OK so I had an issue the other night in a game and would like some advice on it.
Our barbarian was in a rage and was hit to -9 hp. Does Rage end when the barbarian goes unconscious and the rage HP are lost possibly causing death, or does the rage continue into the negative hp range
Thanks
at certian levels the barbarian stays conscience while raging or maybe thats a feat dont feel like looking it up right now and it doesnt matter its all up to the dm for roleplaying possibilities.
i mean if i was gaming i would give him one final stike and then he passed out and he landed the hit.
anyway thats just me
|
Our barbarian was in a rage and was hit to -9 hp. Does Rage end when the barbarian goes unconscious and the rage HP are lost possibly causing death, or does the rage continue into the negative hp range?
From the latest FAQ:
Does a raging barbarian lose the effects of his rage (including the extra hit points from his increased Constitution) when he falls unconscious?
No. Nothing in the rage class feature indicates that the effect ends if the barbarian is rendered unconscious. The Sage shudders to think how many more dead barbarians would be lying around the battlefield if being reduced to –1 hp meant that the barbarian instantly lost additional hp equal to twice his HD!
As a general rule, activated effects remain active even if the activating character is rendered incapable of acting (paralyzed, unconscious, dead, and so on) unless the effect stipulates otherwise.
|
Personally, on a strict basis I think the Sage is wrong. You can't be angry and unconcious, so rage should end at -1 hp. However, I also don't want that character to die because he is in a tough fight and happens to go unconcious, as it is a discouragement to using his signature class ability. So I basically treat those extra hp as temporary, to avoid a frankly annoying wrinkle in the rules killing a character. But this is just my personal solution as a DM.
Our barbarian was in a rage and was hit to -9 hp. Does Rage end when the barbarian goes unconscious and the rage HP are lost possibly causing death, or does the rage continue into the negative hp range
No, the rage doesn't end with unconsciousness.
Note also that rage doesn't in any way prevent the character from falling unconscious - you need the Die Hard feat for that purpose.
cant be raged and unconcious eh; heh i have a freind that had such a bad, violent dream he ended up going to physical therapy and traction 3 times a week and got lot of shots; just saying; uncouncious doesnt mean you cant still be angry as your mind still works sorta.
See, I wish this ruling had been in place years ago, when I was playing a barbarian :) It led to the house rule that I still use of death at negative CON, rather than -10.
|
|
cant be raged and unconcious eh; heh i have a freind that had such a bad, violent dream he ended up going to physical therapy and traction 3 times a week and got lot of shots; just saying; uncouncious doesnt mean you cant still be angry as your mind still works sorta.
Hmmm - was he on something? Also, that is the "sleep" type of unconciousness, rather than the "battered half to death" sort of unconciousness, which are probably different neurologically.
|
I agree with Aubrey about Rage and unconciousness. It seems ridiculous to think that a character can rage while he/she is out cold. But the Sage does have a point that this would seem to lead to a lot of dead barbarians and a definite aversion to using that particular class ability.
I'm not completely familiar with the Rage ability though. Can the barbarian start and end the ability at will? If so, then I'd say it is the responsibility of the player to realize when they might be in danger of death due to the sudden loss of those extra hit points. Not to mention that maybe the other party members should have been more on the ball.
By the way Le Breton, you seem awfully....familiar.
|
|
I agree with Aubrey about Rage and unconciousness. It seems ridiculous to think that a character can rage while he/she is out cold. But the Sage does have a point that this would seem to lead to a lot of dead barbarians and a definite aversion to using that particular class ability.
I'm not completely familiar with the Rage ability though. Can the barbarian start and end the ability at will? If so, then I'd say it is the responsibility of the player to realize when they might be in danger of death due to the sudden loss of those extra hit points. Not to mention that maybe the other party members should have been more on the ball.
By the way Le Breton, you seem awfully....familiar.
The only way I can make that work in my head with rage lasting while unconcious is to assume that the rage was started, which triggers the adrenaline rush, and the Adrenaline is pumping for X amount of time (X being the length of the Barb's rage) whether conscious or not.
