Hey everyone! Back during the playtest, my table had a bit of a disagreement of a ruling of mine. The party was fighting a spellcaster, and it went invisible while locked in melee with the PC Barbarian. The barbarian made a perception check, but was unable to pinpoint the spellcaster, then made a blind attack at where he thought he was. He wasn't there. I had him roll with disadvantage, knowing that the caster wasn't there, then I told him that his rage ended because he hadn't attacked a creature or was dealt damage that turn.
Start the debate. The description of rage still says "it ends early ... if your turn ends and you haven't attacked a hostile creature since your last turn." The player tried to argue that he made an attack, and he thought he was attacking a hostile creature. I said that his justification would allow the barbarian to attack the "invisible pixies that follow him around all the time" with that line of logic. We decided that we wanted to change it to "if you haven't made an attack since your last turn", allowing the barbarian to keep up his rage by getting angry and throwing a tantrum and banging his weapon on the floor or the walls. Seemed barbariany, as if it were a way to keep the adrenaline pumping.
But what's the official stance on this? Is invisibility a rage ender?
You want an official ruling from random people on the interwebz? 
I would rule that the barbarian made an honest attempt to attack an enemy and his rage continues. The fact that he missed because there was no one there isn't any different than if he had simply missed because of a bad roll.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Mind, I think the only reason there's argument is because, objectively, he attacked a blank square. He needed to know there was an invisible foe for that to be a genuine attack against a foe, otherwise you wind up with the melee equivalent of "I'm attacking the darkness!" working to extend rage.
There is, however, the interesting similar problem of attacking illusions of foes. That seems fine, under the same reasoning (you honestly thought there was a foe there). The greasy bit is if the illusion was created by an ally, possibly to artificially extend your rage (giving you a target to attack between you and your foe so you'll be within attacking distance next round). In abusive cases he might create the illusion in an obvious way (poofing out of nowhere and speaking in a call-it-in impression of the bad guy's voice, say), at which point it borders on exploiting the ruling.
This won't be a factor with a mature group, but I suspect you're DMing for a mature group, and it won't be a universal ruling.
No need to be rude.
"Official" in this case would be if there was a designer tweet or something in regards to this. As I don't keep up with every thing that is possibly said, I acknowledge that I could miss something. Also, if there was a general consensus, I'd venture to call that official enough.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Plus if you played it that his rage ends, then somehow the barbarian has an intrinsic way to tell whether he missed the wizard because it was the wrong square, or because his roll wasn't good enough. That would seem a bit odd.
Really I would just houserule the rage lasts until the duration or the barbarian feels the danger is over. But RAW is a tough one, the attacking the darkness could just be a cheesy way to extend the rage.
I feel a little attacked at the moment. For my own personal table rules, I rule that the barbarian's rage ends if they don't make an attack, specifically to avoid any issues that require qualifiers like "legitimate"; a player could "legitimately" play a psychotic barbarian who "legitimately" believes they're being followed by sprites at all times. That there's a difference between the barbarian attacking thin air because there might be an invisible wizard or a hiding rogue, or attacking thin air for no reason, is something I don't like.
But then again, I prefer for rules to not be open to interpretation, for this reason specifically. The barbarian attacked a square that the wizard wasn't in. What if the wizard had teleported, rather than turned invisible? Depending on the visual affects of the teleportation spell, the barbarian (who doesn't have arcana) could have no way of determining if the wizard disappeared or actually moved. What then? See, simpler rules avoid that issue.
The simple rule is that he honestly attempted to attack an enemy. Whether or not he succeeded has no relevance.
He may be swinging blind, but he is swinging.
What if the barbarian was blind, or attacking an illusion? Would an illusion be different than a summoned creature?
But, like I said. I'm just a guy on the interwebz so I know how much my opinion counts.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Since the Barbarian's Rage ending is a sub-conscious thing (he isn't choosing to quit raging), it should be easy enough to avoid the "pixie" problem. His rage ends when he tries to "attack the pixies" (unless he also takes damage) because his sub-conscious mind knows there are actually no pixies. While his sub-conscious mind does not know that the invisible (or teleported) wizard is not where he is trying to attack said wizard.
Interpretation is a good thing; it allows you to distinguish between the two scenarios mentioned, without having to have separate rules. Rules that leave no room for interpretation only create the need for many different rules to cover similar situations. Personally, I like the rules being more vague, in most situations. There have to be certain rules that are crystal clear, though, such as how attack roll, saving throw, and ability check results are determined or how AC is calculated; rules covering the math, for example. Rules covering in-game play situations, though, should be more open to interpretation.
The wizard disappears. The barbarian swings and misses.
The barbarian gets even more furious! 
I think the phrase "attack a hostile creature" is a bit vague.
What classifies as a hostile creature and what classifies as attacking it?
Under normal circumstances it's very straightforward. It gets less useful when dealing with illusions and invisible creatures.
Ultimately I think it's more wise to get your players on board with not abusing your rulings as opposed to trying to always rule such that your ruling is non-abusable. This frees you up to focus on what will be the "more fun" ruling instead of picking the "less fun" ruling just because it closes a few loopholes.
I'd say invisibility is a rage ender, but not in the first round. In the first round attacking the last square the barbarian saw the wizard in I'd count as attacking the wizard. There's a good chance the wizard is still there. Only after the attack can the barbarian confirm that the wizard is in fact not there.
