Barbarian PrC Build

[Catarang]

Hey all! I'm new to the forums of Giantitp, so if you see something wrong, please point it out. I have a Half-Orc Barbarian that I am currently playing in a campaign with some of my friends, and I have a projection of how it should play out, at least up to level 10 and I'm looking for suggestions/pointers on how it should play out. I placed the build below (at least his feats and levels) Keep in mind he wields a Greatsword and shall always be wearing light armor to take advantage of the extra movement from his class choices. (Also, if it is of any consequence, his back story is that he was once the (minor) god/worshiped ancestor spirit of a group of Half-Orc tribes, but lost said god like powers when he lost a duel with his other personality/nemesis/anti self (also a god) the battle fury and frenzy abilities are supposed to show his sundered self and insanity as well as his mighty battle prowess)

Barbarian 1: Extra Rage
Fighter 1: Bonus:Power Attack
Fighter 2:Bonus: Cleave; Intimidating rage
Fighter 3
Fighter 4: Great Cleave
Berserk 1(Deities and Demigods):Destructive Rage
Tribal Protector 1: Bonus: Weapon Focus(Greatsword)
Tribal Protector 2
Frenzied Berserker 1: Extended Rage
Frenzied Berserker 2

My questions are as follows
Q1: Do the 3 rage/Rage like abilities this character has at his disposal stack (rage, Battle fury, Frenzy)? I know the Whirling Rage variant specifically says that it doesn't stack with other rages, but i was wondering if these 3 do.
Q2: I grabbed Weapon Focus (Greatsword) but i'm not happy with the selection, is there some feat i'm missing that would play to this characters strong suits?

Also in general, if you have comments on the build I'd love to hear them and thanks in advance!

[Vangor]

Rage, Battle Fury, and Frenzy all stack, giving +16 Str, +10 Con, +5 vs Will, and +1 Attack with -8 AC and various other negatives.

For the feat, take Leap Attack; with a two handed weapon, this triples the power attack damage bonus on a charging leap.

As well, get Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian ACF for Pounce. Atop this, I recommend any two handed reach weapon to minimize attacks of opportunity against your hindered AC to avoid unnecessary Frenzy usage. This further assists since you have Great Cleave and will get Supreme Cleave, allowing more possible targets.

Other recommendation is to cut Tribal Protector. Not sure why you have this since you can hit Frenzied Berserker on 7th level, and the purpose of those builds is to pump bonus damage, in particular through power attack which is further improved on 5th level of FB.

[Catarang]

I picked Tribal Protector since it played into my back story as well as it gives an extra attack from Wild Fighting. Though Leap Attack I will definitely take instead of Weapon Focus. I will look into the pluses and minuses of Tribal Protector.

[nedz]

What are you going to do out of combat ?

How do you not get carried away and kill the rest of your party whilst in a mad frenzy ? (Hint: you might want to think about your Will save)

[Catarang]

Well see, There in lies the problem right? If my character cannot Come to grips with his rage, then he isn't able to function in a party and must either be killed or avoided. But also "Grog", the character in question, is the protective ancestor warrior spirit of his tribe, destined to lead his people to glory against the encroaching empire of man. A true Awl vs. Letherii scenario. Thus even though his rage will be tremendous and reckless, a danger to all in his path his tribe or rather a select group of priests and advisers will know of his impending insanity as he battles his alter ego/anti self. Inside his head of course. His rage is just an embodiment of how much he's willing to dip into that deep dark part of his self and how well he channels it. His advisers know this and thus will have set priests to guard his followers from his rage (clam emotions) as he fights to channel it against his foes. Any repercussions because of this personality defect will have to be dealt in a RP way. The feats I take after this 10 level projection are up to me and I will determine these depending on the amount of danger I am to all members of my tribe/party, probably taking any or all of iron will/cumbrous will/indomitable will.

[Nihilarian]

Killing your party members is not fun for your party members. Work out how they can stop you ASAP.

[Catarang]

I did, in my previous post I stated that I will be trailed by priests whom are supposed to calm me down (calm emotions 2nd level cleric spell)when I begin to hurt my allies. Also, my fellows are competent enough to not be slain so easily. Grog must have faith that he can rely on them to keep themselves safe while he plays his part in the destruction of the empire of man. Counterpoint to my own point: why would they stick with me if I'm constantly fighting/having the chance of fighting them? Counter Counter point: Some (at least one, sometimes two depending on all the players busy lives) of my compadres are actually of my tribe, and all have beef with the empire. Thus they stick with me for the loot and since i'm the only person with a chance of hindering the Empire of man's Expansionist agenda. Their greed/devotion allows them to see past my dangerous personality, or at least it should if the RP goes alright.

[Vhaidara]

You could build up to the Righteous Wrath feat, which causes you to retain clarity of mind while raging. Not necessarily at the beginning, but do get it. Please. You will probably kill your party members in a single hit with this build.

[Catarang]

I have heard speculation (at least from my DM) whether or not this works on Frenzy. If you could give me a citation or something to show him then that would be awesome, cause I would totally take this feat at 12th level.

[Catarang]

T'would seem that upon further Inspection of the Frenzied Berserker rules It appears I cannot stack Wild Fighting with Frenzy, or at least not in any way that would be useful while in rage. Alas, back to the drawing board.

[Vhaidara]

It never explicitly says it works with Frenzy.

However, it specifically mentions distinguishing friend from for, which is only a problem with frenzy and not with rage.

edit: also, why can't they stack?

[Catarang]

Wild Fighting Gives an extra Attack. Frenzy give the same thing without the -2 that wild fighting gives on all attacks in the same round, as well as Frenzy Specifically says that I Cannot use the Extra Attack given By Frenzy When Using other Abilities that give extra attacks

[bekeleven]

Although it's a matter of interpretation, I am still of the opinion that a berserker can willingly fail will saves against spells cast by allies.

