if l am rageing,but the enemy is out of range of attack,could l punch myself to keep the rage up,seeing that the rule says you need to attack something,why not yourself?
Well, it says that you have to attack a hostile creature, which doesn't include yourself, I think. However if you successfully attack and damage yourself that still works because taking damage also continues the rage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Well, it says that you have to attack a hostile creature, which doesn't include yourself, I think. However if you successfully attack and damage yourself that still works because taking damage also continues the rage.
The RAW state that you have to either attack a hostile creature or take damage. I have played as and DMed for a barbarians and in both cases I was allowed to damage myself to keep rage going, so I would say yes!
Damaging oneself - biting your arm, headbutting your weapon, or even just slugging yourself in the jaw - is a time-honored way for certain types of warriors to focus themselves and get their blood boiling. As a DM, I generally wouldn't have a problem with the barbarian choosing to use their attack to do this. If the player finds a way to make it cheesy and unfun I reserve the right to step on it, but that's assumed for any DM. Or should be, anyways.
It wouldn't count as attacking a hostile creature, but if you do take damage, it would continue the rage. Just don't roll a 1 on your attack roll. Then you get to role play how you tried to punch yourself in the face and missed ;)
I'm not looking it up but it's been offically stated attacking ones self does not continue your rage. It's not rules as intended was exactly how it was worded.
I've looked this up in the past.
Throwing something even if it misses technically would continue your rage.
I'm two minded about it because the RAW allow it (regardless of what tweets or sage advice is made after the fact, if Fattsgalore is remembering correctly) yet it feels cheaty-exploity.
Either :
I'd allow you to damage yourself to keep rage going. However, I'd consider it an automatic hit. If you're punching/kicking/biting/etc then te damage is as from an unarmed strike, but if you use a weapon, you roll the weapon's damage (plus relevant mods). Melee attacks only. And damage bypasses resistance.
OR
No, because with the highest HP pool of any class the piddly amounts you're losing aren't enough to pay for early access to a 15th level feature.
-
I don't know how I would approach this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I use to pride myself on being a rules lawyer...then I visited these forums and it kind of soured it for me. Rules lawyers suck!!!
Those tweets confirm that yes, a barb can keep his rage active by damaging himself.
Also note, what is written in the books trumps any tweets or Sage Advice. Sage Advice and Tweets are not errata, they're "rules clarification" but not actually rules.
These tweets clarify that the attack roll against itself would not qualify to keep rage going but successfully doing so to cause damage would. Which matches the RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I use to pride myself on being a rules lawyer...then I visited these forums and it kind of soured it for me. Rules lawyers suck!!!
Those tweets confirm that yes, a barb can keep his rage active by damaging himself.
Also note, what is written in the books trumps any tweets or Sage Advice. Sage Advice and Tweets are not errata, they're "rules clarification" but not actually rules.
These tweets clarify that the attack roll against itself would not qualify to keep rage going but successfully doing so to cause damage would. Which matches the RAW.
And what the DM says trumps anything written in the book. It's not unreasonable for a DM to rule that a Barbarian taking damage from attacking himself won't continue rage. As far as house rules go, it's a very reasonable house rule for a DM to make.
Oh, I simply dont bother argue with rules lawyers. You just tell them their right and keep it moving. Makes the forums palatable.
To be honest I feel like attacking yourself is auto sucess. How does someone not hit themselves?
First, who exactly are you saying is a rules lawyer here? Second, sure that sounds reasonable, but also remember that HP doesn't strictly mean just physical health alone, it also measures things like luck and willingness to fight. On top of that AC isn't just one thing either, it is a combination of material armor, agility in avoiding blows, and also probably a little bit of luck. In a barbarian's case it can definitely be said to represent a physical hardiness that allows them to shrug off a hit without having a significant impact, since they factor their Con into their Unarmored Defense. So yeah punching yourself in the head might seem like a trivial task if we were trying to simulate 'reality' so you could easily say the barbarian hit themselves even if the attack roll didn't result in a success. That would just represent someone not doing it hard enough to impact their ability to continue a fight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
As a DM I'd probably allow it, just hitting yourself for damage. You're basically spending your entire action, and taking a little bit of damage, just to keep a rage going? That's not broken or anything, sure, why not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
if l am rageing,but the enemy is out of range of attack,could l punch myself to keep the rage up,seeing that the rule says you need to attack something,why not yourself?
