Changing the way Rage works...

[CTurbo]

So I really like the way rage works in 5e except for one thing.... the fact that you CHOOSE to rage. I don't like that you can just decide to rage whenever you want. I think it makes more sense for it to be reactive instead. So I'm thinking about trying out my homebrew idea. I'm open to suggestions.


The key change here is Rage happens with a reaction instead of a bonus action. The other big change is it's completely involuntary. This is the main part I'm still trying to work out. I'm thinking that any time you take damage, you roll a DC check(to be determined). On a PASS, you go into a rage. I'm thinking that the DC can lower as you level up allowing you to go into a rage easier. The rest of the rage mechanics would stay the same except I would probably remove the limit to how many times you can rage on a rest, or keep the limit but change it to renew on a short rest instead of long rest. I'm also wondering if I shouldn't penalize for raging TOO often in between a rest. Maybe 1 level of Exhaustion? Exhaustion is brutal, but I have a hard time seeing any Barb raging too many times between a short rest that you rack up more than one level of exhaustion. There does need to be some kind of drawback to being able to rage more often. I like risk reward.


Opinions? Is it too strong? Not strong enough?

What is a good way to do the DC check thing? DC15 at level 1 and it drops -1 every third level topping out at DC9? DC 20 minus Con mod?

If I remove the amount of rages you get per rest, should I add in new features in it's place?

Should there be other ways to trigger rage besides just taking damage? What about if you get berated, humiliated, or embarrassed in public? What if your friend gets killed in front of you? Should you get advantage on your check if you get hit with a crit?

[Unoriginal]

I wouldn't change Rage for my game, personally, but if you want to make it involuntary could make so that it triggers whenever the Barbarian takes damage or is hit by a spell, with an ability check to resist it.

In any case, if it's involuntary, it certainly shouldn't cost any action, bonus action or reaction.

Giving Barbarians more Rages per long rest would probably be required to compensate the nerf, though.

[strangebloke]

I really don't see the need for this, but even assuming that involuntary raging is desirable, there are a few issues with your idea.


People can choose to fail a save. Therefore this isn't involuntary, its more like a guy getting hit is desperately trying to feel angry about that thing.
If you do make it involuntary, but with attendant levels of exhaustion, a player could potentially be killed by someone doing hit-and-run tactics against them so that they're forced to rage over and over.


Honestly to achieve this I would make it completely automatic. You get hit, rage flips on. In practice I find that Barbarians really don't have trouble managing the number of their rages, and giving the class 1 to 2 more rages a day on average isn't really going to change anything. If anything, having to wait to be damaged before turning rage on makes it worse, because you can't activate it yourself if you win initiative, and you might go a whole combat with Rage never firing.

Maybe have them attempt to stay calm with a WIS save if they want.

[nickl_2000]

I would talk to any player that it playing a barbarian prior to making this change. While it could be fun, you are taking away the player agency over their character (what I mean by this is that you are making this central part of a class based on chance instead of a choice for the player). This can certainly work and be fun (see wild magic sorcerer), but you should get player buy in before you do it.

[AvatarVecna]

I wouldn't change Rage for my game, personally, but if you want to make it involuntary could make so that it triggers whenever the Barbarian takes damage or is hit by a spell, with an ability check to resist it.

In any case, if it's involuntary, it certainly shouldn't cost any action, bonus action or reaction.

Giving Barbarians more Rages per long rest would probably be required to compensate the nerf, though.

Honestly, even making rages per short might not be sufficient. Ignoring for the moment that you're taking away the barbarian's only real tactical choice (Reckless Attack is there, but realistically "to rage or not to rage" is the question, and they don't get to ask it of themselves anymore), it makes them extremely vulnerable to hit-and-run tactics. Sure, normally if a barbarian rages, the enemy can choose to run rather than engage to try and make him waste the usage. But now all you have to do to waste the barbarian's rage is snipe him from a distance far enough that he can't move up and attack in time to prevent the rage from ending; it's entirely within the enemy's control, and starts arguments about whether the DM is using tactics with an eye towards ******* over the barbarian, or whether he's just playing the enemies as intended, or whether he chose skirmisher-style enemies specifically so he could use "just playing my character" as a defense for ******* over the barbarian.

If you had at-will Rage from level 1, this could maybe be balanced, since it becomes more of a "if you took damage this round, you get these bonuses for the round", but that still puts the rage triggering entirely under the DM's control, so while it might be balanced, it still wouldn't be fair.

[stoutstien]

I don't know how gating rage behind random roll will work out. Could waste a rage on a kobold and then not rage vs the green dragon.
Same reason wild magic sorcerer are considered weak even if they are not is randomness isn't something you can plan around.

I could get on board with reaction rage activation.

