Barbarian rage

[Waazraath]

Situation: combat starts. The foe is 100ft away, out of melee range. Round 1. The barbarian spends his turn moving full speed towards the foe; uses his neckless of fireballs. Activiates rage.

Question 1 (RAW): does the rage immediately ends, due to not having made an attack or being dealt damage last turn?

Question 2 (RAI): if 1 is correct, how do you think about the DM ruling 'bugger that, bbn took full move towards the foe and damaged them, rage doesn't end'?

[DwarfDM]

Q1: The barbarian casted a spell. This is considered an attack (it is under the attack options).

So sure, the rage description does not have the requirement that the attack must have been during the rage.

Edit: An attack requires an attack roll, so the answer RAW would be no becouse fireball has a saving throw. But if you cast fireball on me, I would personaly consider it an attack.

Q2: I would allow it (rule of cool).

[Zhorn]

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.
SO long as you have either done something that meets the definition of 'attack' against a hostile creature or take damage since your last turn, you're in the clear.
If your DM ends your Rage at the end of the first turn you active it, while technically within their purview under RAW, is more of a sign of them intentionally making it hard on you.
1 round grace from the moment of activation is pretty common courtesy

[MaxWilson]

Situation: combat starts. The foe is 100ft away, out of melee range. Round 1. The barbarian spends his turn moving full speed towards the foe; uses his neckless of fireballs. Activiates rage.

Question 1 (RAW): does the rage immediately ends, due to not having made an attack or being dealt damage last turn?

Question 2 (RAI): if 1 is correct, how do you think about the DM ruling 'bugger that, bbn took full move towards the foe and damaged them, rage doesn't end'?

#1 is correct, but #2 is acceptable as long as the DM is not capricious. I.e. this had better not be the first and only time the DM decides that the RAW is dumb and needs to be changed. If the same DM later ruled that you a monster whom you have charmed can still Fireball you because Fireball isn't technically an attack, I would be surprised and taken-aback.

[Mr Adventurer]

Edit: An attack requires an attack roll

Where does it say this?

[Zhorn]

Where does it say this?

It's a RAW based rules-lawyer thing based on the order of operations of Making an Attack (PHB p 193).
For an attack to be an "attack" you must:

Choose a target
Determine modifiers
Resolve the attack
If there's no attack roll, by definition it falls over at (3).

This is where you get rulings such as Magic Missile or Dragon's Breath (the use action effect, not the spell) not being an attack, the former not activating Hex damage since there's no attack roll for (3), and the later being usable by familiars for not choosing a target for (1)

[NorthernPhoenix]

I wouldn't allow this and i generally don't try to gatcha people on Rage. I don't think trying to game people out of their rage is very fair, but i do like people to at least try to be on theme, so throwing axes will get you better results than throwing fireballs, even if the axes can't possibly hit. I would also tell the person this before they potentially lost rage, rather than after.

[Zhorn]

I wouldn't allow this and i generally don't try to gatcha people on Rage. I don't think trying to game people out of their rage is very fair, but i do like people to at least try to be on theme, so throwing axes will get you better results than throwing fireballs, even if the axes can't possibly hit. I would also tell the person this before they potentially lost rage, rather than after.

The big question with this though (table ruling) would you end the players rage at the end of that same turn that they activated it if those other conditions have not been met?

Say for example, they move, do the fireball THEN as an afterthought pop Rage as a defensive / preparation for their next turn?

[Starbuck_II]

Q1: The barbarian casted a spell. This is considered an attack (it is under the attack options).

So sure, the rage description does not have the requirement that the attack must have been during the rage.

Edit: An attack requires an attack roll, so the answer RAW would be no becouse fireball has a saving throw. But if you cast fireball on me, I would personaly consider it an attack.

Q2: I would allow it (rule of cool).

So, he would have to throw a rock?

[Cikomyr2]

So, he would have to throw a rock?

"If I try to spit at my enemy, does it count as a ranged attack?"

[Lupine]

"If I try to spit at my enemy, does it count as a ranged attack?"

Hey, it says that barbarian has to make an attack. It does not specify that the attack must be effective

I believe there was a thread about this earlier, where someone said, "It doesn't have to be effective. You could throw a rock. You could throw your shoe. You could even throw the party wizard."
Along these lines, It's not a bad idea for a barbarian to carry a ranged weapon, such as a sling or a hand crossbow, simply so that he can maintain his rage, as long as someone is within 120 feet from him. They may not do much damage, but they do enough to make the rage keep going, and that's the only thing that really matters in that case.

[Zhorn]

Hey, it says that barbarian has to make an attack. It does not specify that the attack must be effective

I believe there was a thread about this earlier, where someone said, "It doesn't have to be effective. You could throw a rock. You could throw your shoe. You could even throw the party wizard."

