Let's end it!

[Dmdork]

I say you can't rage and dodge in the first round cuz didn't not attack or take damage last round, so your rage would kinda end as soon as it began. My other Vet DM friend says you can, since there was no 'last round', all bets are off so to speak and you may rage for the round...Anyway I told him about Giantip and he said somethin like "I'm not gonna take DM advice from some pimple faced Mountain Dew drinkin teen in moms basement, but I will listen to what sage advice says, cuz Jeremy Crawford." Lol. Hilarious. I'm having trouble getting the answer from Jeremy. Anyone have a link to this question/answer from Sage Advice? Let's end it!

[Zhorn]

Don't know where the sage advice is on this one; but here's my unsolicited 2 cp on it:

1. By RAW, you have it right, the rage would end at the conclusion of the turn the barbarian started it if they didn't attack or take damage in the last round.
2. That RAW is stupid and your DM friend is making a RAF call on the matter, which is a good DM call.
3. Both advice from forums (be it giantitp or any other) or sage advice is just advice from randos over the internet, your DM friend has just set their base standard as someone having working on the game in a official capacity being more valid that someone who hasn't, which is a fair call.

Now if they were frequenting a forum of their choice for a length of time, there's a good chance they'll get a feel for the opinions of certain posters, and find folks who's advice they'll value more, and likewise they'll find those with opinions they assign less weight to. JC has made some rulings I have a strong disagreement with, but I don't throw out ALL their advice because of it. I find a lot of folks that throw all of JC's advice into the bin do it because of a disagreement over a couple of rulings, but the same could be said about the advice taken from any random person on any forum.

[Nagog]

I guess this depends on whether or not inciting the Rage is enough to sustain it until next turn. I'd say so yes, as in the essence of roleplay, flying into a rage and dashing towards your enemy isn't gonna cool you off, even though you didn't attack. The RAW may be different, but I'd errata the rule in my games to have rage last a minimum of one round.
If you're adamant that it isn't RAW, would you allow your player to bite their tongue/cheek as a free action? Dealing 1 damage to yourself to maintain rage would sustain the rage (as you have technically been dealt damage), but your 1 damage would also be negated by your Resistance, unless somehow your unarmed strikes are considered magical, and therefore your teeth count as a magical weapon against your tongue.

[N810]

"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."

[Grey Watcher]

... some pimple faced Mountain Dew drinkin teen in moms basement, ...

I must take great exception to this slanderous characterization! I drink Coke like a civilized person, thank you very much!

[Porcupinata]

At my table, not attacking someone only applies if you could have attacked someone but chose not to. If you weren't able to attack anyone but you do something in an angry manner that will get you closer to being able to attack someone - for example you are too far away but you run screaming at them, or you're restrained and you spend the turn struggling to escape and attack them, or you spend the turn pounding on a door trying to open it so you can get at them to attack them - then you can remain enraged.

That's not exactly RAW, but it's close enough for my table; and it feels more realistic.

[N810]

This is why I had a bow.

[Bobthewizard]

At my table, not attacking someone only applies if you could have attacked someone but chose not to. If you weren't able to attack anyone but you do something in an angry manner that will get you closer to being able to attack someone - for example you are too far away but you run screaming at them, or you're restrained and you spend the turn struggling to escape and attack them, or you spend the turn pounding on a door trying to open it so you can get at them to attack them - then you can remain enraged.

That's not exactly RAW, but it's close enough for my table; and it feels more realistic.

That's not RAW but I really like it. I've always found Barbarians too easy to counter. It's too easy to make rage end. They rage, you move out of the way so they can't attack you, and the rage ends. They just used their precious LR resource for no benefit.

[Warlush]

I must take great exception to this slanderous characterization! I drink Coke like a civilized person, thank you very much!

Yeah I assumed we were all middle aged divorced dads. And I drink beer.

[Aimeryan]

By RAW, you just have to attack a hostile creature or take damage; nothing about dealing HP damage, nothing about successfully hitting, etc. You could technically fulfil RAW just by hurling an insult or stubbing your toe on a rock.

However, RAW is often silly thanks to 'natural language' -which is always unambiguous. In spirit? Well just having started the Rage at the end of a turn means the next turn could theoretically occur less than a second later - not really enough time to cool down.