Going on the assumption that there are no other targets within range the barbarian could go after, the barbarian will then have to go after the wizard. That'll take him at least an action to calm down and see if there are any sounds or other signs of the wizards position. In other words, the barbarian will have to use his action to make a perception check, and in doing that he won't be able to attack anything that turn, so his rage will end.
If the barbarian instead states he'll continue to attack random squares where the wizard might be, in an attempt to keep his rage up, then he's reached the point of abuse and a ruling that his rage ends is fair.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
I'd say invisibility is a rage ender, but not in the first round. In the first round attacking the last square the barbarian saw the wizard in I'd count as attacking the wizard. There's a good chance the wizard is still there. Only after the attack can the barbarian confirm that the wizard is in fact not there.
Going on the assumption that there are no other targets within range the barbarian could go after, the barbarian will then have to go after the wizard. That'll take him at least an action to calm down and see if there are any sounds or other signs of the wizards position. In other words, the barbarian will have to use his action to make a perception check, and in doing that he won't be able to attack anything that turn, so his rage will end.
If the barbarian instead states he'll continue to attack random squares where the wizard might be, in an attempt to keep his rage up, then he's reached the point of abuse and a ruling that his rage ends is fair.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
I'd let rage continue as long as the Barbarian uses the attack action to attack a hostile creature. Is there any particular balancing problem with allowing rage to continue in that case? I can't see any.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Xeviat-DM wrote:
At some point you have to trust your players. Does the character honestly think they're attacking a hostile creature?
Oh, and noctaem had a point. When did the wiz have a chance to hide?
Xeviat-DM wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Rules say if an invisible creature makes noise, it gives away it's position.
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
You can read them as qualifiers, but they are phrased as examples and examples don't limit. RAW says if you make noise you're located, that's just what it says. Any reasonable person should interpret that to mean the noise has to be loud enough to hear, and I think that's all you want to say. But every once in a while I get annoyed enough about how people misuse the term RAW to post on it.
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Varden_Khol wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
If the foe after going invisible then was able to hide and the barbarian does not make his perceive roll would that drop him out of rage?
Macv12 wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Again, I ruled the way I did because it was a playtest and it was how I iterpretted the rules, now how I wanted to interpret the rules. I rule otherwise now because I'm not doing a playtest.
Also, for the record, I made stealth checks when the wizard moved from its spot. I understood invisibility's "can't be seen" to be "visual concealment" and allowed the wizard to use that as a source for hiding.
I didn't end the rage because the barbarian missed; I ended the rage because the barbarain attacked a square that the wizard wasn't in.
Thanks for the empationed posts!
Hiding typically takes an action though. So Cast a Spell and Hide isn't something an NPC wizard can typically do in the same round. Thus, the wizard could cast invisibility and move away from the barbarian without an OA, but the barbarian could just move up and attack the invisible wizard on his or her next turn. On the wizard's next turn, he or she could then move and take a Hide action and make a Dexterity (Stealth) check which could confound the barbarian. After that if the barbarian doesn't attack, then he or she may drop out of rage.
As someone else pointed out, there are other issues like illusions (those clearly aren't creatures) or maybe a room of statues and a few animated statues/gargoyles that purposefully pretend to be statues from round to round. Would you end a barbarian's rage if they attacked an illusion, even though they thought it was a creature (they didn't attack a hostile creature, RAW kind of says it ends)? Would you end a barbarian's rage if they attacked a statue instead of a construct/gargoyle (they didn't attack a creature, and the MM says those creatures are "indistinguishable" from statues if they don't move)?
These are the situations I'm trying to avoid. So, again, I now rule that as long as the barbarian spends an action to make an attack, even if it's against the floor, I'd let their rage keep going; being tricked like that should only fuel their rage, not end it.
I'd probably say they need to make an attack against something the character thinks is (or could be) an enemy.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
But what if she thinks it's a mimic, not a door?
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
As others have pointed out, the invisible condition says "The creature's location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves". Two points stand out to me:
- the difference between "can be detected" and "is detected" - this is a DM call, it's not prescribed.
- that it is "any" noise the creature makes that "can" cause it to be detected - not just loud noises.
It seems to me, if the wizard disengaged (on the turn after casting invisibility, unless he had a bonus action), the barbarian should have to make a contested Perception vs. Stealth check as per hiding rules. If he notices (not the same as sees) signs of the wizard's presence he can attack that location with disadvantage. It's an uncertain outcome, so maybe the DM would impose disadvantage on the Perception check in a noisy environment or on the Stealth check in a quiet environment, but the barbarian should have a chance to detect/notice the wizard.
As for losing rage, it may not be RAW but I go with letting it continue in most cases. The barbarian in the party I DM for couldn't get to a target to attack, but he could if he dashed. He dashed so that he might take damage from the target and maintain his rage. I ruled that was a bit too metagamey and said just keep your rage going. I'd rather avoid that sort of approach and just go with something fairly loose that says "If the barbarian has reason to think there is a target to attack (noise, an actual target, recent activity in a location etc.) he can maintain his rage." In that case, he lost a turn to dash, anyway. As others have said, rage is the bread and butter of the class and not worth the angst of players to nerf, even if it is RAW. My opinion, anyway.
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ok, I agree that when it comes to the hearing portion of being hidden simply walking around in slippers isn't enough to make you lose hidden :p
Noctaem wrote: