Barbarian rage simple question

[Richard.B]

In order to stay in my rage do I have to attack the enemy AND take damage in one round? Or just one of those things?

[Unoriginal]

In order to stay in my rage do I have to attack the enemy AND take damage in one round? Or just one of those things?

One or the other.

[Grey Watcher]

Either/or. The idea is to prevent things like using Rage to help with menial labor.

[LudicSavant]

In order to stay in my rage do I have to attack the enemy AND take damage in one round? Or just one of those things?

It's either or. Still pretty easy to knock a Barbarian out of rage though.

[Xetheral]

I recommend ignoring that rule altogether. It mostly serves to penalize barbarians in encounters where enemies are either more than one move apart from each other, or when the enemy is highly mobile and using strafing tactics. Barbarians have a hard enough time already in such battles, and Rage's limited usage and short, 1-minute duration are severe-enough limitations on their own.

[Contrast]

I recommend ignoring that rule altogether. It mostly serves to penalize barbarians in encounters where enemies are either more than one move apart from each other, or when the enemy is highly mobile and using strafing tactics. Barbarians have a hard enough time already in such battles, and Rage's limited usage and short, 1-minute duration are severe-enough limitations on their own.

I should note this is pretty easily resolvable by the barbarian carrying around a supply of javelins or even a normal ranged weapon of some variety if your dex is decent. In the same way spellcasters should be sure to have a spare component pouch/focus, martials should ensure they have some sort of ranged option even if melee is their primary focus.

[Xetheral]

I should note this is pretty easily resolvable by the barbarian carrying around a supply of javelins or even a normal ranged weapon of some variety if your dex is decent. In the same way spellcasters should be sure to have a spare component pouch/focus, martials should ensure they have some sort of ranged option even if melee is their primary focus.

If the opponents in javelin range are all in total cover, that isn't going to work. A ready action to throw when they come out of cover to shoot won't trigger the attack before the end of the Barbarian's turn, and by then it's too late, the rage has ended.

Against strafing opponents (e.g. a dragon), there may be several rounds between strafing runs where the opponent is out of range, out of sight, or both.

[GlenSmash!]

Since all my barbarians have 14+ Dex I get a Longbow as soon as I can on each of them.

2+Proficiency to hit is better than losing Rage even if it's at disadvantage, though so far I've managed to get within 150ft whenever I needed too.

[Yuhhu]

You just need to use the "Attack Action", you dont need to hit

[JackPhoenix]

I recommend ignoring that rule altogether. It mostly serves to penalize barbarians in encounters where enemies are either more than one move apart from each other, or when the enemy is highly mobile and using strafing tactics. Barbarians have a hard enough time already in such battles, and Rage's limited usage and short, 1-minute duration are severe-enough limitations on their own.

So... I don't know, don't rage in that sort of battle and save it for where it will be more useful? You aren't supposed to rage in every encounter anyway. It doesn't penalize barbarians anymore than fighting fire-immune devils penalize spellcaster with Fireball.

Or if you really, really want to keep rage even in battle where it isn't effective, you can start punching yourself.

[SirVladamir]

Our wizard is under strict instructions to hit me with 1 magic missile dart if I get snared. Works every time

[Xetheral]

So... I don't know, don't rage in that sort of battle and save it for where it will be more useful? You aren't supposed to rage in every encounter anyway. It doesn't penalize barbarians anymore than fighting fire-immune devils penalize spellcaster with Fireball.

Or if you really, really want to keep rage even in battle where it isn't effective, you can start punching yourself.

The limited usage on Rage (and its short duration) are enough to make Barbarians use it somewhat sparingly. I don't need Barbarian players also trying to guess at the start of battle whether the enemy's likely tactics are going to make it hard to keep Rage up.

Also, that the rule incentivizes players to have their characters hit themselves is just one more reason not to use it.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The limited usage on Rage (and its short duration) are enough to make Barbarians use it somewhat sparingly. I don't need Barbarian players also trying to guess at the start of battle whether the enemy's likely tactics are going to make it hard to keep Rage up.

Also, that the rule incentivizes players to have their characters hit themselves is just one more reason not to use it.

They can hit the floor or the air.

They just need to attack, no meter what they attack, if they damage it or hit.

(All I can think of is a barbarian taking a leg and hit the floor (let the bodies hit the floor)).



EDIT:
I am wrong.

[Ignimortis]

You can also hit yourself for 1+STR+Rage Damage and then halve it because of Rage. But that's only for special cases.

[LudicSavant]

They can hit the floor or the air.

They just need to attack, no meter what they attack, if they damage it or hit.

(All I can think of is a barbarian taking a leg and hit the floor (let the bodies hit the floor)).

Nope. Barbarians have to attack a hostile enemy or take damage. The "attack yourself" thing works because you damage yourself. Attacking the air wouldn't work because it does not involve attacking a hostile creature or damaging yourself.

It's slapstick nonsense design, if you ask me. *Shrug*

[NaughtyTiger]

It's very rare for barbs to fall out of rage due to targets all hiding, only seen it a couple of times in the past 3 years.
handaxe, javelin, and fast raging legs are all useful.

[N810]

I lit my self on fire once to keep rage going,
it cost me an alchemist fire.
Then I grappled some enemies next turn.
priceless.

[PeteNutButter]

The wording of the rage feature has some odd interactions. "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."

If you have non-attack things to do (Dodge, Channel Divinity, non-spell item use), since rage ends at the end of your turn you can wait until you've been hit by a creature to do the thing. This can be annoying if you want to do said thing and actually have a decent AC.

It technically prevents round one dashing in and raging, as the rage would immediately end. Which comes up a lot, as people want to avoid taking damage. Barbarians have to use ranged attacks instead on round one if they can't get into melee and want to rage. This can be a problem when using feral instinct. If you're surprised and win initiative, you can't attack anything (because the enemies are presumably hidden) and you haven't taken damage, making your turn consist of rage to end surprise, maybe dodge, and then rage ends. Kind of pointless for a level 7 feature.

A rules lawyer could parse out the phrase, "since your last turn" and note the last combat turn the character had and whether or not they attacked, or if they've taken damage since (maybe trap damage?), even if it's been days or years since the character's last combat. Cheesy, I know but RAW. :smallamused:

[JackPhoenix]

The limited usage on Rage (and its short duration) are enough to make Barbarians use it somewhat sparingly. I don't need Barbarian players also trying to guess at the start of battle whether the enemy's likely tactics are going to make it hard to keep Rage up.

Also, that the rule incentivizes players to have their characters hit themselves is just one more reason not to use it.

I dunno, hitting yourself for using limited resource in a situation where it is wasted is a mechanic that should be used more often.

If you use rage at the start of every battle without taking the situation into account, it's your own fault you've wasted it. Figuring out that using rage after seeing a group of flying enemies, mounted archers or hard to reach ranged enemies in cover may not be the best idea doesn't require a genius.


You can also hit yourself for 1+STR+Rage Damage and then halve it because of Rage. But that's only for special cases.