[Bloodcloud]

Not a fan. Rage is a major barbarian class feature, taking control away from the player on using it sounds like a bad idea and unfun. Player agency is actually very important.

[CTurbo]

I see what you guys are saying, but as far as hit and run tactics... for one thing, that's kinda meta for the DM to do that. Secondly, hit and run tactics could work right now the way rage already is, and I've never seen a DM try to exploit it. Finally, I would not force this change on an unwilling player. I would try it out on somebody willing to play test it.

What if rage was a little bit harder to fall out of then instead of just one round of not taking damage or attacking?

I've considered the idea of having it happen reactively but as a free action instead of with the reaction, but I feel that may be too strong. I have thought about having features attached to raging as in-

"When you go into a rage, you can immediately move up to half your speed towards the enemy that damaged you" (would full speed be too OP?)

or

"When you go into a rage, you can immediately make a melee weapon attack against the enemy who damaged you if they are within your reach" (this would be a high level feature)

[Darkstar952]

People can choose to fail a save. Therefore this isn't involuntary, its more like a guy getting hit is desperately trying to feel angry about that thing.




I've seen this mentioned by a few forum users, is there any source that supports that as RAW as I don't remember reading anything that you could willingly fail a save

[CTurbo]

I appreciate the answers so far.


As far as a player choosing to fail... that's why I made it so you had to PASS the check to rage. You WANT to rage. I get the taking the control away is a big thing, but it's also supposed to be somewhat easy to rage, and I figured allowing them to rage more often would be a good enough payoff.

In regards to penalizing the Barb for raging too much... I could see dropping that completely, or just making it REALLY hard to hit that point. I just didn't want to have the Barb raging 15 times between rests at level 1 or anything.

[Admael]

As someone's who's playing a barbarian at the moment, I don't like this at all.

Raging isn't being mad about getting hit. By that logic, every character should be forced to possibly rage when they get hit. A Barbarian's Rage is about harnessing that fire they keep within themselves, stoking it so that it erupts when they need it to.

Think of it like Bruce Banner and the Hulk from the 2012 Avengers film. Bruce is always angry, but he chooses when to let his anger erupt and transform him into the Hulk.

[Bjarkmundur]

Now that we've established that a player could choose this change, we can talk about it. A player's choice to have no choice is his choice, after all.

Rages per day is out, obviously. This doesn't worry me, since we are looking at the type of player who picks this change, and that's not the type of player we worry about having too many rages.

Rage is a reaction to being targeted with a spell or an attack. You can make a Wisdom saving throw in order to not rage.

Rage is now a targeted effect, that is, you only get the damage bonus from raging against creature who has targeted you with an effect in the last 1 minute. If you end your turn without attacking, moving towards or roaring at any target of your rage, you take 1d6 psychic damage.

You can make a Wisdom saving throw at the start of any of your turns to stop raging. You can gain an advantage on the saving throw by using a bonus action.

Now we have a hulk. This will make the game pretty fun, since the party has to adapt its strategy to having a rage monster, and fleeing is very difficult.
It's best that this character dislikes violence and raging, so he doesn't just play out as a murder hobo. I can see how tense this version makes social encounters and negotiations.

[JackPhoenix]

I've seen this mentioned by a few forum users, is there any source that supports that as RAW as I don't remember reading anything that you could willingly fail a save

No. You can't willingly choose to fail a save in 5e.


Snip

Barbarian isn't MAD enough for you, you want them to need high Wisdom too? They don't have proficiency in Wis saves, and while Wisdom isn't the least needed attribute for barbarian (that honor goes to Intelligence), it takes 2nd to last place (because Cha is used for Berserker)

[Bjarkmundur]

Hm, good point..
Give him an arbitrary bonus to the not rage saving throw. Its just one character, so I doesn't have to be publishable, just fun to play.

My Barbarian player had this to say
"Hulk (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?593615-Barbarian-Archetype-Path-of-the-Hulk/page3) should have his own subclass (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/8u0dh0/path_of_the_war_hulk_5e_barbarian_archetype/) tbh"

[Trustypeaches]

I see what you guys are saying, but as far as hit and run tactics... for one thing, that's kinda meta for the DM to do that. Secondly, hit and run tactics could work right now the way rage already is, and I've never seen a DM try to exploit it.Really?

I have NPCs and Monsters run away from players all the time. A frothing berserker foaming at the mouth might be enough to get anyone to run away, and enemies that are wise to how player's magic or features work (scrying, general knowledge of magic, etc), could totally use Hit and Run tactics to bait out spell and feature uses.

[jh12]

As someone's who's playing a barbarian at the moment, I don't like this at all.

