Obligatory "spells do what they say they do." Turning off Barbarian Rage is not on the list. (In 5e anyway - I believe it could do that in 3.5e.)
Yes, it also does it in Baldur's Gate 3. Honestly I'm for it. It makes intuitive sense.
I'd prefer it be paired with some boosts to the Barbarian to kinda balance out the additional vulnerability. And BG3 also does that! Barbs are fun in that game. But I digress.
I'm glad it doesn't because it underscores that the primal magic/power they're tapping into is much deeper than simply getting miffed. If any level 3 Bard or Cleric could shut off a level 20 Barbarian for an entire combat that would be a pretty disappointing feature imo.
A level 3 cleric could also cast Hold Person, and let a round pass without anyone attacking the barbarian which would end rage just as fast. And then the cleric could chip away at the barbarian's health while they're held (if they keep failing the saves on their turns). Saving throws against control spells are often a weakness for barbarians.
A level 3 cleric could also cast Hold Person, and let a round pass without anyone attacking the barbarian which would end rage just as fast. And then the cleric could chip away at the barbarian's health while they're held (if they keep failing the saves on their turns). Saving throws against control spells are often a weakness for barbarians.
Except Hold Person still has counterplay; your allies have a round to kick the caster in the orbs, or dispel you, or even just slap you and thus keep your rage going. Calm Emotions shutting off rage instantly like it did in 3.5 would do none of those things. So I stand by what I said.
From what we've seen that'll change in the update, though; they're adding that Rage ends on Incapacitated, which I think is a reasonable check, particularly with the new ease of keeping Rage up, extended duration, and Short Rest refresh.
It's quite clear the intent of "indifferent" is "stop attacking", it's just they only really thought about using it on NPCs (as a player, if you cast it on some enemies and they ignored it and continued attacking you, would you feel that they were honoring the purpose of the spell?) so it doesn't explicitly prevent PCs from attacking like charmed. This will normally cause rage to break after a round (well, until the 2024 PHB comes out).
This isn't normally all that exploitable, though, because it's a status that's extremely easy to break (after casting the spell, did your allies keep attacking? Well, so much for that spell).
To clarify the ruling that makes the most sense to me, Calm Emotions doesn't automatically end rage; but it can force a hostile creature that fails its save to not attack while the spell's conditions are active (concentration, and no attacks against are made by the caster's allies against the target(s) or any of their allies). To that end, a spell like Command or Suggestion is even more effective, since the failed save forces the target to do the commanded action and nothing else, regardless of what happens to their allies.
In retrospect, however, the idea of a leveled spell counteracting a key feature of a class might actually be intended. Rages are limited, but so are spell slots, and the caster would have needed to learn or prepare the spell in advance in favor of other, more broadly applicable spells. One character expending resources to counteract another's resource is how balance is supposed to work. As another example of a low-level spell counteracting a staple class feature, Moonbeam forces a wildshaped druid out of their beast form on a failed save--and druids' very ability to shapechange gives them disadvantage on that saving throw.
I'd be more receptive to the latter argument if the numbers made more sense. Here's the breakdown: Character Level: Rages Per Day / Calm Emotions Casts Per Day / Including Arcane Recovery 1: 2 / 0 / 0 2: 2 / 0 / 0 3: 3 / 2 / 3 4: 3 / 3 / 4 5: 3 / 5 / 6 6: 4 / 6 / 7 7: 4 / 7 / 9 8: 4 / 8 / 10 9: 4 / 10 / 12 10: 4 / 11 / 13
It only gets more stark as you go above level 10, also. Is it really fair for the Wizard to hard-counter the only daily resource of three Barbarians by level 9 and still have all his 1st level slots? If this was intentional design, it would be awfully rude.
Calm emotions is not a hard counter. In order to shut off rage there are two requirements:
Prevent the barbarian from attacking for a turn.
Do no damage to the barbarian to the barbarian on the round before they got prevented from attacking.