Better to use dagger for 1d4+Dex. Likely less damage then punching yourself while raging, but you'll need free hand for that. Lower chance you'll hit yourself, though.

[LudicSavant]

It's very rare for barbs to fall out of rage due to targets all hiding, only seen it a couple of times in the past 3 years.

This varies widely by table in my experience.

Imagine that there's a sliding scale of DM tactics. On the extreme far end of one side of the scale, we have "badly programmed MMORPG zombies whose AI consists entirely of moving to the nearest foe and casting "melee attack" until one side falls over" and at the far opposite end of the scale we have "Tucker's Kobolds in the Tippyverse played by hardcore strategy gamers."

Playing at a wide variety of tables, I find that the likeliness of Barbarians falling out of rage increases dramatically for each step taken on this scale towards the Tucker's Kobolds side of the spectrum. At some tables, an unoptimized Barbarian will basically never fall out of rage. At others, the same Barbarian will be struggling to keep it up at all.

[Xetheral]

This varies widely by table in my experience.

Imagine that there's a sliding scale of DM tactics. On the extreme far end of one side of the scale, we have "badly programmed MMORPG zombies whose AI consists entirely of moving to the nearest foe and casting "melee attack" until one side falls over" and at the far opposite end of the scale we have "Tucker's Kobolds in the Tippyverse played by hardcore strategy gamers."

Playing at a wide variety of tables, I find that the likeliness of Barbarians falling out of rage increases dramatically for each step taken on this scale towards the Tucker's Kobolds side of the spectrum. At some tables, an unoptimized Barbarian will basically never fall out of rage. At others, the same Barbarian will be struggling to keep it up at all.

I think this is exactly right, but I would add that in addition to tactics, DMs roleplaying NPCs in combat can also make it harder for Barbarians to stay in rage if it means enemies are more likely to flee, scatter, or stay in full cover. (It could even be the sight of the raging Barbarian that convinces the enemy that dashing behind full cover is the only safe move.)

At the end of the day, however, I just don't think making Barbarians fall out of Rage early (or contrive situations to try to stay in rage) is fun for players. Since it isn't needed for balance, why keep an unfun rule?

[NaughtyTiger]

At the end of the day, however, I just don't think making Barbarians fall out of Rage early (or contrive situations to try to stay in range) is fun for players. Since it isn't needed for balance, why keep an unfun rule?

Then what do you replace level 15 with?

[Xetheral]

Then what do you replace level 15 with?

Haven't decided yet. No one at my tables has had anywhere near that many Barbarian levels yet.

[Citan]

I think this is exactly right, but I would add that in addition to tactics, DMs roleplaying NPCs in combat can also make it harder for Barbarians to stay in rage if it means enemies are more likely to flee, scatter, or stay in full cover. (It could even be the sight of the raging Barbarian that convinces the enemy that dashing behind full cover is the only safe move.)

At the end of the day, however, I just don't think making Barbarians fall out of Rage early (or contrive situations to try to stay in rage) is fun for players. Since it isn't needed for balance, why keep an unfun rule?
Hi!
Honestly, in my opinion that would be a very bad idea for several reasons.
1. Balance: it is actually balanced: what you are saying is basically "yeah, it sucks that my shiny ability got wasted early". Yeah, you're right it sucks. But you know what? It's exactly the same for casters, usually much worse even (casted spell ending having absolutely no effect whatsoever), and nobody is complaining. But I'm pretty sure the level 1-4 Wizard/Sorcerer that tried some Chromatic Bolt or Hold Person and missed both times wasting 70-100% of their resources for the day (depending on level) in two rounds are not happy.

2. Teaching: having a risk of losing early because you were dealt no damage is an enticement to Barbarian to fulfill its role of meat tank, but at the same time giving him a sense of evaluating threat. The same risk, as well as the risk of losing early because you hurt nobody forces player to learn how to consider many parameters to position himself ideally to maximize offense potency and minimize hurt risk (taking into account enemy positions, AC, allied archers that may threaten etc).
Giving an "all-out" rage gives a bad signal to player: "you can be stupid, or a ****, or a hothead, or play however else you want, you won't lose that rage". I wouldn't like, personally, having a player raised in such a way as an ally to rely on in high-level play.

3. Safety hold: guys above in thread gave examples of how in a not too metagamey way a Barbarian could ensure to fulfill the condition to keep rage active (including Wizard's single missile which is the smartest imo -but hey, you don't always get a Wizard in party).
The opposite is true: if for whatever reason Barbarian is turned on his friends and nobody has the adequate ability to end it, they can at least reduce the threat level it has become by avoiding and outrunning him until he lost rage.

4. Balance (again): you are basically giving at level 1, for free, the 15th level feature. If THAT is not a sign you create an imbalance, I'm not sure what signal you should need. Moreover, why then wouldn't other players, playing other classes, asking for such similar adaptations? Like Monk's "Ki on Initiative" (20th level), Bard's "Inspiration on Initiative" (20th level), Fighter's Second Action Surge ("18th is too far, make it 6th), Warlock's "LifeDrinker" (12th level, "hey you know I'll still deal less damage than a Sharpshooter Fighter, so give it at level 5 plz).

Playing Barbarian looks easy and dumb. And it can be. Playing Barbarian *efficiently* is, like Monk, a complete another story entirely.
Whether that is or not a good thing is to each own's opinion. To me it's a very good thing. It forces player to make stupid and deadly mistakes early. After that (s)he becomes a reliable player (and thus character) or dies and pick another class that suits better like plain Fighter.

[Xetheral]

Hi!
Honestly, in my opinion that would be a very bad idea for several reasons.
1. Balance: it is actually balanced: what you are saying is basically "yeah, it sucks that my shiny ability got wasted early". Yeah, you're right it sucks. But you know what? It's exactly the same for casters, usually much worse even (casted spell ending having absolutely no effect whatsoever), and nobody is complaining. But I'm pretty sure the level 1-4 Wizard/Sorcerer that tried some Chromatic Bolt or Hold Person and missed both times wasting 70-100% of their resources for the day (depending on level) in two rounds are not happy.

2. Teaching: having a risk of losing early because you were dealt no damage is an enticement to Barbarian to fulfill its role of meat tank, but at the same time giving him a sense of evaluating threat. The same risk, as well as the risk of losing early because you hurt nobody forces player to learn how to consider many parameters to position himself ideally to maximize offense potency and minimize hurt risk (taking into account enemy positions, AC, allied archers that may threaten etc).
Giving an "all-out" rage gives a bad signal to player: "you can be stupid, or a ****, or a hothead, or play however else you want, you won't lose that rage". I wouldn't like, personally, having a player raised in such a way as an ally to rely on in high-level play.

3. Safety hold: guys above in thread gave examples of how in a not too metagamey way a Barbarian could ensure to fulfill the condition to keep rage active (including Wizard's single missile which is the smartest imo -but hey, you don't always get a Wizard in party).
The opposite is true: if for whatever reason Barbarian is turned on his friends and nobody has the adequate ability to end it, they can at least reduce the threat level it has become by avoiding and outrunning him until he lost rage.

