Barbarian Rage Question: Foiled by Invisibility?

In our last climactic fight, my players faced a lich. The barbarian began raging early, so the lich dropped a cloudkill in front of the barbarian, hoping to obscure his line of sight and keep the barbarian from reaching and attacking him the next round. The barbarian was able to run out of the cloud and still attack the lich, thanks to the charge feat. His attack dealt a sizable chunk of damage to the lich.

The lich then used its next action to cast Invisibility and step back. What ensued was a momentary debate on the nature of "must attack a hostile creature to continue raging". The player said that his character thinks the lich is still in the same space, so making an attack with disadvantage against the space, hoping to hit the lich, should count to keep his rage going. I said, if that were the case, then barbarians would be allowed to just attack the air because they think there's invisible pixies following them around at all times.

Because the player is a respectful player, he defered to me ending his rage, but it was a decision I made simply to make a decision.

After scouring the pdfs, I could not find rules on "detecting an invisible creature" or a "pinpointing a creature with listen" rule. I ended up using listen checks to determine what space he was in if he moved or cast a spell. This came up a number of times in the fight, due to the cloudkill (which moved away rather quickly), invisibility, and a wall of fire (inward pointing ring). It ended up being a very tough fight.

So, with the split of spot and listen, I'm thinking that listen checks could be used to pinpoint a space (opposed by Dex for movement, vs. a low DC when casting spells), but without the ability to see the creature, an attacker will suffer disadvantage. But being able to pinpoint an exact space with listen feels like it might be too good of hearing for most people.

Thoughts? 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

You used to be able to listen for invisible creatures in 3E, but it was an awkward mechanic at best.

It just sounds like both the rage and the invisibility mechanic aren't well designed and work with too many absolutes. I have no easy solution.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

 

I once asked the question (in D&D 3.5) "Does a Druid4/Wizard3/ArcaneHierophant1 have Wildshape?". Jesse Decker and Andy Collins: Yes and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Rich Redman and Ed Stark: No and the text is clear and can't be interpreted differently. Skip Williams: Lol, it's worded ambiguously and entirely not how I intended it. (Cust. Serv. Reference# 050815-000323)

The player said that his character thinks the lich is still in the same space, so making an attack with disadvantage against the space, hoping to hit the lich, should count to keep his rage going. I said, if that were the case, then barbarians would be allowed to just attack the air because they think there's invisible pixies following them around at all times. 

I'd say the barbarian should have kept his rage. He was attacking in good faith, attacking a creature he KNOWS just vanished. It's not the same as a 'bag of rats' or 'invisible pixies'. By your outlook, if the barbarian attacks a mage with mirror image and hits an image or a phantasmal force, he loses his rage. He didn't attack a creature, just an illusion.

I'd say if the character honestly thinks he's attacking a real creature, his rage goes on. As far as what to roll, I'd say spot, search or listen, same as 'Hear Contest:someone who’s trying to be silent (against Dexterity)'

I'd say if the character honestly thinks he's attacking a real creature, his rage goes on. As far as what to roll, I'd say spot, search or listen, same as 'Hear Contest:someone who’s trying to be silent (against Dexterity)'




I agree - rage on good buddy, rage on.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
You made a fair call that avoids any dangerous precedents. That's respectable. Since the player was genuinely trying to attack a hostile monster, ruling the other way would have been more logical in-game, but then you would have a little extra work in preventing rule abuse later, so it's a trade-off. (Though really - barbarian raging against imaginary pixies? That's comedy gold.)

I think you might have set a dangerous precedent with having the lich cast spell while invisible. Unrestricted invisibility is godly, so the spell description in the playtest prohibits attacks and spellcasting and all interaction with anything. Other wizards in your setting must be desperate to know how that one lich did it.
The player said that his character thinks the lich is still in the same space, so making an attack with disadvantage against the space, hoping to hit the lich, should count to keep his rage going. I said, if that were the case, then barbarians would be allowed to just attack the air because they think there's invisible pixies following them around at all times. 

