Frenzied Berserker: should I worry ?

[Trainz]

A player of mine told me of his next character concept (not for my current campaign, but the next one, whenever it may start).

A Chaotic-Neutral impulsive (read trigger-happy) Barbarian Frenzied Berserker.

That somewhat sent a shiver down my spine...

He's always a good player though.

Basically, I want to get a feel of how many of you let their players play that prestige class, and how many of you outright don't allow it in their campaign.

 

[NPC]

I let my ogre barbarian play it because it seemed to fit in really well with his character. Plus the other characters (a troll and a ghaele) have methods of limiting his frenzy damage (grappling and at will Hold Monster respectively).

However, if you have a party with no grapplers or no hold monster type spells, you should seriously think twice about letting your player take this PrC. If he builds a min/maxed PC, each combat could end with one or more PCs buying it.

 

[Campbell]

My main concern is that the class features of the frenzied berserker are balanced by penalties which affect the allies of the berserker more than the berserker himself. If your trying to encourage party cohesion that particular character concept also might not fit your game. That said, I do not know the player, and he might be able to pull off the concept without being disruptive.

 

[hong]

The consensus is that it's broken. Others might add that it's also unnecessary; you don't need a prestige class to represent a guy who goes wild in combat, because that's what a barbarian is to start with.

If you do allow it, consider the following:
1) Tone down or remove deathless frenzy. Having someone be immune to hit point damage is nuts.

2) Replace some of the mega-damage abilities with mega-soak. +6 Str when frenzying increasing to +10 is pretty OTT, even if the character takes a bit of damage each round. Actually, the frenzy variant of rage in OA would be a good replacement: +4 Str, one extra attack at -2 (like a monk's flurry), +2 to AC and Ref saves. The super power attack abilities are similarly nuts; I'd give DR instead.

3) Remove the kill-everyone-in-sight drawback. It's a great way to annoy the other players, verisimilitude be damned.

Actually, it's much easier to Just Say No.

 

[Crothian]

No problem with it. Clever players can deal with it plus it has a lot of role playing potential to the group. It can be abused so becareful on that end; but as long as you trust your players to have fun with it it should be okay.

 

[wingsandsword]

First problem, Chaotic Neutral, I wouldn't let just anyone play that alignment. I've known multiple DM's who've outright banned that alignment from their games (along with Evil alignments), because too many players think that CN is a license to do whatever the heck they want and it fits their alignment, being nice and silly one day, and murderous butchers the next.

Second, almost everything from outside the Core Books (and most of the Realms stuff since I run a FR game) is on a case-by-case basis in my game. A lot of WotC stuff is reasonably balanced, and a lot of it is utterly broken. Frenzied Berserker is just overpowered like crazy. The basic concept is acomplished just fine with Barbarian. Why Frenzied Berserker? Just ask the player why he couldn't play a straight-up barbarian, what about that class specifically attracts him?

The player's intentions are a big yardstick here. There are powergaming players I know who I wouldn't let have much beyond the core rules (and then keep an eye on it for abuses). General Rule of Thumb: If a Player is correcting other Players on the best way to mechanically write up their character and chiding them for not being "efficient", or if they first words they use to describe their character involves how insanely high their damage/spells/saves/other stats are, then no.

Case from my own game of something that's case-by-case. I've got a player in my game who has only played 1e AD&D and this is her first 3.x game. She is playing a LG monk, and doesn't like the presumed wealth of 3e and that magic items are largely required at higher levels, she'd rather give all her wealth away in-game and laments having to save up money to buy more things because she considers it very out of character (and has spent most of the campaign giving away most of her money as she got the chance). The player is a great roleplayer who doesn't min-max or powergame. I consider this an optimal case for Vow of Poverty from BoED, since it fits with the character concept, the player is playing the character properly for it, and there appears to be no intent to exploit or bend the VoP rules at all (but I'd be a little nicer than written, an ascetic monk can't have a wooden holy symbol of his deity as written, which is just silly IMO). Normally I'd never allow VoP, but this is the only case I would allow it, so I showed it to her and she's taking those feats as she levels up.

 

[Felon]

My review of Masters of the Wild sums up the problems with the FB.

Note my anecdote regarding my own experiences playing one.

 

[Trainz]

That's very good and QUICK feedback guys. Thanks. Keep it coming !

Felon... your review is... enlightening.

 

[Sejs]

You, as a DM, should not be afraid one bit. You know how there's that saying "There's always somebody bigger"? You're everybody - by default, you've got access to something that will challenge the party, FB or no. It's just a matter of finding the balance between challenging the FB and at the same time not utterly obliterating the rest of the group. But hey, that's what DMing is all about anyway, so no worries.


No, the people who should be worried are the other players. A Frenzied Berzerker is a ticking bomb. Eventually it's going to go off - and as a DM, let it. Don't pull any punches or let the player try to squirm out of* what is supposed to be one of the primary drawbacks of the PrC. If he wants to ride the fast train, he has to pay the ticket price.





*"Squirming out of" in this case would be doing things like full power attacking, AND fighting defensivly, AND stacking whatever other to-hit penalties he may come up with, when he attacks another PC so that he won't hit. That's bullshxt and it's lame. When he's going nuts he can't tell friend from foe - so as far as he can tell, that guy that just tried to wrassle him is in fact trying to kill him, and should be slaughtered just like all the other enemies.

 

[Eremite]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the PrC in terms of the mechanics because, for all its power, it is can also be brought crashing down with calm emotions, a pit trap or even opponents that feign death and thus cause the character to attack his own party. Sure, deathless frenzy is potent but a single dominate spell turns that potency against the party.

My problem is thus not with the mechanics but with the potential to ruin party dynamics particularly when the class is joined with a CN alignment. However, you have said that he is a good player so why not try a couple of sessions and see what happens?