While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.
Totem Bear
Bear. While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment.
So when you get the Totem Bear option, it says "while raging", not "while raging and unarmored".
So can you wear full plate and rage as a bear totem barbarian and have the damage mitigation? Does this new raging benefit remove the armor restriction since it specifically leaves it out?
Rage benefits apply while in heavy armor unless they say they don't, so you'll get the nearly universal resistance. Same thing applies to other Barbarian subclasses, e.g. Ancestral Guardian.
Look, this isn't wotc's first rodeo. Far from it. They know munchkins exist, they had to have known people would scrutinize the rules. Besides, this is hardly being a rules lawyer. This is merely the logical examination of the text, where bear totem does not mention armor while the other totems go out of their way to do so. It begs the question, if heavy armor had to be mentioned there, then the lack of armor must means an intentional exemption. Whether or not JC agrees, he's far from the only developer in the game. Others with just as much cred decided that it was correct and just to have the text read as such. That's all.
Look, this isn't wotc's first rodeo. Far from it. They know munchkins exist, they had to have known people would scrutinize the rules. Besides, this is hardly being a rules lawyer. This is merely the logical examination of the text, where bear totem does not mention armor while the other totems go out of their way to do so. It begs the question, if heavy armor had to be mentioned there, then the lack of armor must means an intentional exemption. Whether or not JC agrees, he's far from the only developer in the game. Others with just as much cred decided that it was correct and just to have the text read as such. That's all.
No, just...no. The company is not responsible for not catering to the whims of a minority of players who want to overcomplicate things. Especially when they've already told players, and anyone who reads the book, not to scrutinize the rules.
The only totem which goes "out of its way" to mention heavy armor is Elk, from SCAG, and WotC didn't write that. Green Ronin Publishing was the lead for that book.
And in any case, a barbarian isn't natively proficient with heavy armor, so they'd already be at a disadvantage. And gaining said proficiency explicitly requires the implementation of optional rules: either feats or multiclassing. Not only does the DM not have to allow this, but they get to decide how they interact. If they allowed everything you propose, it'd be a dumb trade-off. You'd lose more than you'd theoretically gain, but whatever.
I think the vast majority of DnD players get it, Rage and heavy armor don't mix i.e. you get no benefits from Rage, while wearing heavy armor. There are a few who want to be "rules lawyers," saying it doesn't explicitly say it doesn't work with one feature involving Rage, but I think WotC viewed the Bear Totem 3rd level as being an addendum to the already existing rules on Rage. I don't think it was ever the intent for barbarians to have heavy armor, since that would make them THE best tank, by far, in the game. Crawford has said it was never the intent for Rage and heavy armor to work together, in any way. No, it hasn't been put in errata. But then, since most DnD players and expecially DMs, understand that heavy armor and Rage don't work together, why errata something that there isn't really any controversy about? Most understand it. They have explained Rage doesn't get any benefits from heavy armor, logically that makes sense and most DnD people understand it. No reason to errata something that isn't really contested much.
Honestly, I wish they would put it in errata, just to end these "voices in the wilderness" arguments from popping up, once in a while.
Cgarciao, I love ya, bud. You are always a friend, but I think you are wrong on this one. :)
RAI doesn't matter. If it mattered that much, it would have been erata'd, and included in the SAC. But it hasn't.
Until the new print of the PHB addresses this, if it ever does, LONG LIVE THE RAGING ARMORED BARBARIAN!!
Or they simply assumed readers would not resort to legalese and plainly interpret the benefits of rage only applying when not wearing heavy armor.
Then that's completely on them. They know how to write rules. They also publish MTG. If they can't bother to write tight rules then players can't get made responsible for doing what's allowed. Rules are there for a reason. They aren't suggestions.
Yes, expecting their readers to be intelligent and reasonable is entirely on the writing staff.
RAI doesn't matter. If it mattered that much, it would have been erata'd, and included in the SAC. But it hasn't.
Until the new print of the PHB addresses this, if it ever does, LONG LIVE THE RAGING ARMORED BARBARIAN!!
Or they simply assumed readers would not resort to legalese and plainly interpret the benefits of rage only applying when not wearing heavy armor.