I'd say the barbarian should have kept his rage. He was attacking in good faith, attacking a creature he KNOWS just vanished. It's not the same as a 'bag of rats' or 'invisible pixies'. By your outlook, if the barbarian attacks a mage with mirror image and hits an image or a phantasmal force, he loses his rage. He didn't attack a creature, just an illusion...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />



I'd say I agree with your point of view...the character Knows that a foe is nearby..he saw it beforehand and the lich tried to kill the barbarian....so it wasn't a figment...the barbarian rage should have continued to goes on...


 As far as what to roll, I'd say spot, search or listen, same as 'Hear Contest:someone who’s trying to be silent (against Dexterity)'




I've always thought that spot, listen, search checks were the right thing to use when a character was trying to pinpoint an invisible/hidden foe...and in DDN, for me, it's a Contest between the move silently (with disadvantages if the invisible character is trying to cast a spell with verbal components)
After scouring the pdfs, I could not find rules on "detecting an invisible creature" or a "pinpointing a creature with listen" rule. I ended up using listen checks to determine what space he was in if he moved or cast a spell.



I think you're actually building too much into the Invisibile effect. Here's how it's described in the "How to Play" document:

Invisible
• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.



And here are the stealth rules for hiding:

There are two ways you can hide. If a creature can’t possibly see you, you need only to avoid making noise to avoid detection. If a creature might see you, you need to keep behind cover or stay in heavily obscured areas to remain hidden.
When you try to hide from one or more creatures, your Dexterity check is contested by the Wisdom check of any creature who might notice you or the Intelligence check of a creature that is actively searching for signs of your presence. You make one Dexterity check for this contest. Use that check result for all such contests you engage in until you are discovered or you stop hiding.



So basically, when the lich casts the Invisibility spell right in front of the barbarian, he's not instantly hidden; he needs to spend another action to make a Dex check vs. everyone's Wisdom check to avoid being spotted (or heard). 
 

I'd say the rage goes on. If he wants to start a war with the invisible pixies that are following the players around at all times, he's in for a rude awakening. Because those things are there AT ALL TIMES! BAD MOVE, BRO! (Yet again, I'm not that big on "have to smash to keep it going" so cheesing it a little would be fine by me. Cheesing it too much would lead to lulz.)

As for what to use to find someone you can't see, I'd say it's a search. Whether he's looking for footprints or trying to hear it, it's an active attempt not a passive spot/listen. However, if the player wanted to use listen, I'd probably allow that too. (Actually, I would prefer to be using simple ability checks. So take what I say with a grain of salt.)

Invisibility allows the caster to cast spells on themself while they're invisible and still retain invisibility; the only thing it did while invisible was reposition and cast mirror image on itself.

As for the invisibile entry itself, I think that fits in how I ran it anyway. The lich cast invisibility, and then stepped away and moved a bit (Dex check to hide). Barbarian made a wisdom check, didn't succeed, and then made an attack at the last space he saw the lich in (which the lich wasn't in anymore).

The mere fact that it caused a debate at the table leads me to think rage needs to be either defined more tightly or defined far more loosely. 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

This is why i don't like the rage mechanic.

The mere fact that it caused a debate at the table leads me to think rage needs to be either defined more tightly or defined far more loosely. 

I think the best change would be 'must attack if possible' or just dropping the must attack thing all together.

I like the must attack thing, but I think it could be broadened to allow for acceptions. I like that a raging barbarian needs to keep their adrenaline up to keep raging. If they can't make an attack, simply burning their action flailing around like a madman, hitting themself in the face, or wailing on the ground could be appropriate; it's an action lost that can't be spent defensively.

