Should a Barbarian have trouble with Raging?

[Rainman3769]

Hey Playground!

So one of my players wants to roll up a Barbarian in our upcoming 5th ed. campaign. However, he wants to add a "small wrinkle" as he says, to his character. He feels it would be interesting if the Barbarian, while raging, would become unable to tell friend from foe should he fail a Willpower check. The result would be that his character would target the nearest creature after making a kill, not nessesarily targeting the closest enemy. Now I really try to be the sort of DM that says "Yes!" to his players, barring anything TOO insane. However when it comes to this idea of his, I see it causing more harm than good.

The characters are starting at 1st level, and a big hit from a Barbarian's Great Axe could really mess up someone's day at that level, possibly even kill them. I am concerned it could cause some issues at the table OOC (My group isn't big on PVP) Heck, even IC the group would have to find some sort of justification on keeping such a ticking time bomb around.

So, what say you? SHould I allow it? Disallow it? Maybe alter it THEN allow it?

[Callin]

If he is insistent then do it with Advantage that way he has a greater chance of success. Also what DC were you looking at? I dont think it should be higher than a 10. Since it should be an easy task to recognize someone you are partied and spend time with.

[pwykersotz]

I found a great book! It's called:

So you want to be a Frenzied Berserker...

But yeah, I'd disallow it outright myself. If he wants to be caught up in his rage, that's up for him to roleplay and he risks anything the party does back. I wouldn't have a set mechanic. However, if you like the idea and just want it changed, he could always see the foes of his past and try to attack them instead of a real threat.

[Yuki Akuma]

If a player came to me and said he wanted to sometimes flip out and murder his allies, it would send enormous warning flags.

I wouldn't allow it. No one player gets to ruin everyone else's fun like that.

[rlc]

no way, man

[SaintRidley]

Tell him not until he chooses his primal path at third level, at that point only when he frenzies, and even then, he gets advantage on the save.

And then he gets disadvantage to save against spells while he's frenzied, just so his allies can put him down easier.

[Falka]

Early on, D&D books specifically adress this issue: Rage does not make characters lose control of themselves. They are aware of their acts and they can perfectly chose the target of their rage. This is intended to avoid pointless griefing - who would want to tag along with a Barbarian that can't make a difference between friend or foe when he fights?

Even Frenzy still specifies that you don't lose control of your actions. It only leaves you exhausted.

[pwykersotz]

You could always ask him if he thinks it would be as fun to, when losing it totally like that, have the same chance of 'attacking' himself a la a brain aneurism from all that focused rage. Damage = Weapon Damage that would have been dealt to your friend, no resistance applies. 50/50 chance of this happening (half chance that you get hurt, half chance a friend gets hurt). If he balks, he's probably just kill-happy.

[Chambers]

Yeah, Frenzied Berzerksers were a table killer for a reason.


Even Frenzy still specifies that you don't lose control of your actions. It only leaves you exhausted.

Which is pretty harsh. I haven't looked that hard but aside from a Long Rest and a 5th level spell I haven't found another way to get rid of Exhaustion levels. I wish they hadn't made Exhaustion the penalty for the Frenzy - it's such a buzzkill (from my perspective as a player) for the whole Path.

[HorridElemental]

Rule 1 at my table, no PC shall become an antagonist. No matter what alignment or whatever else, a PC shall never become an antagonist.

Frenzy Berserkers are antagonist and deserve their character sheets burned.

[DiBastet]

Allow it, but only in roleplay. If done properly, the character almost losing it and when there's no more enemies but just barely holding himself before holding himself (rage ends) it will work the same. Why does everything need to have a game mechanic anyway?

[CyberThread]

HELL NO


I think the forum agrees

[1337 b4k4]

I'm going to go counter forum here and say you should tell the player it needs to be discussed with the group. if they're all into it I'd say go for it with the caveat that as the dm you reserve the right to modify or pull it entirely if it becomes a problem.