Well, it says that you have to attack a hostile creature, which doesn't include yourself, I think. However if you successfully attack and damage yourself that still works because taking damage also continues the rage.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Assuming you're at most 120' from a monster, you can also toss a javelin at it to keep rage going.
Bite your tongue. With RAGE!
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's attack a hostile creature or take damage yourself. Nipple twist for 1 dmg + str modifier!!
l love your name, ( l am on episode 45 of mighty nien and l love it!) (edit:(Apr 7, 2020):ep 62) (Long since finished, and up to date with C3)
The RAW state that you have to either attack a hostile creature or take damage. I have played as and DMed for a barbarians and in both cases I was allowed to damage myself to keep rage going, so I would say yes!
Damaging oneself - biting your arm, headbutting your weapon, or even just slugging yourself in the jaw - is a time-honored way for certain types of warriors to focus themselves and get their blood boiling. As a DM, I generally wouldn't have a problem with the barbarian choosing to use their attack to do this. If the player finds a way to make it cheesy and unfun I reserve the right to step on it, but that's assumed for any DM. Or should be, anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
It wouldn't count as attacking a hostile creature, but if you do take damage, it would continue the rage. Just don't roll a 1 on your attack roll. Then you get to role play how you tried to punch yourself in the face and missed ;)
No.
I'm not looking it up but it's been offically stated attacking ones self does not continue your rage. It's not rules as intended was exactly how it was worded.
I've looked this up in the past.
Throwing something even if it misses technically would continue your rage.
I'm two minded about it because the RAW allow it (regardless of what tweets or sage advice is made after the fact, if Fattsgalore is remembering correctly) yet it feels cheaty-exploity.
Either :
I'd allow you to damage yourself to keep rage going. However, I'd consider it an automatic hit. If you're punching/kicking/biting/etc then te damage is as from an unarmed strike, but if you use a weapon, you roll the weapon's damage (plus relevant mods). Melee attacks only. And damage bypasses resistance.
OR
No, because with the highest HP pool of any class the piddly amounts you're losing aren't enough to pay for early access to a 15th level feature.
-
I don't know how I would approach this.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/09/27/can-a-barbarian-hit-himself-to-keep-his-rage-going/
I use to pride myself on being a rules lawyer...then I visited these forums and it kind of soured it for me. Rules lawyers suck!!!
Those tweets confirm that yes, a barb can keep his rage active by damaging himself.
Also note, what is written in the books trumps any tweets or Sage Advice. Sage Advice and Tweets are not errata, they're "rules clarification" but not actually rules.
These tweets clarify that the attack roll against itself would not qualify to keep rage going but successfully doing so to cause damage would. Which matches the RAW.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
And what the DM says trumps anything written in the book. It's not unreasonable for a DM to rule that a Barbarian taking damage from attacking himself won't continue rage. As far as house rules go, it's a very reasonable house rule for a DM to make.
I'm ok with being wrong.
You're not wrong, though. Just attacking yourself isn't enough, you have to attack yourself and successfully cause damage.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Oh, I simply dont bother argue with rules lawyers. You just tell them their right and keep it moving. Makes the forums palatable.
To be honest I feel like attacking yourself is auto sucess. How does someone not hit themselves?
First, who exactly are you saying is a rules lawyer here? Second, sure that sounds reasonable, but also remember that HP doesn't strictly mean just physical health alone, it also measures things like luck and willingness to fight. On top of that AC isn't just one thing either, it is a combination of material armor, agility in avoiding blows, and also probably a little bit of luck. In a barbarian's case it can definitely be said to represent a physical hardiness that allows them to shrug off a hit without having a significant impact, since they factor their Con into their Unarmored Defense. So yeah punching yourself in the head might seem like a trivial task if we were trying to simulate 'reality' so you could easily say the barbarian hit themselves even if the attack roll didn't result in a success. That would just represent someone not doing it hard enough to impact their ability to continue a fight.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
1 + STR mod + Rage mod!
Also, keeping with the literary tradition, you need to headbutt something hard
As a DM I'd probably allow it, just hitting yourself for damage. You're basically spending your entire action, and taking a little bit of damage, just to keep a rage going? That's not broken or anything, sure, why not.