4. Balance (again): you are basically giving at level 1, for free, the 15th level feature. If THAT is not a sign you create an imbalance, I'm not sure what signal you should need. Moreover, why then wouldn't other players, playing other classes, asking for such similar adaptations? Like Monk's "Ki on Initiative" (20th level), Bard's "Inspiration on Initiative" (20th level), Fighter's Second Action Surge ("18th is too far, make it 6th), Warlock's "LifeDrinker" (12th level, "hey you know I'll still deal less damage than a Sharpshooter Fighter, so give it at level 5 plz).

Playing Barbarian looks easy and dumb. And it can be. Playing Barbarian *efficiently* is, like Monk, a complete another story entirely.
Whether that is or not a good thing is to each own's opinion. To me it's a very good thing. It forces player to make stupid and deadly mistakes early. After that (s)he becomes a reliable player (and thus character) or dies and pick another class that suits better like plain Fighter.

For me, it's quite simple: at my table, if I played with the rule as written, Barbarians would too-often have a hard time making Rage last more than two or three rounds. I suspect that LudicSavant is correct that a contributing cause to this problem is that enemy tactics at my table are somewhat closer to the Tucker's Kobolds end of the spectrum he describes. Tactical retreats, scatterings, wide-ranging battles over considerable distances, and routine use of full cover are all frequent occurrences at my table (it also tends to lead to long combats, so the 10-round limit on Rage matters at my table too). Additionally, I tend to RP enemy behavior as well: undisciplined enemies will put individual self-preservation over tactics, which can lead to enemies cowering in full cover and making frequent use of the Dash action to put something solid between them and any enemies. Also, any rule that incentivizes players to attack themselves or each other is one that I have a large problem with. Short of something like blood magic, I consider that gimmicky and far too gamist for my preferred style of play.

Accordingly, the best solution at my table has been to altogether ignore the rule about dropping out of Rage. It solves both problems at once: Barbarians don't have an inordinately-difficult time staying in Rage, and there is no longer any incentive to punch oneself or shoot Magic Missiles at other PCs. It doesn't matter to me that I'm effectively giving a 15th level ability at 1st level, because the changes make the game better at my table. That merely establishes a precedent that I'm willing to houserule to improve the game--it doesn't in any way force me to let other players get higher-level abilities early.

Given that this discussion has pointed out to me ways in which the idiosyncrasies of my table make this rule change more value to me and my players, I will withdraw my original broad recommendation that DMs axe the rule about dropping out of rage early. Instead, I merely suggest that if DMs encounter Barbarians regularly dropping out of Rage or regularly needing to go to gimmicky lengths to maintain it, then those DMs may want to consider removing the rule entirely.

[GlenSmash!]

I don't mind the fact that sometimes I'll be out of rages, in fact I ended my last session with all rages used up and we are walking into a pretty serious situation next time. If we do fight, the fighter will get the chance to shine more for a bit.

[El_Jairo]

...Edit Cut...
Given that this discussion has pointed out to me ways in which the idiosyncrasies of my table make this rule change more value to me and my players, I will withdraw my original broad recommendation that DMs axe the rule about dropping out of rage early. Instead, I merely suggest that if DMs encounter Barbarians regularly dropping out of Rage or regularly needing to go to gimmicky lengths to maintain it, then those DMs may want to consider removing the rule entirely.
I feel the fact that you need to manage your number of rages and that those rages only persist if you meet certain conditions, is cool.
It's like a spellcaster in that way: you can't just spam your spells and expect it to go well.
I find the conditions of maintaining rage, nothing insurmountable and quite common sense: you can't start raging when you spot your enemy on the horizon, you need to be in range, to start attacking.
So unless you have a status robbing you of your actions, you can still try a ranged attack, which will sustain your current Rage.


I don't mind the fact that sometimes I'll be out of rages, in fact I ended my last session with all rages used up and we are walking into a pretty serious situation next time. If we do fight, the fighter will get the chance to shine more for a bit.
That's the fact of the matter: you don't want the rage feature to be an automatic on feature, as this would overshadow other classes and would make the barbarian class really not interesting to play as you would have little choices to make.

In our last session, my Half-Orc Barbarian, Mohrdus got cursed and lost his actions, while he was raging. Some clever play: him retreating from the hags that cursed him, caused them to AoO and they both hit, causing damage, so the rage would continue.
On the plus side: Mohrdus had taken the AoO from both hags, so the rest of the party could flee the hut, before the sorcerer set in on fire with a fireball.

I would call it a bad house-rule if this meant you don't have to manage the resources of your character anymore.
Sure this is a class feature to come online at level 15, which should mean that it is something you earn, you can't just give this out for free, because your players are bad at managing their resources.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say "My one-minute buff should last one minute."

No one here who wants to have Rages not have end conditions other than KO, death, or one minute passing has said that they want to use Rage every single fight, or that they must always be the best. They've just said it sucks and feels bad when you lose Rage because, say, opponents run away for one round. Why wouldn't that make you even more angry? They're not even giving you a good fight! They're just punking out!

[JackPhoenix]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say "My one-minute buff should last one minute."

No one here who wants to have Rages not have end conditions other than KO, death, or one minute passing has said that they want to use Rage every single fight, or that they must always be the best. They've just said it sucks and feels bad when you lose Rage because, say, opponents run away for one round. Why wouldn't that make you even more angry? They're not even giving you a good fight! They're just punking out!

Do you apply the same logic to concentration spells? Because there's absolutely nothing with bringing back 3.x era flying, hasted, invisible, who-knows-what-else wizards. Why should my 1-minute (or 1-hour, doesn't really matter) spell last less than the indicated duration just because I've cast another spell, or because an enemy hit me?

If not, why the double standard?

Also, if my very presence causes the enemy to waste their turns running away instead of contributing to the fight, and disrupt their battle plan, I consider that a win. Of course, enemies knowing the exact mechanics of my class ability and metagaming around them is a different can of purple worms...

[JNAProductions]

Because Barbarian's Rage is their CORE class feature.

If you had a caster who had literally nothing but Concentration spells, you bet your butter I'd want them to have, at the VERY least, Constitution Save Proficiency, if not other features to make them better at maintaining it.

Edit: And considering that Barbarian's Rage interferes with casting anyway, I don't know why you're talking about buff-stacking. Hell, one of the Wizard subclasses (Conjuration, I think) has a feature that says they can't lose Concentration from damage.

[JackPhoenix]

Because Barbarian's Rage is their CORE class feature.

If you had a caster who had literally nothing but Concentration spells, you bet your butter I'd want them to have, at the VERY least, Constitution Save Proficiency, if not other features to make them better at maintaining it.

Edit: And considering that Barbarian's Rage interferes with casting anyway, I don't know why you're talking about buff-stacking. Hell, one of the Wizard subclasses (Conjuration, I think) has a feature that says they can't lose Concentration from damage.

It's not their only class feature. Just like spellcasters have other spells to choose from, barbarians have options beyond Rage available.