[Chaosvii7]

We had a player who used the PHBII's Berserker variant, and she insisted that she would lose control after every fight. We didn't bother with it for more than a few sessions before she gave up arguing it. Then we got a lot more stuff done and everyone was happy when we hit Epic Levels.

The concept of somebody who actually goes so crazy that they kill their friends shouldn't be something that a player has direct access to, less alone something they can turn on like being able to cry on command. Murderhobos are called that because they murder other people, not each other.

[Laserlight]

"Let's say you're hiring for people to join your combat team, and one of the candidates is so mentallyu unstable that you're never sure whether he's going to attack the enemy or his team members. Should you hire him ?

If you did hire him and only then found out about his horrible psychological problems, should you continue going into dangerous combat situations with him ?"

[MustacheFart]

I'm going to go counter forum here and say you should tell the player it needs to be discussed with the group. if they're all into it I'd say go for it with the caveat that as the dm you reserve the right to modify or pull it entirely if it becomes a problem.

It's players like the one mentioned in the OP that perpetuate the stereotype that Barbarians always lose control when they rage. I face that completely stupid issue every time I play a barbarian. Like even right now, I am planning to play a Monk/Barb character and while it was allowed, I have to be a barbarian first because according to the unsilent majority "Monks are highly trained individuals. Barbarians get angry and lose control. I can't see a Monk taking a break to go get angry." Tried to make the argument that rage could be viewed differently but was met with less than enthusiasm.

No big deal anyway, my DM & party just chose the more optimal route for me since Barb at level 1 means I get more hit points and I can dish out more damage and take more damage at level 1 when survival is more difficult. Fine by me, I was trying to let roleplaying carry way but I'll go the route that increases the chance that I will live to become a monk.

Also I told my DM if I get type-casted as just a grunt barbarian I won't be happy. I have 4 17s in STR, DEX, CON, and WIS. My other two are 12 and 13. I'm not dumb lol.

Since I happen to be playing a half-orc I am going to make it a flaw with my character that he gets really ticked off if anyone refers to him as simply "Orc, Barbarian, etc."

[1337 b4k4]

It's players like the one mentioned in the OP that perpetuate the stereotype that Barbarians always lose control when they rage.

I see nothing wrong with people wanting to play to character tropes. I likewise see no issue with people wanting to break charcter tropes too. Play what you want and have fun.


I face that completely stupid issue every time I play a barbarian. Like even right now, I am planning to play a Monk/Barb character and while it was allowed, I have to be a barbarian first because according to the unsilent majority "Monks are highly trained individuals. Barbarians get angry and lose control. I can't see a Monk taking a break to go get angry." Tried to make the argument that rage could be viewed differently but was met with less than enthusiasm.

Tell your unsilent majority "Druken Master, QED", no reason the barbarian rage has to be specifically a frothing anger, it's an altered state of mind. Also, as a general note, you shouldn't play with people who make you not have fun.

[TheOOB]

Flat no. First, adding disadvantages to your character doesn't inherently make them more interesting, it just makes them worse. Second, and more important, is that you should be allowed free reign to customize your character until it starts to harm or screw with other characters.

Why would any adventuring party keep someone around who might attack them? They wouldn't, and doing so would be terrible role play.

[MeeposFire]

I would say the player can decide (either by dice roll or just when it seems fun) to have the barbarian NEARLY attack his friends when they are close but not actually do it due to luck or last second change of target.

For example the barb attacks the orc along with his fighter ally. In his rage the barb swings his axe wildly nearly hitting the fighter but the fighter ducks under the blade and it hits the orc instead. After the fight the fighter wonders whether it was an attempt to hide the attack on the orc or if it was really an attempt on his life. In another fight the barb barely restrains himself and swings at the enemy instead of his friend.

This way you get to roleplay somebody who is attacking everything but you just make sure that is in RP and not an actual attack. Of course when dominated or the like then you can have him attack with wild abandon.

