raging paladin query?

[Camman1984]

I know you cant cast spells or concentrate whilst raging, but can a palabarian smite whilst raging or lay on hands?

[Giant2005]

Neither are spells so by RAW they are allowable but I don't know if that was intended.

[MustacheFart]

No, barbarian rage = mindless rage. The barbarian doesn't have the presence of mind to be able to summon divine energy to smite or lay on hands while raging. He can only run in and hit things.

[MrStabby]

I imagine so from both a RAW and as a style standpoint.

Now paladins don't have to be lawful, a chaotic paladin could power the divine wrath of their god through their rage to smite their enemies. Indeed nothing is much more righteous than righteous anger.

[MustacheFart]

I imagine so from both a RAW and as a style standpoint.

Now paladins don't have to be lawful, a chaotic paladin could power the divine wrath of their god through their rage to smite their enemies. Indeed nothing is much more righteous than righteous anger.

No because they still need the mental capacity to connect to their chaotic God. When they're raging they don't. They're dumb mindless brutes when raging, remember?

[Camman1984]

i can see why lay on hands wouldnt make sense while raging, but i think smite could be justified while in a rage.

The theme my character is going for is a devote worshipper of a war god, when he fights he is an avatar of battle and only when his mind is purely focused on the destruction of his enemies (while raging) that is when his worship is at its purist. Basically rage=prayer for him. rather than being played as a "mindless psychotic rage" it is being played as a "singlemindedness bordering on psychotic" note the subtle difference.

The only time i think i would try and justify a lay on hands during that time is a 'self only' power, drawing on his god during his time of purity to allow him to extend his ability to do battle. Similar to a second wind effect, but paladin based rather than fighter.

[Mr.Moron]

No because they still need the mental capacity to connect to their chaotic God. When they're raging they don't. They're dumb mindless brutes when raging, remember?

Any balance/RAW issues aside this seems like a narrow view to me.

It's easy for me to imagine framing this as the rage making the connection to the divine stronger , the rage causing the burning soul to call the god's power as matter of instinct. The barbarian's mind may in a blind frenzy but raw primal power that permeates the world is still there. As he strikes, the feeling of making contact flows outward through the channels opened by his rage and pulls that power in and through him.

(that it is a player consciously making the decision of when this happens on a meta-level is really neither here or there in terms of the in-universe framework for it.)

[Ralanr]

If expending a spell slot is considered casting or concentrating on a spell. Then no. If not, then rage on with your divinely glowing weapon.


As Mustachefart has brought up before, rage is not mindless brutality.

From Wikipedia (Because why not?)


Rage can sometimes lead to a state of mind where the individual experiencing it believes, and often is capable of doing things that may normally seem physically impossible. Those experiencing rage usually feel the effects of high adrenaline levels in the body. This increase in adrenal output raises the physical strength and endurance levels of the person and sharpens their senses, while dulling the sensation of pain. Temporal perspective is also affected: people in a rage have described experiencing events in slow-motion. An explanation of this "time dilation" effect is that instead of actually slowing our perception of time, high levels of adrenaline increase our ability to recall specific minutiae of an event after it occurs. Since humans gauge time based on the amount of things they can remember, high-adrenaline events such as those experienced during periods of rage seem to unfold more slowly.[2]

A person in a state of rage may also lose much of his or her capacity for rational thought and reasoning, and may act, usually violently, on his or her impulses to the point that they may attack until they themselves have been incapacitated or the source of their rage has been destroyed.

A person in rage may also experience tunnel vision, muffled hearing, increased heart rate, and hyperventilation. Their vision may also become "rose-tinted" (hence "seeing red"). They often focus only on the source of their anger. The large amounts of adrenaline and oxygen in the bloodstream may cause a person's extremities to shake.

Personally I'm still on the side that rage shouldn't make an arrow you shoot from a bow do more damage (Because if it did, extra crossbow damage makes less sense...)

If we really must argue the semantics of rage for barbarians, let us make a new thread entirely.

[Rfkannen]

I think I had a discusion on this on reddit.

By absolute raw, 100% rules as wrighten, the palladin can use smite while rageing. So it is awesome.

[MustacheFart]

Any balance/RAW issues aside this seems like a narrow view to me.


