Barbarian fury vs the unwilling combatant

Just a quick post after reading the overview in the new packet.  A barbarian must attack a hostile foe to continue raging?
  I think that puts evil barbarians at a disadvantage, personally. XD

  Vikings, imo, make the quintessential berserker, and many a viking has been known to raid and pillage - whether their enemies were hostile or fleeing in terror, the raging viking bites his shield and rages on.  !!!
The game appears to assume that creatures other than any given character are either "allies" or "hostile" (though it doesn't ever really define either term) and uses the term "hostile creatures" fairly interchangeably with "enemies".

The correct answer to what counts as hostile is, of course, "Ask your DM", but here's how I would reason it: "ally" and "enemy"/"hostile" are both subjective, discretionary terms. At any given moment, I can decide which other entities on the battlefield count as either one. Because the game treats the "ally"/"hostile" distinction as a binary condition (that which is one is not the other), any creature that is not my "ally" must be my "enemy".

 Anything present in an encounter which is neither "ally" nor "enemy" is "terrain".
It does really put a damper on the bar fight scenario doesn't it?  

I don't really understand the need for clarification.  One would think that wounding ones allies would be a penalty in and of itself if that is how the barbarian wanted to keep up his rage. 
I doubt whoever is responsible for the language of the packet thought it through that far, except for a determination to avoid sounding technical at all costs. I cringed at Warhammer 8th edition's rambling, unfocused tone, but at least it was willing to break out into diagrams and at least made the attempt to be precise when necessary. This is worse, and it's not getting better in successive packets.
Maybe a barbarian shouldn't rage when sucker-punching somebody in the bar. Once the opponent gets pissed off enough to be considered "hostile," that's when the rage can kick in.

I still think it's strange that a rage can't be maintained by a Strength check, since it's not an attack. You get advantage for breaking down a door, but suddenly you're all tuckered out once you're on the other side.
It prevent a Barbarian from attacking harmless animals or objects to keep on raging (ex. Bag of Rats)
Could always be a bag of really angry, hostile rats.
Raging Barbarian cannot get away with it by saying



It prevent a Barbarian from attacking harmless animals or objects to keep on raging (ex. Bag of Rats)



Yeah... I kinda hate that whole mechanic.

I mean... he's raging right? So if a goblin manages to get far enough away that he can't attack it for one turn... and that goblin does a little mocking dance to goad the barbarian, the barbarian can't justify continuing to rage?  He can't be raging as he breaks out of his chains in a prison cell and then goes to bend the bars to get at his captors?  I mean, it just seems kinda dumb.

The mechanic being "has to attack something" is overly restrictive.  It should be this:
While raging, the barbarian must use his movement to get closer to his opponents even if this movement might be inherrently dangerous (for example, passing through a wall of fire).  If the barbarian is blocked from his enemies, he will break doors, bend bars, and even smash down walls to reach them.  His fury cannot be asuaged.  The barbarian must spend his action to attack the first conscious enemy within his reach on each turn while he is raging, this includes any enemy that might be adjacent to the barbarian when he begins his turn.  If, at any time, the barbarian is not aware of any conscious enemies within 30ft, his rage ends.

I think that such a change... to something short range, would be good.  I really think a barbaria should be able to use an action to bust through a door.  Otherwise, every smart enemy will just close and bar a door whenever a barbarian rages.  Or they would know to use the hustle action to move out of range as soon as the barbarian rages.  It has the added effect of forcing a raging barbarian to attempt jumping gaps and hurtling through walls of fire and into area of effect spells to get at his enemy.  Anger is shortsighted like that. 
So if a goblin manages to get far enough away that he can't attack it for one turn... and that goblin does a little mocking dance to goad the barbarian, the barbarian can't justify continuing to rage?

Yes he can, just need to pull his longbow. If there's no more enemy remaining within 600 ft, its probably not worth raging anymore anyway. Wink

Sign In to post comments