Or a pie :smallbiggrin:
https://i.imgur.com/HPebqze.jpeg

[Mr Adventurer]

I always figured there was a reason Barbarians started with so many Javelins.

[NaughtyTiger]

"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."

is "attacked a hostile creature" the same as "make an attack" by RAW or referenced the Attack action?

inconclusive. RAW would say "and you haven't make an attack against a hostile creature"
it is perfectly reasonable to interpret "attacked a hostile creature" as plain english "attack" vs interpreting it as mechanical "make an attack"

therfore,
#1, not explicitly RAW, devs indicated RAI. however, devs also changed the rules of sanctuary because of this mechanic.
#2, perfectly fine with it

edit:
"if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack." is not the same as "you are only making an attack only if you're making an attack roll"

[Cikomyr2]

Hey, it says that barbarian has to make an attack. It does not specify that the attack must be effective

I believe there was a thread about this earlier, where someone said, "It doesn't have to be effective. You could throw a rock. You could throw your shoe. You could even throw the party wizard."
Along these lines, It's not a bad idea for a barbarian to carry a ranged weapon, such as a sling or a hand crossbow, simply so that he can maintain his rage, as long as someone is within 120 feet from him. They may not do much damage, but they do enough to make the rage keep going, and that's the only thing that really matters in that case.

The only problem is that attacking requires you to not dash, so you won't close the distance

[NaughtyTiger]

The only problem is that attacking requires you to not dash, so you won't close the distance

can be countered by abiities: rogue, goblin, eagle totem, orc aggressive, fighter, spells ...
not specified, but reasonable.

[NorthernPhoenix]

The big question with this though (table ruling) would you end the players rage at the end of that same turn that they activated it if those other conditions have not been met?

Say for example, they move, do the fireball THEN as an afterthought pop Rage as a defensive / preparation for their next turn?

I'd probably let them know they shouldn't pop Rage as an afterthought because they'd lose it. I feel that strikes a balance between keeping the spirit of the rule relevant while not unfairly "catching" the player.

[Cikomyr2]

can be countered by abiities: rogue, goblin, eagle totem, orc aggressive, fighter, spells ...
not specified, but reasonable.

There isn't a single one of the proposition you said that makes sacrificing your dash for an attack not true. All of these options just gives you the opportunity to be even faster.

For example: the cunning action. Sure. It will give you a dash for a bonus action. But you can still used your main action as a dash as well.

[da newt]

In order to use the necklace of fire balls, the wearer must use an action to detach a bead and throw it at the target(s). "When it reaches the end of it's trajectory, the bead detonates as a 3rd level fireball spell." The action is a throw, not casting a spell, but it might be Use an Object ... (Of note a barbarian cannot cast a spell while raging - but they certainly can toss beads)

Personally, I'd rule that throwing a bead at a target meets the intent of an attack.

[NaughtyTiger]

There isn't a single one of the proposition you said that makes sacrificing your dash for an attack not true. All of these options just gives you the opportunity to be even faster.

For example: the cunning action. Sure. It will give you a dash for a bonus action. But you can still used your main action as a dash as well.

I don't understand your point...
this is what i said in context:



attacking requires you to not dash
[you can dash and attack] by using by abilities: rogue, goblin, eagle totem, orc aggressive, fighter, spells ...


edit: larger context, rage is bonus action, so cast a spell+rage+ haste, tabaxi, action surge speed.

[Waazraath]

For your information: our talbe thought that RAW it wouldn't work, but everybody (including DM) thought that 'running up to enemies hurling something to hit them' was fulfilling the criteria as intended ('the spirit of the game', as someone phrased it nicely in this thread).

What I learned is that we might have been wrong on the RAW, given the ambiguous nature of the phrase 'attacked' (not 'made an attack roll' or 'weapon attack'). Anwyay, I agree with the folks saying that a DM could rule otherwise, and if he does, he should just mention it at the time the bbn declares he wants to start raging ('are u sure, cause it ends at the end of your turn).

Thanks all for the replies, was interesting and helpful.

[micahaphone]

Imagine a diplomatic scenario where the barbarian nukes the envoy's carriage because "necklace of fireballs isn't an attack"

[JackPhoenix]

Imagine a diplomatic scenario where the barbarian nukes the envoy's carriage because "necklace of fireballs isn't an attack"

Just because something isn't an attack as far as the game's mechanics are concerned doesn't mean it's not considered an attack from the in-character perspective. Harsh language can be an attack to some people.

[Segev]

Or a pie :smallbiggrin:
https://i.imgur.com/HPebqze.jpeg

What is that from? I feel like there’s context there that would be fun to read.