You're preaching to the choir lol. As someone else pointed out I am a big advocate of expanded views on the barbarian's rage. This simply seemed like a good opportunity to beat the simple-minded stereotypers to the punch.

[MrStabby]

No because they still need the mental capacity to connect to their chaotic God. When they're raging they don't. They're dumb mindless brutes when raging, remember?

I am having trouble finding this. Where did you find this?

[Mandragola]

{scrubbed}

[MrStabby]

{scrubbed}

Although I wonder if that IQ relationship would hold in a world where divine power is actually observable and capable of leaving you as a pair of smoking boots.

[Ralanr]

Although I wonder if that IQ relationship would hold in a world where divine power is actually observable and capable of leaving you as a pair of smoking boots.

I doubt IQ is relevant in those worlds as no one is probably trying to research it and create the concept...

[supergoji18]

I doubt IQ is relevant in those worlds as no one is probably trying to research it and create the concept...

That's why they made the intelligence ability score :smallwink:

As for the discussion at hand, Paladins are no longer connected to the divine. They draw their powers from their oaths, not from gods, so this isn't about whether you can connect to your God while enraged. This is about whether one can draw power through sheer force of will while in a battle frenzy.

From a RAW standpoint, there is nothing stopping it. From an in-character perspective, it doesn't conflict with anything as far as I can tell.

[Ralanr]

That's why they made the intelligence ability score :smallwink:

As for the discussion at hand, Paladins are no longer connected to the divine. They draw their powers from their oaths, not from gods, so this isn't about whether you can connect to your God while enraged. This is about whether one can draw power through sheer force of will while in a battle frenzy.

From a RAW standpoint, there is nothing stopping it. From an in-character perspective, it doesn't conflict with anything as far as I can tell.

In fluff that fits perfect with the vengeance oath.

[HoarsHalberd]

No because they still need the mental capacity to connect to their chaotic God. When they're raging they don't. They're dumb mindless brutes when raging, remember?

Paladins don't have to have gods. Their power comes from their oath, and their righteous anger could allow them to lash out with the power innately connected to them. This works perfectly with OoV pallies and could be applied to OoA pallies if you worked a bit, that gleeful killer of a giant described could be worked up into some form of sadistic rage.

[Camman1984]

I think i am gonna go ahead with my palabarian. Might avoid lay on hands but all about the smite.

[Ralanr]

Paladins don't have to have gods. Their power comes from their oath, and their righteous anger could allow them to lash out with the power innately connected to them. This works perfectly with OoV pallies and could be applied to OoA pallies if you worked a bit, that gleeful killer of a giant described could be worked up into some form of sadistic rage.

They put the laughter is slaughter. :smallbiggrin:

[Mandragola]

I think i am gonna go ahead with my palabarian. Might avoid lay on hands but all about the smite.

I think you could use lay on hands, but with a bit of a cost. If you go a full round without attacking anyone your rage ends, so spending your action using lay on hands would often mean your rage would stop.

...And that seems to me to be perfectly fine by RAW and in character.

[Slipperychicken]

I think it works by both the rules and the fluff. Paladins can be pretty angry and unfocused when they smite people, and smiting isn't spellcasting and doesn't require concentration; it's just smacking people with extra magic.

[Zyzzyva]

I think you could use lay on hands, but with a bit of a cost. If you go a full round without attacking anyone your rage ends, so spending your action using lay on hands would often mean your rage would stop.

...And that seems to me to be perfectly fine by RAW and in character.

I like it.

[RulesJD]

I think you could use lay on hands, but with a bit of a cost. If you go a full round without attacking anyone your rage ends, so spending your action using lay on hands would often mean your rage would stop.

...And that seems to me to be perfectly fine by RAW and in character.

Not necessarily. If you took damage = rage still runs.

[Talyn]

Which still makes sense. The paladin-barbarian, frothing at the mouth in righteous wrath, gets a grip by sheer force of will so that he can heal his ally. Then some dumb orc comes up and stabs him, and rage continues!

[Ralanr]

Which still makes sense. The paladin-barbarian, frothing at the mouth in righteous wrath, gets a grip by sheer force of will so that he can heal his ally. Then some dumb orc comes up and stabs him, and rage continues!

Shameful stereotyping.

[Gavran]

No, barbarian rage = mindless rage.

You're projecting chief.