I'll also add that from a design perspective, FB is possibly the worst prestige class in WotC's whole 3.5. It gives a player advantages and balances them with disadvantages to his party. What's a team game?

[Vhaidara]

...I never noticed that frenzy gave you an attack.

[Namfuak]

You could always take a level of Warblade at or after 5th level and take iron heart surge to end your frenzy when you run out of enemies.

[Immabozo]

Take advantage on the increased con, take the Steadfast Determination feat. con to will saves, instead of wis, so, if the +10 con is accurate, that's +5 will, with your +5 will saves, that's a total of a +10 to will saves while raging.

So now you should be fine on making your save, except on a 1.

[nedz]

Although it's a matter of interpretation, I am still of the opinion that a berserker can willingly fail will saves against spells cast by allies.
But if you are trying to carve them into little pieces: are they your allies ?


I'll also add that from a design perspective, FB is possibly the worst prestige class in WotC's whole 3.5. It gives a player advantages and balances them with disadvantages to his party. What's a team game?

I'm not sure about worst — that's a big competition — but it's certainly bad.

A couple of times I've dropped an item which causes similar behaviour. They have been generally popular until the first time they kill PCs — at which point the party retire them. This should happen to FBs in any well played party.

[Psyren]

For a protective warrior spirit Barbarian I'd be more inclined to Totem Rager than Frenzied Berserker but that's just me. FB subscribes more to the "lay waste to everything" school of protection.

[Immabozo]

Although it's a matter of interpretation, I am still of the opinion that a berserker can willingly fail will saves against spells cast by allies.

Interpretation my rear end. Willingly failing a save to take you out of your rage is decidedly NOT "fighting to the best of you ability"

[Catarang]

For a protective warrior spirit Barbarian I'd be more inclined to Totem Rager than Frenzied Berserker but that's just me. FB subscribes more to the "lay waste to everything" school of protection.

True, but the tribal protector is what ties in his Character levels with the Warrior spirit/Deity of his tribe. As said above, his fight with his anti personality and his quest for self is what causes his insanity, which is embodied slightly in his berserk level, and the full derailed mind is portrayed in his FB Levels. I never said he was destined to be a good protector (good as in good at his job) and to be honest the way this is playing out he could very well be a detriment to his tribe rather than a saving grace. The more he draws upon his inner conflict to fight physical battles, the deeper he falls into a state of insanity. Harnessing or loosing it is up to his determination.

[Catarang]

Barbarian (Spirit Lion)1: Extra Rage
Fighter 1: Bonus:Power Attack
Fighter 2:Bonus:Cleave; Intimidating rage
Fighter 3
Fighter 4: Bonus:Great Cleave
Berserk 1(Deities and Demigods):Destructive Rage
Tribal Protector 1: Bonus: Leap Attack
Frenzied Berserker 1
Frenzied Berserker 2: Extended Rage
Frenzied Berserker 3

New Build, put in some of the suggestions and took out 2nd Level of Tribal Protector, hope its better.

[Immabozo]

Barbarian (Spirit Lion)1: Extra Rage
Fighter 1: Bonus:Power Attack
Fighter 2:Bonus:Cleave; Intimidating rage
Fighter 3
Fighter 4: Bonus:Great Cleave
Berserk 1(Deities and Demigods):Destructive Rage
Tribal Protector 1: Bonus: Leap Attack
Frenzied Berserker 1
Frenzied Berserker 2: Extended Rage
Frenzied Berserker 3

New Build, put in some of the suggestions and took out 2nd Level of Tribal Protector, hope its better.

I'd do whirrling variant of rage. It stacks with spirit lion, gives you a + to armor and reflex instead of a minus to armor and a plus to will save, it gives you an extra attack that may not stack with anything else in your build that does. There are other bonuses to it I am not recalling (not the +ref over +will in a good thing, but it is only a +2)

[Catarang]

The Fact that whirling rage specifically says it doesn't stack with other rage abilities is a major turn off to me, at least in this build.

[Immabozo]

The Fact that whirling rage specifically says it doesn't stack with other rage abilities is a major turn off to me, at least in this build.

no, it says the extra attack does not stack with other things that grant an extra attack. Everything else plays nice with other rage and frenzy effects

[Catarang]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Rage_Variant:_Whirling_Frenzy

Last Line

Also Whirling Frenzy doesn't say anything about not having its extra attack not stack with other attacks, that's just plain FB frenzy you're thinking of.

[RedMage125]

My Frenzied berserker Build is as follows:
Race: Human
Level 1: Ranger (Extra Skill points at first level, Track for free), avoid taking any other feats until level 2
Level 2: Barbarian, now take the feats Extra Rage and Intimidating Rage
Level 3-6: Fighter, take Destructive Rage and Weapon Focus, then Power Attack, Cleave and Weapon Specialization as Fighter Bonus Feats.
Levels 7-16: Frenzied Berserker, take Improved Critical, Improved Sunder, and Combat Brute.
Finish up Barbarian.

Now, I made this kind of general. My build uses a Glaive for a weapon, your mileage may vary.

As far as not attacking your friends, a Wand of Calm Emotions (2nd level cleric spell) does not cost all that much by the time the party reaches level 7 (when you first pick up FB), and has 50 charges. Hand it to the party cleric, and when the last enemy falls, he uses it on you. You always have the option to voluntarily fail any saving throw. Presto! You are no longer frenzied and are in no danger of attacking your allies.

[Catarang]

Voluntarily failing saving throws only makes sense if you would want to, and when you're surrounded by enemies (ie: your party since in frenzy they look like enemies) you wouldn't want to surrender your ability that makes you a killing machine. Also, the 10% minus to exp for taking 3 regular classes would be a bit of a bummer. but I see where you're going with this.

[Immabozo]

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/UA:Rage_Variant:_Whirling_Frenzy

Last Line

Also Whirling Frenzy doesn't say anything about not having its extra attack not stack with other attacks, that's just plain FB frenzy you're thinking of.