Raging isn't being mad about getting hit. By that logic, every character should be forced to possibly rage when they get hit. A Barbarian's Rage is about harnessing that fire they keep within themselves, stoking it so that it erupts when they need it to.

Think of it like Bruce Banner and the Hulk from the 2012 Avengers film. Bruce is always angry, but he chooses when to let his anger erupt and transform him into the Hulk.

Put me solidly in this camp. Making rage involuntary would transform a barbarian from a warrior into a beast.

[ImproperJustice]

Yeah.
I think I see where this is thematically but I think the high concept behind the Barbarian isn’t just that they have this berserk rage, but that they have learned how to control it, contain it, and then unleash it as they desire.

By comparison, imagine if the Paladin had to start random checking if they smite something each time they hit a foe?

[Grod_The_Giant]

The problem with involving a check is that you WANT to rage as much as possible. There aren't really any downsides. What you're looking for, I think, is something more like the Frenzied Berserker in 3.5, where the power is a double-edged sword.

Something like "you can choose to go into a rage whenever you take damage. A rage lasts for a number of rounds equal to your Con modifier, and you must keep fighting throughout. If there are no enemies left, you turn on your allies. At the end of your turn, you may attempt a DC 10 Wisdom save to end your rage early."

Bjarkmundur's idea is another good example of this sort of thing-- you get power, but at the cost of tactical flexibility (and possibly damage). There's a reason to want to rage, and there's a reason to NOT want to rage.

[AvatarVecna]

I see what you guys are saying, but as far as hit and run tactics... for one thing, that's kinda meta for the DM to do that. Secondly, hit and run tactics could work right now the way rage already is, and I've never seen a DM try to exploit it. Finally, I would not force this change on an unwilling player. I would try it out on somebody willing to play test it.

What if rage was a little bit harder to fall out of then instead of just one round of not taking damage or attacking?

I've considered the idea of having it happen reactively but as a free action instead of with the reaction, but I feel that may be too strong. I have thought about having features attached to raging as in-

"When you go into a rage, you can immediately move up to half your speed towards the enemy that damaged you" (would full speed be too OP?)

or

"When you go into a rage, you can immediately make a melee weapon attack against the enemy who damaged you if they are within your reach" (this would be a high level feature)

Your DMs are handling you with kids gloves then. Hit-and-run, kiting, or just plain "starting the fight from long range" are all perfectly standard tactical methods of engaging with a hulking melee brute, that just so happen to utterly screw over a barbarian who raged prematurely when he couldn't be sure he'd be able to maintain it. Under the existing rules, barbarians counter this tactic by being selective with how they deploy their rage - you don't rage as soon as archers start shooting at you unless they're close enough for you to be beating in their skulls within 10 seconds; instead, you chase them down and rage once you have them cornered. Raging mindlessly as soon as combat starts, even in utterly normal adventuring scenarios, is a good way to waste your rage, and spending it widely is one of the first lessons any barbarian learns.

This change dumbs down the only truly tactical choice barbarians get to make for the sole "upside" of a slight shift in action economy that arguably isn't even an upgrade.

[Rukelnikov]

You're pretty much describing a Frenzy Berserker.

It wouldn't be difficult to make it into a subclass, your 3rd lvl feature would change the way Rage works so you can't choose to start a rage, but must roll something when taking damage from a creature or enter a special kind of rage called Frenzy. A Frenzy only ends when there are no creatures standing within some range of you (60 ft? 100ft?), but you can make a check to end it early.

Take into account that this change practiacally removes Feral Instinct from the game, only being useful when you are surprised and an enemy that acts before you targets you.

[CTurbo]

I'm open to suggestions on how to change rage from a bonus action to the reaction while still offering the player some control. I figured that taking away the decision would be fine if I also allowed the character to rage more often, but it seems like it's still as overwhelming no from everybody. Note: I have discussed this with 2 different people that I play with in real life and both seem on board with the idea and think that it would end up being stronger overall despite the lack of character control.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm open to suggestions on how to change rage from a bonus action to the reaction while still offering the player some control. I figured that taking away the decision would be fine if I also allowed the character to rage more often, but it seems like it's still as overwhelming no from everybody. Note: I have discussed this with 2 different people that I play with in real life and both seem on board with the idea and think that it would end up being stronger overall despite the lack of character control.

Then go ahead with it. They are the ones that are gonna be playing, if they are on board go for it.

[LtPowers]

So I really like the way rage works in 5e except for one thing.... the fact that you CHOOSE to rage. I don't like that you can just decide to rage whenever you want. I think it makes more sense for it to be reactive instead. So I'm thinking about trying out my homebrew idea. I'm open to suggestions.

But what is your goal? You say you don't like it, but what don't you like about it? What is your goal in making a change? What problem are you trying to solve (besides "I don't like it")?


