Rage is unreasonable; do you enforce it as-is?

[strangebloke]

It really isn't.

A Barbarian can remove the net as an action and still have two movements and a an action to to attack/take damage

Nah, sorry, your reading is wrong.

If I say "I've not had cake since my nephew's birthday party" I am saying that the last time I actually did have cake at my nephew's birthday party, but I haven't had cake after that up until the present.

The rules say "If your turn ends and you have not attacked a hostile creature since your last turn" you attacking or not attacking on your last turn is irrelevant. What is relevant is everything since then.

and that becomes a non-issue the instant the Barbarian got two attacks.

So? Its a hard counter before then, and heaven forbid your barbarian's only has bludgeoning damage available

And they don't even need to remove the net to be within range to attack, in all but exceptional situations.

if your solution to being restrained and immobilized is to throw javelins at disadvantage without rage bonus damage, then yes that is an option.

I would consider the disadvantage javelin thrower to have been 'countered' however.

[Unoriginal]

Nah, sorry, your reading is wrong.

If I say "I've not had cake since my nephew's birthday party" I am saying that the last time I actually did have cake at my nephew's birthday party, but I haven't had cake after that up until the present.

The rules say "If your turn ends and you have not attacked a hostile creature since your last turn" you attacking or not attacking on your last turn is irrelevant. What is relevant is everything since then.

I think there's a bit of confusion on what we're saying here.

Are we in agreement that "I've not had cake since since my nephew's birthday party" means the relevant time period is the one between [once the birthday has ended] and [current time]?

Similarly, "If your turn ends and you have not attacked a hostile creature since your last turn" means the relevant time period is between [end of the turn you've entered the Rage] and [end of current turn], correct?

Which means that once the turn in which you've entered Rage finishes, you still have to wait until the end of your next turn for the Rage to end.

Turn 1: Enter Rage, removes net, moves as they wish, turns end.

Turn 2: Barbarian does not attack or take damage, moves as they wish, turns end. Meaning the Barbarian has not attacked or taken damage sine the end of turn 1, meaning the Rage ends.

as opposed to:

Turn 1: Enter Rage, removes net, moves as they wish, turns end.

Turn 2:Barbarian moves as they wish and attacks, turns end. Meaning the Barbarian has attacked since the end of turn 1, meaning the Rage contiues.

So? Its a hard counter before then,

It's kind of an hindrance for a lvl 1 Barbarian, and an inconvenience for a Barbarian above lvl 1.

and heaven forbid your barbarian's only has bludgeoning damage available

Not having any dagger on you is a choice, but if you choose to not have any slashing weapon you can't complain that you can't cut stuff.

if your solution to being restrained and immobilized is to throw javelins at disadvantage without rage bonus damage, then yes that is an option.

I would consider the disadvantage javelin thrower to have been 'countered' however.

Reckless Attacking removes the disadvantage from the attack, and with the net people already have advantage on attacking you.

Don't see how that counts at "countered".

[Xihirli]

I think they really needed another writing pass over how that limitation is written, if they were going to bother writing it.

[Kane0]

I'd call it a soft counter, reducing your range/accuracy/damage output but not shutting you down entirely.

[Schwann145]

Not having any dagger on you is a choice, but if you choose to not have any slashing weapon you can't complain that you can't cut stuff.

Dagger wouldn't help. Piercing weapons don't slash, after all.

[Kane0]

Dagger wouldn't help. Piercing weapons don't slash, after all.

*Enters Rage*

[Tanarii]

They aren't.

"Since the end of your last turn" means you count only what happens between the end of the Barbarian's turn and the end of their next turn.

"Since your last turn" includes the whole last turn of the Barbarian, plus their current turn until its end.

No. If you've had a turn before the current one, they are the same thing.

If you enter a rage on turn 2 or later, did not attack since your last turn (as a reaction or by being granted an out of turn action somehow), do not attack on your current turn, and did not take damage since your last turn, the rage ends at the end of the current turn.

