WotC advice: Disallow the Frenzied Berserker Prestige Class?

[BSF]

Hello everybody!!

That is the last advice WoTC gives in their latest "Save my Game" column: "PCs with Excessive Firepower".



The rest of the column is very good for any DM that has reached high (14+) levels for the first time ( http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20060915a ) since it guides you through the very different encounters and encounter results (always related them to the treasure they have, which is, supposedly, larger than normal).

It's just that last point that irks me...
What will be next?
I know Frenzied Berserker is a very powerful class... shouldn't it be errata'd or something instead of saying "do not use it"?

What's your opinion about it?
And about the rest of the article?

Thanks a lot for reading.

I think you are interpreting this a little off.

Here is the thing, each campaign is going to have a different tone and feel to it. While I have been DMing for 26 years and I am comfortable telling players "yes" and "no" based on things that could be construed as arbitrary decision making, I know exactly what kind of campaigns I want to run. I know what tone, feel, power level I want to emphasize. Some games the Frenzied Berserker would be stupid insane to allow. Other campaigns it would almost enhance a certain feel. I know that! I have learned that from years and years of gaming. That means mistakes that were made, lessons that were learned.

What if I was just starting out as a DM? This is my first or second campaign. I have a player that has the Complete Warrior and loves the idea of a Frenzied Berserker. The campaign I am running is set with a tone where the PCs are a small group of friends that are good and honorable and the rest of the world isn't. I am emphasizing how a small group of people can change the world for the better through the power of cooperation and mutual trust. Maybe I haven't quite figured out how to state that yet, but it is the dynamic that the game has grown into. Now I have one player that wants to play a Frenzied Berserker and it makes my stomach knot when I look at it. As the DM I know that everyone will think the Frenzy is cool the first time it is used. Then the Frenzied Berserker will start wailing all over the other PCs and the dynamic around the table will change. One player might get a little upset when his cleric get's aced by the frenzied berserker. And since the cleric is who can cast Raise Dead, and the rest of the world is disinclined to offer any assistance to the PCs, it might mean the equivelant of permanent death. That doesn't seem like it will be a good thing right? It is going to change the dynamic at the table. It is going to change the in-game tone as well. Now the PCs are less able to trust each other. It is going to spiral in a different direction.

At least, that might be my fear. But I have a player that bought the Complete Warrior and he wants to play a Frenzied Berserker. He has the prerequisites. He has the book. As a new DM, should I let him play the class? It isn't fair to deny him, is it? Woud a new DM have the confidence to say "no"?

What if I have read a ton of horror stories about heavy-handed DMs that arbitrarily make decisions and are tyrants about what is allowed in the game? What if I have seen the posts from players complaining about an environment where "no" is all the DM ever says? Will I feel good about telling the player "no"?

What if I am perusing the WotC site and reading articles? I am in the "Save my game" columns because I am still learning the ropes and I am trying to run the best damn game I can. Here is an article telling me it is OK to tell a player "no" if I have reason to believe it will disrupt rather than enhance the game. Will I feel good about telling a player "no" now? Now that I have read advice and wisdom from people that are paid to know the game well, can I benefit from this one peice of wisdom? Maybe the article will help less experienced and less confident DMs say "no".

The reasons for disallowing something in any given campaign are many. Maybe something is overpowered. Maybe something is thematically divergent. Maybe any number of other things. There is a time to allow and a time to disallow. But it is important that the DM be confident and thoughtful when making those decisions. I see the "save my game" columns as focusing on helping DMs build that confidence while leveraging the experience of others that might have already dealt with similar situations. This isn't a personal crusade agains the Frenzied Berserker, but the class is an easy example of a potentially disruptive choice that you can disallow.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Let the really annoying guy (you know who I mean) play the frenzied berserker, so you have an excuse to kill him when he eventually goes nuts.

 

[Endur]

The funny thing is that Frenzied berserker in the article only had one level of the PRC. I.e. it was a pretty wimpy example. Frenzied Berserkers don't get nasty until they have 4+ levels in the prestige class.

Jason's article was ok, but only so-so. My biggest beef with his article was in the paragraph of "look in the mirror," where he implied that the GM made a mistake in letting the party get the +10 equivalent sword.

I'd just let the party keep whatever magic item they earned. And deal with it in a story manner. Treasure guidelines are just that, guidelines.

Afterall, Bilbo had an artifact called the One Ring, and the GM continued the adventure to defeat Smaug. The GM didn't suddenly call a halt to the game after Bilbo took the ring from Gollum and say, well, Bilbo you are now exceeding the treasure limit for your level.

 

[Matafuego]

I think you are interpreting this a little off.

Thanks BardStephenFox.
You gave me a whole new insight into the situation and I think you are right. I know this column is intended for inexperienced DM's but there was something about the advice "disallow this class" that irked me, but I think you have a valid point there.

