stops when unconscious?

[KarinsDad]

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.

I think you would find it difficult to prove that in the real world, unconscious and asleep people cannot experience emotions, even rage. Hence, I think your theory here is not even based on "real world logic".

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.

I have no problem with that if it were stated in the text. However, unlike Calm Emotions, unconsciousness does not state that.

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.

Actually, I was not getting upset, I was merely asking you to explain your rationale. I personally agree that unconsciousness should turn off rage.

However, I also think that the rules do not support that interpretation in any way and in fact, the rules clearly state the exact opposite (i.e. rage has a duration, calm emotions or the barbarian himself can turn off that duration). If the rules did not state the opposite, then I think that this alternative interpretation would be better.

 

[Scion]

Mage armor
takes a conscious effort to start, lasts for a duration, can be ended prior to this by conscious effort

Rage
takes a conscious effort to start, lasts for a duration, can be ended prior to this by conscious effort

Why would either stop when unconscious? Neither take concentration, or continual thinking in any way or form.

 

[Hardhead]

Mage armor
takes a conscious effort to start, lasts for a duration, can be ended prior to this by conscious effort

Rage
takes a conscious effort to start, lasts for a duration, can be ended prior to this by conscious effort

Why would either stop when unconscious? Neither take concentration, or continual thinking in any way or form.

Because Rage isn't a physical thing like Mage Armor that you create. I think of Rage more like a spell with a "Concentration" duration. You conciously fly into a Rage, and it ends whenever you stop trying to Rage. On the subject, the SRD merely says:

A barbarian may prematurely end his rage.

It does not phrase this as any action, it just says he can stop whenever he wants. Most people think of it as simply "not trying to Rage anymore."

If you go with this interpretation, then it only makes sense that you don't Rage anymore when unconcious. This interpretation is not entirely inconsistent with the rules as written (indeed, it is derived from the rules, insofar that the Rage entry seems to imply that it's a concious action to Rage).

 

[Scion]

nah, I dont buy it I didnt say it took an action, just conscious effot to stop. It still only makes sense if it continues until its duration is expired or you 'tell' it to stop. Definately no concentration involved, he cant even do anything that requires concentration! lol.. (I know you said 'like', but still ) Have a good one all!

 

[Deset Gled]

I think of Rage more like a spell with a "Concentration" duration. You conciously fly into a Rage, and it ends whenever you stop trying to Rage.
...
It does not phrase this as any action, it just says he can stop whenever he wants. Most people think of it as simply "not trying to Rage anymore."

If you go with this interpretation, then it only makes sense that you don't Rage anymore when unconcious. This interpretation is not entirely inconsistent with the rules as written (indeed, it is derived from the rules, insofar that the Rage entry seems to imply that it's a concious action to Rage).

I believe this interpretation is contradictory to the rules.

SRD:

While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration

You don't need to do anything to allow a rage to continue. In fact, it is quite the opposite; ending rage prematurely is what requires active though, not maintaining it.

 

[Hardhead]

Hey, I'll agree that the most literal reading of the rules is that he does not stop Raging. But this interpretation is advantageous in that it makes more sense.

Personally, I have a house rule: If a barbarian falls unconcious, he stops Raging. If this would kill him, instead he drops to -9 HP.

 

[jgsugden]

I think you would find it difficult to prove that in the real world, unconscious and asleep people cannot experience emotions, even rage. Hence, I think your theory here is not even based on "real world logic".

By definition, emotion is responsive to the environment. If unaware of the environment, emotion is impossible.When unconcious, you are unaware of your environment.

I have no problem with that if it were stated in the text. However, unlike Calm Emotions, unconsciousness does not state that.

Unconciousness does not state that? What is the 'that' of which you speak? That you can not be frenzied or screaming while unconcious? I think I'd be safe in saying that frenzied screaming is impossible while unconcious, regardless of whether it is stated in the book specifically.

Actually, I was not getting upset, I was merely asking you to explain your rationale. I personally agree that unconsciousness should turn off rage.

This is not about what we should prefer or personally think was intended by the written rules. It is about being able to reasonably draw the conclusion that rage ends when unconcious from the rules and about whether that conclusion can be based upon real world logic. I've only been saying that both things are possible, whether you (or any one specific person) agree with that interpretation or not. I stand behind my statements: There is nothing in the rules that specifically says rage continues when unconciousness occurs and there are enough real world reasons that can be applied to the situation that a person COULD come to the conclusion that rage should end when unconciousness sets in. Note that I am not saying that they must or should come to that conclusion. Just that they *could* come to that conclusion with a reasonable train of thought and without violating a specific rule that is clearly stated.