[Leon]

Its reasonable, what's unreasonable is being overly pedantic about some edge case scenario's and whether Piecing weaponry can cut or not ~ that's partially a casualty itself of the over simplification that 5e's weapons received for those that need absolute rules say X instead of (un)common sense

[Schwann145]

Its reasonable, what's unreasonable is being overly pedantic about some edge case scenario's and whether Piecing weaponry can cut or not ~ that's partially a casualty itself of the over simplification that 5e's weapons received for those that need absolute rules say X instead of (un)common sense

It's really not very edge-case that simply not being able to attack will calm a raging Barbarian down. If anything, being restrained from a desired attack should make the Barbarian even angrier!

Also, tongue-in-cheek comment was made tongue-in-cheek. After all, we already covered how making a thrown attack while tangled up in a net doesn't really make much (common) sense, but it's doable with disadvantage by RAW.

[JonBeowulf]

I can't wrap my head around why the barb entered rage before getting the net off if they weren't certain they could keep it going. Were they really worried they'd fail DC 10 STR check?

Barbs are easy to play if you pay attention to the map. You gotta know where you gotta be so you can know if you can get there.

Similar to not complaining if you choose not to carry an edged weapon, don't complain if you foolishly use your class abilities.

[Schwann145]

I can't wrap my head around why the barb entered rage before getting the net off if they weren't certain they could keep it going. Were they really worried they'd fail DC 10 STR check?

In this case, it's a new player just learning the game and the class.

[Mastikator]

In this case, it's a new player just learning the game and the class.

In that case let the new player make their mistakes and learn from them. It's part of the experience of trying anything new ever.

[Schwann145]

In that case let the new player make their mistakes and learn from them. It's part of the experience of trying anything new ever.

It's a rather unintuitive "mistake," don't you think? Removing a net requires a Strength check. Rage gives you advantage on Strength checks. Seems a good time to Rage and get that bonus... except it's not, because you basically waste your (very limited) Rage that way.

[Mastikator]

It's a rather unintuitive "mistake," don't you think? Removing a net requires a Strength check. Rage gives you advantage on Strength checks. Seems a good time to Rage and get that bonus... except it's not, because you basically waste your (very limited) Rage that way.

Their mistake was not reading their class features. For new players I have mercy for making this mistake and would probably remind them of this rule. For everyone else I have zero mercy.

[GloatingSwine]

Their mistake was not reading their class features. For new players I have mercy for making this mistake and would probably remind them of this rule. For everyone else I have zero mercy.

Given that we've had about a page of largely semantic argument based on the word "since" about how those class features actually work, expecting a new player to intuit the One True Way seems a bit unreasonable.

So there's two things here:

1. The DM needs to be prepared to decide whether "since your last turn" means the beginning or end of that turn and stick to it.

2. Decide whether to count attack related actions like using STR to break something or grapple someone.

[Amnestic]

Outside of hard CC (eg. Hold Person) I don't enforce it ending early just because the enemies attacked someone else or the barbarian didn't attack for whatever reason. If they're maneuvering or continuing the "fight" without actually attacking because the enemy is too far away or whatever then they get to keep it active. If nothing else it's more streamlined that way - just look at all the kerfuffle of tracking actions/damage taken turn to turn in the thread. Forget that! It's active until they get hard CC'd, simple, easy, no muss, no fuss. Much easier to remember, much easier to make note of.

Also on the "just throw a javelin" nah, miss me with that. If I'm playing a barbarian who rages with a big axe then having to throw a piddly little javelin at disadvantage to maintain my rage is lame+dumb.

[Mastikator]

Given that we've had about a page of largely semantic argument based on the word "since" about how those class features actually work, expecting a new player to intuit the One True Way seems a bit unreasonable.

So there's two things here:

1. The DM needs to be prepared to decide whether "since your last turn" means the beginning or end of that turn and stick to it.

2. Decide whether to count attack related actions like using STR to break something or grapple someone.

I don't expect anyone to inuit anything. I expect players to read and know their class features. No intuition needed. I (the DM) decide that "since your last turn" means from start of rage and until the start of your next turn. Attack related actions is not The Attack Action™, but like I said before, I may let it count this time anyway, with terms and conditions on this goodwill. Players that try to intuit extra benefits should expect not to gain that because I count that as gaming the system. The only thing the players should count on is that their class and race features work RAW.

To say it again. Players are not to intuit anything about how class features work. They are to READ (insert Boondocks meme here, you know the one).