As for the conjurers not losing concentration on a specific subset of spells from damage... oh, look, the barbarians ALSO have ability that cause them no longer lose Rage if they won't attack or cause damage.

[JNAProductions]

It's not their only class feature. Just like spellcasters have other spells to choose from, barbarians have options beyond Rage available.

As for the conjurers not losing concentration on a specific subset of spells from damage... oh, look, the barbarians ALSO have ability that cause them no longer lose Rage if they won't attack or cause damage.

The difference is, the Wizard has... Let's see...

At level one, a Wizard can choose from a total of 36 spells.

Of them, 8 require Concentration, and 5 others have a casting time of one minute or more. Let's cut out the long casting times, and just look at the 31 combat-ready spells.

That's 8/31 or just barely over one quarter of spells that require Concentration.

Barbarians, at level one, have two features-Unarmored Defense (a nice, but completely passive feature) and Rage (their defining active feature). Or, in other words, Wizards have somewhere around a fourth of their options requiring Concentration (depending on exact spell choice, of course) but Barbarian's ONLY active class feature has a somewhat similar end clause.

Level two gets us Reckless Attack, which is another active feature-that's great! Now 50% of their features are capable of being cut short, rather than 100%.

The main Barbarian chassis has no other active features.

So, let's say you're a Wizard, but you hate hate HATE the idea of spells running out early. You can pick non-Concentration spells and go to town.

Let's say now you're a Barbarian, but you hate hate HATE the idea of Rage running out early. What are your options?

[JackPhoenix]

So, let's say you're a Wizard, but you hate hate HATE the idea of spells running out early. You can pick non-Concentration spells and go to town.

Let's say now you're a Barbarian, but you hate hate HATE the idea of Rage running out early. What are your options?

Get to level 15.

Or, like the wizard who hates the possibility of losing concentration so much he avoids taking concentration spells at all, don't use Rage (or just don't use it in situations when it is likely it can't be maintained) or play something other than barbarian.

Or, you know, that whole thing about causing damage to yourself.

[JNAProductions]

Get to level 15.

Or, like the wizard who hates the possibility of losing concentration so much he avoids taking concentration spells at all, don't use Rage (or just don't use it in situations when it is likely it can't be maintained) or play something other than barbarian.

Or, you know, that whole thing about causing damage to yourself.

"Don't use Rage" might as well be "Don't play a Barbarian". They do get other features, but if that's your MAIN CLASS and you don't use it, you will be far weaker than everyone else.

Causing damage to yourself is a solution, but it's a very gamist solution.

Let me put it this way-what breaks if Barbarians get a minute of rage, ended only if they choose to, the minute passes, or they get KOed/die?

[Rerem115]

Let me put it this way-what breaks if Barbarians get a minute of rage, ended only if they choose to, the minute passes, or they get KOed/die?

Zealot Barbarians get a lot harder to kill earlier in the campaign. Other than that, though, not much. It opens up a lot more options for Barbarians, mostly in the utility/support category. It's a quality of life buff that works well for a more cinematic fight style. I Rage, then sprint up to jump on the dragon's back! I see my comrade's down, so I carry him away to safety before turning to fight! That cowardly foe turned to flee, and it's making me ANGRY!

The issue's never come up at a table where I've DM'd, but I'm all for changing Rage to always work like you're level 15.

[Xetheral]

Do you apply the same logic to concentration spells? Because there's absolutely nothing with bringing back 3.x era flying, hasted, invisible, who-knows-what-else wizards. Why should my 1-minute (or 1-hour, doesn't really matter) spell last less than the indicated duration just because I've cast another spell, or because an enemy hit me?

If not, why the double standard?

I don't see it as a double standard, because I don't consider Rage to be analagous to concentration spells, for several reasons:

As JNAProductions points out, the Rage ability practically defines the Barbarian class. No one concentration spell defines a Wizard. Concentration spells are much more abundant than Rages. If a concentration spell drops early, the spellcaster can usually cast another one, whereas Raging multiple times in a single encounter is much more costly. It's possible to build a spellcaster to resist losing concentration, whereas how long Rage lasts is largely determined by the behavior of the NPCs. Short of gamist gimmicks like punching oneself or asking an ally to hurt you, the most the Barbarian can do to prolong Rage is hope that there will be a valid target in thrown weapon range (or missile weapon range if the Barbarian is willing to drop their melee weapon). (Note that when making ranged attacks the Barbarian can't Dash to try to get back in melee, or around the enemies' cover....)
A closer analogy would be comparing Rage to Bladesong, which defines Bladesinger Wizards and is in similarly short suuply. But unlike Rage, nothing short of being incapacitated (or mind controlled) can involuntarily make a Bladesinger drop Bladesong early.

[JackPhoenix]

Causing damage to yourself is a solution, but it's a very gamist solution.

Not really. Frothing berserkers biting their own shields (and let's be honest, shield beats teeth) or zealots being literally whipped into frenzy are pretty classic images. It's certainly less gamist than enemies going "Holy crap, this guy is a monster! I should run away from him and hide for about 6 seconds, then get back to fighting." Though removing the requirement the creature barbarian attack must be hostile would also be fitting, it's pretty clear why WotC made it that way... frenzied berserker from 3e was infamous for a reason.


Let me put it this way-what breaks if Barbarians get a minute of rage, ended only if they choose to, the minute passes, or they get KOed/die?

Barbarian class progression, as they'll need different level 15 feature.

[JNAProductions]

So no real balance concerns? Just "Need to update the 15th level Barbarian feature"? Okay.

And in the real world, shield beats teeth. Also in the real world, no dragons, wizards, or surviving falls from orbit. Twice. In a row. And then fighting said dragon.

[JackPhoenix]

So no real balance concerns? Just "Need to update the 15th level Barbarian feature"? Okay.

There are no real balance concerns for rogues only getting Sneak Attack with finesse or ranged weapons, paladins being unable to use ranged weapons for Divine Smite, druids being unable unwilling to wear metal armor or bladesingers being unable to swing their longsword with two hands either.. Yet all those limitations still exist, because they are thematic for the depicted archetypes.


And in the real world, shield beats teeth. Also in the real world, no dragons, wizards, or surviving falls from orbit. Twice. In a row. And then fighting said dragon.

In D&D, shield also beats teeth. Literally, if used as improvised weapon.

[JNAProductions]

There are no real balance concerns for rogues only getting Sneak Attack with finesse or ranged weapons, paladins being unable to use ranged weapons for Divine Smite, druids being unable unwilling to wear metal armor or bladesingers being unable to swing their longsword with two hands either.. Yet all those limitations still exist, because they are thematic for the depicted archetypes.

In D&D, shield also beats teeth. Literally, if used as improvised weapon.

GWF with SA is a concern. (A minor one, but one that I can see.)
Paladins being incredibly baller, with their main weakness of ranged combat going away entirely if you can smite with ranged attacks is a concern.
Druids aren't actually restricted out of metal armor.
Bladesingers I do not know much about, so *shrug* on that.

