RAW the damage needs to come from a hostile source, so no you or an ally can’t make a token attack to keep it going.
Taking damage from anyone prevent Rage from ending early, reference to hostile creature is for the barbarian attacking one, not taking damage from it. The two clauses are mutually exclusive.
Rage: Your rage lasts for 1 minute. It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then. You can also end your rage on your turn as a bonus action.
The OP of the thread is wondering if while running around during combat or what-not could a person willingly decide that, to maintain barbarian rage one must be hit, and to ensure they are damaged by intentionally dropping their Armor Class to accept an attack.
Most DM will look at you like your nuts, and rules assume you want to be safer rather than sorry. However, rules also state the DM has the ability to adjudicate on the fly player choices.
want to take a hit, fail a save, or just get something over with, if the player “willingly chooses” to accept the potential consequences, then it was their choice and DM can ether entertain the player’s request or flat out reject it.
As for maintaining that Rage, quick self pimp slap to self, 1hp damage no AC check to hit, and if used as a object interaction or a readied reaction to the self awareness that the rage might not be maintained, as a DM I would let it slide.
RAW the damage needs to come from a hostile source, so no you or an ally can’t make a token attack to keep it going.
So a creature can not “willingly choose” to be hostile to oneself?
guess that would break the shit out of blood-hunter classes.
No, that’s an even greater attempt to abuse metagaming for player advantage than the initial topic here.
RAW the damage needs to come from a hostile source, so no you or an ally can’t make a token attack to keep it going.
Taking damage from anyone prevent Rage from ending early, reference to hostile creature is for the barbarian attacking one, not taking damage from it. The two clauses are mutually exclusive.
Rage: Your rage lasts for 1 minute. It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then. You can also end your rage on your turn as a bonus action.
While not official ruling, the Dev take on the subject goes in that sense as well in various Q&A:
@Clint_Cranford Can a barbarian hit himself to keep his rage going?
@JeremyECrawford No.
@PhoenixNorg But Rage continues if he takes damage?
@JeremyECrawford That's correct.
@aviles316 Then a barbarian COULD indeed hurt themselves to keep rage going. So “yes” to the original question?
@JeremyECrawford Barbarians can't keep Rage going by simply attacking themselves (must be a hostile creature), but they can deal damage to themselves.
@chaoswolf1982 Respectfully, I disagree. Numerous times in media we see a furious character punch walls until his knuckles bleed, or clench fists until her nails draw blood, or some other similar reaction, to push further with that angry adrenaline. Precedents for self-harm-fueled raging exist.
@JeremyECrawford Replying to @chaoswolf1982 You’re actually agreeing with the rule. Barbarians can deal damage to themselves to keep raging.
@HVargavinter Could a barbarian hurt himself to maintain rage? How would you rule it? If so, could he then control the dmg dealt on himself?
@JeremyECrawford The Rage feature refers to the barbarian taking damage. The feature doesn't care how you take the damage: from someone else or yourself
While not official ruling, the Dev take on the subject goes in that sense as well in various Q&A:
@Clint_Cranford Can a barbarian hit himself to keep his rage going?
@JeremyECrawford No.
@PhoenixNorg But Rage continues if he takes damage?
@JeremyECrawford That's correct.
@aviles316 Then a barbarian COULD indeed hurt themselves to keep rage going. So “yes” to the original question?
@JeremyECrawford Barbarians can't keep Rage going by simply attacking themselves (must be a hostile creature), but they can deal damage to themselves.
@chaoswolf1982 Respectfully, I disagree. Numerous times in media we see a furious character punch walls until his knuckles bleed, or clench fists until her nails draw blood, or some other similar reaction, to push further with that angry adrenaline. Precedents for self-harm-fueled raging exist.
@JeremyECrawford Replying to @chaoswolf1982 You’re actually agreeing with the rule. Barbarians can deal damage to themselves to keep raging.
@HVargavinter Could a barbarian hurt himself to maintain rage? How would you rule it? If so, could he then control the dmg dealt on himself?
@JeremyECrawford The Rage feature refers to the barbarian taking damage. The feature doesn't care how you take the damage: from someone else or yourself
Why did crawford change his mind during the discussion?