[GloatingSwine]

I don't expect anyone to inuit anything. I expect players to read and know their class features. No intuition needed. I (the DM) decide that "since your last turn" means from start of rage and until the start of your next turn. Attack related actions is not The Attack Action™, but like I said before, I may let it count this time anyway, with terms and conditions on this goodwill. Players that try to intuit extra benefits should expect not to gain that because I count that as gaming the system. The only thing the players should count on is that their class and race features work RAW.

To say it again. Players are not to intuit anything about how class features work. They are to READ (insert Boondocks meme here, you know the one).

And again, we had a page of semantic arguments about that class feature based on its written description, which indicates that just reading it is not actually enough to know how it's going to work.

The player also needs to know how you as the DM have decided to rule "since your last turn"*, and the newer the player is the less likely they are to know that this sort of extra "how does this DM play this" information is even going to exist.

*Because the description does not actually say "since your last turn of rage" but your ruling includes that, for instance..

[Mastikator]

And again, we had a page of semantic arguments about that class feature based on its written description, which indicates that just reading it is not actually enough to know how it's going to work.

The player also needs to know how you as the DM have decided to rule "since your last turn"*, and the newer the player is the less likely they are to know that this sort of extra "how does this DM play this" information is even going to exist.

*Because the description does not actually say "since your last turn of rage" but your ruling includes that, for instance..

No. The players simply should not expect their rage to survive if they destroy the net and don't take any damage. Because that is RAW. The end. And if the player tries to intuit that I'll let them keep their rage then I will count that as gaming the system, so again, we will fall back to RAW. The players should only ever expect the game to work rules as written. That's why they should read what their class features say.

There's no semantics here. Destroying a net is not the attack action, end of discussion, I don't care that it seems like it should be. That is semantics and therefore outside of the rules. Players that try to argue semantics with the DM on their turn in combat will find out pretty quickly why that is a really bad idea. It's disrespectful to the other players and the DM has an obligation to put an end to it quickly. I have the same policy for players that need a few minutes to read their class features on their turn in combat, it's disrespectful to the other players, sorry that you don't know when you qualify for sneak attack or rage or how your spell works, you had 10 minutes to read that when it wasn't your turn, now you take the dodge action. For players that take forever in combat I go full Beatrix Kiddo, no compassion, mercy or forgiveness. (unless they're new players or first time playing a class)

[GloatingSwine]

No. The players simply should not expect their rage to survive if they destroy the net and don't take any damage. Because that is RAW. The end. And if the player tries to intuit that I'll let them keep their rage then I will count that as gaming the system, so again, we will fall back to RAW. The players should only ever expect the game to work rules as written. That's why they should read what their class features say.

And again, in this thread people cannot agree what the rules as written mean. "It's RAW" does not actually work as an argument when there is room for argument about what is written.

If a player attacks turn 1, rages turn 2 but is not attacked and does not take damage, then whether their rage ends at the end of turn 2 depends on whether "since your last turn" begins during their last turn of rage (which the rules do not say but is your ruling) and if not then whether "since your last turn" refers to the beginning or end of that turn, about which there is disagreement and which the rules do not specify.

And you can declare what your rulings for those conditions are, but your rulings are your rulings not the rules. You can expect people to read their class features all you like, but you also seem to demand that they know the bits that only exist in your head until they try to use those features in advance, as new players no less...

[Mastikator]

And again, in this thread people cannot agree what the rules as written mean. "It's RAW" does not actually work as an argument when there is room for argument about what is written.

If a player attacks turn 1, rages turn 2 but is not attacked and does not take damage, then whether their rage ends at the end of turn 2 depends on whether "since your last turn" begins during their last turn of rage (which the rules do not say but is your ruling) and if not then whether "since your last turn" refers to the beginning or end of that turn, about which there is disagreement and which the rules do not specify.

And you can declare what your rulings for those conditions are, but your rulings are your rulings not the rules. You can expect people to read their class features all you like, but you also seem to demand that they know the bits that only exist in your head until they try to use those features in advance, as new players no less...

