WotC advice: Disallow the Frenzied Berserker Prestige Class?

[Sejs]

How to nerf frenzied berserker:

Add prerequisite: Wildshape, sneak attack 3d6, and ability to cast 3rd level spells.

There, we just burned off 14 levels of player advancement.

10. Wildshape and 3rd level spells come with Druid 5 (which, if you're a druidic avenger, can also let you meet the rage requirement...). Rogue 5 (or Ninja 5, or Dread Commando 5) for the 3d6 of sneak attack.

Actually come to think of it, that's coming together as a rather cool character concept...

 

[Remathilis]

How to nerf frenzied berserker:

Add prerequisite: Wildshape, sneak attack 3d6, and ability to cast 3rd level spells.

There, we just burned off 14 levels of player advancement.

Druid5/Rogue5. Ten levels.

EDIT: Dang. Sejs Got ther before me...

 

[Psion]

I know Frenzied Berserker is a very powerful class... shouldn't it be errata'd or something instead of saying "do not use it"?

Y'know, if they errata that one (and not saying it doesn't need it, but it may not -- I think the concept of the FB is troublesome from the get-go), there will still be complaints about other combos and characters that cause trouble. Yet in other campaigns, it may work fine. So by getting errata happy, you might be spoiling the fun for other players for whom it works just fine (spell focus and the whole polymorph bruhaha strike me as examples of this in action.)

So I think this article basically boils down to the sort of thing I've said before: TAKE CHARGE OF YOUR GAME.

 

[cjdc1973]

I am in the midst of a mid-level campaign with a Barbarian 8, Frenzied Berserker 2. I can certainly vouch for the fact that the Bard is the party makes heavy use of Fascinate to calm down the rampaging Barbarian Berzerker. They also have ad issues with party members being on the receiving end of some lethal damage on occasion. Of course, the entire group is a bit on the Chaotic side (Good/Neutral, rather than Evil), so there are frequent friendly fire issues that are quite amusing to those not within the area of effect.

So far, the FrB hasn't really caused any party catastrophes. The actual player is an excellent role player and truly expects the PC to suffer a final death quite soon after several near death experiences. I would concur in this matter due to the wanton abandon the PC tends to rush into melee combat way over their head while under the influence of a Frenzy. Only time will tell if the average CL 10 party will ever advance far enough to see if this particular character ever becomes a serious detriment to the group.

You can follow along on their adventures in the Campaign blog at http://www.noctem.com/vaasa/

 

[Hypersmurf]

Druid5/Rogue5. Ten levels.

EDIT: Dang. Sejs Got ther before me...

Drd5/Rog1/Nnj1/Asn1. Eight levels.

I'm guessing he meant to say "3rd level Arcane spells".

-Hyp.

 

[BlackMoria]

Reminds me of a humorus moment in a recent game.

Player wanted to play a FB.

I ask the DM if the party would get XP for the FB if the FB goes ballistic and we have to put him down.

DM said "Sure, why not"

I jokingly told the other players that we should kill the FB when he gets out of hand, then have him raised. Lather, Rinse , Repeat. Others agreed.

Player wanting to play FB suddenly changes his mind about taking the PrC. I wonder why....

 

[Valesin]

{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...

I think both of the posters above are missing the most salient point: The advice-seeker did not complain about the FB, only the level/number/strength of magic items. Nowhere does the writer suggest that he felt the choice of PrC is unbalancing his game.

Yet somehow an employee of WotC, the guy they hand-picked to deal with player questions/issues, automatically jumped to the conclusion that the FB was a problem. The advice to ban the FB was not prompted by anything in the DM's letter; it was wholly unsolicited. In fact, it was pretty seriously off topic of the question. To me that is telling and warrants consideration.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I don't. The pouint about the Fb is some small paragraph near the end of the column. If I wasn't looking for it, I'd have quit reading already! The article spends a considerable amount of time dealing with the wealth level of the party, how to set up future encounters so as to not make the wealth issue even worse, and even how to choose monsters that make the special abilities of any unbalanced characters seem less important. To me, the article was jam-packed with serious mature advice from most likely a well-versed DM. I thought the article was sound.

Besides, any time someone comes out with a FB build and complains about balance, the FB is going to draw a comment. The class just has a bunch of debate that comes with it as baggage. It's akin to asking about alternate paladin abilities. Somewhere along the line someone is going to argue the alignment restriction even though I didn't originally ask about it. It might not be what the original question asked, but the article writer is wise to address the issue. He doesn't even ever say the FB is broken! He merely says that DMs need to take control. Again, I think this is an example of a mature well-thought out approach by a WotC employee.

I liked the article. It had many good things to say. Kudo's for the author covering as many bases as he did.

EDIT:

Totally as an aside, though. It is a free advice column on an internet website. It isn't like the advice is paid for! I think it is pretty darn cool that WotC has this service available in the first place, personally.

 

[Cadfan]

To me that is telling and warrants consideration.

Fine, I'll bite. Exactly what consideration is that.

I want to hear what "consideration" is warranted by a throwaway line at the end of a long article that dealt in depth with the question presented, where that throwaway line posed another possible solution to the underlying problem of an overly powerful melee character.

Is there any specific, actual "consideration" that is warranted? Or is the idea just to put a flashlight under our face and try to imply something scary.

 

[Sejs]

Drd5/Rog1/Nnj1/Asn1. Eight levels.

Invisible druidic avenger with death attack. Nice. Keeps getting better and better.