[Zhorn]

What is that from? I feel like there’s context there that would be fun to read.

It was a one-off made by Tricksy Wizard (https://www.tricksywizard.com/comics/2018/10/21/class-clown), they make a whole lot of single page comics.

I mostly just linked it because improvised weapons being such a broad definition, it allows for many fun objects to be used to meet the attack requirements.

The comic's context itself is to do with joke-characters intended for one-shots tend to be richer in personality and endearing to all the players at the table that they end up as more engaging for long term games than "serious" characters, where their connections to other characters feels more earned, and the risk to their lives is felt more dramatically.
I've heard it called "The Taako Principle", though the name used is swapped out every few months to the latest popular joke-character.

[Demonslayer666]

Saying you drop rage after charging an enemy seems rather silly when you just started raging.

As DM, I'd be inclined to rule this as 'attacking' if you closed with an enemy, rather than make them spend another rage.

[Sorinth]

RAW it's debatable whether the fireball counts as "having attacked". I mean I could see someone claiming that by RAW if a Barbarian in a rage attacks an illusionary monster then it doesn't count as having attacked a hostile creature because the illusion isn't technically a creature. But it's also not really following the spirit behind the ability.

Personally I think taking the Dash action to try and get close to an enemy should also sustain a rage. It's a small buff but should rarely factor into the game, and the times it does come into play, following the rules will always come across as being petty to the Barbarian. It's makes more sense to only break the rage when you are taking actions that are contrary to being enraged like spending an action to feed a downed ally a healing potion or taking the dodge action.

[Cikomyr2]

Saying you drop rage after charging an enemy seems rather silly when you just started raging.

As DM, I'd be inclined to rule this as 'attacking' if you closed with an enemy, rather than make them spend another rage.

I suppose a DM could change the rule to "overt hostile action". Charging someone at top speed to try to hit them with a sword in the next 20 seconds counts as a "hostile action" I dislike the idea that you could trick a barbarian into losing his rage just because you play keepaway

[Mith]

I suppose a DM could change the rule to "overt hostile action". Charging someone at top speed to try to hit them with a sword in the next 20 seconds counts as a "hostile action" I dislike the idea that you could trick a barbarian into losing his rage just because you play keepaway

I agree, though it does invalidate a higher level ribbon feature. However, I am happy to just move that ability down and replace the higher level feature. Perhaps you can hold rage past duration but suffer exhaustion, you cannot hold past a long rest. This has the idea that you can wear out a barbarian over time, but if you a trap a higher level barbarian, they can hold onto a rage making them difficult to keep hostage. Then the highest level barbarians basically are always raging so long as they are awake.

[Waazraath]

I agree, though it does invalidate a higher level ribbon feature. However, I am happy to just move that ability down and replace the higher level feature. Perhaps you can hold rage past duration but suffer exhaustion, you cannot hold past a long rest. This has the idea that you can wear out a barbarian over time, but if you a trap a higher level barbarian, they can hold onto a rage making them difficult to keep hostage. Then the highest level barbarians basically are always raging so long as they are awake.

That would have been brutal in this case, with a bbn with the berserker subclass...

[elyktsorb]

That would have been brutal in this case, with a bbn with the berserker subclass...

does anyone ever taker berserker tho?

[Waazraath]

does anyone ever taker berserker tho?

Yes, this friend of mine at this table (this was an actual question from a session a few days ago) :)

To be honest, so far I'm confirmed in my idea that this forum judges the subclass too harshly. With the berserker mode carefully managed, it is quite good and the disadvantages not too big (and that in a very dungeon heavy environment, so no 5m adventuring days). It's a featless game though, I'm aware that this makes the subclass better.

[Mith]

That would have been brutal in this case, with a bbn with the berserker subclass...

I'm just trying to think of something that signifies better endurance as levels increase. I get that we are leery about stacking exhaustion. Personally I just wonder making Berserker allowing one to gain an additional Attack feature and keeping the bonus action free.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So, he would have to throw a rock?

Spit Attack!

[JackPhoenix]

Nothing stops the barbarian from punching himself in the face....

[Zhorn]

Nothing stops the barbarian from punching himself in the face....
I was about to say 'you need to attack a hostile creature', but no this still works.

It doesn't specify a source of damage, just any old damage will do
It is possible to be classed as being hostile towards yourself.... so... yeah?


Though YMMV depending on DM.

[Mith]

Nothing stops the barbarian from punching himself in the face....

My musings of working around this up thread is to avoid the mental image of having to stop every ~40' to stab yourself in the leg. I guess you can rule a generic 1d4 damage from exertion if you don't want the actively punching themselves barbarian image.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My musings of working around this up thread is to avoid the mental image of having to stop every ~40' to stab yourself in the leg. I guess you can rule a generic 1d4 damage from exertion if you don't want the actively punching themselves barbarian image.