He went from "No"(can a bard hit themselves) to "The feature doesn't care how you take the damage: from someone else or yourself"
If he said he was wrong and then corrected it I would understand.
This is why I gave my Barbarian player a homebrew "cursed" Battleaxe called Unending Rage that just dealt 1 damage to him every round if he was raging.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
He wanted to specify that the requirement is taking damage.
If you can not attack yourself how can you damage yourself?
The Barbarian can run through a thorn patch, touch a hot kettle, or drink a vial of acid. Depending on the situation, there are actions, movements, and free actions that can be taken that result in damage.
J. Crawford also wasn't saying the Barbarian cannot attack themselves. His stating that attacking themselves cannot keep the rage active. Taking damage is the requirement; i.e. a self inflicted wound, from movement through a dangerous area, or interaction with an object. The point I think he is stressing is that a player cannot argue their character hit themselves, roll d20 and miss, and then claim they are still raging.
While not official ruling, the Dev take on the subject goes in that sense as well in various Q&A:
@Clint_Cranford Can a barbarian hit himself to keep his rage going?
@JeremyECrawford No.
@PhoenixNorg But Rage continues if he takes damage?
@JeremyECrawford That's correct.
@aviles316 Then a barbarian COULD indeed hurt themselves to keep rage going. So “yes” to the original question?
@JeremyECrawford Barbarians can't keep Rage going by simply attacking themselves (must be a hostile creature), but they can deal damage to themselves.
@chaoswolf1982 Respectfully, I disagree. Numerous times in media we see a furious character punch walls until his knuckles bleed, or clench fists until her nails draw blood, or some other similar reaction, to push further with that angry adrenaline. Precedents for self-harm-fueled raging exist.
@JeremyECrawford Replying to @chaoswolf1982 You’re actually agreeing with the rule. Barbarians can deal damage to themselves to keep raging.
@HVargavinter Could a barbarian hurt himself to maintain rage? How would you rule it? If so, could he then control the dmg dealt on himself?
@JeremyECrawford The Rage feature refers to the barbarian taking damage. The feature doesn't care how you take the damage: from someone else or yourself
Why did crawford change his mind during the discussion?
He went from "No"(can a bard hit themselves) to "The feature doesn't care how you take the damage: from someone else or yourself"
If he said he was wrong and then corrected it I would understand.
As petepan3 pointed out JC was clarifying that a barbarian attacking themselves does not meet the “attacking a hostile creature” option to keep raging. But they can damage themselves to meet that requirement as it doesn’t specify the damage has to come from a hostile creature. Just damage is taken.
The first quote “Can a barbarian hit himself to keep his rage going?” was probably read as an attack.
Thats like shooting yourself in the foot and blaming it on the gun.
If you take an action that you know will cause you harm then its a self inflicted wound. You have "attacked" yourself.
I just hope they clear this up in the next edition.
This conversation is evidence why J. Crawford has gotten into the habit of being precise in the way he addresses questions.
Language is not nearly as definitive as we would like to think. Your use of "attack" is not wrong in anyway; however with respect to game mechanics 1) an attack comes with making a d20 test (generally an attack role) and 2) an attack does not guarantee damage (the attack can miss, can result in a conditional state, or the creature can be immune to the damage type). The emphasis that J. Crawford is making is on the taking damage. Furthermore, one can make an action or movement that does not require the game's mechanics for making an "attack" but still result in damage.
Using your example; shooting oneself in the foot could result form a nat1 where the weapon has a condition that it can misfire and there is a chance it discharges in a way that damages you. It can also mean, like the way you are intending (I am presuming) is an intentional discharging of the weapon at one's foot.
This isn't an example of clearing up the rules. It is a game designer specifying how the rule works: Rage continues if a character takes damage is one condition; therefore if a character inflicts damage on itself then rage continues. The response hitting oneself is that it does not guarantee damage. J. Crawford's later comments do confirm that if one hits oneself and takes damage as a result then the rage continues.
I am not trying to restart any old arguments. People play how they feel.
But somehow all the tables I play at have come to the same conclusion. Doing any action that consciously results in your taking any type of damage does not count to or for keeping rage going. Its all counts as self harm.