Then again, I also like the idea that rage takes an action to willfully enter; otherwise, it is entered reactionary when certain conditions are met. I like the idea that a rage isn't a strict bonus, too, that a barbarian might not want to rage always. 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

Just to point out, RAW the lich would have had to spend an action to hide (not just part of his move action). That's a pretty big deal because it means you can't use Invisibility as an escape spell - or if you do, it takes two rounds to pull it off (unless you have that feat that lets you hide as part of your move). This is relevant because it really shouldn't be TOO easy for a spellcaster to just poof his way out of attack range.

As for rage, I don't see this example as a big flaw - I agree with pretty much everyone else who's posted that the barbarian should have been able to keep raging. Heck, if he honestly believed he was surrounded by invisible pixies, I'd let him attack them - but then obviously his advanced hallucinatory psychosis would have quite a few downsides to it! This is a clear "bag of rats" issue.
I'm not seeing where the so-called RAW says he needs to spend an action hiding -- the first sentence of each descrtiption clearly indicates he cannot be seen.  "Impossible to see without magic. ||  If it is impossible to see, it merely needs to remain silent."

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I'm not seeing where the so-called RAW says he needs to spend an action hiding -- the first sentence of each descrtiption clearly indicates he cannot be seen.  "Impossible to see without magic. ||  If it is impossible to see, it merely needs to remain silent."

Page 14 of How to Play, In the hide paragraph:
"...Under normal circumstances, trying to hide takes up your action. See “Stealth” in the “Exploration” section for rules on hiding."

Hiding = action. What is hiding? In the "Exploration" section:
"There are two ways you can hide. If a creature can’t possibly see you, you need only to avoid making noise to avoid detection..."


Even if they can not see you at all, trying to keep from being noticed still counts as hiding. For invisibility, I think that means you are making noise and people know what general 5ft space you are in. Honestly, it's a nerf invisibility needs. That is one of those things that needs to be in for tradition's sake, but is totally unfair in some situations if it's not handled carefully. I personally think this is a pretty solid way to handle it.
I'm not seeing where the so-called RAW says he needs to spend an action hiding -- the first sentence of each descrtiption clearly indicates he cannot be seen.  "Impossible to see without magic. ||  If it is impossible to see, it merely needs to remain silent."

Page 14 of How to Play, In the hide paragraph:
"...Under normal circumstances, trying to hide takes up your action. See “Stealth” in the “Exploration” section for rules on hiding."

Hiding = action. What is hiding? In the "Exploration" section:
"There are two ways you can hide. If a creature can’t possibly see you, you need only to avoid making noise to avoid detection..."


Even if they can not see you at all, trying to keep from being noticed still counts as hiding. For invisibility, I think that means you are making noise and people know what general 5ft space you are in. Honestly, it's a nerf invisibility needs. That is one of those things that needs to be in for tradition's sake, but is totally unfair in some situations if it's not handled carefully. I personally think this is a pretty solid way to handle it.



Ahh, I see it now.  Thanks, Vacant.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I'm not seeing where the so-called RAW says he needs to spend an action hiding -- the first sentence of each descrtiption clearly indicates he cannot be seen.  "Impossible to see without magic. ||  If it is impossible to see, it merely needs to remain silent."

Page 14 of How to Play, In the hide paragraph:
"...Under normal circumstances, trying to hide takes up your action. See “Stealth” in the “Exploration” section for rules on hiding."

Hiding = action. What is hiding? In the "Exploration" section:
"There are two ways you can hide. If a creature can’t possibly see you, you need only to avoid making noise to avoid detection..."


Even if they can not see you at all, trying to keep from being noticed still counts as hiding. For invisibility, I think that means you are making noise and people know what general 5ft space you are in. Honestly, it's a nerf invisibility needs. That is one of those things that needs to be in for tradition's sake, but is totally unfair in some situations if it's not handled carefully. I personally think this is a pretty solid way to handle it.



Ahh, I see it now.  Thanks, Vacant.


Yeah I was looking it up. They could really go over those rules and clean them up.