Edit: Okay, maybe not but I'm kinda confused why you'd try to "beat them to the punch" when basically the entire thread is about how it sounds cool and nobody thinks Barbarians are mindless.


While raging, you gain the following benefits:

[the buffs, not listed for copyright reasons]

If you are able to cast spells, you can’t cast them or
concentrate on them while raging.

Your rage lasts for 1 minute. It ends early if you are
knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you
haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn
or taken damage since then. You can also end your rage
on your turn as a bonus action.

Not a single word about being mindless there. You can play your Barbarians as mindless if you want, and you can play your Paladins as Stupid Good if you want, but enforcing such views on others is rarely going to be a good thing.

--

Now, ignoring RAW, because I don't particularly whether it's okay or not there, and ignoring balance because I haven't worked out what all it would do and don't know the general strength of your table's characters - I say hell yes Barbadins can smite while they Rage, but I'm not sure they can Lay on Hands, and if they can, they can't do it to other people. (Since HP isn't meat, I'd fluff it basically as being too absorbed in zealous wrath to let your wounds slow you down.)

[Shining Wrath]

There is still lots of fluff connecting Paladins to the divine, but there are also plenty of gods who would be down with rage.

If your god approves of you raging, your god approves of you smiting as you rage.

[Slipperychicken]

There is still lots of fluff connecting Paladins to the divine, but there are also plenty of gods who would be down with rage.

If your god approves of you raging, your god approves of you smiting as you rage.

Even the good ones are pretty much all okay with rage anyway, but they just couch it in words like "righteous" or "vengeance".


Also, the restriction is not in the rules or the fluff, and it doesn't seem to help the balance. I just don't see an upside to using it.

[Ralanr]

You're projecting chief.

Edit: Okay, maybe not but I'm kinda confused why you'd try to "beat them to the punch" when basically the entire thread is about how it sounds cool and nobody thinks Barbarians are mindless.



Not a single word about being mindless there. You can play your Barbarians as mindless if you want, and you can play your Paladins as Stupid Good if you want, but enforcing such views on others is rarely going to be a good thing.

--

Now, ignoring RAW, because I don't particularly whether it's okay or not there, and ignoring balance because I haven't worked out what all it would do and don't know the general strength of your table's characters - I say hell yes Barbadins can smite while they Rage, but I'm not sure they can Lay on Hands, and if they can, they can't do it to other people. (Since HP isn't meat, I'd fluff it basically as being too absorbed in zealous wrath to let your wounds slow you down.)

A lot of topics involving barbarians usually end up with a lot of people enforcing the trope of frothing dumb berserkers. Mustachefart is always against it and is acting on how annoying and stupid it sounds when people bring that up.

It's like how all wizards should look down on muggles. It's not true, but it's really common for wizard villains and can get annoying.

[Gavran]

A lot of topics involving barbarians usually end up with a lot of people enforcing the trope of frothing dumb berserkers. Mustachefart is always against it and is acting on how annoying and stupid it sounds when people bring that up.

It's like how all wizards should look down on muggles. It's not true, but it's really common for wizard villains and can get annoying.

I'll have to take your word on that, I guess. It stills seems kinda strange. I'm willing to just chalk it down as intent masked by text though. It came across to me, at first as completely serious (as it is at least a semi-established viewpoint, hence my own jumping at the chance to defend against it) and after reading the rest of the thread, kind of like someone walking into a room and saying "I hate cats, they're so dumb!", seeing everyone else in the room defend cats and then saying "Well no I was just saying what those cat haters would say. They sure sound stupid don't they?"

I'm not generally a fan of the blue text rule but I think this situation would benefit from it, or at least some other text clarifying his actual point of view / contributing something else to the discussion.

But then those things did happen before I posted so clearly I have to just read the rest of the thread before jumping to the barbarian's defense.

kay done over analyzing this now. >.>

[Ralanr]

I'll have to take your word on that, I guess. It stills seems kinda strange. I'm willing to just chalk it down as intent masked by text though. It came across to me, at first as completely serious (as it is at least a semi-established viewpoint, hence my own jumping at the chance to defend against it) and after reading the rest of the thread, kind of like someone walking into a room and saying "I hate cats, they're so dumb!", seeing everyone else in the room defend cats and then saying "Well no I was just saying what those cat haters would say. They sure sound stupid don't they?"