Condition 1 is achieved by any hard CC effects. Condition 2... is often tricky to achieve, because you have to stop doing damage to them before you know whether or not they're going to actually be CCed. Nothing about calm emotions makes it any better than any other hard CC effects.
Calm emotions is not a hard counter. In order to shut off rage there are two requirements:
Prevent the barbarian from attacking for a turn.
Do no damage to the barbarian to the barbarian on the round before they got prevented from attacking.
Condition 1 is achieved by any hard CC effects. Condition 2... is often tricky to achieve, because you have to stop doing damage to them before you know whether or not they're going to actually be CCed. Nothing about calm emotions makes it any better than any other hard CC effects.
For item #2; it should be modified to say "Prevent damage taken by the barbarian...." If the caster of Calm Emotions does not apply damage to the barbarian but the barbarian takes damage from any source in between turns then the rage would still remain. So that is another layer of difficulty in using this spell as a counter to a Barbarian's Rage feature.
If the barbarian didn't get to make saves every time, that would be unbalanced...that's how saving throws work, after all. Do you also have a similar problem with spells like Command? It's even a level 1 spell with the same save, and would also shut off rage in the same way. It sounds like you want barbarian rage to simply be unstoppable by spells, which doesn't happen until 14th level. If your issue is that spellcasting is very strong and rage isn't as potent as it could be, I'm sympathetic to that. I'd personally be fine with treating it more like Wild Shape: 2 per short rest, and maybe even getting 3 by level 10 (druids only have 2 until level 20). But we're just talking about the spells that exist and their effects on abilities as written.
In retrospect, however, the idea of a leveled spell counteracting a key feature of a class might actually be intended. Rages are limited, but so are spell slots, and the caster would have needed to learn or prepare the spell in advance in favor of other, more broadly applicable spells. One character expending resources to counteract another's resource is how balance is supposed to work. As another example of a low-level spell counteracting a staple class feature, Moonbeam forces a wildshaped druid out of their beast form on a failed save--and druids' very ability to shapechange gives them disadvantage on that saving throw.
Whether it's intended to shut off rage is highly debatable even now ("indifferent" is an NPC attitude, not a PC one), and will be entirely moot in a few months time.
(a) Barbarian Rage is, and will continue to be, explicitly described as "more than a mere emotion" (UA 8). (b) Even if you rule that the Barbarian PC is compelled to no longer feel like attacking, they can simply maintain their rage by spending a bonus action to do so instead, which the spell does nothing to prevent.
And the above is assuming they don't rewrite the spell to be more explicit in 5.5e anyway.
If the barbarian didn't get to make saves every time, that would be unbalanced...that's how saving throws work, after all. Do you also have a similar problem with spells like Command? It's even a level 1 spell with the same save, and would also shut off rage in the same way. It sounds like you want barbarian rage to simply be unstoppable by spells, which doesn't happen until 14th level. If your issue is that spellcasting is very strong and rage isn't as potent as it could be, I'm sympathetic to that. I'd personally be fine with treating it more like Wild Shape: 2 per short rest, and maybe even getting 3 by level 10 (druids only have 2 until level 20). But we're just talking about the spells that exist and their effects on abilities as written.
Speaking for myself, I'm not opposed to something like Command or Hold Person interfering with rage. Again though, my concern regards counterplay. Command can interfere with rage, sure, but you and your party can interfere with Command too - if the PC can't understand or can't follow your command for example, the spell immediately ends. If the party anticipates going up against an enemy Cleric for instance, they can stop up the Barbarian's ears. Or depending on the Command, they can make it impossible for the Barbarian to execute it (e.g. you Command the Barbarian to approach, so grapple them.)
My DM style is rules up until the point that they make no gd sense. I hear all of these arguments, and they're absolutely valid. The rules lawyer in me can get behind it. As a narrative DM who is trying to tell a story using 5e as a system, I'm not satisfied with any of these answers, so I'd rule that calm emotions ends rage, and here's why...