Then that's completely on them. They know how to write rules. They also publish MTG. If they can't bother to write tight rules then players can't get made responsible for doing what's allowed. Rules are there for a reason. They aren't suggestions.
Yes, expecting their readers to be intelligent and reasonable is entirely on the writing staff.
When writing a ruleset there's no room for "expecting [..]" other than expecting them to be able to understand the language the ruleset is written in. Rules need to be clear and concise. If you fail to do that you did a bad job like in this case. Period.
They are "clear and concise." I don't know why you feel like arguing this morning, but I wish you'd stop. Personally, I prefer it when I'm not talked down to like a child by what I'm reading. And technical manuals make for dry reading. If I'm trying to play a game, something that should be fun, it should be engaging.
Technically, a barbarian can enter their rage while wearing heavy armor. The PHB does not prevent this, though I wish it did. They just don't receive any of its benefits and suffer only drawbacks for what might only be a marginal increase in their AC. They don't gain advantage on Strength checks and saving throws. They don't benefit from the rage damage bonus. They don't have resistance to B/P/S damage. If they're 5th-level or higher, they actually lose 10 feet of movement speed. Plus, they aren't even proficient in the armor. That's such a limitation that no barbarian would even bother unless given no other choice. So, yes, a barbarian can waste their rage if they want to.
And even if a barbarian were to multiclass or take a feat to become proficient with heavy armor, that doesn't change the fact that rage and heavy armor are fundamentally incompatible. It's not something the barbarian should ever bother with. But, sure, by all means, keep rolling that boulder.
I do find it odd that the wording of Rage is such that you can still enter a Rage while wearing heavy armor, but you simply gain no benefit from it. It stands out to me because the description for rage very, very explicitly makes it clear that there is no way to cast or concentrate on spells while raging, leaving no room for alternate interpretation. On some level I do feel like this could be a deliberate choice with the knowledge that other Rage features will still function even while wearing heavy armor, otherwise it feels very strange that Rage is not simply listed as being unable to trigger while wearing heavy armor.
RAI doesn't matter. If it mattered that much, it would have been erata'd, and included in the SAC. But it hasn't.
Until the new print of the PHB addresses this, if it ever does, LONG LIVE THE RAGING ARMORED BARBARIAN!!
Or they simply assumed readers would not resort to legalese and plainly interpret the benefits of rage only applying when not wearing heavy armor.
Then that's completely on them. They know how to write rules. They also publish MTG. If they can't bother to write tight rules then players can't get made responsible for doing what's allowed. Rules are there for a reason. They aren't suggestions.
Yes, expecting their readers to be intelligent and reasonable is entirely on the writing staff.
When writing a ruleset there's no room for "expecting [..]" other than expecting them to be able to understand the language the ruleset is written in. Rules need to be clear and concise. If you fail to do that you did a bad job like in this case. Period.
They are "clear and concise." I don't know why you feel like arguing this morning, but I wish you'd stop. Personally, I prefer it when I'm not talked down to like a child by what I'm reading. And technical manuals make for dry reading. If I'm trying to play a game, something that should be fun, it should be engaging.
Technically, a barbarian can enter their rage while wearing heavy armor. The PHB does not prevent this, though I wish it did. They just don't receive any of its benefits and suffer only drawbacks for what might only be a marginal increase in their AC. They don't gain advantage on Strength checks and saving throws. They don't benefit from the rage damage bonus. They don't have resistance to B/P/S damage. If they're 5th-level or higher, they actually lose 10 feet of movement speed. Plus, they aren't even proficient in the armor. That's such a limitation that no barbarian would even bother unless given no other choice. So, yes, a barbarian can waste their rage if they want to.
And even if a barbarian were to multiclass or take a feat to become proficient with heavy armor, that doesn't change the fact that rage and heavy armor are fundamentally incompatible. It's not something the barbarian should ever bother with. But, sure, by all means, keep rolling that boulder.
If you don't want to argue then don't? You can just decide to ignore my post and keep scrolling.
Yes it's clear and concise and it clearly allows the bear totem benefits even when wearing armour, like it or not. If you want it to be differently ... then no they aren't written well enough. There's literally nothing to argue about in that regard and yet you still do it. Rules that leave room to interpret things or let people things do that they aren't supposed to do (regardless of true or not) aren't good rules. You're barking at the wrong tree here, buddy. Don't be mad at me, be mad at the rules for letting people do something you don't like them to do.