That is D&D wiki, i.e. not a valid source for game rules. That thing is FILLED with homebrew and is indistinguishable by anyone unless they know better. Dont use it unless specifically allowed in your games.

the real rules (http://www.d20srd.org)

But in this case, you are correct


As far as not attacking your friends, a Wand of Calm Emotions (2nd level cleric spell) does not cost all that much by the time the party reaches level 7 (when you first pick up FB), and has 50 charges. Hand it to the party cleric, and when the last enemy falls, he uses it on you. You always have the option to voluntarily fail any saving throw. Presto! You are no longer frenzied and are in no danger of attacking your allies.

false, this is never an option to the Frenzied Berzerker.


During a frenzy, the frenzied must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability

Emphasis mine.

Intentionally failing your save is decidedly not fighting "to the best of her ability"

[RedMage125]

Voluntarily failing saving throws only makes sense if you would want to, and when you're surrounded by enemies (ie: your party since in frenzy they look like enemies) you wouldn't want to surrender your ability that makes you a killing machine. Also, the 10% minus to exp for taking 3 regular classes would be a bit of a bummer. but I see where you're going with this.
Addressing the voluntary save below.

No XP penalty, because he's human, and his highest-level class doesn't count against him. Ranger and Barbarian are each 1 level, and 4 of fighter.

EDIT: Oh, you mean after he finishes FB? Yeah, he'd prolly be better off going back into fighter, maybe 1 more level of Barb for Unacnny Dodge.


false, this is never an option to the Frenzied Berzerker.

Intentionally failing your save is decidedly not fighting "to the best of her ability"
Incorrect. As long as there are enemies around, the FB continues to precieve his allies as allies. Once no more enemies are around, he must attack the CLOSEST creature. It does not specify that suddenly EVERYONE around him is now an enemy. Ergo, he can still accept a party cleric as an ally, so long as he is not the one being attacked by the FB.

I DM my games strictly RAW, and had a party use this trick. Towards the end of combat, when it was looking like the last enemy was about to drop, the cleric, on his turn in initiative (if it wasn't immediately needed to do something else) would ready an action to use the wand on the FB as soon as the last enemy dropped. IF someone other than the FB drops the foe, the FB is not compelled to attack an ally until it is his turn, and therefore, the party cleric is still an ally. An ally who regularly casts buff and helaing spells on him, so why would he not accept a spell from him?

Also, Calm Emotions is not a touch range spell, it's Medium Range. Even if the cleric does not have an action readied, as long as the cleric is not the one being attacked by the FB, there is no indication that the FB must percieve the cleric as an enemy, and can once again accept the spell.

You stipulation is only correct IF AND ONLY IF the last enemy drops and the cleric did not have a readied action AND the cleric is the closest creature to the FB AND the FB's turn comes up before the FB's AND the FB fails his Will save to voluntarily end his frenzy (which he is still explicitly entitled to do, despite your assertation that such is not "fighting to the best of his ability").

That's not to say that such a situation couldn't happen. In that game I ran, the FB did, in fact, attack one of his allies, because the cleric had to use his last action to keep another ally alive instead of readying the wand, and then the enemy dropped, FB's turn came up, failed his save, charged and Power Attacked the party Fighter. Then the cleric's turn came up, wand came out and Voila! no more Frenzy.

[Catarang]

I think its important, at least to anyone thinking of Stacking Berserk with FB, that Berserk is similar but different to Frenzy, and that they overlap in many areas. Does anyone know if the Berserk's ability "Battle Fury" would impede the FB's ability to willingly fail will saves, and if so would Righteous Wrath circumvent this?

[Immabozo]

Addressing the voluntary save below.

No XP penalty, because he's human, and his highest-level class doesn't count against him. Ranger and Barbarian are each 1 level, and 4 of fighter.

EDIT: Oh, you mean after he finishes FB? Yeah, he'd prolly be better off going back into fighter, maybe 1 more level of Barb for Unacnny Dodge.


Incorrect. As long as there are enemies around, the FB continues to precieve his allies as allies. Once no more enemies are around, he must attack the CLOSEST creature. It does not specify that suddenly EVERYONE around him is now an enemy. Ergo, he can still accept a party cleric as an ally, so long as he is not the one being attacked by the FB.

I DM my games strictly RAW, and had a party use this trick. Towards the end of combat, when it was looking like the last enemy was about to drop, the cleric, on his turn in initiative (if it wasn't immediately needed to do something else) would ready an action to use the wand on the FB as soon as the last enemy dropped. IF someone other than the FB drops the foe, the FB is not compelled to attack an ally until it is his turn, and therefore, the party cleric is still an ally. An ally who regularly casts buff and helaing spells on him, so why would he not accept a spell from him?

Also, Calm Emotions is not a touch range spell, it's Medium Range. Even if the cleric does not have an action readied, as long as the cleric is not the one being attacked by the FB, there is no indication that the FB must percieve the cleric as an enemy, and can once again accept the spell.

You stipulation is only correct IF AND ONLY IF the last enemy drops and the cleric did not have a readied action AND the cleric is the closest creature to the FB AND the FB's turn comes up before the FB's AND the FB fails his Will save to voluntarily end his frenzy (which he is still explicitly entitled to do, despite your assertation that such is not "fighting to the best of his ability").

That's not to say that such a situation couldn't happen. In that game I ran, the FB did, in fact, attack one of his allies, because the cleric had to use his last action to keep another ally alive instead of readying the wand, and then the enemy dropped, FB's turn came up, failed his save, charged and Power Attacked the party Fighter. Then the cleric's turn came up, wand came out and Voila! no more Frenzy.

I dont have the time at the moment to review the book and formulate a proper response (about to run out the door for work). But, that is a whole lot of "well, it makes sense like this" in the beginning of your argument for it to be RAW.

Also in RAW, specifics trump generalities. Voluntarily failing a save against a hostile action (in this case to remove your Frenzy) is not fighting to the best of your ability. In the specific case of the player wishing to end his own character's frenzy voluntarily (i.e. not via any external means or influences), then he may attempt a will save.