The definition of rage: noun violent, uncontrollable anger. verb feel or express violent uncontrollable anger.
Rage is an emotion and raging is caused by that strong emotion. The spell calm emotions start with "You attempt to suppress strong emotions" Since it's not automatic and there's still a save involved, if they fail the Charisma saving throw that the spell requires, my ruling is their raging emotions are suppressed, and they end their rage state. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me or play by those rules, but I am making the argument that narratively, it would make no sense for a strong emotion to exist in an emotionally calm state.
If barbarians could only rage once a day, I may rule differently, but this isn't an instant castration of their abilities, it's one spell to mitigate them. To add to the narrative of the experience, I'd give the player an opportunity to make another Charisma saving throw to rage again on their turn and push through the spells effect.
This is just my take, frankly I'm just trying to tell a good story, and sometimes rules like this take me out of the experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, it also does it in Baldur's Gate 3. Honestly I'm for it. It makes intuitive sense.
I'd prefer it be paired with some boosts to the Barbarian to kinda balance out the additional vulnerability. And BG3 also does that! Barbs are fun in that game. But I digress.
You're right though.
I'm glad it doesn't because it underscores that the primal magic/power they're tapping into is much deeper than simply getting miffed. If any level 3 Bard or Cleric could shut off a level 20 Barbarian for an entire combat that would be a pretty disappointing feature imo.
A level 3 cleric could also cast Hold Person, and let a round pass without anyone attacking the barbarian which would end rage just as fast. And then the cleric could chip away at the barbarian's health while they're held (if they keep failing the saves on their turns). Saving throws against control spells are often a weakness for barbarians.
Except Hold Person still has counterplay; your allies have a round to kick the caster in the orbs, or dispel you, or even just slap you and thus keep your rage going. Calm Emotions shutting off rage instantly like it did in 3.5 would do none of those things. So I stand by what I said.
From what we've seen that'll change in the update, though; they're adding that Rage ends on Incapacitated, which I think is a reasonable check, particularly with the new ease of keeping Rage up, extended duration, and Short Rest refresh.
It's quite clear the intent of "indifferent" is "stop attacking", it's just they only really thought about using it on NPCs (as a player, if you cast it on some enemies and they ignored it and continued attacking you, would you feel that they were honoring the purpose of the spell?) so it doesn't explicitly prevent PCs from attacking like charmed. This will normally cause rage to break after a round (well, until the 2024 PHB comes out).
This isn't normally all that exploitable, though, because it's a status that's extremely easy to break (after casting the spell, did your allies keep attacking? Well, so much for that spell).
To clarify the ruling that makes the most sense to me, Calm Emotions doesn't automatically end rage; but it can force a hostile creature that fails its save to not attack while the spell's conditions are active (concentration, and no attacks against are made by the caster's allies against the target(s) or any of their allies). To that end, a spell like Command or Suggestion is even more effective, since the failed save forces the target to do the commanded action and nothing else, regardless of what happens to their allies.
In retrospect, however, the idea of a leveled spell counteracting a key feature of a class might actually be intended. Rages are limited, but so are spell slots, and the caster would have needed to learn or prepare the spell in advance in favor of other, more broadly applicable spells. One character expending resources to counteract another's resource is how balance is supposed to work. As another example of a low-level spell counteracting a staple class feature, Moonbeam forces a wildshaped druid out of their beast form on a failed save--and druids' very ability to shapechange gives them disadvantage on that saving throw.