Yeah, as it is you need to look four different places to piece together the effect of that one spell: the spell description, the status-effect description for "invisibility," the rules for stealth, and the rules for hiding in combat. 

I'd duplicate the relevant rules right in the spell description, so that a wizard casting invisibility (who probably doesn't otherwise use the rules for hiding too often) knows what to do without all the searching around.


Ahh, I see it now.  Thanks, Vacant.



*tips hat* I like to think I use these rules-lawyer powers for good. Note that it took me jumping pages like a Goosebumps choose-your-scare book to present that info. Fun fact, I thought "Exploration" was in the DM Guidelines at first. However, that was actually "Exploration in Detail," big difference.


tl;dr: That's a lot of BULL to figure out you need to use an action to hide while not being seen. No blame whatsoever on anyone who missed that. (Including myself. I had no idea what the rule was until I found it. :3 )


PS: ^^^^^ Yea, what they said. 

You should have never told the barbarian, that the Lich used invisibility in the first place...

You should have told the barbarian. The Lich makes a gesture and mutters some words and disappears in front of you. You then make a dex check against the barbarian´s and all others´ widom scores. On a success, the barbarian should believe, that the Lich isn´t there anymore (Teleport/dimension door etc.)
If someone hears the Lich, the Barbarian can figure out, where he is and can attack and retain his rage.
You should have never told the barbarian, that the Lich used invisibility in the first place...

You should have told the barbarian. The Lich makes a gesture and mutters some words and disappears in front of you. You then make a dex check against the barbarian´s and all others´ widom scores. On a success, the barbarian should believe, that the Lich isn´t there anymore (Teleport/dimension door etc.)
If someone hears the Lich, the Barbarian can figure out, where he is and can attack and retain his rage.




But the Lich would have to wait until its next turn to attempt to hide, as it already used its action to cast invisibility.
I like the must attack thing, but I think it could be broadened to allow for acceptions. I like that a raging barbarian needs to keep their adrenaline up to keep raging. If they can't make an attack, simply burning their action flailing around like a madman, hitting themself in the face, or wailing on the ground could be appropriate; it's an action lost that can't be spent defensively.

Then again, I also like the idea that rage takes an action to willfully enter; otherwise, it is entered reactionary when certain conditions are met. I like the idea that a rage isn't a strict bonus, too, that a barbarian might not want to rage always. 



This is why I prefer "must take aggressive action" instead of "attack".  I don't care what the rules say, but chasing elusive prey or, even worse, being stymied by magic, will not calm me down in any way, shape, or form.  How one defines "aggressive action" is a DM judgement call, but it should be fairly obvious to anyone who isn't an being an asshat about it.

Wounds Module [updated for Basic]

Proficiency Module

You should have never told the barbarian, that the Lich used invisibility in the first place...

You should have told the barbarian. The Lich makes a gesture and mutters some words and disappears in front of you. You then make a dex check against the barbarian´s and all others´ widom scores. On a success, the barbarian should believe, that the Lich isn´t there anymore (Teleport/dimension door etc.)
If someone hears the Lich, the Barbarian can figure out, where he is and can attack and retain his rage.



Interesting way to change descriptions.

As for this ...

 Page 14 of How to Play, In the hide paragraph:
"...Under normal circumstances, trying to hide takes up your action. See “Stealth” in the “Exploration” section for rules on hiding."

Hiding = action. What is hiding? In the "Exploration" section:
"There are two ways you can hide. If a creature can’t possibly see you, you need only to avoid making noise to avoid detection..."

I'm not sure hiding would take up your action with invisibility. It says "under normal circumstances". Do you have to spend your action to move silently while you're moving? Do you have to spend an action to hide if the room suddenly goes black?

The action to cast invisibility seems to alter the "under normal circumstances" clause. 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

You should have never told the barbarian, that the Lich used invisibility in the first place...