But again, the specific trumps the general. It is a specific exception to the "fighting to the best of her ability" thing.

[RedMage125]

I dont have the time at the moment to review the book and formulate a proper response (about to run out the door for work). But, that is a whole lot of "well, it makes sense like this" in the beginning of your argument for it to be RAW.

Also in RAW, specifics trump generalities. Voluntarily failing a save against a hostile action (in this case to remove your Frenzy) is not fighting to the best of your ability. In the specific case of the player wishing to end his own character's frenzy voluntarily (i.e. not via any external means or influences), then he may attempt a will save.

But again, the specific trumps the general. It is a specific exception to the "fighting to the best of her ability" thing.

And yet, you have nothing SPECIFIC to indicate that he would view a party cleric who is NOT the person he is currently attacking as "an enemy". The text says that in the absence of enemies, he must attack the closest creature, and that when he attacks, he must do so to the best of his ability. Nothing in that text says he must percieve EVERYONE as an enemy. And nothing precludes him accepting a spell from a cleric he trusts. Especially is the FB is aware of-and willingly participating in-the plan to use a wand of calm emotions. Which he very well should be. After all, even harmless or beneficial spells allow saving throws if the subject is not willing. You usually see the line Will negates (harmless). Which technically means that any time ANY character recieves a healing or a buff spell, they are voluntarily failing their saving throw. This also means that a creature can trick you into failing a saving throw by lying about what spell they are casting on you. If a doppelganger wizard impersonating someone you trust says "I'm going to cast Bull's Strength on you, hold still", and then proceeds to cast flesh to stone on you, it is entirely valid to say that you do nto get a saving throw, because you were going to voluntarily fail the save against the spell you would recieve from him. Unless you have ranks in Spellcraft and identify the spell he is casting at the last second and then attempt to resist.

YOU, my friend, are extrapolating from the rules to assume that he must view everyone around him as an enemy. The fact that he need not attack the closest creature to him at all times during a frenzy indicates that the barbarian retains the ability to distinguish friend from foe, until there are no foes remaining, at which point, his overwhelming urge to do violence takes over and makes him attack the nearest creature regardless of relationship.

Bottom line is that unless you would make a FB in frenzy make a saving throw against an allied caster casting Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, or any Cure spell, then it is also valid to accept a spell cast by an ally on you, harmless or not. Which means voluntarily failing a saving throw, which would be a conditioned reflex of spells cast upon a FB by a party member that he trusts.

So yes, it is entirely legal by RAW to voluntarily fail a saving throw against a Calm Emotions spell cast by an ally. The only reason a save should ever be in question is if the person attempting to cast it is the party member currently being attacked by the FB, in which case, yes, THEN the FB percieves that characters as an enemy, and the DM should not allow him to voluntarily fail his save.

Wands of Calm Emotions are pretty cheap. It's a very effective way to bypass one of the primary drawbacks of the class. I think players should be rewarded for cleverness, creativity and cooperation. When the party I DMed for purchased said wand, the FB offered for it to come out of his share of the treasure, even, because he knew that his frenzy was a potential danger to others.

[Catarang]

Being new to casters as I am, my question regarding RedMage125's earlier post about willingly failing Saving Throws in Frenzy mode is this: would a character know
A) By whom it was being cast by
B) What spell is being cast upon him.
C) Where the spell is being cast from.
D) Whether or not the spell was considered Harmless, good, bad, etc.

If A is True, then yes you should be able to fail the saving throw in this instance. Someone you trust is casting a spell on you, they must be helping you.

If A and B are true, then you should be able to fail because you should know what effects you want cast upon yourself, though an argument could be made about your willingness to give up your frenzy that enables you to kill others vs. your trust in the caster that this is the best way to kill the enemy ahead (even if said enemy is really an ally).

If C is true, then you may be able to guess that it is a compatriot that is casting it upon you, depending on the situation, and roll on from their whether or not you could feasibly call failing the will save "Fighting to the best of your abilities".

If D is true, then it would act very much like A + B, though your opinion on whether the "buff" is really a help to the fight or needed. A head strong Barbarian/FB (as they are usually wont to be) may fine it un-important to accept help when he is not only in the middle of a blood rage to rival all others, but probably has the problem well at hand (at least in his opinion).

Now, If you cannot tell where the spell is coming from, who is casting it, or what it does then why in the 9 hell's would you willingly fail the save? I also believe for a PrC to give this much kick ass in one ability it should have dire consequences, or at least ones that are ever present. Should a Frenzied Berserker really be able to tell any of those things while in a state of mind that he can't even notice if the opponent he is fighting is a child, or a relative, or a Adventuring buddy? No, plain and simple. But in truth, there is nothing about said inability to detect the purpose/origins of spells in the description. Thus, if you would wish to rule that the case is mute due to bad wording rather than common sense, then go ahead and be my guest.

[Immabozo]

Being new to casters as I am, my question regarding RedMage125's earlier post about willingly failing Saving Throws in Frenzy mode is this: would a character know
A) By whom it was being cast by
B) What spell is being cast upon him.
C) Where the spell is being cast from.
D) Whether or not the spell was considered Harmless, good, bad, etc.

Our friend here has a very good point. Even better because it tends to agree with me!


While frenzied, the character cannot use any... intelligence-based skills

The knowledges are int based skills. So is Spellcraft. Even if you could identify the spell, you cannot use the skill. So no, in this case, you cannot identify the spell.

Normally, for Catarang's benefit, you can, if you have the skill. Although the fighter or barbarian being trained in spellcraft or one of the knowledges? Good luck.

As far as knowing who is casting the spell and where


While fenzied, the character
cannot use any...the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration

Spot requires a level of presence of mind or concentration. Imagine being pissed off beyond belief. Like on the path to the hulk, pissed. (+str and +con for getting so super ticked? I think an accurate comparison). Are you even remotely aware of most things around you, or do you develop at least a little tunnel vision?

and finally, whether or not the spell is harmful? Again, that is spellcraft. A skill you cannot use in a frenzy, even if the FB had it (not even a class skill).