Well, to psych yourself up, one tends to slap themselves in the face.

[Mith]

Well, to psych yourself up, one tends to slap themselves in the face.

So the stronger you get, the more damage you take.

I guess it's just a method I use but am not always thrilled about.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So the stronger you get, the more damage you take.

I guess it's just a method I use but am not always thrilled about.

Base damage would be 1 + Str + Rage Bonus at least.

Also if you watch Kylo Ren in TFA you see Kylo shot by a wookie bowcaster and later fight Ret and Finn. Kylo keeps punching himself to keep his rage/focus going.

[LudicSavant]

Situation: combat starts. The foe is 100ft away, out of melee range. Round 1. The barbarian spends his turn moving full speed towards the foe; uses his neckless of fireballs. Activiates rage.

Question 1 (RAW): does the rage immediately ends, due to not having made an attack or being dealt damage last turn?

Question 2 (RAI): if 1 is correct, how do you think about the DM ruling 'bugger that, bbn took full move towards the foe and damaged them, rage doesn't end'?

Question 1: Yes, you immediately lose your rage by RAW. By RAW, Rage is actually quite vulnerable to interruption (prior to getting a certain high level class feature).

Question 2: RAI (Rules as Intended) means what the developers intended, rather than what the DM or Players want. So I think what you're really asking about is RAF (Rules as Fun).

RAF, I wouldn't mind some Barbarian buffs of this sort, martials could stand to have more nice things and frankly I think that the emergent result of "Barbarians punch themselves in the face" from the RAW is silly (as in, it actually moves the bar of your game closer towards the Slapstick genre).

[Waazraath]

Eh... yeah. From a gaming perspective, unless if you really are aiming for slapstick, I think allowing this makes more sense then spitting, throwing shoes (or pies), or even making attacks without having the range increment.

[Zalabim]

#1 is correct, but #2 is acceptable as long as the DM is not capricious. I.e. this had better not be the first and only time the DM decides that the RAW is dumb and needs to be changed. If the same DM later ruled that you a monster whom you have charmed can still Fireball you because Fireball isn't technically an attack, I would be surprised and taken-aback.

For some reason I'm compelled to say I think that fireball would fall under the latter prohibition, though I know some people would disagree. "A charmed creature can’t attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects."

[NaughtyTiger]

For some reason I'm compelled to say I think that fireball would fall under the latter prohibition, though I know some people would disagree. "A charmed creature can’t attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful abilities or magical effects."

the rub is whether you target (verb ) someone with a fireball.

the spell says you select a point, and each creature in the radius takes damage.
the noun "target" shows up for taking damage

[GlenSmash!]

By RAW yeah it doesn't work yeah, but I would rules of fun it.


does anyone ever taker berserker tho?


Yes, this friend of mine at this table (this was an actual question from a session a few days ago) :)

To be honest, so far I'm confirmed in my idea that this forum judges the subclass too harshly. With the berserker mode carefully managed, it is quite good and the disadvantages not too big (and that in a very dungeon heavy environment, so no 5m adventuring days). It's a featless game though, I'm aware that this makes the subclass better.

I also like the Berserker. The concept is one of my favorite character concepts and I really like Mindless Rage and Retaliation (which should have been the level 3 feature of Berserker IMHO)

If my DM allows the class variants UA I want to try a Berserker with a level of Ranger with Tireless for short rest exhaustion removal (with concentration-less Hunter's Mark as a bonus too)

[alchahest]

That would have been brutal in this case, with a bbn with the berserker subclass...

I guarantee if you tie yet another feature to exhaustion, then that is a feature that will never be used.

[Hail Tempus]

This is where the barbarian needs to rely on his allies to keep his Rage going. I've seen the party wizard divert one of his Magic Missile darts to the barbarian to keep her angry.

[WaroftheCrans]

Just claim your barbarian forgot that they were magic beads and was throwing them with the intent of striking them with the force of it. Ask to roll an attack to see if you hit them, and then watch the bead explode. :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Situation: combat starts. The foe is 100ft away, out of melee range. Barbarian nocks an arrow into her long bow and shoots the foe.

[N810]

Lol, I remember one time I lit myself on fire to keep my rage going,
(at that level it was minimal damage). :redcloak:

[Segev]

Lol, I remember one time I lit myself on fire to keep my rage going,
(at that level it was minimal damage). :redcloak:

Isn't it "you have to be attacked," not "you have to take damage?"

[N810]

Isn't it "you have to be attacked," not "you have to take damage?"

Here's the quote from the book.


PHB p47
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.

[Segev]

Here's the quote from the book.

Ah! Broader than I thought!