I fail to see what archetype or theme is being preserved by Barbarians falling out of rage if they haven't made an attack in six seconds. I can understand not wanting Rage to be used as a noncombat tool (while that hardly breaks the game, I do agree it's unthematic), but if a Barbarian is in Rage, an enemy that's slightly fast than them Disengages and runs away, and they Dash to keep up... Why would they fall out of Rage? What's your theme reason for that? The Barbarian is running, pell-mell, to keep up with their foe, but oh, they didn't ACTUALLY attack (despite getting in a position to attack as best they could) too bad, so sad, no Rage.

[JackPhoenix]

GWF with SA is a concern. (A minor one, but one that I can see.)
You may limit it to non-two-handed weapons. Or not at all... GWF wouldn't work with SA anyway for the same reason it doesn't work with Divine Smite. If you mean GWM and its -5/+10, they already can get the same (but generally better) with SS and ranged weapons.

Paladins being incredibly baller, with their main weakness of ranged combat going away entirely if you can smite with ranged attacks is a concern.
Yet some of their "x smite" spells work with ranged attacks just fine.

Druids aren't actually restricted out of metal armor.
That's what I keep saying, but no, even though druids are perfectly physically capable of wearing metal armor and suffer no mechanical penalty for it (unlike, say, heavy armor wearing barbarians), they won't wear it, no matter what. *shrug*

Bladesingers I do not know much about, so *shrug* on that.
It was mentioned in this thread. The main thing is that bladesong will end "if you use two hands to make an attack with a weapon". That's pretty funny... you can practice magical elven martial art with battleaxe or warhammer in each hand (as you're only using one hand to swing either weapon) or (even better) while mounted and using a lance, but Ao forbid if you grip a longsword with both hands.


I fail to see what archetype or theme is being preserved by Barbarians falling out of rage if they haven't made an attack in six seconds. I can understand not wanting Rage to be used as a noncombat tool (while that hardly breaks the game, I do agree it's unthematic), but if a Barbarian is in Rage, an enemy that's slightly fast than them Disengages and runs away, and they Dash to keep up... Why would they fall out of Rage? What's your theme reason for that? The Barbarian is running, pell-mell, to keep up with their foe, but oh, they didn't ACTUALLY attack (despite getting in a position to attack as best they could) too bad, so sad, no Rage.

There are ways around that, even ignoring the damage part. Thrown weapons (and those really should get Rage damage bonus, IMO), Charger feat if you want to Dash and attack, Sentinel if you want to stop them from running away, and barbarians get increased movement speed for a reason.

[JNAProductions]

I did indeed mean GWF. And many DMs (myself included) extend to work on all damage dice directly from the attack.
Admittedly, it's an increase of 2/3rds of a point of damage per d6, so it ain't really a huge deal, but I udnerstand the concern.

For the Smite Spells... That's one attack per turn, requiring Concentration and your bonus action, for less damage (often of a worse type) than regular Divine Smite. It also might just plain be a mistake too.

For Druids, I've never run into a table that stops Druids from wearing whatever armor they want.

The Bladesinger bit just seems kinda dumb.

Thrown weapons don't work right by RAW (drop your weapon is free, object interaction to draw a thrown weapon and action to attack with it... But now you dropped your main weapon), Charger is a bad feat and not worth taking for this niche scenario, Sentinel is a good feat, but only works IF YOU HIT, and increased movement speed is great, but there are plenty of things faster than you still. ('Specially if you're a Dwarf or other 25' race.)

So what FLUFFY, THEMATIC reason is there for a Barbarian who Dashes to get into prime murdering position to lose Rage?

There's no real balance concern, so all that's left is fluff. If I was really invested in keeping Rage a combat-only feature, I'd make it end if you fail to take action towards attacking an enemy. Yes, it relies on DM discretion, and that is okay.

[LudicSavant]

So what FLUFFY, THEMATIC reason is there for a Barbarian who Dashes to get into prime murdering position to lose Rage?

I'm with you here. I think that from a flavor perspective, it is absurd that a Barbarian wants to punch himself and will forget to be angry while he's chasing down foes. To me, that's ludonarrative dissonance.

You could easily have had a case where, say, a Barbarian can maintain their rage if they move towards an enemy (like orc's Aggressive), or if they just attack some random piece of the enviornment (which seems like more appropriate behavior for the Hulk than punching himself). But the designers decided on self-punching and immobility.

[Citan]

So no real balance concerns? Just "Need to update the 15th level Barbarian feature"? Okay.

And in the real world, shield beats teeth. Also in the real world, no dragons, wizards, or surviving falls from orbit. Twice. In a row. And then fighting said dragon.
We already put balance concerns in front in previous posts. Rage is a resource, much like spells. Casters could have a day without luck where none of their offensive spells hit (rarely past level 5, not so uncommon before. And true up to level 10 for Warlocks in egocentrical long-rest party). Yet they won't ask DM "hey, change spells so every spell has some effect on a save".
Yet spells are their defining feature.
With the vast majority of spells being either a "no effect save" or concentration, you can't argue that is a valid point.

Rogues need advantage or ally close by to Sneak Attack. For a ranged Rogue, that is easy enough. For a melee Rogue, except Swash, less so. Yet I never heard player complaining that "it's too bothersome to check some requirement is met to have my powerful attack". Yet Sneak Attack is the defining feature of the Rogue.

Monks get to use Stunning Strike, which is from the common opinion around here their defining feature (at least one of). Yet this feature costs 1 Ki per attempt, targets the attribute which is usually the highest for a majority of creatures, and need to be in contact to do so. And they may encounter resting management trouble if the majority of party is long-rest and egoistical. Yet I never saw anyone coming and saying "Yeah, Stunning Strike is crap, it should target WIS / autosucceed / be a non-ki feature".

This limitation on Rage is here to give a direction in how to play the Barbarian, removing it is not helpful in the long run.

Each DM rules how he wants in his/her DM. Own game, own players, own rules.

But from overall thread, what I get is "I as a DM play very smart, this frustrates player, so I'm gonna give him a boon". That is his solution to the base problem being discrepancy between player and DM levels of smartness.
Other solution would be either advise Barbarian to use his brain and get a bow or throw weapons, or adapt his own style to make it less difficult for Barbarian to follow.
In short, instead of removing the difficulty (which ends keeping the player at the same level of tactical awareness), help player understand the shortcomings of the class and overcome them to learn how to play it like most allies would expect him to.


I'm with you here. I think that from a flavor perspective, it is absurd that a Barbarian wants to punch himself and will forget to be angry while he's chasing down foes. To me, that's ludonarrative dissonance.

You could easily have had a case where, say, a Barbarian can maintain their rage if they move towards an enemy (like orc's Aggressive), or if they just attack some random piece of the enviornment (which seems like more appropriate behavior for the Hulk than punching himself). But the designers decided on self-punching and immobility.
The bolded part I agree with, it may feel kinda clunky at times. Yet again, the italic part is very wrong.