And yet, you have nothing SPECIFIC to indicate that he would view a party cleric who is NOT the person he is currently attacking as "an enemy". The text says that in the absence of enemies, he must attack the closest creature, and that when he attacks, he must do so to the best of his ability. Nothing in that text says he must percieve EVERYONE as an enemy. And nothing precludes him accepting a spell from a cleric he trusts. Especially is the FB is aware of-and willingly participating in-the plan to use a wand of calm emotions. Which he very well should be. After all, even harmless or beneficial spells allow saving throws if the subject is not willing. You usually see the line Will negates (harmless). Which technically means that any time ANY character recieves a healing or a buff spell, they are voluntarily failing their saving throw. This also means that a creature can trick you into failing a saving throw by lying about what spell they are casting on you. If a doppelganger wizard impersonating someone you trust says "I'm going to cast Bull's Strength on you, hold still", and then proceeds to cast flesh to stone on you, it is entirely valid to say that you do nto get a saving throw, because you were going to voluntarily fail the save against the spell you would recieve from him. Unless you have ranks in Spellcraft and identify the spell he is casting at the last second and then attempt to resist.

So riddle me this batman, do spell casters in your campaigns ever cast harmful spells that hit your melee? I know I have taken a fireball or lightning bolt, eaten some AoE harmful spell, etc for the team. Do you allow a save for those? But why? If the FB is incapable of distinguishing those spells, from the buffs (as that is an int based skill he doesn't even have).

And if you think about the "fireball or lightning bolt flying by your head is obvious" argument, it is only for the sake of example. Plus, to recognize a spell effect one sees is STILL a spellcraft check DC mid teens or low 20s. That is still a roll you fail.


YOU, my friend, are extrapolating from the rules to assume that he must view everyone around him as an enemy. The fact that he need not attack the closest creature to him at all times during a frenzy indicates that the barbarian retains the ability to distinguish friend from foe, until there are no foes remaining, at which point, his overwhelming urge to do violence takes over and makes him attack the nearest creature regardless of relationship.


foe: ... 4. Something that opposes, injures, or impedes

So if someone is casting an unknown spell at you, someone who has probably accidentally hurt you at some point in the past, maybe you had to "take one for the team" from a spell cast by them. I wouldn't say they can fail their save, that sounds like target number one!

Again, that is fighting "to the best of her ability"

You do too much logic-ing for me to buy a pure PAW argument.


Bottom line is that unless you would make a FB in frenzy make a saving throw against an allied caster casting Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, or any Cure spell, then it is also valid to accept a spell cast by an ally on you, harmless or not. Which means voluntarily failing a saving throw, which would be a conditioned reflex of spells cast upon a FB by a party member that he trusts.[/quote

Again, my point, why do you allow a saving throw against negative spells cast against them? You'd still allow a "reflex for half" if the FB was hit by a friendly fireball. Why? If, as I pointed out, there is no way the FB recognizes the spell being cast at them?

[QUOTE=RedMage125;17082071]So yes, it is entirely legal by RAW to voluntarily fail a saving throw against a Calm Emotions spell cast by an ally. The only reason a save should ever be in question is if the person attempting to cast it is the party member currently being attacked by the FB, in which case, yes, THEN the FB percieves that characters as an enemy, and the DM should not allow him to voluntarily fail his save.

Wands of Calm Emotions are pretty cheap. It's a very effective way to bypass one of the primary drawbacks of the class. I think players should be rewarded for cleverness, creativity and cooperation. When the party I DMed for purchased said wand, the FB offered for it to come out of his share of the treasure, even, because he knew that his frenzy was a potential danger to others.

Now, on a completely different note, yes, it is a clever solution and it is a huge downside which I totally am fine with a DM nerfing, or allow to be nerfed.

My personal solution to another downside, the damage-forcing-a-frenzy (and the potential hidden enemy damaging from range forcing the FB to attack the party) is the FB to have a fort save of at least 24 and taking the feat Steadfast determination, which among other benefits, means you dont fail fort saves on a 1

Then get your friendly mage to learn and cast "extract drug" from BoVD and get Luhix, which makes you immune to pain (still take normal damage) but you may not react normally to damage. So no involuntary rages!

[RedMage125]

Being new to casters as I am, my question regarding RedMage125's earlier post about willingly failing Saving Throws in Frenzy mode is this: would a character know
A) By whom it was being cast by
B) What spell is being cast upon him.
C) Where the spell is being cast from.
D) Whether or not the spell was considered Harmless, good, bad, etc.

If A is True, then yes you should be able to fail the saving throw in this instance. Someone you trust is casting a spell on you, they must be helping you.

If A and B are true, then you should be able to fail because you should know what effects you want cast upon yourself, though an argument could be made about your willingness to give up your frenzy that enables you to kill others vs. your trust in the caster that this is the best way to kill the enemy ahead (even if said enemy is really an ally).

If C is true, then you may be able to guess that it is a compatriot that is casting it upon you, depending on the situation, and roll on from their whether or not you could feasibly call failing the will save "Fighting to the best of your abilities".

If D is true, then it would act very much like A + B, though your opinion on whether the "buff" is really a help to the fight or needed. A head strong Barbarian/FB (as they are usually wont to be) may fine it un-important to accept help when he is not only in the middle of a blood rage to rival all others, but probably has the problem well at hand (at least in his opinion).