The guy who was in charge of the team that WROTE the rules says Rage isn't meant to work with heavy armor. That's all a DM needs to know imo. I think the intent is fairly clear, Rage and heavy armor don't mix. They didn't explicitly say you can't wear heavy armor with Totem Warrior, since this is just an expanding of the damage resistances of Rage. All the same limitations apply, since it is covering an existing ability, Rage, but now the damage resistance is expanded.
I think the rules are clear, only some people don't want to see it.
"While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
You have advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws.
When you make a melee weapon attack using Strength, you gain a bonus to the damage roll that increases as you gain levels as a barbarian, as shown in the Rage Damage column of the Barbarian table.
You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage, all damage except psychic damage."
What I find bizarre about all this, about all the naysayers, is that allowing the interaction is hardly game breaking. You would only get the resistance to damage and nothing else while raging.
What I don't like about this RAI interpretation is that we're allowed to rage while wearing heavy armor. Think about that for a moment. If we're wearing heavy armor, we can still rage. If it truly was intended that armor and rage don't mix, the rules wouldn't allow us to rage while wearing heavy armor at all much like in the same way rules don't allow a druid to wear armor made of metal. But no, instead we're allowed to. Why? under any normal circumstance, to rage while wearing it would be a total waste of a resource since we'd get NOTHING from it. That's a funny thing to just let happen.
So, if we're allowed to rage in armor, then it stands to reason that there's a reason for that. Bear totem stating that "while raging" portion and leaving out any mention of heavy armor therefore leads us to the logical conclusion that we can rage while wearing heavy armor and benefit from the resistance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rage description
While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
Totem Bear
Bear. While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage. The spirit of the bear makes you tough enough to stand up to any punishment.
So when you get the Totem Bear option, it says "while raging", not "while raging and unarmored".
So can you wear full plate and rage as a bear totem barbarian and have the damage mitigation? Does this new raging benefit remove the armor restriction since it specifically leaves it out?
I don't think that is RAI but RAW yes you could do that.
Rage benefits apply while in heavy armor unless they say they don't, so you'll get the nearly universal resistance. Same thing applies to other Barbarian subclasses, e.g. Ancestral Guardian.
The intent is they do not, but it's not in the Sage Advice Compendium. Anything that relies on Rage should not mix with heavy armor.
RAI doesn't matter. If it mattered that much, it would have been erata'd, and included in the SAC. But it hasn't.
Until the new print of the PHB addresses this, if it ever does, LONG LIVE THE RAGING ARMORED BARBARIAN!!
Or they simply assumed readers would not resort to legalese and plainly interpret the benefits of rage only applying when not wearing heavy armor.
Look, this isn't wotc's first rodeo. Far from it. They know munchkins exist, they had to have known people would scrutinize the rules. Besides, this is hardly being a rules lawyer. This is merely the logical examination of the text, where bear totem does not mention armor while the other totems go out of their way to do so. It begs the question, if heavy armor had to be mentioned there, then the lack of armor must means an intentional exemption. Whether or not JC agrees, he's far from the only developer in the game. Others with just as much cred decided that it was correct and just to have the text read as such. That's all.
But you wouldn't gain the rest of the benefits of rage. But yes, I don't see why the resistance to everything in heavy armor should not work.
No, just...no. The company is not responsible for not catering to the whims of a minority of players who want to overcomplicate things. Especially when they've already told players, and anyone who reads the book, not to scrutinize the rules.
The only totem which goes "out of its way" to mention heavy armor is Elk, from SCAG, and WotC didn't write that. Green Ronin Publishing was the lead for that book.
And in any case, a barbarian isn't natively proficient with heavy armor, so they'd already be at a disadvantage. And gaining said proficiency explicitly requires the implementation of optional rules: either feats or multiclassing. Not only does the DM not have to allow this, but they get to decide how they interact. If they allowed everything you propose, it'd be a dumb trade-off. You'd lose more than you'd theoretically gain, but whatever.