[Malifice]

Dont do it.

Just dont.

[MeeposFire]

I also want to make clear that even in my suggestion it should be made clear to all the players that the barbarian will never actually attack any of the players (unless charmed and the like of course) but that they will RP that it nearly happens just for fun. Remember it is ok to RP but you don't want to cause a real problem at the table and actual attacks will cause a problem.

[Malifice]

My suggestion is to turn the disadvantage into something that affects only the Barbarian.

I.e due to his frenzied attacks on allies, he wastes his turn and is at disadvantage the following turn. His allies are smart enough to get out of the way, or he retains enough of his sanity to pull his attacks at the last second and is confused for a round afterwards.

I hazard a guess your player will suddenly not want to RP this disadvantage.

If he's still keen, give him a minor bonus to compensate.

[Inevitability]

Sounds like this guy wants an excuse to smash his allies and is asking for a mechanic to hide behind.

Random Co-Player: "Hey ____, why'd you do that?! Because your barbarian hit him, my wizard's now dead!"
____: "I'm sorry, but I can't do anything about it! I failed my wisdom check, you see!"

[Falka]

The Barbarian guy reminds me of Grimtooth Skullfury. (http://murderbrothers.noobtheloser.com/?comic=murder-brothers-1)

[Mr.Moron]

If a player came to me and said he wanted to sometimes flip out and murder his allies, it would send enormous warning flags.

I wouldn't allow it. No one player gets to ruin everyone else's fun like that.

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Not only would I disalllow it, but if the circumstances allow me to reconsider their invovlement just asking the question is cause for potentially replacing the player, not the character. They'd certainly get a firm but polite reminder about my policy on disruptive behavior.

[Rainman3769]

Hello again folks, I appreciate everyone taking the time to weigh in on this. I wanted to add something else to the stew here for everyone's information. The player in question is my roommate and very good friend. I served with him overseas and have lived with him 3.5 of the last 5 years since then. Also, our other roommate is also in this game, and they have tied their characters together very closely. for this campaign. We spoke of this issue last night and both are of the mind I am stifling the Barbarian Player's creativity. I said i would have to think on it some more. Against my (and apparently most of yours) better judgement, I came up with what I thought was a fair compromise. Here's what I texted him word for word earlier this morning.

"Been thinking more about your character's raging, here's a solution I think we can both be happy with. I want to go on record saying I still think this is a bad idea, there are countless other ways to make your character special and unique and I would be happy to help thinking up one of those ways with you. BUT, if your heart is set on this, I don't want to stifle your creativity, especially since this is your first time with D & D (not his first time roleplaying though) So here is what I propose. No dice rolls, YOU choose when your character goes bonkers and roleplay that however you wish. Two reasons for this, one, you still get to play your character exactly how you said you wanted. Two, it will make you "own" your character's actions because YOU will be the deciding factor, not a random dice roll. This way, if the rest of the group doesn't have a beef with it, SWEET! Let's buck up and drive on. And if they don't like it, there isnt a whole game mechanic to contend with, just you and your character. It prevents a situation like, "Bob! (not real name) WTF! You just killed me/nearly killed me!" "Sorry dude! I had no choice! I failed my die roll!"

All I got back was...

"Whatever man, just forget the idea."

I've tried to reengage him about this since then but he's not answering my texts. So yeah, seems what I feel is a very good compromise on my part is unacceptable to him. Should I just let this die?

[Yuki Akuma]

Yeah, if he's upset he doesn't get to hide behind dice rolls to kill his teammates, I'd just let it drop.

[rlc]

drop it, but say you'd still really like to play if he's still interested.

[Inevitability]

If this player really wants a random mechanic to add to his character, point him towards chaos sorcerers.