However, I also think that the rules do not support that interpretation in any way and in fact, the rules clearly state the exact opposite (i.e. rage has a duration, calm emotions or the barbarian himself can turn off that duration). If the rules did not state the opposite, then I think that this alternative interpretation would be better.

Again, I disagree. The book does not contain the sentence: "The barbarian's rage continues if the barbarian loses conciousness." The rule states a duration, but doesn't specify (and I do mean specify - specifically - using these words) all criteria under which the effect ends. Lacking that exhaustive list, we must consider that there might be other ways in which the rage ends.

Does rage end when a raging barbarian dies? Is the corpse in a screaming blood frenzy? Or does the character's soul go to his God in a ascreaming bloody frenzy? ("Welcome to heaven ... please stop drooling on the clouds!")

For some people, the idea that a loss of conciousness would implicitly end rage because being unconcious would end a blood frenzy is quite logical. Unless the book specifies (and I do mean specify - specifically - using these words) that unconciousness does not end a rage, there is room for argument. As long as there is room for argument, there is room for a DM to adopt this position.

I'm not asking you to agree with the conclusion that rage ends with unconciousness. I'm just saying that if you look at it from the perspective of the people that think the book supports that issue, you'll see that they have an argument, whether you agree with it or not.

That being said, I've already spent too much time on this issue. I'm done with it.

 

[Hardhead]

It should be noted that, if you want to get technical, a literal interpretation of the rules means the Barbarian continues to rage when dead (which could be important if he was brought back to life before the duration ended), since death is not listed as something that ends the duration. Even if he is disintegrated and reduced to ash, he is sitll a bloodthirsty machine!

 

[Saeviomagy]

It should be noted that, if you want to get technical, a literal interpretation of the rules means the Barbarian continues to rage when dead (which could be important if he was brought back to life before the duration ended), since death is not listed as something that ends the duration. Even if he is disintegrated and reduced to ash, he is sitll a bloodthirsty machine!

If you really, really want to get technical, then dead characters can act with no penalty, except that they no longer have a soul, and cannot be healed with non-resurrection magic.

Mind you, I think that rage continuing through death isn't much more silly than the idea that you can come back from death...

Lets take a look at the logic of ruling on rage and unconsciousness. Benefits either help out realism, ease of play or general enjoyment of the game. Disadvantages do the opposite.

"Rage ends when a barbarian falls unconscious"

Benefits:
1. Realism - unconscious characters don't have emotions, and rage is an emotion.
2. Simplicity - level 5+ barbarians will stop polluting the game with annoying rules about rage.

Disadvantages
1. Players of said barbarians are likely to be quite annoyed that one of their major class advantages (extra hitpoints from rage) is heavily limited - essentially they'll have to stop fighting before they pass out, which doesn't really fit many of the archetypes of barbarians...

2. It disagrees with the rules as they stand, and will need to be added to your list of "exceptions to the rules". In other words it lessens ease of play.

"Rage continues through everything except the duration expiring, the character ending it, or other effects which specifically end rage"

Benefits

1. Ease of play - it's in the rules already, so doesn't require an exception.

2. Realism - the world of the unconscious is largely unexplored for obvious reasons, thus arguments about emotional state aren't necessarily valid.

3. Realism - adrenaline continues to pump through your body for a set period after triggering, and adrenaline has a lot of the effects that rage does. It's entirely possible that a large adrenaline rush is what rage simulates, rather than anything emotional.

4. Enjoyment - the class ability to gain con while raging now serves a purpose. Barbarians can once again rage until they drop.

Disadvantages
1. The idea that rage continues through death or disintegration may seem a little "silly"

Any more to add to the list?

 

[KarinsDad]

By definition, emotion is responsive to the environment. If unaware of the environment, emotion is impossible.When unconcious, you are unaware of your environment.

First off, this:

"unconscious = no emotions"

argument is total baloney.

When my dogs are asleep, their paws move sometimes. Why? Because they are dreaming of whatever it is that they enjoy chasing or are afraid of and are running away from or whatever.

When a football player gets knocked out, there are often tears in his eyes. Why? Because he is still experiencing pain, fear, etc. An unconscious football player can still groan.

Your side of the argument has not proven that:

"unconscious = no emotions"

whereas real world experiences indicate that unconscious and asleep animals (including people) do experience emotions. Maybe not consciously, but subconsciously.

Since real life data disagrees with your assertion here, this point of your argument is non-sequitor unless you can illustrate that the emotive portions of the brain turn off when someone is unconscious (or asleep). I seriously doubt you will be able to do this.