I see no room for argument. And I see no one saying that the rules explicitly allow destroying a net to count as the attack action, only that it's a silly/cumbersome rule that they choose not to follow (which is perfectly fair and decent way to run a game, but not how I run it, because that would require the players to intuit things)

if your turn ends and you haven't attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then

Is straightforward as far as I read it. On the end of your turn, if you haven't attacked or taken damage since your last turn, the rage ends. Since your last turn does not include your last turn.

[GloatingSwine]

I see no room for argument. And I see no one saying that the rules explicitly allow destroying a net to count as the attack action, only that it's a silly/cumbersome rule that they choose not to follow (which is perfectly fair and decent way to run a game, but not how I run it, because that would require the players to intuit things)

Is straightforward as far as I read it. On the end of your turn, if you haven't attacked or taken damage since your last turn, the rage ends. Since your last turn does not include your last turn.

And yet the argument has already happened in this thread, demonstrating that your interpretation of "since your last turn" is not universal.

Again, you can rule it the way you think makes most sense based on your interpretation of the words in the rules, but your ruling remains your ruling and expecting people to know it in advance is not covered by "just read your class features".

Claiming that there can be no disagreement is silly because we're still on the same page of the same thread where people were disagreeing about it.

[Mastikator]

And yet the argument has already happened in this thread, demonstrating that your interpretation of "since your last turn" is not universal.

Again, you can rule it the way you think makes most sense based on your interpretation of the words in the rules, but your ruling remains your ruling and expecting people to know it in advance is not covered by "just read your class features".

Claiming that there can be no disagreement is silly because we're still on the same page of the same thread where people were disagreeing about it.

Ok so If I say "I haven't spoken since last year" does that mean that if I spoke last year but not this year I actually spoke since last year. Or does "I haven't spoken since last year" mean that since the end of 2022 I haven't spoken? I mean seriously, this is rotten semantics.

[Segev]

It is not unreasonable for a player to ask the DM how he is ruling something before the player makes a decision based on that ruling.

I do agree that barbarians need a bit more that is not dependent on Rage so that Raging is a choice other than "do I fight as well as other classes or not this combat?"

[GloatingSwine]

Ok so If I say "I haven't spoken since last year" does that mean that if I spoke last year but not this year I actually spoke since last year. Or does "I haven't spoken since last year" mean that since the end of 2022 I haven't spoken? I mean seriously, this is rotten semantics.

I'm not the person to be having that argument with, I was only pointing out that it had happened meaning your interpretation is not universal.

[animorte]

I imagine it would be frustrating to be raging and unable to attack stuff. That would fuel my rage further, not end it!

Honestly, I'm more concerned about the "or taken damage" part. What was the point of my Unarmored Defense then? Oh yeah, Reckless Attack exists. Yay? The entire class is silly to me.

[Mastikator]

I'm not the person to be having that argument with, I was only pointing out that it had happened meaning your interpretation is not universal.

Except these kinds of "it's not universal" only become not universal when a player wants a benefit. I don't consider that a good faith interpretation, not would I consider a player arguing with a DM about these kinds of semantics to be playing fairly.

[elyktsorb]

I do! But literally everyone I've ever played with either hasn't cared, or they interpret the Rage rules to benefit the Barbarian. As far as I understand them, if you Rage, and then don't attack, your Rage goes away, I've seen plenty of people go into a fight, rage, and do nothing if they aren't in range and no one cares.

I mean, that's why I keep a sling on me so I can make pointless attacks to keep my rage up. I also think this sucks because it removes the possibility of me damaging my opponents with things other than attacks.

Also the hostile part sucks too. I don't get to keep up Rage if I attack a non-hostile anything? Why is that put on my opponent, I'm the one raging, it should just be attacking at all! Or better yet, just causing damage.

The damage part has always mystified me like, if I take damage during my own turn? I mean I guess I could purposely take an opportunity attack, but mostly this line just implies that I should legitimately have some method of self damage to enable my Rage. Obviously I don't think that was the intention but it works.

[Sigreid]

When I run a game, attacking the net is still attacking. Beating your chest in frustration is attacking. So trying to break the net, the source of your frustration; counts.

[KorvinStarmast]

When I run a game, attacking the net is still attacking. Beating your chest in frustration is attacking. So trying to break the net, the source of your frustration; counts.

same here.