You should have told the barbarian. The Lich makes a gesture and mutters some words and disappears in front of you. You then make a dex check against the barbarian´s and all others´ widom scores. On a success, the barbarian should believe, that the Lich isn´t there anymore (Teleport/dimension door etc.)
If someone hears the Lich, the Barbarian can figure out, where he is and can attack and retain his rage.



Interesting way to change descriptions.

As for this ...

 Page 14 of How to Play, In the hide paragraph:
"...Under normal circumstances, trying to hide takes up your action. See “Stealth” in the “Exploration” section for rules on hiding."

Hiding = action. What is hiding? In the "Exploration" section:
"There are two ways you can hide. If a creature can’t possibly see you, you need only to avoid making noise to avoid detection..."

I'm not sure hiding would take up your action with invisibility. It says "under normal circumstances". Do you have to spend your action to move silently while you're moving? Do you have to spend an action to hide if the room suddenly goes black?

The action to cast invisibility seems to alter the "under normal circumstances" clause. 



  Hiding isn't just avoiding being seen.  It's also avoiding being noticed/heard.

  If you remember back to the last time you snuck up on someone from behind, you'll remember that you did have to move a bit slower, a bit more deliberately, and avoid doing things you would have normally done freely in order to not alert them to your presence.



As for this ...

 Page 14 of How to Play, In the hide paragraph:
"...Under normal circumstances, trying to hide takes up your action. See “Stealth” in the “Exploration” section for rules on hiding."

Hiding = action. What is hiding? In the "Exploration" section:
"There are two ways you can hide. If a creature can’t possibly see you, you need only to avoid making noise to avoid detection..."

I'm not sure hiding would take up your action with invisibility. It says "under normal circumstances". (#1) Do you have to spend your action to move silently while you're moving? (#2) Do you have to spend an action to hide if the room suddenly goes black?

(#3)The action to cast invisibility seems to alter the "under normal circumstances" clause. 

[Bold added for reference.]

#1: Yes. Grabbing an earlier part of the Stealth section…
"...When a creature tries to hide, it relies on its Dexterity to remain unnoticed. A creature can attempt a Dexterity check to sneak around, moving quietly and using cover and heavily obscured areas to avoid detection…."
Sneak around, moving quietly, it's still a hide check so you still need to use your action.

#2 If you want people to not know the general area you are in, yes. You can move around without hiding, but they will be able to hear where you are and attack that area. (Albeit with disadvantage, because they can't see you.)

#3 I disagree, Invisible condition description:
"An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves..."

And the spell simply says you get this condition, plus rules for what ends it. Invisibility isn't that special, its benefits are tagged with mundane "heavily obscured" and then it specifically talks about how it can be detected.

Now, the words "Under normal circumstances" are quite vague; enough so that I left it in my post because of it. So I can't say for 100% certainty who's right, but I am pretty sure the intention of that does not include invisibility. I'd say that's more for exceptions like the Hide in Shadows feat, or extremes like going unnoticed by a blind, deaf, sleeping corpse.


PS: Hey, I just noticed they got rid of the "invisible creatures cast shadows," thing. Sweet! :3
Being invisible is still a huge defensive advantage as enemy attacks suffer disadvantage. Even though the lich would not be hidden right away, being invisible makes him hard to deal with.

Personally, I really hate the current barbarian rage. I do not think it should arbitrarily end for no reason.
The barbarian rage should be end of the encounter, the current limitation is pretty arbitrary to control it and I can see not end to the debates. Which leads to spells descriptions and all my nightmares coming back when arguing the hidden meaning within spell descriptions as hidden rules. Hopefully they predefine descriptors like invisiblity so it remains consistent accross abilities, feats, spells, etc.
After scouring the pdfs, I could not find rules on "detecting an invisible creature"

You're looking for the rule on Attacking An Unseen Target (How To Play PDF pg. 16). 

The Barbarian would continue to Rage in this case.