I'm not generally a fan of the blue text rule but I think this situation would benefit from it, or at least some other text clarifying his actual point of view / contributing something else to the discussion.

But then those things did happen before I posted so clearly I have to just read the rest of the thread before jumping to the barbarian's defense.

kay done over analyzing this now. >.>

Nonverbal communication is really hard when there is no vocal tone, bodily movements, facial movements/expressions, or eyes to really give cues. So it's always bound to mess things up.

Thus is why sarcasm is hard on the internet.

[MustacheFart]

I'll have to take your word on that, I guess. It stills seems kinda strange. I'm willing to just chalk it down as intent masked by text though. It came across to me, at first as completely serious (as it is at least a semi-established viewpoint, hence my own jumping at the chance to defend against it) and after reading the rest of the thread, kind of like someone walking into a room and saying "I hate cats, they're so dumb!", seeing everyone else in the room defend cats and then saying "Well no I was just saying what those cat haters would say. They sure sound stupid don't they?"

I'm not generally a fan of the blue text rule but I think this situation would benefit from it, or at least some other text clarifying his actual point of view / contributing something else to the discussion.

But then those things did happen before I posted so clearly I have to just read the rest of the thread before jumping to the barbarian's defense.

kay done over analyzing this now. >.>

LOL. Well you did give me a chuckle!

It is good to see someone else who doesn't buy into the stereotypes presented by others regarding the barbarian. Ralanr is correct in his assessment of me. I have never once bought into the "mindless dumb barbarian because barbarian is barbarian" train of thought. I've also frequently fought against it, here on these forums. It's for that reason that I would say it's not so much as I was walking into a bar and stating "Cats are dumb." as it was walking into a bar where I know a few people and stating "Cats are dumb." Those people who know me or have read my posts would laugh and the others would hopefully pick up on the satire. That's my way of seeing at least. Of course, as pointed out, this is the internet so much is lost in translation.

I also would agree with your own advice of reading the thread first before jumping to any conclusion ;-).

I am actually surprised by how many people came out to defend the barbarian against my satire. Perhaps, I was a little too cheeky with it as I suspected more to think I was serious and join in on that viewpoint, sadly.

Glad to see I was wrong.

Food for thought: In no addition of DnD ever has the barbarian or his rage been described as mindless. In fact, the not being able to cast spells while raging started in 3rd edition and only for reasons of balance NOT because rage = mindless. If barbarians could have casted spells while raging then a 1 level dip in barbarian would have been a viable option for every class out. That would have made it the go to dip and been far too strong. So, they restricted spell use and everyone drew their own conclusions about the reason.

There has been "rage-like" effects presented in the game that had "mindlessness" to them such as Frenzy from the Frenzied Berzerker PrC but as I've said in the past, that isn't rage. Rage and the barbarian have no written precedence as mindless.

Personally, I see my barbarians as more of Conan-esque characters. Characters who follow a path that is (in my mind) an offshoot of the Rogue archetype. That's how the Conan world sees it and it makes sense if you think about. A lot of the abilities Barbarians get aren't that far off in thematics from the Rogue. Unlike they fighter they will use dirty tricks (like a rogue) to best an enemy. An informally trained warrior with cunning if you will. That's how I'll always see them.

[Ralanr]

A lot of the abilities Barbarians get aren't that far off in thematics from the Rogue. Unlike they fighter they will use dirty tricks (like a rogue) to best an enemy. An informally trained warrior with cunning if you will. That's how I'll always see them.

Considering how everyone seems to underestimate the mental capabilities of a barbarian, seeing the surprise on someones face when your barbarian does something very tactically savvy is just priceless.

I've always viewed rage as intense focus, you're so furious and you want the cause gone. Sometimes you ignore everything else and deal with that problem until it's gone. I don't see it as mindless, I see it as putting emotions on overdrive and putting them into physical force.

That might be confusing, I'm not sure how to explain it better. I guess it's using emotions as a more potent quick burning fuel than logic.

[MrStabby]

I didn't realise anyone thought barbarians were mindless? I thought that was the point of intelligence stats - there is no max Int stat for barbarians and it is the stat (and how you play the character) that determines intelligence not class.

Admittedly, people's experiences may vary as Int is presumably a common dump stat for Barbarians (and about 70% of the other classes).