Rage is exactly like casting a spell and trying to concentrate on it: usually you do good, managing to land it and making it stick for several rounds yet sometimes you'll lose it early (or not even make it stick first round) because something unexpected happened or simply sheer bad luck. If losing it early is regular, there is a problem in tactical awareness somewhere.

- Archers can target you if you are the "most valid" target -> chance to take damage and sustain rage.
- You can also, again, activate your brain and *use a frigging ranged weapon attack* (light hammer, javelin, shortbow, even some magic weapon).
- You can also count on allies hitting you simply as part of an AOE (you being the bait, them unleashing it because they know the HP you lose won't put you down yet allow to clean or severely hurt a whole group -especially if Bear Barb or Sorcerer caster).
- You can also move back after having used Reckless Attack (and yet having missed both attacks) so enemy hits you with OA.
- You can also have an ally buff your speed (Haste/Fly) to ensure you always can get into range.
- You can also have an ally restrain enemies so they can't escape you (Plant Growth cast when you and enemies are close, Entangle, Ensnaring Strike / Earthbound on a flyer etc).
- You can also *Grapple* an enemy yourself to ensure you always have something to hit (and someone to try and hit you).

*ALL OF THESE* are valid and basic solo/group tactics, which don't even rely on feats (because such one as Sentinel helps much in avoiding the "enemy just flies away").
If the only thing a Barb player can find to maintain rage is ask an ally to hit him (or try and hit self), then...
- if it's happening from time to time, it's normal: s*** happens, some encounters suit specific classes and abilities more than others.
- if it's happening regularly, then the problem comes from *player* first, possibly from party / DM as a secondary lead.

[LudicSavant]

The bolded part I agree with, it may feel kinda clunky at times. Yet again, the italic part is very wrong.
Uhm, what? The italicized statement simply claims that the potential for Barbarians to lose rage by deciding to dash toward a fleeing enemy, or for them to maintain rage by punching themselves, exists because of the designers' decisions. If the rule were written differently, that potential for ludonarrative dissonance, or "feeling kinda clunky" as you put it, would not exist.

Nothing in the rest of your post appears to address the italicized statement, which makes no comment on tactical viability or balance or the like.

[Dalebert]

Do you apply the same logic to concentration spells? Because there's absolutely nothing with bringing back 3.x era flying, hasted, invisible, who-knows-what-else wizards. Why should my 1-minute (or 1-hour, doesn't really matter) spell last less than the indicated duration just because I've cast another spell, or because an enemy hit me?

If not, why the double standard?

It doesn't make sense to call it a double standard when they're two completely different and unrelated things. A double standard would be house-ruling that concentration applies to spells for sorcerers but not to the same spells cast by wizards, for instance. You're comparing a modest house rule to a drastic one. I agree eliminating concentration would be insanely broken for the reasons you gave but that's not an argument against removing the restriction on rages.

I'm playing barbarians for the first time and becoming painfully aware of how dependent on rage they are to be competitive. It's an extremely limited resource and so many of their abilities are tied to it. I've played SO many casters over the years since 5e came out and I almost always end the day with spell slots remaining, often the higher ones, but I run out of rages in an adventure that ends up having surprise extra encounters I didn't anticipate and I'm suddenly weaker than all the other melee. The barbarian goes from being the best tank to being really vulnerable. Some become practically without an archetype as many archetype abilities are tied to raging.

Just the other night our barbarian had been beaten down , caught off guard by ambushes where he took a lot of dmg before his turn to rage and then cutting the remainder in half at that point wasn't enough to keep him up. We funneled all the healing we had available into him and he was still bloodied and now out of rages. He literally hung back and my abjuration wizard was going up and engaging. His issue wasn't rages ending early. I'm just trying to point out that they're apples to oragnes--rage vs. concentration, and a little buff to barbarians like this seems reasonable to me, including replacing their Endless Rage with something more at 15.

[Xetheral]

But from overall thread, what I get is "I as a DM play very smart, this frustrates player, so I'm gonna give him a boon". That is his solution to the base problem being discrepancy between player and DM levels of smartness.
Other solution would be either advise Barbarian to use his brain and get a bow or throw weapons, or adapt his own style to make it less difficult for Barbarian to follow.
In short, instead of removing the difficulty (which ends keeping the player at the same level of tactical awareness), help player understand the shortcomings of the class and overcome them to learn how to play it like most allies would expect him to.

It is not in any way my intention to suggest that I play smarter than my players. Instead, I'm saying that the tactical choices I make for NPCs (many of which, for RP reasons, are sub-optimal) lead to Barbarians dropping out of Rage more often than at other tables. I further suspect that Barbarians drop of Rage more often at my table than the designers expected when they balanced the Rage feature. Accordingly, I let Rage last the full minute at my table to compensate for the balance impact of my DMing style.

Please note that a ranged/thrown weapon certainly helps, but is not a universal solution. When the enemies have fled/retreated around a corner in a dungeon or city, and that corner is more than one move away, it is impossible to make an attack with a ranged or thrown weapon. Similarly, if enemies scatter in an old-growth forest, or in uneven terrain, or into a dense crowd, the Barbarian may not be able to get line-of-sight on any of them within one move, and thus can't make a ranged attack. Even on an infinite open plain, thrown weapon ranges are relatively short, and will quickly be surpassed by Dashing enemies. Missile weapon ranges are longer, but require dropping your melee weapon to be able to be drawn and fired on the same turn. And a Barbarian with a shield simply cannot draw and fire a missile weapon fast enough.

Even in situations where the Barbarian can make a Ranged attack against retreating foes, by only taking a single move instead of Dashing, the Barbarian both makes it less likely to be able to continue to make Ranged attacks in subsequent rounds (as the range grows, total cover is more likely) and also is gaining zero benefit from Rage (so keeping it up is less important). Conversely, if the Barbarian Dashed after the fleeing foes, it would be able to take advantage of Fast Movement to get in position to make an opportunity attack if the enemies continue to flee (and engage them in melee if they don't)--Rage would be a great help, but will have already ended. I don't want Rage mechanics that are incompatible with chasing down fleeing/manuevering foes.


- Archers can target you if you are the "most valid" target -> chance to take damage and sustain rage.
- You can also, again, activate your brain and *use a frigging ranged weapon attack* (light hammer, javelin, shortbow, even some magic weapon).
- You can also count on allies hitting you simply as part of an AOE (you being the bait, them unleashing it because they know the HP you lose won't put you down yet allow to clean or severely hurt a whole group -especially if Bear Barb or Sorcerer caster).
- You can also move back after having used Reckless Attack (and yet having missed both attacks) so enemy hits you with OA.
- You can also have an ally buff your speed (Haste/Fly) to ensure you always can get into range.
- You can also have an ally restrain enemies so they can't escape you (Plant Growth cast when you and enemies are close, Entangle, Ensnaring Strike / Earthbound on a flyer etc).
- You can also *Grapple* an enemy yourself to ensure you always have something to hit (and someone to try and hit you).