It doesn't really help because despite the fact that the phrase "you choose" is used, it seems clear that the RAI expected a character to simply pick an AC and stick with it unless another option was acquired or a change in stats made one more favorable. There's no actual language supporting the idea that AC should be changeable based on what suits a player in the moment in this system, just the Air Bud argument of "there's no rule specifically against it", which runs against the entire concept of natural language they used for 5e specifically to avoid making the rules read like a legal manuscript. The wording exists, but only in the context of character design, not combat options, which makes the argument that the one can then apply to the other potentially specious. The words are there, but honestly when you take them in context you have to squint and turn your head to make them fit as a combat option.
someone else addressed this better so i would read there response as it covers what your leaving out. but its ironic your doing what your claiming other people are doing
"The words are there, but honestly when you take them in context you have to squint and turn your head to make them fit as a combat option." you are literally doing this by leaving out the context and full words of the RAW to back up how you think "There's no actual language supporting the idea that AC should be changeable based on what suits a player in the moment in this system" when it clearly does say its changeable when you use it and you use it when making an attack action.
I am not trying to restart any old arguments. People play how they feel.
But somehow all the tables I play at have come to the same conclusion. Doing any action that consciously results in your taking any type of damage does not count to or for keeping rage going. Its all counts as self harm.
But thats us.
I mean thats like the most restrictive and not thematic or fun way to run rage? like it goes against rule of cool so much and negates so many "rage" type themes in popular culture.
i feel bad for the barbarians, which imo are already one of the most boring classes in D&D, at your table.
I think it helps, because it says to "record your AC on your character sheet". So I would say that it means you choose which calculation when anything would modify it (donning/doffing shields/armor, casting Mage Armor, etc.). When you cast Shield or duck behind half cover, you don't erase and rewrite your AC, you just add it to your AC. None of these modify the character AC, they simply add to your existing AC.
So, I would argue that, no, you cannot just change it on the fly. You choose which AC calculation to use whenever you do something that could modify it. Say in combat a Monk was wielding and dropped his shield, and now his Unarmored Defense is higher than his base + Dex + Shield (let's say he had a +1 to Wis). He could then choose to use the UD calculation because something changed it.
I would agree with Fangeye that if your DM does not rule that you can choose to have an attack hit you, that you could close your eyes as you ran past an enemy. Or you could use your movement to jump off a ledge 10+ ft. high. Or run through some fire. But changing AC on the fly opens up a whole can of worms, especially when there are on-being-hit abilities that a player might have.
the first 2 paragraphs in the Armor Class section refer to generally how you calculate armor either unarmored or armored.
then it specifies in the 3rd paragraph that if you are not proficient there are things that happen to change that armor.
and in the 4th paragraph is specifies what happens if you have multiple AC calculations like from features you choose which on to use
so if you read it like you are saying that, "when you use your AC" to be putting it on your character sheet
then at any point you get to choose which one is on your character sheet.
because it doesn't say that there are any qualifiers on when you can put it on your character sheet. like you are suggesting? just you can choose when you use it. and if its when you record it on your character sheet then you choose which one to put on your character sheet, full stop no qualifiers.
i mean the can of worms it opens up is not what i am asking. 5e shenanigans are not the point of this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Taking damage from anyone prevent Rage from ending early, reference to hostile creature is for the barbarian attacking one, not taking damage from it. The two clauses are mutually exclusive.
No, that’s an even greater attempt to abuse metagaming for player advantage than the initial topic here.
Whoops, my bad.
While not official ruling, the Dev take on the subject goes in that sense as well in various Q&A:
Personally I would t allow someone to change up their AC from one attack to the other. I might allow them to just let themselves be hit though.
Thank goodness 1DD is fixing the issue in Regards to maintaining rage.l. I think they also included you can willingly fail a saving throw, iirc.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Why did crawford change his mind during the discussion?
He went from "No"(can a bard hit themselves) to "The feature doesn't care how you take the damage: from someone else or yourself"
If he said he was wrong and then corrected it I would understand.
He wanted to specify that the requirement is taking damage.
Why did you forget to make an attack that round?
Couldn't you have just ran up to the NPC and attacked them?
If you can not attack yourself how can you damage yourself?