[Falka]

I used to feel bad when I told my players "you can't do this", or "this concept is stupid". But then again, they didn't know jack **** about D&D and I soon realised that if I'm the DM, they're going to play along my rules and play stuff that isn't actually a walking joke if they wanted my gaming time.

It worked.

I don't know a lot about your friend so I won't speculate about how he thinks or acts. Just don't overthink, especially if he hasn't played D&D a lot. People usually are not that creative, they just have rough sketches on how building concepts: "I want my character to have some depth, so I'll make him edgy / with a dark backstory, and maybe add some cool tattoo or make him antisocial while I'm at that". Or you know, the "master ninja assasin" that is playing a level 1 Rogue, then notices how life's tough when he gets shot by a goblin.

Experience is worth a ****-ton, especially for DMs and novice players. Just remember: the simpler a concept is, the easier it is to grasp and the more you can develop from it. Let him pick a Barbarian and define his personality from the experiences he lives, don't give him at level 1 a cheesy disadvantage to make him feel snowflakey.

[Mr.Moron]

All I got back was...

"Whatever man, just forget the idea."

I've tried to reengage him about this since then but he's not answering my texts. So yeah, seems what I feel is a very good compromise on my part is unacceptable to him. Should I just let this die?

Yes let it die, and proceed with caution. Good friend or not, he's a griefer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer) through and through. Everything about this story screams that your buddy's primary goal is to whip out his good time and slap it all over everyone's fun and feel superior for it. Nobody gets told "You can do exactly what you want and be in complete control of it" and pooh-poohs if that's really what they wanted in the first place.

If it's not PK barb, it'll be something else. He will find a way to disrupt the game and it will be a problem.

[obryn]

And here I thought this thread would be about how easy it is for a Berserker to die when using Frenzy!

[pwykersotz]

Huzzah, one of my ideas got used! I was helpful!

...ahem...

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Let it die and don't reference it anymore. A lot of people take rejection poorly at first, but it's usually quick to heal in a situation like this. He'll move on, you'll move on, and he now has a better idea about what you want in your game.

[MustacheFart]

Hah you could always let him play it how he wants with the random die roll but show him there's backlash. He "accidentally" kills an ally and suddenly he finds the king's guards taking him into custody for murder the next time he enters the city. He will learn as his barbarian is hanging from a noose.

Alternatively, tell him fine but you're going to roll to see whether or not he's the only barbarian with this affliction. Then you "roll" and keep the result a secret that he's not the only one. See how much fun he has when he's constantly pursued and attacked by a contingent established for the sole eradication of this barbarian affliction.

The fact is: even accidental evil actions are still evil actions. Evil actions carry consequences.

[Inevitability]

Hah you could always let him play it how he wants with the random die roll but show him there's backlash. He "accidentally" kills an ally and suddenly he finds the king's guards taking him into custody for murder the next time he enters the city. He will learn as his barbarian is hanging from a noose.

Alternatively, tell him fine but you're going to roll to see whether or not he's the only barbarian with this affliction. Then you "roll" and keep the result a secret that he's not the only one. See how much fun he has when he's constantly pursued and attacked by a contingent established for the sole eradication of this barbarian affliction.

The fact is: even accidental evil actions are still evil actions. Evil actions carry consequences.

... :smallconfused:

How do the guards know he murdered his ally? Making the PC's actions have consequences is one, assuming all NPC's magically know about said actions is something else.

[Warskull]

If he want to take a disadvantage for his character that is fine, you ask him if he is sure and then let it happen. However, he isn't taking a disadvantage for his character, he is taking a disadvantage for the other players. It would be no different from a Wizard who somethings screwed up his spells and as a result him teammate explodes and dies.

As a DM, if you want to let him do this, he isn't the one you talk to. You need to privately discuss it with the other players. This affects them, so they should get to decide if it is okay or not. Tell them someone wants to play a barbarian who when raging will randomly attack party members. Don't let them know which player is asking to do it. Let them individually and privately tell you if they are okay with it. If every single player agrees you could do it.