-Yes, archers can target the Barbarian. That doesn't mean there are any enemy enemy archers, or that they will target the Barbarian. As a DM I'm not going to metagame target selection to help (or hurt) the Barbarian. This helps some of the time, but evidently isn't enough to stop Barbarians from falling out of Rage too frequently at my table.
-See above for my discussion of why ranged/thrown weapons are an insufficient solution.
-If the Barbarian is close enough to the enemies to be damaged by an AoE, then they are almost always close enough to move and make a melee attack.
-Unless you ready an action to move off-turn, any opportunity attacks you provoke will occur on your own turn. This strategy thus don't extend Rage any longer than simply attacking on your own turn.
-Haste and Fly definitely help. They're good spells, but I have no interest in over-incentivizing their use merely to compensate for how the finnicky Rage mechanics interact with my DMing style. Instead I want the casters to be able to organically select spells to cast based on the tactical situation, rather than having to routinely spend concentration in case the enemies flee or manuever. (Haste and Fly are only helpful solutions in response to the enemy fleeing/manuevering if the caster happens to take their turn after the opponents and before the Barbarian.)
-Restraining enemies helps a lot. When the enemies are close enough together that the majority can be restrained at the same time, then a Barbarian would have no trouble keeping up Rage until they are dispatched. It does not help the Barbarian keep up Rage when dealing with any leftover enemies. Depending on how many enemies are leftover, this may still be significant.
-Grappling helps until the Barbarian has killed the opponent they've Grappled. It doesn't help keep Rage up after that.

[sophontteks]

Yet another reason why barbarians should pick up eagle/elk totem. Enemies can't kite barbarians when they can move 80-110 feet per round without using their action. Especially not when barbarians can fly at the same speed later on. The big problem with barbarians is that the other archtypes are kind of lackluster in comparison. I'd go so far as saying the other options are traps.

[LudicSavant]

- You can also move back after having used Reckless Attack (and yet having missed both attacks) so enemy hits you with OA.
That is not how the rage mechanic works.

If you have made an attack against a hostile creature, whether it misses or not, you continue to rage. Provoking the OA here is pointlessly self-destructive.

[Citan]

Uhm, what? The italicized statement simply claims that the potential for Barbarians to lose rage by deciding to dash toward a fleeing enemy, or for them to maintain rage by punching themselves, exists because of the designers' decisions. If the rule were written differently, that potential for ludonarrative dissonance, or "feeling kinda clunky" as you put it, would not exist.

Nothing in the rest of your post appears to address the italicized statement, which makes no comment on tactical viability or balance or the like.
Simply put, the Barbarian fuels his rage on "hurt". Hurt he feels inflicting when landing a hit on enemy, hurt he feels when someone damages him.

My post was about: if you play correctly, you should rarely encounter that limitation.
You can put it aside and let the player act recklessly and without any tactical awareness, but that is not at all something beneficial for him to do.

Barbarian is all about taking hits and trying to land hits.


That is not how the rage mechanic works.

If you have made an attack against a hostile creature, whether it misses or not, you continue to rage. Provoking the OA here is pointlessly self-destructive.
Thanks for that, was away from books and spoke from memory (Barbarian is far from my favorite class so my last time playing it was long time ago ^^).

Well then, people have even less reason to whine about the limitation. Just use a thrown attack at disadvantage or draw an arrow, done.
Seriously, thanks to your precision the only somewhat difficult situation (landing an actual hit) is now irrelevant to keep rage.


It is not in any way my intention to suggest that I play smarter than my players. Instead, I'm saying that the tactical choices I make for NPCs (many of which, for RP reasons, are sub-optimal) lead to Barbarians dropping out of Rage more often than at other tables. I further suspect that Barbarians drop of Rage more often at my table than the designers expected when they balanced the Rage feature. Accordingly, I let Rage last the full minute at my table to compensate for the balance impact of my DMing style.

Please note that a ranged/thrown weapon certainly helps, but is not a universal solution. When the enemies have fled/retreated around a corner in a dungeon or city, and that corner is more than one move away, it is impossible to make an attack with a ranged or thrown weapon. Similarly, if enemies scatter in an old-growth forest, or in uneven terrain, or into a dense crowd, the Barbarian may not be able to get line-of-sight on any of them within one move, and thus can't make a ranged attack. Even on an infinite open plain, thrown weapon ranges are relatively short, and will quickly be surpassed by Dashing enemies. Missile weapon ranges are longer, but require dropping your melee weapon to be able to be drawn and fired on the same turn. And a Barbarian with a shield simply cannot draw and fire a missile weapon fast enough.

Even in situations where the Barbarian can make a Ranged attack against retreating foes, by only taking a single move instead of Dashing, the Barbarian both makes it less likely to be able to continue to make Ranged attacks in subsequent rounds (as the range grows, total cover is more likely) and also is gaining zero benefit from Rage (so keeping it up is less important). Conversely, if the Barbarian Dashed after the fleeing foes, it would be able to take advantage of Fast Movement to get in position to make an opportunity attack if the enemies continue to flee (and engage them in melee if they don't)--Rage would be a great help, but will have already ended. I don't want Rage mechanics that are incompatible with chasing down fleeing/manuevering foes.



-Yes, archers can target the Barbarian. That doesn't mean there are any enemy enemy archers, or that they will target the Barbarian. As a DM I'm not going to metagame target selection to help (or hurt) the Barbarian. This helps some of the time, but evidently isn't enough to stop Barbarians from falling out of Rage too frequently at my table.
-See above for my discussion of why ranged/thrown weapons are an insufficient solution.
-If the Barbarian is close enough to the enemies to be damaged by an AoE, then they are almost always close enough to move and make a melee attack.
-Unless you ready an action to move off-turn, any opportunity attacks you provoke will occur on your own turn. This strategy thus don't extend Rage any longer than simply attacking on your own turn.
-Haste and Fly definitely help. They're good spells, but I have no interest in over-incentivizing their use merely to compensate for how the finnicky Rage mechanics interact with my DMing style. Instead I want the casters to be able to organically select spells to cast based on the tactical situation, rather than having to routinely spend concentration in case the enemies flee or manuever. (Haste and Fly are only helpful solutions in response to the enemy fleeing/manuevering if the caster happens to take their turn after the opponents and before the Barbarian.)
-Restraining enemies helps a lot. When the enemies are close enough together that the majority can be restrained at the same time, then a Barbarian would have no trouble keeping up Rage until they are dispatched. It does not help the Barbarian keep up Rage when dealing with any leftover enemies. Depending on how many enemies are leftover, this may still be significant.
-Grappling helps until the Barbarian has killed the opponent they've Grappled. It doesn't help keep Rage up after that.
Your description makes it much clearer why Barbarian would have some trouble keeping up rage, but then I have a simple question. How and when does your player decide to rage? How often does he keep a ranged weapon in case of?