Now, If you cannot tell where the spell is coming from, who is casting it, or what it does then why in the 9 hell's would you willingly fail the save? I also believe for a PrC to give this much kick ass in one ability it should have dire consequences, or at least ones that are ever present. Should a Frenzied Berserker really be able to tell any of those things while in a state of mind that he can't even notice if the opponent he is fighting is a child, or a relative, or a Adventuring buddy? No, plain and simple. But in truth, there is nothing about said inability to detect the purpose/origins of spells in the description. Thus, if you would wish to rule that the case is mute due to bad wording rather than common sense, then go ahead and be my guest.
I would assume that unless a FB has ranks in Spellcraft, that B is never true. And D is irrelevant unless he knows whether or not the spell is harmless. Regardless, A and C would be, at all times, be true. There is no facing in 3.5e, characters are assumed to be more or less aware of anything going on in their line of sight that is not done by a Stealthed or Invisible creature.

And if you insist what you do about failing a save, then I must ask if you also insist that a FB make a save against the Mass Bear's Endurance that the party cleric casts mid-combat? Because that spell technically allows a save if someone wishes to make a save against it. What about a Cure spell? Must a FB in a state of frenzy save against healing spells for possible half effect? That's going to make Deathless Frenzy even more potentially lethal if he's going to resist being healed back up to above -9 before Frenzy ends.

If you do one, you must do the other, because they are the SAME THING. If a FB in the midst of a Frenzy is willing to accept a buff spell from an allied cleric that he trusts, why would he not accept another spell? ESPECIALLY if he doesn't know enough about magic to know which spell is which.

So if you trust the cleric enough to accept one spell from him, you should trust him enough to accept another, and that's a voluntarily failed saving throw, whether the spell says (harmless) or not.

[RedMage125]

Our friend here has a very good point. Even better because it tends to agree with me!



The knowledges are int based skills. So is Spellcraft. Even if you could identify the spell, you cannot use the skill. So no, in this case, you cannot identify the spell.
Heh, that's right, I almost forgot.


Normally, for Catarang's benefit, you can, if you have the skill. Although the fighter or barbarian being trained in spellcraft or one of the knowledges? Good luck.Maybe he took it cross-class to be able to take Mage Slayer? Lol. But yes, rarely is the Fighter or Barbarian trained in those skills.


As far as knowing who is casting the spell and where



Spot requires a level of presence of mind or concentration. Imagine being pissed off beyond belief. Like on the path to the hulk, pissed. (+str and +con for getting so super ticked? I think an accurate comparison). Are you even remotely aware of most things around you, or do you develop at least a little tunnel vision?
I rrespectfully disagree here, because anything done on the battlefield is pretty much auto-noticed, unless someone is attempting to cover it up with a Sleight of Hand, Bluff, or Stealth check. And I don't think Spot requires presence of mind nor concentration. And Wisdom based skills can still be used by a FB in the midst of Frenzy.


and finally, whether or not the spell is harmful? Again, that is spellcraft. A skill you cannot use in a frenzy, even if the FB had it (not even a class skill).
Correct.



So riddle me this batman, do spell casters in your campaigns ever cast harmful spells that hit your melee? I know I have taken a fireball or lightning bolt, eaten some AoE harmful spell, etc for the team. Do you allow a save for those? But why? If the FB is incapable of distinguishing those spells, from the buffs (as that is an int based skill he doesn't even have).
I do have an answer for this question, but it's anecdotal evidence. Which fits, I guess, since you asked me about "my campaigns". Both when I play a wizard and most wizards I have DM'd for, actually call out to their allies something to the effect of "Incoming!" if they are going to be dropping an AoE that potentially includes allies. This is a purely RP thing, but it does answer regarding fireballs and lightning bolts.

Which are not relevant to the argument, because, as you said, those are big, flashy, obvious spells of danger. More to the point, when either Wizard or Cleric casts buff spells, people who have been around them know that they are casting...something (assuming a spell with verbal and/or somatic components, which most spells have). If the FB recognizes them as allies (and nothing in the Complete Warrior says that he doesn't, except for the one whom he is attacking), and he is in the habit of accepting buff spells when they do their kooky little dance and speak their jibba-jabba; such as when the wizard uses his wand of Enlarge Person (which the party in question that I DM'd for did ALL THE TIME), or when the cleric casts healing spells...why would he resist this spell? ESPECIALLY from the cleric who rarely, if ever drops AoEs on him? The last one I DM'd for was also in the habit of seeing spells cast upon him from wands, such as the aforementioned Enlarge Person, and the Wands of Cure X spells the party would get for out-of-combat healing. The cleric is someone who FREQUENTLY casts spells on this guy. I guess I'm assuming that you adventured and leveled up with these people even before taking FB, and so have built up some kind of level of trust here. I know that's an assumption, but I think it's a fair one for most cases. Certainly not all, but most, I think.


And if you think about the "fireball or lightning bolt flying by your head is obvious" argument, it is only for the sake of example. Plus, to recognize a spell effect one sees is STILL a spellcraft check DC mid teens or low 20s. That is still a roll you fail.
Like I said, you can still recognize that the people whom you KNOW to have magic voodoo powers are speaking jibba-jabba and doing happy little dances, and KNOW that those things result in reality being violated in some way, shape or form. You don't need to know what a school of magic is to know that when a wizard starts spouting crazy nonsense and waving his arms around, the laws of physics are about to roll over and say "Uncle".


So if someone is casting an unknown spell at you, someone who has probably accidentally hurt you at some point in the past, maybe you had to "take one for the team" from a spell cast by them. I wouldn't say they can fail their save, that sounds like target number one!
According to the RAW, Target Number One(as far as attacking friendlies), is the closest one to the FB, determined randomly between any ones that are equidistant.

And NOT ONE THING in the rules says you perceive anyone else as an enemy except the one whom you are currently attacking. In fact, while their are still enemies on the battlefield the FB does, in fact, retain the ability to discern who is and is not his ally.


Again, that is fighting "to the best of her ability"

You do too much logic-ing for me to buy a pure PAW argument.
I have pointed out what the RAW say.

If you can find, in RAW, where it says a FB must perceive ALL his party members as "foes", please do so. There is no reason to think that he has to resist a spell cast by someone he recognizes as an ally.

