The Frenzied Berserker: I'm Just Curious

What was your experience with the infamous frenzied berserker?

  • Fought one as a villain and it was a typical villain experience: challenging, yet satisfying.

    Votes: 16 8.7%
  • Fought one as a villain and it p0\/\/ | VZ0 | 23d! (1337 sp34k for it caused a TPK)

    Votes: 7 3.8%
  • Had one in the party and it was well-behaved enough.

    Votes: 22 12.0%
  • Had one in the party and it p0\/\/ | VZ0 | 23d!

    Votes: 16 8.7%
  • I like voting in polls that do not apply to me.

    Votes: 142 77.2%

I played a frenzied berserker. I dont like pvp in D&D, although I love me some pvp in WoW. I had a +18 will save, and no problems with hurting party members. As I ran out of opponents, they backed away, and I made my will save.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

airwalkrr said:
I agree. It seems to me like the players who want to try this class are always the ones who are most likely to instigate pvp in the first place.

It doesn't sound like I'd enjoy gaming with folks like that in the first place, regardless of the class they chose. It seems to me that playing the class as an excuse to wack the rest of the party is a quick way to get kicked out of the gaming group.

Playing the FB character, the challenge is trying to avoid the pvp scenario. We've been running it almost as a curse...definately something to be avoided if possible and certainly not something to be enjoyed if it happens. And sure, you could roleplay it as a straight barbarian if you wanted, though you'd have to be in a group mature enough to handle that, and if you're there already they can probably handle the FB PrC.
 



ruleslawyer said:
Because you didn't intend to, maybe?

You may not intend to, but you are fully aware that your frenzied state will prevent you from telling friend from foe. I'd say you are fully responsible for any acts you perform while frenzied, and attempting to kill friends or innocents is evil.
 

lukelightning said:
I also fail to see how savagely attacking anyone, regardless of who they are, doesn't make you evil.

Because the DM says that you don't. :cool:

The game doesn't seem to care how one attacks someone. And it does matter who you attack.
 

Crothian said:
Because the DM says that you don't. :cool:

The game doesn't seem to care how one attacks someone. And it does matter who you attack.

Right. So if you are frenzied, and attack your friends, or Mr. Innocent Bystander, that is no different than if you were in your regular state of mind and attacked them. Being drunk and fireballing a peasant is still an evil act.

And I'd say if you actively cultivate a violent frenzy that indiscriminately kills people around you, you are psychopathic and evil.
 

lukelightning said:
Right. So if you are frenzied, and attack your friends, or Mr. Innocent Bystander, that is no different than if you were in your regular state of mind and attacked them. Being drunk and fireballing a peasant is still an evil act.

That really not defined in the rules and one of the reason alignment arguements constantly go on around here.

And I'd say if you actively cultivate a violent frenzy that indiscriminately kills people around you, you are psychopathic and evil.

And another reason alginment arguments happen is because not all DMs agree with you.
 

lukelightning said:
You may not intend to, but you are fully aware that your frenzied state will prevent you from telling friend from foe. I'd say you are fully responsible for any acts you perform while frenzied, and attempting to kill friends or innocents is evil.
Incorrect.

Frenzy does not deprive you of the ability to distinguish friend from foe; it only means that you run the risk of needing to attack people other than foes if, and only if,

a) your frenzy does not expire before or immediately at the point when all your foes are down;
b) there is someone within range at that point who is not a foe; AND
c) you fail to resist the urge to attack (rolling a successful Will save).

In that sense, assuming that you have adopted frenzy as a combat technique intended to smite evildoers, for instance, you are merely using a dangerous weapon to fight; your conduct is not actively malevolent. It's closer to using a potentially-indiscriminate area-effect spell or a rod of wonder in combat. After all, you actively DO intend to avoid attacking innocent or friendly beings; that's why you get a Will save to resist.
 

I'd still say you are responsible for the acts you perform while frenzied, and are not absolved of any evil you do. So look for your membership card to the Chaotic Evil club if you are hacking up your friends.
 

Remove ads

Top