 

[Reynard]

Afterall, Bilbo had an artifact called the One Ring, and the GM continued the adventure to defeat Smaug. The GM didn't suddenly call a halt to the game after Bilbo took the ring from Gollum and say, well, Bilbo you are now exceeding the treasure limit for your level.

Literary examples aren't much use or help. RPGs -- traiditonal ones like D&D, anyway -- don't have authorial control built in to them, so one might expect problems if in a game the DM handed a Artifact to a 1st level PC. (Of course, in the case of the One Ring, it was little more thana Ring of Invisibility for Bilbo, and much worse than that for Frodo -- but that's neither here nor there.)

IMO, it is better to be careful about what you allow PCs to get their hands on than it is to constantly purge their items, etc... because you found it to be 'too much'. Players don't like it when you take their toys away.

As for the article: the last bit about the frenzied berserker didn't even need to be there and was obviously based on the author's own prejudices. That said, I think it is good advice over all.

 

[MarkB]

Jason's article was ok, but only so-so. My biggest beef with his article was in the paragraph of "look in the mirror," where he implied that the GM made a mistake in letting the party get the +10 equivalent sword.

Which was basically quite true. Since the DM clearly couldn't cope with his players having access to high-level treasure (that was, after all, the whole point of him asking for help with it), clearly it was a mistake for this DM to hand out such high-level treasure, one which he was desperate to find ways to correct.

Yes, the treasure guidelines are just guidelines, but large portions of game balance are based upon those guidelines being followed. It is therefore a mistake for any DM who lacks the experience to compensate for the resulting imbalances to stray too far from those guidelines.

As for the One Ring example, you'll note that Bilbo didn't use more than a bare fraction of that artifact's true power. Had he done so, the entire campaign world would have been thrown out of balance, and the game would have imploded pretty quickly.

 

[zakon]

I think wizards is getting what I like to call "Frankenstein's Syndrome". Basically, they now ask "My god, what have I created?". In my experience, Frenzied Berserkers are not terribly overpowered, except in one instance: A little feat from a 3rd party supplement [I believe it's one of the warcraft games] Called Death's Door. This allows that for every hit point you are below 20, you gain a bonus on damage equal to the amount below twenty. I have played a frenzied berserker/War hulk who would start combat by frenzying and then FULL ATTACKING HIMSELF. This knocked me severely into the negatives, making him dish out many hundreds of damage each round. He destroyed a castle with one attack. DO NOT ALLOW THAT FEAT.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I would too, if that's what the article actually said. However, what the writer actually said was that if a given PrC is giving you problems, in the same way that a spell or a magic item or a feat might give you problems, you as the DM should disallow it in your game. In other words, it's simply reaffirming the standard line that a DM is the final authority for what should and should not be allowed in a game.

He could very easily have picked a different PrC, but, let's face it, Fren Bezerker tends to get a lot of airplay because it is pretty high on the power band.

{Bolding Emphasis Mine}

Dang it Hussar! You beat me to my opinion. teach me to go out and mow my lawn!

Anyway, I think it should be obvious that Hussar here has got the right opinion. Nowhere in the article does it say that the PrC was a bad class to include in the book. What it does say is that if it cause you problems, you the DM have ultiamte authority to eliminate it.

I mean, is this really any different than someone at WotC saying "If you don't like how favored classes work, then you as a DM can eliminate them or change the mechanics." That's all he's saying.

I for one support his article and his writing. You like it, keep the FB. You think it's overpowered, get rid of it. Big deal...

 

[Odhanan]

What's your opinion about it?
And about the rest of the article?

The point of the article is NOT to disallow the Frenzied Berserker altogether. It's to point out that an overpowered PC group is often the fruit of prior DM decisions and that part of DMing is about carefully tailoring what you give to the PCs, what allow them to take as far as spells, feats, classes etc are concerned, and how you decide to challenge their characters in the game.

The point is that D&D is a game that doesn't exist in a vaccuum but is played with players and DM, and that DMs ultimately are responsible for a lot of what's going on in the actual game.

There is such a thing as an actual context to an advice or remark within an article. Taking quotes out of context is pointless, IMO.

 

[Razz]

Frenzied Berserker is NOT overpowering.

Might as well say the Archmage is overpowering
The Cavalier is overpowering
Heck, the CLERIC is overpowering

Just because you can't deal with something in D&D doesn't mean it's broken. Frenzied Berserker is no different than a great wyrm red dragon in power. Heck, throw in a great red wyrm Bloodscaled Fury.

I've had a Frenzied Berserker in our games. Was it overpowering? It was if you didn't prepare for it. Did the player have fun, which is the most important thing in a D&D game to accomplish? Yes, he did. Did the other players have fun? Of course!

And the whole "might attack another player" thing, crap if flavor always gets in the way in your games, then I feel sorry that the Role Play in your games turned into Roll Play. My players and I think that's actually awesome. Has it gotten in the way of a good game? Never! It's enhanced the role play and story and the characters, so why ban it?

Use up resources? What resources? Wand of calm emotions, done. Cloak of resistance for that Will save, done. They're not all that expensive.