[MustacheFart]

... :smallconfused:

How do the guards know he murdered his ally? Making the PC's actions have consequences is one, assuming all NPC's magically know about said actions is something else.

Really? That's the easy part to come up with. I am guessing he will rage fairly often and it shouldn't always be just around party members and monsters. What if they're escorting an npc or freeing hostages.

I didn't think I needed to paint the entire picture.

Like any real issue at the table it can be dealt with one of two ways: either through dm ruling or roleplay.

[Telwar]

Really? That's the easy part to come up with. I am guessing he will rage fairly often and it shouldn't always be just around party members and monsters. What if they're escorting an npc or freeing hostages.

I didn't think I needed to paint the entire picture.

Like any real issue at the table it can be dealt with one of two ways: either through dm ruling or roleplay.

...the obvious answer is he doesn't wake up the next morning, having been CDGed during the night by the rest of the party. I bring a silk pillow along on all my tiefling sorcerer's adventures just for that reason.

[TheOldCrow]

I haven't used this method, but another idea I've heard of groups using is to allow those involved in the PvP to just decide what happens. If Barbarian attacks npc goblins, he needs to roll to hit; if Barbarian attacks his pc companion Wizard, she gets to decide if he hits, if she dodges and goes about blasting the onrushing goblins as she planned, or if she wants fate to decide and lets him make the to hit roll. The individual members of the party might opt to handle it in different ways that suit each of them the best.

[Person_Man]

I would only allow it if ALL the players wanted to play a Paranoia style D&D game, where they all have secret agendas and/or have the roleplaying option (and not just a mechanical "whoops I failed a Wisdom Save and now you're dead) of working against one another while attempting to accomplish some larger goal together.

It's not my preference. But it might be a very fun 2-4 hours before all of them are dead, and then hopefully they've gotten it out of their system and we could start a new game.

[Fable Wright]

Honestly, to work with his character concept, I would go with making his Flaw be "makes terrible mistakes during rages." He isn't obligated to attack PCs, people can call him out if he tries to, but he can still play the archetype of the raging warrior who makes horrible, life-shattering decisions while in a rage and have some mechanical/roleplaying justification for doing so.

[MustacheFart]

Honestly, to work with his character concept, I would go with making his Flaw be "makes terrible mistakes during rages." He isn't obligated to attack PCs, people can call him out if he tries to, but he can still play the archetype of the raging warrior who makes horrible, life-shattering decisions while in a rage and have some mechanical/roleplaying justification for doing so.

Unfortunately, judging by the response of the player in question, it appears that he will not be happy with anything short of getting to attack his teammates if he fails a saving throw.

At this point there is really only three options.

1) Don't allow anything. Drop the issue. He can pick it up if he ever wants to DM.
2) Allow him to do exactly what he asks but plan consequences into the game.
3) Kick the player out of the game.

[pwykersotz]

Unfortunately, judging by the response of the player in question, it appears that he will not be happy with anything short of getting to attack his teammates if he fails a saving throw.

At this point there is really only three options.

1) Don't allow anything. Drop the issue. He can pick it up if he ever wants to DM.
2) Allow him to do exactly what he asks but plan consequences into the game.
3) Kick the player out of the game.

Honestly, I am a bit confused/concerned why a veteran of our military would be so interested in playing a character that potentially engages in friendly fire. Seems like a red flag to me. One that goes outside of Dnd.

Dude...don't go there. This is right up there with "People who play FPS's are a danger to society" level arguments. It's absurd and insulting.

[Rainman3769]

Dude...don't go there. This is right up there with "People who play FPS's are a danger to society" level arguments. It's absurd and insulting.

Agreed. There are PLENTY of incorrigible little ****s who play TTRPGs who engage in mindless PVP and ruin entire campaigns for the sake of their own twisted idea of fun. Being a vet has nothing to do with it. But enough on that.