If the cleric in question is the one being attacked, then I agree, the FB should make a save against the Calm Emotions, because he perceives that character as an enemy.


Again, my point, why do you allow a saving throw against negative spells cast against them? You'd still allow a "reflex for half" if the FB was hit by a friendly fireball. Why? If, as I pointed out, there is no way the FB recognizes the spell being cast at them?
Apples and Dire Oranges, man.

Casting a fireball into an area is not the same as casting a single target spell on someone. A more apt analogy would be what I said before, if someone lied to you-convincingly-and told you they were going to cast a beneficial spell on you and you allowed them to, then I would say it is reasonable to say the target doesn't get a save, unless they are capable of identifying the spell as it is being cast.


Now, on a completely different note, yes, it is a clever solution and it is a huge downside which I totally am fine with a DM nerfing, or allow to be nerfed.

My personal solution to another downside, the damage-forcing-a-frenzy (and the potential hidden enemy damaging from range forcing the FB to attack the party) is the FB to have a fort save of at least 24 and taking the feat Steadfast determination, which among other benefits, means you dont fail fort saves on a 1LOL, yes, thats another downside. The party FB in the game I DM'd did happen to be forced to use his Frenzy in a combat in which he was hoping not to. A couple times.

But a "hidden enemy attacking from range to force the FB to attack the party" is meta-gaming on a HUGE scale from the DM's side. How would any enemy be aware of class features to such a huge extent that it would ONLY target the FB with the intent of making it attack the party. Just saying.


Then get your friendly mage to learn and cast "extract drug" from BoVD and get Luhix, which makes you immune to pain (still take normal damage) but you may not react normally to damage. So no involuntary rages!
That's kind of sick, but involuntary Frenzy occurs after "taking damage", not "feeling pain". So it wouldn't work. I like your first suggestion, though.

[Immabozo]

Heh, that's right, I almost forgot.
Maybe he took it cross-class to be able to take Mage Slayer? Lol. But yes, rarely is the Fighter or Barbarian trained in those skills.

But those are very precious few skills. Int is a low priority for fighter types, you will sometimes see a 13 for feat prereqs. So it would have to be a very specific design feature. But I am glad we agree on something!


I rrespectfully disagree here, because anything done on the battlefield is pretty much auto-noticed, unless someone is attempting to cover it up with a Sleight of Hand, Bluff, or Stealth check. And I don't think Spot requires presence of mind nor concentration. And Wisdom based skills can still be used by a FB in the midst of Frenzy.

True, it is not explicitly RAW, however "any action that requires concentration" is, I am simply trying to make a case for it fitting.


I do have an answer for this question, but it's anecdotal evidence. Which fits, I guess, since you asked me about "my campaigns". Both when I play a wizard and most wizards I have DM'd for, actually call out to their allies something to the effect of "Incoming!" if they are going to be dropping an AoE that potentially includes allies. This is a purely RP thing, but it does answer regarding fireballs and lightning bolts.

Which are not relevant to the argument, because, as you said, those are big, flashy, obvious spells of danger. More to the point, when either Wizard or Cleric casts buff spells, people who have been around them know that they are casting...something (assuming a spell with verbal and/or somatic components, which most spells have). If the FB recognizes them as allies (and nothing in the Complete Warrior says that he doesn't, except for the one whom he is attacking), and he is in the habit of accepting buff spells when they do their kooky little dance and speak their jibba-jabba; such as when the wizard uses his wand of Enlarge Person (which the party in question that I DM'd for did ALL THE TIME), or when the cleric casts healing spells...why would he resist this spell? ESPECIALLY from the cleric who rarely, if ever drops AoEs on him? The last one I DM'd for was also in the habit of seeing spells cast upon him from wands, such as the aforementioned Enlarge Person, and the Wands of Cure X spells the party would get for out-of-combat healing. The cleric is someone who FREQUENTLY casts spells on this guy. I guess I'm assuming that you adventured and leveled up with these people even before taking FB, and so have built up some kind of level of trust here. I know that's an assumption, but I think it's a fair one for most cases. Certainly not all, but most, I think.

A DM might give a circumstantial bonus, but RAW says nothing about giving you a bonus to spellcraft to recognize a spell you have cast around you all the time. And even more than that, you cannot roll spellcraft untrained. So your BSF (big stupid fighter) will, 9.99999999 times out of 10 be unable, under any circumstances, to recognize the spell.

But in a world where dominate, confusion (can make you attack your allies), Geas, and such spells, with doppelgangers, ragamuffins, and such creatures and just generally messed up individuals, there is no reason to think that there is zero chance of danger from your allies.

Then again, most of that requires knowledge skills. Which as we have established, most fights-types wont have.

So we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. C'est la vie. Play a spell caster and dont be an ignorant buffoon!


Like I said, you can still recognize that the people whom you KNOW to have magic voodoo powers are speaking jibba-jabba and doing happy little dances, and KNOW that those things result in reality being violated in some way, shape or form. You don't need to know what a school of magic is to know that when a wizard starts spouting crazy nonsense and waving his arms around, the laws of physics are about to roll over and say "Uncle".

Again, according to RAW, you dont know this. If you are a strictly RAW DM, this doesn't mean anything. RAW says nothing about getting accustom to the fancy dances and jibba-jabba. Maybe a circumstantial bonus to spellcraft to recognize the spell.

But again, you cannot roll that skill untrained.

Life for a non-caster is tough.


According to the RAW, Target Number One(as far as attacking friendlies), is the closest one to the FB, determined randomly between any ones that are equidistant.

And NOT ONE THING in the rules says you perceive anyone else as an enemy except the one whom you are currently attacking. In fact, while their are still enemies on the battlefield the FB does, in fact, retain the ability to discern who is and is not his ally.

You know, you are correct.


If you can find, in RAW, where it says a FB must perceive ALL his party members as "foes", please do so. There is no reason to think that he has to resist a spell cast by someone he recognizes as an ally.