Attacking an Unseen Target: Combatants often try to escape their foes’ notice by hiding, 
casting the invisibility spell, or lurking in darkness. When you attack a target that you can’t 
see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll, whether or not you know where the target is 
located. Your attack might miss because you rolled too low or because the target is nowhere 
near where you struck!

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I'm sorry if I sound like a complete newb(I am), but isn't lich limited to ONE of the following spells PER DAY: charm person, cloudkill, fireball, ice storm, invisibility, lightning bolt, magic missile, mirror image, wall of fire? Or can he really use all of these(but each just once per day)?


Anywho..rage only ends when the barbarian stops attacking. He can hit the walls, imaginary pixies, his own foot, his teammates or anything and anyone who looks hostile, and his rage would go on.

If his only enemy going invisible would stop his rage, then wouldn't a miss also? I say no. An enemy turning invisible and disappearing from a raging barbarian's senses should not end his rage.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

In our last climactic fight, my players faced a lich. The barbarian began raging early, so the lich dropped a cloudkill in front of the barbarian, hoping to obscure his line of sight and keep the barbarian from reaching and attacking him the next round. The barbarian was able to run out of the cloud and still attack the lich, thanks to the charge feat. His attack dealt a sizable chunk of damage to the lich.

The lich then used its next action to cast Invisibility and step back. What ensued was a momentary debate on the nature of "must attack a hostile creature to continue raging". The player said that his character thinks the lich is still in the same space, so making an attack with disadvantage against the space, hoping to hit the lich, should count to keep his rage going. I said, if that were the case, then barbarians would be allowed to just attack the air because they think there's invisible pixies following them around at all times.

Because the player is a respectful player, he defered to me ending his rage, but it was a decision I made simply to make a decision.

After scouring the pdfs, I could not find rules on "detecting an invisible creature" or a "pinpointing a creature with listen" rule. I ended up using listen checks to determine what space he was in if he moved or cast a spell. This came up a number of times in the fight, due to the cloudkill (which moved away rather quickly), invisibility, and a wall of fire (inward pointing ring). It ended up being a very tough fight.

So, with the split of spot and listen, I'm thinking that listen checks could be used to pinpoint a space (opposed by Dex for movement, vs. a low DC when casting spells), but without the ability to see the creature, an attacker will suffer disadvantage. But being able to pinpoint an exact space with listen feels like it might be too good of hearing for most people.

Thoughts? 




Some thoughts:

--> The lich just vanished before him. Does the barbarian know that he specifcially became invisible? He could just as well have teleported away from the fight or something like that. If he knows the lich is still there you might allow him to keep raging as long as he's trying to strike wherever he thinks the lich is. That's different than just swinging the sword on empty space for no reason just to keep the rage going. If the barbarian doesn't know that the lich is invisible and thinks he just vanished, than maybe the rage should end.

--> Listen is a good call. To use something similar to 3E, and also something that makes sense. The Listen shouldn't tell you exactly where the creature is. Only give you a general idea. So if you pass the Listen check you can try to move and strike with all the normal penalties for Blind Fighting. If you fail the listen check you shouldn't even be able to try the attack (unless the player states something like "I'll swing the sword at this specific space," and as a DM you know the creature is there, then you may allow the hit with blind fighting penalties).

--> The current Rage system is terrible. I'd rather just have a fixed number of rounds for the Rage to last.


I'm sorry if I sound like a complete newb(I am), but isn't lich limited to ONE of the following spells PER DAY: charm person, cloudkill, fireball, ice storm, invisibility, lightning bolt, magic missile, mirror image, wall of fire? Or can he really use all of these(but each just once per day)?


Anywho..rage only ends when the barbarian stops attacking. He can hit the walls, imaginary pixies, his own foot, his teammates or anything and anyone who looks hostile, and his rage would go on.

If his only enemy going invisible would stop his rage, then wouldn't a miss also? I say no. An enemy turning invisible and disappearing from a raging barbarian's senses should not end his rage.


