Barbarian Rage and "willingly"

Having played a barbarian at Gencon I feel that the Rage requirement to keep attacking should include willingly in the not attacking section.  Otherwise any crowd control costs the barbarian his rage for the combat if it stops him from attacking.
I don't see why we need such a distinction. Presumably, and whether or not his inability to attack is willful, he or she would succumb to the break in the raging. The rage is fuelled by constant strikes, and you'd think it'd end whether or not the barbarian wanted to keep attacking.
Or you could say that as long as the Barbarian attempts to continue attacking the rage continues. If all the foes move back, then the Barbarian has to use his Movement and, if necessary, take Hustle as his action to attempt to move into contact with the enemy.

So that would give the Barbarian an option - move into a potentially dangerous position - out ahead of the party - to maintain the Rage, or hang back and 'calm down'.
 
I agree with Kazadvorn, Barbarians should be able to keep raging if they try to pursue their enemies even if the can't attack. It becomes ultimately a DM's decision as to what counts as "pursing" or "trying to engage" though there should be a 2-3 round cap between attacks. Otherwise it might be that the first goblin (of 10) runs up, stabs barbarian. Barbarian procedes to rage and eviserates the thing, closes the gap some. Other goblins back up, barbarian can't close the gap and attack on his next turn so he loses a daily use of his rage and can't enter a new one for an hour. Otherwise the Charge feat becomes a tax on them.
Or it forces the barbarian player to think a split second before raging.
"Do I really want to start raging on a single goblin, or wait until the actual mass of goblins are well into the melee?"
I would be worried that the Barbarian would finish the first encounter and then begin to "pursue" the next encounter by running down the hallway.

I like the idea of some effects sobering the barbarian, but I can see other effects just making them more mad. For example a fear effect might defuse the rage but a charm effect might keep it going
Or you could say that as long as the Barbarian attempts to continue attacking the rage continues. If all the foes move back, then the Barbarian has to use his Movement and, if necessary, take Hustle as his action to attempt to move into contact with the enemy.

So that would give the Barbarian an option - move into a potentially dangerous position - out ahead of the party - to maintain the Rage, or hang back and 'calm down'.
 



+1

As long as adrenaline is still pumping and the barb is taking out his aggression with an offensive physical action, his rage should not ebb.

Where there is life there is hope... But for the truly faithful there is always hope, and it is not determined by either death or life." -- Tleilaxu Master Scytale.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

Just make sure your barbarian has a ranged weapon; they can use it to attack and still keep up the rage.
I'm running a Dex-based gnome barbarian. I use a dagger in my main hand, and a whip in my off-hand. This way, I have a slightly longer reach for my attack from the whip, and i can make ranged attacks with my daggers if that is not enough (I started with 10, and pick up more as I go).
However, I would think that, for maintaining a rage, if you moved your full speed (and full hustle) toward a hostile creature, the rage should not end, as you are more or less charging at the enemy, and are keeping the adrenaline pumping. however, there would be restrictions, such as being unable to do this if another enemy is within base movement range, and the distance has to be the most direct route (ie running through hazards, like stinking cloud, but not running off a cliff).
also, having a rage automatically end when all known enemies in the immediate area are incapacitated, as this would prevent a barbarian from just running down the hall to continue raging, and could be accounted for by saying that the objects of his fury were eliminated, thus his rage is sated. 
So ranged attacks count to keep the rage going? So have a few hand axes around (c'mon, daggers are for rogues! (I mean aesthetically))

Princes of the Apocalypse Actual Play Accounts ( Over seven of 'em! For one campaign! )

 

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

 

Philosopher Gamer

Except I'm Dex based. Hand axes still use strength. Plus it fits better with my character concept.
So ranged attacks count to keep the rage going? So have a few hand axes around (c'mon, daggers are for rogues! (I mean aesthetically))




All it says is that you must attack; it doesn't say melee, it doesn't say successful. You could be throwing rocks for 1d4 bludeoning. 
the only thing i hate about the attacking requirement is exactly what people have already mentioned: it heavily encourages the barbarian to have a throwing weapon on hand just to exploit gimmickyness.

hand axes and throwing hammers range sucks compared to daggers and daggers arent just for rogues, theyre a universal fantasy staple.  The range and lightweight makes them the perfect gimmick piece of gear to keep rage running. 
I played a little bit of low level barbarian and that certainly is the solution. Keep throwing weapons on you at all times. You don't need more than a few. If you can't close with an enemy over the span of a whole minute and before running out of daggers/axes/javelin/hammers to whip at people then losing your rage seems like an appropriate penalty. The rules seem to work just fine. 
All it says is that you must attack; it doesn't say melee, it doesn't say successful.



So ranged attacks count to keep the rage going? So have a few hand axes around (c'mon, daggers are for rogues! (I mean aesthetically))




All it says is that you must attack; it doesn't say melee, it doesn't say successful. You could be throwing rocks for 1d4 bludeoning. 


I'm a filthy min maxer and would throw hand axes instead!

Except I'm Dex based. Hand axes still use strength. Plus it fits better with my character concept.


No, it breaks all the laws of barbarians!!!1!!!

Or what the heck, you were going gnome barbarian to rile someones concept of the barbarian, weren't ya? Tongue Out

Princes of the Apocalypse Actual Play Accounts ( Over seven of 'em! For one campaign! )

 

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

 

Philosopher Gamer

the only thing i hate about the attacking requirement is exactly what people have already mentioned: it heavily encourages the barbarian to have a throwing weapon on hand just to exploit gimmickyness.


Has someone got a gif of Arny in Preditor, where he throws a combat knife at a guy (and says 'stick around')?

No reason.

Princes of the Apocalypse Actual Play Accounts ( Over seven of 'em! For one campaign! )

 

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

 

Philosopher Gamer


Or what the heck, you were going gnome barbarian to rile someones concept of the barbarian, weren't ya?



Yup, that's pretty much it. That and the fact that a raging gnome is a hilarious mental image.
Whoops...tablet interface messed that quote attempt up royally...
Tablet rage!

Princes of the Apocalypse Actual Play Accounts ( Over seven of 'em! For one campaign! )

 

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

 

Philosopher Gamer

Sign In to post comments