[Demonslayer666]

I think you have to have spent an entire round raging and not taken damage or attacked in order for rage to end. If you started rage last round, you have until the end of the next round to meet the requirement.

[prabe]

Since you haven't taken a turn before the first one, there is no "last turn" to reference in "or if you haven't attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since your last turn."

OTOH, it'd seem as though any attempt to turn them against their allies that didn't also include wording along the lines of "you treat your allies (or all creatures, or whatever) as hostile" would also end rage. That's ... kinda unexpected.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah I assumed we were all middle aged divorced dads. And I drink beer.

Middle-aged voluntary celibate here, and I drink water. Gave up soda for health reasons. :)

[Composer99]

I say you can't rage and dodge in the first round cuz didn't not attack or take damage last round, so your rage would kinda end as soon as it began. My other Vet DM friend says you can, since there was no 'last round', all bets are off so to speak and you may rage for the round...Anyway I told him about Giantip and he said somethin like "I'm not gonna take DM advice from some pimple faced Mountain Dew drinkin teen in moms basement, but I will listen to what sage advice says, cuz Jeremy Crawford." Lol. Hilarious. I'm having trouble getting the answer from Jeremy. Anyone have a link to this question/answer from Sage Advice? Let's end it!

If you start raging in the very first round of combat, a strict reading of how time works in combat does not support your rage ending at the end of that turn, since you had no previous turn.

Also, I'm pretty sure if anyone wanted to insult us GitP types, they'd call us washed-up beer-drinking middle aged pedants with no sense of perspective. :)

[Amechra]

I must take great exception to this slanderous characterization! I drink Coke like a civilized person, thank you very much!

And I live in my mom's attic, not her basement!

[Mellack]

Rage ends at the end of his turn.


Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
At the end of a barbarian's 1st turn, Rage ends if the barb. hasn't attacked a foe or taken damage this round. #DnD

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/17...ians-rage-end/

[prabe]

Rage ends at the end of his turn.


Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
At the end of a barbarian's 1st turn, Rage ends if the barb. hasn't attacked a foe or taken damage this round. #DnD

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/17...ians-rage-end/

That might have been what they intended, but that's not what they said. Seems as though it came from the same place as the "ruling" about Shield Master, which I likewise ignore.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah I assumed we were all middle aged divorced dads. And I drink beer.

Well, I am not divorced and I am a dad and I drink beer. Close enough, I guess.

[jaappleton]

One DM saying a bunch of other DMs sit in their moms basement and drink Mountain Dew is pretty damn rich, to be blunt.

[Aett_Thorn]

Also, I'm pretty sure if anyone wanted to insult us GitP types, they'd call us washed-up beer-drinking middle aged pedants with no sense of perspective. :)

Well now I'm enraged, and I don't care if I had a previous turn or not.

[Battlebooze]

I've always thought that rage was screwed up because of this.

There is a moronic but absolutely workable solution. Just pick up a rock/trash/copper piece and angrily throw it at your enemy, no matter the range or even their location. (Invisible enemy)

Making an improvised weapon attack, even if there is no way it could hit or even damage the enemy completely satisfies the RAW requirement.

[Aussiehams]

I've always thought that rage was screwed up because of this.

There is a moronic but absolutely workable solution. Just pick up a rock/trash/copper piece and angrily throw it at your enemy, no matter the range or even their location. (Invisible enemy)

Making an improvised weapon attack, even if there is no way it could hit or even damage the enemy completely satisfies the RAW requirement.

Which is RAW, even though it stops you from dashing closer to the enemy so you can hit them next round. It's ridiculous.

[Aimeryan]

It doesn't even say 'Attack' or 'attack action' or 'attempt to inflict HP damage' or 'physically attack'; it merely says 'attack'. In natural English, insulting or using offensive language aimed at someone is an attack on that person - ergo, you can use non-action speech to satisfy the requirement.

RAW in 5e tends to be so easy to interpret in ways the writers probably did not intend, mostly because they tried to cut down on the amount of text and logic and just go 'au naturel'. Hopefully next edition they'll actually use keywords that can be precisely defined, or at just be more verbose so that the interpretation is not so open.