Why would a raged barbarian stop attacking? I never liked rage in any iteration because it is poor at modeling the temporary insanity that is rage. There should be something like an escalation die and de-escalation die for rage that models somewhat the uncontrollability of rage.
the barbarian starts to get more and more agitated as he fights until he goes over the edge. coming down is no picnic however and takes some time to get back to happy again. 
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Well it's not like rage lasts forever while the barbarian swings his weapon around, screaming like a madman.

The rage also ends after 10 minutes or if you fall unconscious. ...and you must take a short rest between rages.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

Well it's not like rage lasts forever while the barbarian swings his weapon around, screaming like a madman.

The rage also ends after 10 minutes or if you fall unconscious. ...and you must take a short rest between rages.



Okay, this, plus the "Invisible Pixies!" thing, has ensured that this is exactly how I will run it.

Barbarian runs out of targets?  Well, now it's on the player's shoulders: Will he end the rage, because there's nothing left to attack?  Or will he shout "... INVISIBLE PIXIES!" and continue attacking the air in order to keep the rage going for a while?

Every barbarian might do this.  I think it adds to the mystique.  Obviously there's something wrong with Barbarians, mentaly.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Usually as DM I am not too much of a jerk, but... I was thinking on how to metagame a Raging Barbarian out of a rage. Since a Raging Barbarian must attack every round or he drops out of Rage. 


1. A simple Hold Person spell would end his Rage. A Barbarian has a very low WIS so it would be sort of hard to save out of it. That would be pretty frustrating. Not only is he a melee character, who is very vulnerable to being immobilized, also being forced out of Rage would suck!


2. Cause Fear, I had an Orc Priest cast Cause Fear, then moved behind a big rock (with Total Cover). The Barbarian couldn't move closer because of the Fear. He also couldn't switch to a ranged weapon to continue attacking, because you can't target something in Total Cover, so he dropped out of Rage.


3. Just outdistance the Barbarian. When raging, a Barbarian can't take Reactions, so the Barbarian is not "sticky". He can't force monsters to stay next to him. If a monster or two is engaged in melee with a Barbarian and have faster speed than the Barbarian. The monster can attack, then spend their movement to move 40ft. away. This would force the Barbarian to go after them. Now he couldn't engage them in melee because his speed is slower (assume he is wearing Medium Armor and doesn't have Charge feat), so he'd have to switch to a ranged weapon to keep up his rage. Unless he takes Charge, he would constantly be switching to ranged weapon, which he doesn't get any Rage damage bonus on. That sort of sucks. 

4. Hide/Invisibility, I don't know how they'll do the "Lurker" mechanic in 4E. If the party is fighting something that hides, what's the Barbarian supposed to do for a round? Swing at the air? What if it isn't really hiding, but turning Ethereal? 


I guess all of this it kind of sucks that one spell can take a Barbarian out of his Rage, and he can't get it back. I guess you could also say to the DM "Well don't be a jerk" but it seems to me maintaining a Rage is a little vulnerable.

I guess all of this it kind of sucks that one spell can take a Barbarian out of his Rage, and he can't get it back. I guess you could also say to the DM "Well don't be a jerk" but it seems to me maintaining a Rage is a little vulnerable.


Exactly, not all that powerful versus intelligent enemies. Excellent in a slaughter, though.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/20.jpg)

I think Rage would be cooler as some sort of escalating mechanic. 

The Reckless Attack thing works great all by itself. You attack with Advantage, but you grant Advantage.

Then stack something on top of that, like every time you take damage, you get a +1 to damage rolls until the end of the encounter. Until you are healed.
Plus, every time you do damage to something, you get +1 to damage rolls until the end of the encounter.

Both would stack.
After the creature gone invisible, the barbarian strikes a place where he supposes the foe is located, so the rage should go on. But if the barbarian fails the spot then the rage is gone.

This new rage's mechanic seems well implemented but I didnt tested it.