This is why I gave my Barbarian player a homebrew "cursed" Battleaxe called Unending Rage that just dealt 1 damage to him every round if he was raging.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The Barbarian can run through a thorn patch, touch a hot kettle, or drink a vial of acid. Depending on the situation, there are actions, movements, and free actions that can be taken that result in damage.
J. Crawford also wasn't saying the Barbarian cannot attack themselves. His stating that attacking themselves cannot keep the rage active. Taking damage is the requirement; i.e. a self inflicted wound, from movement through a dangerous area, or interaction with an object. The point I think he is stressing is that a player cannot argue their character hit themselves, roll d20 and miss, and then claim they are still raging.
It's various Q&A not a single discussion, these are from at least 3 different one.
As petepan3 pointed out JC was clarifying that a barbarian attacking themselves does not meet the “attacking a hostile creature” option to keep raging. But they can damage themselves to meet that requirement as it doesn’t specify the damage has to come from a hostile creature. Just damage is taken.
The first quote “Can a barbarian hit himself to keep his rage going?” was probably read as an attack.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Thats like shooting yourself in the foot and blaming it on the gun.
If you take an action that you know will cause you harm then its a self inflicted wound. You have "attacked" yourself.
I just hope they clear this up in the next edition.
This conversation is evidence why J. Crawford has gotten into the habit of being precise in the way he addresses questions.
Language is not nearly as definitive as we would like to think. Your use of "attack" is not wrong in anyway; however with respect to game mechanics 1) an attack comes with making a d20 test (generally an attack role) and 2) an attack does not guarantee damage (the attack can miss, can result in a conditional state, or the creature can be immune to the damage type). The emphasis that J. Crawford is making is on the taking damage. Furthermore, one can make an action or movement that does not require the game's mechanics for making an "attack" but still result in damage.
Using your example; shooting oneself in the foot could result form a nat1 where the weapon has a condition that it can misfire and there is a chance it discharges in a way that damages you. It can also mean, like the way you are intending (I am presuming) is an intentional discharging of the weapon at one's foot.
This isn't an example of clearing up the rules. It is a game designer specifying how the rule works: Rage continues if a character takes damage is one condition; therefore if a character inflicts damage on itself then rage continues. The response hitting oneself is that it does not guarantee damage. J. Crawford's later comments do confirm that if one hits oneself and takes damage as a result then the rage continues.
I am not trying to restart any old arguments. People play how they feel.
But somehow all the tables I play at have come to the same conclusion.
Doing any action that consciously results in your taking any type of damage does not count to or for keeping rage going. Its all counts as self harm.
But thats us.
didnt forget. i needed to use my action to dash to get to the target, i was running through enemies to get there to take the reaction attacks.
someone else addressed this better so i would read there response as it covers what your leaving out. but its ironic your doing what your claiming other people are doing
"The words are there, but honestly when you take them in context you have to squint and turn your head to make them fit as a combat option." you are literally doing this by leaving out the context and full words of the RAW to back up how you think "There's no actual language supporting the idea that AC should be changeable based on what suits a player in the moment in this system" when it clearly does say its changeable when you use it and you use it when making an attack action.
I mean thats like the most restrictive and not thematic or fun way to run rage? like it goes against rule of cool so much and negates so many "rage" type themes in popular culture.
i feel bad for the barbarians, which imo are already one of the most boring classes in D&D, at your table.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/step-by-step-characters#ArmorClass where the "record your AC on your character sheet"
the first 2 paragraphs in the Armor Class section refer to generally how you calculate armor either unarmored or armored.
then it specifies in the 3rd paragraph that if you are not proficient there are things that happen to change that armor.
and in the 4th paragraph is specifies what happens if you have multiple AC calculations like from features you choose which on to use
so if you read it like you are saying that, "when you use your AC" to be putting it on your character sheet
then at any point you get to choose which one is on your character sheet.
because it doesn't say that there are any qualifiers on when you can put it on your character sheet. like you are suggesting? just you can choose when you use it. and if its when you record it on your character sheet then you choose which one to put on your character sheet, full stop no qualifiers.
i mean the can of worms it opens up is not what i am asking. 5e shenanigans are not the point of this thread.