Powers &8^]

[CTurbo]

But what is your goal? You say you don't like it, but what don't you like about it? What is your goal in making a change? What problem are you trying to solve (besides "I don't like it")?


Powers &8^]



I don't like that you can just decide to rage. It's silly. I think it would fit better as a reaction.

I like messing around with homebrew stuff sometimes.

[SirGraystone]

I think rage is fine as is but of you want to have it as a reaction, each time you receive damage, I would make it a Wisdom save DC 10 or half the receive damage. If you fails the save then you rage, if make the save you control yourself and don't rage. And of course you can choose to fail the save without rolling.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't like that you can just decide to rage. It's silly. I think it would fit better as a reaction.

I like messing around with homebrew stuff sometimes.
You could just switch it to "when you take damage (or make a melee weapon attack?), you may choose to start a rage as a reaction."

[CTurbo]

You could just switch it to "when you take damage (or make a melee weapon attack?), you may choose to start a rage as a reaction."

May end up doing something like this

[No brains]

To be most specific about choosing to fail a save, there are specific spells where one may choose to fail their save, such as Calm Emotions.

Regarding the main point, choosing to rage is what separates a barbarian from some angry guy. Training in the barbarian class lets people use their rage, not fall victim to it. If you wanted to introduce a race, background, or magic item that could induce a chance to rage, that could be cool, but I enjoy the fluff and crunch of rage as it is.

Another suggestion is to make rage trigger in response to ability checks. Getting grabbed can set people off and so can failing to pick a lock for half an hour.

[Bjarkmundur]

so can failing to pick a lock for half an hour.

I've totally been there, both in DnD and when I was practicing lockpicking padlocks with a friend of mine xD

[Man_Over_Game]

I disagree. I think limiting the Barbarian Rage to be reactive and uncontrolled would not only hurt the class, but also force the Rage feature to be an aspect of Wrath.

When I picture an Ancestral Guardian or an Ice Storm Herald, I don't picture a protector who's channeling their unbridled desire to kill someone. I also expect my players to have the option of having that opinion, too. Similarly, I don't expect a Wizard to be required to have their spellbook be an actual book.

I get the idea could be thematic, but it'd be something I'd expect more on a specific Barbarian subclass rather than the class as a whole.

[LtPowers]

I don't like that you can just decide to rage. It's silly. I think it would fit better as a reaction.

So your complaint is aesthetic, not mechanical? There's nothing stopping any player of a Barbarian from narrating rage as an involuntary state. Why make it a mechanical rule if your complaint is about the flavor?

The other problem with your proposed change is that a lot of people flavor the Barbarian mechanics as something other than unbridled anger. Intense focus is a popular one, making the Barbarian kind of a Strength- and Constitution-based martial artist. Making rage involuntary would disrupt those reflavorings.


Powers &8^]

[NOMster]

Yeah it's an ability they have learned to control and channel.

[Bjarkmundur]

Give the poor man a break guys xD

[Wuzza]

So I really like the way rage works in 5e except for one thing.... the fact that you CHOOSE to rage. I don't like that you can just decide to rage whenever you want. I think it makes more sense for it to be reactive instead. So I'm thinking about trying out my homebrew idea. I'm open to suggestions.


I totally stole this from Critical Roll, and would ideally be implemented with player approval. (I suppose you could call it anger or some such)
The Barb in my party was roleplay diss'd last session, and I made him make a save vs DC10 to control his anger with the NPC. He made it, so I described it as he could feel his anger increasing, but managed to control it. I wouldn't have made it count towards his daily rage, but found it an interesting concept.
It's something I'm going to explore with PC next session.

[Damon_Tor]

So I really like the way rage works in 5e except for one thing.... the fact that you CHOOSE to rage. I don't like that you can just decide to rage whenever you want. I think it makes more sense for it to be reactive instead. So I'm thinking about trying out my homebrew idea. I'm open to suggestions.

The PLAYER chooses to rage, not the CHARACTER. That's an extremely relevant distinction.

There are many abilities which put choices into the players hands which are not strictly a simulation of the characters' decisions. When you use one of your Lucky rolls, for example, that's not the character thinking "time to be lucky" that's the player choosing to apply that particular game element at that particular moment.

Unless, of course, you want it to be.

[CTurbo]

The PLAYER chooses to rage, not the CHARACTER. That's an extremely relevant distinction.

There are many abilities which put choices into the players hands which are not strictly a simulation of the characters' decisions. When you use one of your Lucky rolls, for example, that's not the character thinking "time to be lucky" that's the player choosing to apply that particular game element at that particular moment.

Unless, of course, you want it to be.


Yeah I get that. I still don't like it.


And again, I would not force this change on an unwilling player.