[Person_Man]

RAI I would be fine with it. But its not a good combination. Paladins get a big chunk of their damage potential from Smite and Smite Whatever spells. Smite is fueled by spell slots, which Barbarian does not progress. And Rage prevents the use of spells.

[Shining Wrath]

I'm going to side with MustacheFart on the subject of rage: there's as many ways to rage as there are barbarians. Crunch-wise they all have to wind up the same (although that sounds like an amusing path for homebrew), but you can fluff them from screaming like a teeny-bopper at a Justin Bieber concert to silent Jedi-like focus on killing their foes to a hysterical nervous laughter as fear and pain and anger merge.

Whatever causes your boat to retain structural integrity and displace sufficient water to remain at least partially above the surface.

[VoxRationis]

The "barbarian" clearly draws its roots from the legends of Norse berserkers; if I am not mistaken, earlier editions often used the word "berserk" in varying degrees of officialness when describing their state. The Norse berserkergang state was not known for its discretion, nor for the tactical acumen of its practitioners. Even an ordinary person's experiences with anger can tell one that it clearly impairs one's judgment and limits ability to, say, solve puzzles or do delicate tasks.
In 3rd edition, there were clear restrictions on a barbarian's ability to concentrate or perform any mental task that wasn't immediately related to killing the enemy. I'm not quite sure the degree to which these have been ported through to 5th, but the roots of the class do not favor the alternate interpretation of "we can redefine rage as any mental state which improves weapon damage."

That all said, I think that smiting and rage go well hand in hand. Fury can be righteous. Lay on hands seems a little counter to the idea, though.

[MustacheFart]

The "barbarian" clearly draws its roots from the legends of Norse berserkers; if I am not mistaken, earlier editions often used the word "berserk" in varying degrees of officialness when describing their state. The Norse berserkergang state was not known for its discretion, nor for the tactical acumen of its practitioners. Even an ordinary person's experiences with anger can tell one that it clearly impairs one's judgment and limits ability to, say, solve puzzles or do delicate tasks.
In 3rd edition, there were clear restrictions on a barbarian's ability to concentrate or perform any mental task that wasn't immediately related to killing the enemy. I'm not quite sure the degree to which these have been ported through to 5th, but the roots of the class do not favor the alternate interpretation of "we can redefine rage as any mental state which improves weapon damage."

Ah here we go! I knew one would show up. A classic example of someone with a dangerous, as well as little, amount of information resulting in falsehoods that perpetuate a stereotype.

When you stated:


if I am not mistaken, earlier editions often used the word "berserk" in varying degrees of officialness when describing their state.

Did you mean editions of D&D or Viking lore? If D&D then I request a source before you put forth such claims.

There was what was known as a "berserker" in earlier editions of D&D but not only was this not the same as the standard barbarian, I don't believe they possessed rage either.

There are also plenty of other historical sources that speak of rage NOT being a mindless state. Who are you to say which contributes to D&D.

I repeat. For D&D rage has never been mindless.

[Ralanr]

Doesn't berserker mean bear warrior?

Honestly if the rage was ever really mindless then raging would give the DM control of your character during rage.

[Gavran]

Doesn't berserker mean bear warrior?

I believe it's actually something along the lines of "bear coat", as in "guy who wears bear skins as a shirt." :p But there's certainly symbolism with the bear skin that was probably not lost on the berserkers themselves. And stories about shapeshifting, taking on bear/wolf (ulfhedinn) characteristics, and resisting attacks too.

To be fair D&D Barbarian Rage is probably also in part inspired by "mindless" rages like Cu Chulainn's, but then D&D rogues are at least part inspired by Bilbo Baggins and with no offense intended to Tolkien I think we can all aim a little higher than that.

And stupid brute Barbarian characters are booooring, which is my #1 reason not to care what they might be inspired by. :P

[Shining Wrath]

I believe it's actually something along the lines of "bear coat", as in "guy who wears bear skins as a shirt." :p But there's certainly symbolism with the bear skin that was probably not lost on the berserkers themselves. And stories about shapeshifting, taking on bear/wolf (ulfhedinn) characteristics, and resisting attacks too.