As I wrote in an above post, I put forth the idea of him not rolling a dice to decide when his raging teamkilling happens, but to simply RP it as he sees fit. I still met some resistence. So I offered one final solution. He can spaz out while raging, he can even roll a Willpower check to determine if he losses it or not. But instead of PVP, his character just sees the red haze of bloodlust and continues hacking away at the corpse of the enemy he just killed. He will literally get to play the character EXACTLY how he wants to, Willpower check and all. If this still does not satisfy him, there will be NO doubt in my mind he just wanted a way to kill his allies and not have to be held accountable for it. If that's the case, I will have no problem scrubbing the entire concept and he will just have to find another way to make his character stand out.

[MustacheFart]

Agreed. There are PLENTY of incorrigible little ****s who play TTRPGs who engage in mindless PVP and ruin entire campaigns for the sake of their own twisted idea of fun. Being a vet has nothing to do with it. But enough on that.

As I wrote in an above post, I put forth the idea of him not rolling a dice to decide when his raging teamkilling happens, but to simply RP it as he sees fit. I still met some resistence. So I offered one final solution. He can spaz out while raging, he can even roll a Willpower check to determine if he losses it or not. But instead of PVP, his character just sees the red haze of bloodlust and continues hacking away at the corpse of the enemy he just killed. He will literally get to play the character EXACTLY how he wants to, Willpower check and all. If this still does not satisfy him, there will be NO doubt in my mind he just wanted a way to kill his allies and not have to be held accountable for it. If that's the case, I will have no problem scrubbing the entire concept and he will just have to find another way to make his character stand out.

On the first part of your post, Sorry I did not mean any offense by it. From what you said about him initially, I just simply wondered why he would want to play such a character so avidly. It seems like typical behavior for exactly as you put it, "incorrigible little ****s". Once again it was more of a concern about his fervent request based entirely upon my assumption of his maturity due to his service. I wasn't trying to imply any parallel between military service and uncontrollable bloodlust. I can now see how it read that way which wasn't my intent so, I've removed it. The idea of that is pretty much laughable. Trust me I wouldn't be on a game site or be a lover of games if I believed any of that garbage relating to "video games turn you bad." I can see how that was unintentionally implied by my post. To be fair, I never said being a vet had anything to do with that behavior.

I simply questioned why (being a vet) he was so interested in that. I still question his motives. Why exactly does he want to play that way? Perhaps, if that question can be answered a better solution can be suggested. Since he's a new player it would be good to teach/help him turn into a good player rather than a disruptive one.

[Rainman3769]

Agreed. There are PLENTY of incorrigible little ****s who play TTRPGs who engage in mindless PVP and ruin entire campaigns for the sake of their own twisted idea of fun. Being a vet has nothing to do with it. But enough on that.

As I wrote in an above post, I put forth the idea of him not rolling a dice to decide when his raging teamkilling happens, but to simply RP it as he sees fit. I still met some resistence. So I offered one final solution. He can spaz out while raging, he can even roll a Willpower check to determine if he losses it or not. But instead of PVP, his character just sees the red haze of bloodlust and continues hacking away at the corpse of the enemy he just killed. He will literally get to play the character EXACTLY how he wants to, Willpower check and all. If this still does not satisfy him, there will be NO doubt in my mind he just wanted a way to kill his allies and not have to be held accountable for it. If that's the case, I will have no problem scrubbing the entire concept and he will just have to find another way to make his character stand out.

Happy to report my Barbarian player decided that raging corpse stomping would get the same point across as uncontroled team killing. lol. So all is well in my little land of D & D. Thanks to everyone who gave me tips and advice!

[MustacheFart]

Happy to report my Barbarian player decided that raging corpse stomping would get the same point across as uncontroled team killing. lol. So all is well in my little land of D & D. Thanks to everyone who gave me tips and advice!

Woohoo.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/3330192/mel-gibson-reserved-o.gif