That's how I get it to work in my brain.FH
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Personally, on a strict basis I think the Sage is wrong. You can't be angry and unconcious, so rage should end at -1 hp. However, I also don't want that character to die because he is in a tough fight and happens to go unconcious, as it is a discouragement to using his signature class ability. So I basically treat those extra hp as temporary, to avoid a frankly annoying wrinkle in the rules killing a character. But this is just my personal solution as a DM.
I suppose if you're going to insist it is a bad ruling, you'd need to explain why you can't be angry and unconcious, or more completely, why whatever happens to your body when you rage ends when you are knocked out. Otherwise, the sage's ruling is sound - the rules don't say that your rage ends under those conditions.
However, I also don't want that character to die because he is in a tough fight and happens to go unconcious, as it is a discouragement to using his signature class ability. So I basically treat those extra hp as temporary, to avoid a frankly annoying wrinkle in the rules killing a character. But this is just my personal solution as a DM.
Thats the inherient danger of raging. Because they don't feel the pain they don't know they have been hurt. So yes it should be possible for them to rage, get so banged up in the fight and not know it, stop raging and fall over dead.
|
|
I suppose if you're going to insist it is a bad ruling, you'd need to explain why you can't be angry and unconcious, or more completely, why whatever happens to your body when you rage ends when you are knocked out. Otherwise, the sage's ruling is sound - the rules don't say that your rage ends under those conditions.
I don't think it is bad from a rules perspective, which is what the Sage is about - it avoids a tricky possibility of unconciousness becoming instant death for a barbarian character, which I think is a bit unfair on the class. I think it is a silly notion from a real world perspective to assume someone is raging and knocked unconcious at the same time - the idea is just daft, as "rage" is an emotional state which ends at unconciousness - but D&D is a game, the real world is the real world, and the two don't need to meet in certain circumstances. The rules - well, just because something is not in the rules doesn't mean that is the end of the argument. It doesn't say you can't make armour out of cheese - but you don't, because the idea is silly.
I suppose if you're going to insist it is a bad ruling, you'd need to explain why you can't be angry and unconcious, or more completely, why whatever happens to your body when you rage ends when you are knocked out. Otherwise, the sage's ruling is sound - the rules don't say that your rage ends under those conditions.I don't think it is bad from a rules perspective, which is what the Sage is about - it avoids a tricky possibility of unconciousness becoming instant death for a barbarian character, which I think is a bit unfair on the class. I think it is a silly notion from a real world perspective to assume someone is raging and knocked unconcious at the same time - the idea is just daft, as "rage" is an emotional state which ends at unconciousness - but D&D is a game, the real world is the real world, and the two don't need to meet in certain circumstances. The rules - well, just because something is not in the rules doesn't mean that is the end of the argument. It doesn't say you can't make armour out of cheese - but you don't, because the idea is silly.
Besides, if you just grant (2 x Bbn level) temporary HP, a bonus on Fortitude saves, Constitution checks, and Constitution-based skill checks, it accomplishes everything that an actual boost in Constitution does, save the extra ability to hold one's breath underwater. (Oh, and you need to adjust the formula for the rage's duration because the Con score doesn't actually go up, but all you do is add 2, or more at later levels). That way, it's legit with the rules and won't cause death and avoids the question entirely.
If they named the ability Adreneline Rush, it would make sense. But it's called Rage. Additionally, the spell calm emotions stops it. Now, that's a very, very weak argument, I know. However, I do believe that the idea is for Rage to be as much mental/emotional as it is physical. I would likewise say that fear and held effects would stand a good chance of stopping Rage, but I think I'd let that slip because it would be too unfair to barbarians, and one has the advantage of saying "it's magic" and thus negating worries over explaining how it works (which I realize can be used to negate half of my above argument).
Anybody ever read Egil's Saga? That's what happens to Kveldulf: his rage ends, he loses the extra hp, and he dies. Very cool stuff.