To be fair D&D Barbarian Rage is probably also in part inspired by "mindless" rages like Cu Chulainn's, but then D&D rogues are at least part inspired by Bilbo Baggins and with no offense intended to Tolkien I think we can all aim a little higher than that.

And stupid brute Barbarian characters are booooring, which is my #1 reason not to care what they might be inspired by. :P

D&D rogues are inspired more by the Grey Mouser than anyone else IIRC. I believe Gygax as much as said so, but damned if I remember where.

[Ralanr]

I believe it's actually something along the lines of "bear coat", as in "guy who wears bear skins as a shirt." :p But there's certainly symbolism with the bear skin that was probably not lost on the berserkers themselves. And stories about shapeshifting, taking on bear/wolf (ulfhedinn) characteristics, and resisting attacks too.

To be fair D&D Barbarian Rage is probably also in part inspired by "mindless" rages like Cu Chulainn's, but then D&D rogues are at least part inspired by Bilbo Baggins and with no offense intended to Tolkien I think we can all aim a little higher than that.

And stupid brute Barbarian characters are booooring, which is my #1 reason not to care what they might be inspired by. :P


As are insufferable genius wizards, lawful stupid/very goody goody paladins, rogues who obsess over money and nothing else for no reason, villains who want power for powers sake (Somehow this is still used :smallconfused: . At least it feels like it :smallannoyed: ). Etc. A lot of stereotype characters are boring. That's why people tend to avoid stereotypes, or play them just to have fun with them.

Though if the rest of the group doesn't find it fun it can get grating fast.

[campskully]

Since its been well established that a barbarians only limitation on whether or not smite is possible while raging is the mental capacity, and mental capacity is represented by two stats (Intel wisdom) then I think it would be appropriate to house rule it such that the barbarian needs a minimum Intel/wis stat to smile while raging. This draws in another stat to the build but is powerful enough to need it. 10 Intel/wis for the smite and 14 Intel/wis for LoH sounds fair to me, what do you guys think? Make one wisdom the other Intel, both wisdom?

[MrStabby]

I can't see the benefit of this. Why try and stop something that is not overpowered, is fun and fits the theme?

[Ralanr]

I can't see the benefit of this. Why try and stop something that is not overpowered, is fun and fits the theme?

I don't know. Smite isn't a spell, it just expends spell slots. You can't cast spells while raging, but it doesn't say you can't expend spell slots.

If expending spell slots requires some focus, then I'd argue you could only smite with one spell slot while raging. Otherwise it is perfectly raw to rage smite.

[charcoalninja]

If the barb can't do actions that require concentration or focus during a rage (like their 3e counterpart) then I say no they can't smite. If there's no such concentration clause save the mentioned one regarding only spellcasting then by RAW they would be able to smite and lay on hands since neither of those abilities are spells and thus would not be limited.

[MrStabby]

If the barb can't do actions that require concentration or focus during a rage (like their 3e counterpart) then I say no they can't smite. If there's no such concentration clause save the mentioned one regarding only spellcasting then by RAW they would be able to smite and lay on hands since neither of those abilities are spells and thus would not be limited.

I think this is about the smite ability that doesn't require concentration rather than the "smite" spells that do need concentration. I don't think there is a worry about the spells though as it explicitly says you cant cast spells.

[charcoalninja]

I think this is about the smite ability that doesn't require concentration rather than the "smite" spells that do need concentration. I don't think there is a worry about the spells though as it explicitly says you cant cast spells.

I'm not refering to the requirement of Concentration in the maintaining a spell sense, but in the broader use of tasks that require concentration such as say, reading, doing a math equation or juggling.

[Mandragola]

It says your rage ends unless you attack something or get hit. This tends to rule out raging reading and juggling - and works against lay on hands too. I don't think it's necessary to ban those things when doing them ends your rage and you're allowed to end your rage anyway.

[MustacheFart]

It says your rage ends unless you attack something or get hit. This tends to rule out raging reading and juggling - and works against lay on hands too. I don't think it's necessary to ban those things when doing them ends your rage and you're allowed to end your rage anyway.

Depends on how cunning you are. What if you're a holy (paladin) Barbarian of Tempus, the God of War, and you need to keep in the fight while keeping your divine fury flowing. You deliver to yourself a punch of holy powah! You take the 1 point of damage from your own punch this continuing rage but also get healed by the Lay on Hands.