I think the vast majority of DnD players get it, Rage and heavy armor don't mix i.e. you get no benefits from Rage, while wearing heavy armor. There are a few who want to be "rules lawyers," saying it doesn't explicitly say it doesn't work with one feature involving Rage, but I think WotC viewed the Bear Totem 3rd level as being an addendum to the already existing rules on Rage. I don't think it was ever the intent for barbarians to have heavy armor, since that would make them THE best tank, by far, in the game. Crawford has said it was never the intent for Rage and heavy armor to work together, in any way. No, it hasn't been put in errata. But then, since most DnD players and expecially DMs, understand that heavy armor and Rage don't work together, why errata something that there isn't really any controversy about? Most understand it. They have explained Rage doesn't get any benefits from heavy armor, logically that makes sense and most DnD people understand it. No reason to errata something that isn't really contested much.
Honestly, I wish they would put it in errata, just to end these "voices in the wilderness" arguments from popping up, once in a while.
Cgarciao, I love ya, bud. You are always a friend, but I think you are wrong on this one. :)
Nah, I think the bear totem provides protection supernaturally so sure
Yes, expecting their readers to be intelligent and reasonable is entirely on the writing staff.
They are "clear and concise." I don't know why you feel like arguing this morning, but I wish you'd stop. Personally, I prefer it when I'm not talked down to like a child by what I'm reading. And technical manuals make for dry reading. If I'm trying to play a game, something that should be fun, it should be engaging.
Technically, a barbarian can enter their rage while wearing heavy armor. The PHB does not prevent this, though I wish it did. They just don't receive any of its benefits and suffer only drawbacks for what might only be a marginal increase in their AC. They don't gain advantage on Strength checks and saving throws. They don't benefit from the rage damage bonus. They don't have resistance to B/P/S damage. If they're 5th-level or higher, they actually lose 10 feet of movement speed. Plus, they aren't even proficient in the armor. That's such a limitation that no barbarian would even bother unless given no other choice. So, yes, a barbarian can waste their rage if they want to.
And even if a barbarian were to multiclass or take a feat to become proficient with heavy armor, that doesn't change the fact that rage and heavy armor are fundamentally incompatible. It's not something the barbarian should ever bother with. But, sure, by all means, keep rolling that boulder.
I do find it odd that the wording of Rage is such that you can still enter a Rage while wearing heavy armor, but you simply gain no benefit from it. It stands out to me because the description for rage very, very explicitly makes it clear that there is no way to cast or concentrate on spells while raging, leaving no room for alternate interpretation. On some level I do feel like this could be a deliberate choice with the knowledge that other Rage features will still function even while wearing heavy armor, otherwise it feels very strange that Rage is not simply listed as being unable to trigger while wearing heavy armor.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
The guy who was in charge of the team that WROTE the rules says Rage isn't meant to work with heavy armor. That's all a DM needs to know imo. I think the intent is fairly clear, Rage and heavy armor don't mix. They didn't explicitly say you can't wear heavy armor with Totem Warrior, since this is just an expanding of the damage resistances of Rage. All the same limitations apply, since it is covering an existing ability, Rage, but now the damage resistance is expanded.
I think the rules are clear, only some people don't want to see it.
"While raging, you gain the following benefits if you aren’t wearing heavy armor:
bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage, all damage except psychic damage."What I find bizarre about all this, about all the naysayers, is that allowing the interaction is hardly game breaking. You would only get the resistance to damage and nothing else while raging.
What I don't like about this RAI interpretation is that we're allowed to rage while wearing heavy armor. Think about that for a moment. If we're wearing heavy armor, we can still rage. If it truly was intended that armor and rage don't mix, the rules wouldn't allow us to rage while wearing heavy armor at all much like in the same way rules don't allow a druid to wear armor made of metal. But no, instead we're allowed to. Why? under any normal circumstance, to rage while wearing it would be a total waste of a resource since we'd get NOTHING from it. That's a funny thing to just let happen.
So, if we're allowed to rage in armor, then it stands to reason that there's a reason for that. Bear totem stating that "while raging" portion and leaving out any mention of heavy armor therefore leads us to the logical conclusion that we can rage while wearing heavy armor and benefit from the resistance.