WotC advice: Disallow the Frenzied Berserker Prestige Class?

[Nonlethal Force]

Drd5/Rog1/Nnj1/Asn1. Eight levels.

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

-Hyp.

They would have to be human, though. Or else incurring some serious XP penalties, no?

 

[ValhallaGH]

They would have to be human, though. Or else incurring some serious XP penalties, no?

Only one class not at first level; it is druid though, which isn't a favored class for the vast majority of races. Human and Half-Elf from the core, Lizardfolk and a few others that have Druid as favored are all viable options. Of course, the lizardfolk has 2 HD and +1 LA, making the character 11th level....

 

[Hypersmurf]

Human and Half-Elf from the core...

Yeah. 20% XP penalty for Halflings (favoured class Rogue), 40% for anyone else Core.

-Hyp.

 

[Hussar]

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.

I dunno. The original letter mentions a number of things, including the classes of the PC that stands out as being overpowered. So, the author goes down the list, by the numbers, and points out every area which might be causing the problems. The last on the list is the PrC. I would say that the author thinks that that is the least important consideration no?

Bombing your party with 200k gp items is likely the biggest problem, and, oh lookie, it's the first bit that gets addressed.

In any case, it's not that the author states that the class needs to be changed. He states that the class may not work in every campaign. Which is precisely what I said in the first place. Shock and horror, the author is empowering the DM to say no to players.

Isn't this exactly what people have been bitching about in 3e? That DM's have lost their power?

 

[QuaziquestGM]

Frenzied berserker showed up once in my campaign, on an NPC. After that, it was banned. It's a poorly thought out, overpowered class, that makes the PC a danger to his friends as well as his enemies.

It almost forces to the other characters to devote a portion of their resources to controlling/stopping the berserker when they are in a frenzy, or run the risk of getting killed by their own comrade in every dangerous fight.

so....you are saying that the drawbacks of the class limit it rather nicely?

 

[MarkB]

so....you are saying that the drawbacks of the class limit it rather nicely?

No, that's the whole problem. The drawbacks of the class don't limit it at all. Instead, they limit the other characters in the party, and to a large extent dictate their tactics.

 

[D'karr]

No, that's the whole problem. The drawbacks of the class don't limit it at all. Instead, they limit the other characters in the party, and to a large extent dictate their tactics.

So when the FB starts swinging at the party have the party swing back. A dead FB is better than a dead party... LOL

 

[Sejs]

They would have to be human, though. Or else incurring some serious XP penalties, no?

Actually, looking at it, they'd have to be human to meet the feat requirements in time anyway (power attack, cleave, intimidating rage, destructive rage). Otherwise it'd be delayed until 10th.