Also, you seem to have enemies play tactically. So, again, honest question, why are Barbarian's players not helping him, or do they try and fail and they why?
Using difficult terrain is very helpful when it's all about enemies dashing away and getting besides full cover (which incidentally does not prevent Barbarian to try a ranged attack: unless creature Hides, Barbarian knows where it is, it just will automatically miss).
Casters could also block their retreat (or make it at least hurtful) with a Wall of sorts.
Or simply use spells that paralyze/restrain enemies.

Regarding Haste/Fly, you should have no weight either in how players play obviously, but if someone in group has it, he should use it. Not systematically for sure, but it should at least cross his mind.

Similarly, you have no reason to metagame enemy targeting "in favor" of Barbarian, but isn't the group helping in any way? Casters/archers could put themselves prone, Fighters (especially EK) can display their great AC, etc...

I'm not saying the whole group should babysit the Barb, far from it. But if you're saying you won't change your way to manage because you think it's fine or whatever else reason (you're the DM, you decide ;)) yet Barb loses rage so often then it's up to the party to see what they can do to help. It may be changing/learning spells, spending more time in information gathering to set up ambushes or at least secure battlefield conditions, etc.

Because if in most fights party ends chasing up enemies in hostile environment or letting them secure themselves in a safe place, maybe they are just too hasty in confronting enemy factions. :)

EDIT: also, as a reminder, I have no quarrel or any argument (or even judgement) about how you run your games. As long as everyone has fun, whatever works.
I'm arguing in the thread just in the context of suggesting to generalize this houserule to all games as a "fix" for a "problem" which imo does not exist. :)

[LudicSavant]

Thanks for that, was away from books and spoke from memory (Barbarian is far from my favorite class so my last time playing it was long time ago ^^).

Well then, people have even less reason to whine about the limitation. Just use a thrown attack at disadvantage or draw an arrow, done.
Seriously, thanks to your precision the only somewhat difficult situation (landing an actual hit) is now irrelevant to keep rage.

If an enemy standing 100 feet away is your idea of the most difficult scenario for maintaining rage, then you are not playing at a table farther towards the "Tucker's kobolds in the Tippyverse" end of the spectrum and you won't need to worry about losing rage much.

[Citan]

If an enemy standing 100 feet away is your idea of the most difficult scenario for maintaining rage, then you are not playing at a table farther towards the "Tucker's kobolds in the Tippyverse" end of the spectrum and you won't need to worry about losing rage much.
This post is as non-constructive as one could make. I never said or even implied such a thing.
You're borderline insulting. Good for you.

I'll stop answering before this escalates.

[LudicSavant]

I never said or even implied such a thing.

Your words were thus:


Well then, people have even less reason to whine about the limitation. Just use a thrown attack at disadvantage or draw an arrow, done.
Seriously, thanks to your precision the only somewhat difficult situation (landing an actual hit) is now irrelevant to keep rage.

The way I read this is that you feel that the only difficult situation is resolved by the combination of the "hit or miss" feature of rage and using a ranged weapon. From this I can infer that you think that distance to the target and miss chance are the main obstacles here (because why else would ranged weapons be a solution?). And those are definitely not the kinds of situations I was talking about as shutting down Barbarian rage.

What I was trying to say is that if that's the only difficult obstacle at your table, your Barbarian will be fine and you don't need to worry about losing your rage. Don't worry and have fun! Barbarians falling out of rage won't be an issue for you.


again, activate your brain and *use a frigging ranged weapon attack*

whine about the limitation

This post is as non-constructive as one could make.

Good for you.

You're borderline insulting.

:smallconfused:

[ThePolarBear]

Off topic, but relevant for people like me to understand how the thread developed:

Can someone point out to some resource where can one person catch up on what "Tuckers Kobolds" are?
I googled, but i want to be sure to be on the same boat.

[DeTess]

Off topic, but relevant for people like me to understand how the thread developed:

Can someone point out to some resource where can one person catch up on what "Tuckers Kobolds" are?
I googled, but i want to be sure to be on the same boat.

https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/TuckersKobolds.pdf

This is the story. basically Tucker's kobolds where basic kobolds given a realistic homefield advantage, and played in an absolutely devious way. They are a prime example of what 'combat as war' looks like.

[ThePolarBear]

https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/TuckersKobolds.pdf

This is the story. basically Tucker's kobolds where basic kobolds given a realistic homefield advantage, and played in an absolutely devious way. They are a prime example of what 'combat as war' looks like.

Thank you, that was exactly what i found by googling. Confirmation acquired!

[N810]

Let me tell you I ran a Berserker last campaign all the way to lvl 20.
I got rather good at staying enraged,
Because man you do not want to drop out of frenzy mid boss fight.

You are a barb, you are proficient in every weapon, carry a variety,
and don't forget long rang range weapons, and ensnaring weapons.
A grappling hook or other similar devise is also a must.

Since you don't get spells, stock up on basic dungeoneering supplies.
Lamp oil, ball bearings, flour, rope, matches, etc.

[Xetheral]

Your description makes it much clearer why Barbarian would have some trouble keeping up rage, but then I have a simple question. How and when does your player decide to rage? How often does he keep a ranged weapon in case of?

Also, you seem to have enemies play tactically. So, again, honest question, why are Barbarian's players not helping him, or do they try and fail and they why?
Using difficult terrain is very helpful when it's all about enemies dashing away and getting besides full cover (which incidentally does not prevent Barbarian to try a ranged attack: unless creature Hides, Barbarian knows where it is, it just will automatically miss).
Casters could also block their retreat (or make it at least hurtful) with a Wall of sorts.
Or simply use spells that paralyze/restrain enemies.

Regarding Haste/Fly, you should have no weight either in how players play obviously, but if someone in group has it, he should use it. Not systematically for sure, but it should at least cross his mind.

Similarly, you have no reason to metagame enemy targeting "in favor" of Barbarian, but isn't the group helping in any way? Casters/archers could put themselves prone, Fighters (especially EK) can display their great AC, etc...

I'm not saying the whole group should babysit the Barb, far from it. But if you're saying you won't change your way to manage because you think it's fine or whatever else reason (you're the DM, you decide ;)) yet Barb loses rage so often then it's up to the party to see what they can do to help. It may be changing/learning spells, spending more time in information gathering to set up ambushes or at least secure battlefield conditions, etc.

Because if in most fights party ends chasing up enemies in hostile environment or letting them secure themselves in a safe place, maybe they are just too hasty in confronting enemy factions. :)

EDIT: also, as a reminder, I have no quarrel or any argument (or even judgement) about how you run your games. As long as everyone has fun, whatever works.
I'm arguing in the thread just in the context of suggesting to generalize this houserule to all games as a "fix" for a "problem" which imo does not exist. :)

Thank you for clarifying in your edit. I've already retracted my suggestion that this houserule is a good change generally, so I don't know that there is much more to discuss.

As for whether or not the problem actually exists at my table, I think we have philosophical differences (e.g. the value of teaching "correct" play; incentivizing party members to select tactics to ameliorate finicky rules) and rule differently on other issues (e.g. I don't allow attacking opponents behind full cover without weapons that can ignore that cover), so I don't think we're likely to reach agreement.