I'd be more receptive to the latter argument if the numbers made more sense. Here's the breakdown:
Character Level: Rages Per Day / Calm Emotions Casts Per Day / Including Arcane Recovery
1: 2 / 0 / 0
2: 2 / 0 / 0
3: 3 / 2 / 3
4: 3 / 3 / 4
5: 3 / 5 / 6
6: 4 / 6 / 7
7: 4 / 7 / 9
8: 4 / 8 / 10
9: 4 / 10 / 12
10: 4 / 11 / 13
It only gets more stark as you go above level 10, also. Is it really fair for the Wizard to hard-counter the only daily resource of three Barbarians by level 9 and still have all his 1st level slots? If this was intentional design, it would be awfully rude.
Calm Emotions is a bard and cleric spell. It's not available to wizards so Arcane Recovery wouldn't be a factor unless the character was multiclassed.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Calm emotions is not a hard counter. In order to shut off rage there are two requirements:
Condition 1 is achieved by any hard CC effects. Condition 2... is often tricky to achieve, because you have to stop doing damage to them before you know whether or not they're going to actually be CCed. Nothing about calm emotions makes it any better than any other hard CC effects.
For item #2; it should be modified to say "Prevent damage taken by the barbarian...." If the caster of Calm Emotions does not apply damage to the barbarian but the barbarian takes damage from any source in between turns then the rage would still remain. So that is another layer of difficulty in using this spell as a counter to a Barbarian's Rage feature.
If the barbarian didn't get to make saves every time, that would be unbalanced...that's how saving throws work, after all. Do you also have a similar problem with spells like Command? It's even a level 1 spell with the same save, and would also shut off rage in the same way. It sounds like you want barbarian rage to simply be unstoppable by spells, which doesn't happen until 14th level. If your issue is that spellcasting is very strong and rage isn't as potent as it could be, I'm sympathetic to that. I'd personally be fine with treating it more like Wild Shape: 2 per short rest, and maybe even getting 3 by level 10 (druids only have 2 until level 20). But we're just talking about the spells that exist and their effects on abilities as written.
Whether it's intended to shut off rage is highly debatable even now ("indifferent" is an NPC attitude, not a PC one), and will be entirely moot in a few months time.
(a) Barbarian Rage is, and will continue to be, explicitly described as "more than a mere emotion" (UA 8).
(b) Even if you rule that the Barbarian PC is compelled to no longer feel like attacking, they can simply maintain their rage by spending a bonus action to do so instead, which the spell does nothing to prevent.
And the above is assuming they don't rewrite the spell to be more explicit in 5.5e anyway.
Speaking for myself, I'm not opposed to something like Command or Hold Person interfering with rage. Again though, my concern regards counterplay. Command can interfere with rage, sure, but you and your party can interfere with Command too - if the PC can't understand or can't follow your command for example, the spell immediately ends. If the party anticipates going up against an enemy Cleric for instance, they can stop up the Barbarian's ears. Or depending on the Command, they can make it impossible for the Barbarian to execute it (e.g. you Command the Barbarian to approach, so grapple them.)
My DM style is rules up until the point that they make no gd sense. I hear all of these arguments, and they're absolutely valid. The rules lawyer in me can get behind it. As a narrative DM who is trying to tell a story using 5e as a system, I'm not satisfied with any of these answers, so I'd rule that calm emotions ends rage, and here's why...
The definition of rage:
noun
violent, uncontrollable anger.
verb
feel or express violent uncontrollable anger.
Rage is an emotion and raging is caused by that strong emotion. The spell calm emotions start with "You attempt to suppress strong emotions"
Since it's not automatic and there's still a save involved, if they fail the Charisma saving throw that the spell requires, my ruling is their raging emotions are suppressed, and they end their rage state. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me or play by those rules, but I am making the argument that narratively, it would make no sense for a strong emotion to exist in an emotionally calm state.
If barbarians could only rage once a day, I may rule differently, but this isn't an instant castration of their abilities, it's one spell to mitigate them. To add to the narrative of the experience, I'd give the player an opportunity to make another Charisma saving throw to rage again on their turn and push through the spells effect.
This is just my take, frankly I'm just trying to tell a good story, and sometimes rules like this take me out of the experience.