If the cleric in question is the one being attacked, then I agree, the FB should make a save against the Calm Emotions, because he perceives that character as an enemy.

well, then I would expect you wouldn't give your characters a save aganst a wail of the banshee cast by your dominated wizard then, since he has told them it's bear's endurance, right?

I mean, none of your fighter non-caster types can really know any different, right?

Again, fighter types get the short end of the stick.


Apples and Dire Oranges, man.

Casting a fireball into an area is not the same as casting a single target spell on someone. A more apt analogy would be what I said before, if someone lied to you-convincingly-and told you they were going to cast a beneficial spell on you and you allowed them to, then I would say it is reasonable to say the target doesn't get a save, unless they are capable of identifying the spell as it is being cast.

I think our argument here is just another blaring reason why fighter types fall short. You just dont know what this magic stuff is, you can't identify what is happening and rely on being told "I am casting ____ on you." to know that they should fail their save.

But they have no way of knowing if their party sorcerer is under a Greater Geas and says "I am casting Enlarge person on you" and then round 1 of combat, the sorcerer imprisons the FB and he is SOL, because he intentionally failed his save.


LOL, yes, thats another downside. The party FB in the game I DM'd did happen to be forced to use his Frenzy in a combat in which he was hoping not to. A couple times.

But a "hidden enemy attacking from range to force the FB to attack the party" is meta-gaming on a HUGE scale from the DM's side. How would any enemy be aware of class features to such a huge extent that it would ONLY target the FB with the intent of making it attack the party. Just saying.

A DC 40 gather information would get that info. It's not meta gaming. And a level 12 party is some of the top champions in the world. That is a sight rarely seen. So they will be well known. So that gather info DC is probably around DC 30, maybe even 25. It is not wrong to imagine that in the course of 12 levels, they will piss a few people off, and those people might study up on their targets, maybe observe them, or scry them, to get the upper hand. That information is certainly possible to get entirely in character.

And with a glaring weak spot that someone bent on revenge just squeezed out of nowhere, well, why on earth WOULDN'T they attack that and exploit it?


That's kind of sick, but involuntary Frenzy occurs after "taking damage", not "feeling pain". So it wouldn't work. I like your first suggestion, though.

RAW is written "you may not react normally to damage" that is not my "HEY! Look at this and this is what it means!"

Entering a frenzy as a result of damage, is a reaction.

But I thought it was pretty clever too!

[RedMage125]

A DM might give a circumstantial bonus, but RAW says nothing about giving you a bonus to spellcraft to recognize a spell you have cast around you all the time. And even more than that, you cannot roll spellcraft untrained. So your BSF (big stupid fighter) will, 9.99999999 times out of 10 be unable, under any circumstances, to recognize the spell.

But in a world where dominate, confusion (can make you attack your allies), Geas, and such spells, with doppelgangers, ragamuffins, and such creatures and just generally messed up individuals, there is no reason to think that there is zero chance of danger from your allies.

Then again, most of that requires knowledge skills. Which as we have established, most fights-types wont have.

Again, according to RAW, you dont know this. If you are a strictly RAW DM, this doesn't mean anything. RAW says nothing about getting accustom to the fancy dances and jibba-jabba. Maybe a circumstantial bonus to spellcraft to recognize the spell.

But again, you cannot roll that skill untrained.
For all of your responses, you missed the point of what I was saying. I was not-AT ALL-saying that you would recognize the spell that was being cast.

I said you would recognize that it was the casting of A spell. Not WHICH spell.

Hence me referring to verbal and somatic components as "fancy dances" and "jibba jabba".

Sorry for the confusion. Maybe with that in light, my previous post will make more sense.



You know, you are correct.
It is a burden I must bear...

Le sigh...


well, then I would expect you wouldn't give your characters a save aganst a wail of the banshee cast by your dominated wizard then, since he has told them it's bear's endurance, right?

I mean, none of your fighter non-caster types can really know any different, right?

Again, fighter types get the short end of the stick.I said it was reasonable.

Still a **** move.


I think our argument here is just another blaring reason why fighter types fall short. You just dont know what this magic stuff is, you can't identify what is happening and rely on being told "I am casting ____ on you." to know that they should fail their save.

But they have no way of knowing if their party sorcerer is under a Greater Geas and says "I am casting Enlarge person on you" and then round 1 of combat, the sorcerer imprisons the FB and he is SOL, because he intentionally failed his save.
Same response as above.


A DC 40 gather information would get that info. It's not meta gaming. And a level 12 party is some of the top champions in the world. That is a sight rarely seen. So they will be well known. So that gather info DC is probably around DC 30, maybe even 25. It is not wrong to imagine that in the course of 12 levels, they will piss a few people off, and those people might study up on their targets, maybe observe them, or scry them, to get the upper hand. That information is certainly possible to get entirely in character.

And with a glaring weak spot that someone bent on revenge just squeezed out of nowhere, well, why on earth WOULDN'T they attack that and exploit it?
However...who's around to gather that information? If the party frequently shuts down the FB before he attacks his allies, that is. NPCs, even resourceful ones, are not necessarily privvy to the knowledge of exactly how his class mechanics work, and how many times per day he can frenzy. That's metagaming to too much of an extent.


RAW is written "you may not react normally to damage" that is not my "HEY! Look at this and this is what it means!"

Entering a frenzy as a result of damage, is a reaction.
The rules say "If you take damage from an attack, spell, trap, or any other source".

The rules you quote also say "may" not react normally to damage. By a strict RAW reading, since you are still taking damage, you must make a save or go into frenzy. A DM may well rule the way you suggest, but that's DM fiat, not RAW.

Still sick, though.

[Immabozo]

For all of your responses, you missed the point of what I was saying. I was not-AT ALL-saying that you would recognize the spell that was being cast.

I said you would recognize that it was the casting of A spell. Not WHICH spell.

Hence me referring to verbal and somatic components as "fancy dances" and "jibba jabba".

...

Sorry for the confusion. Maybe with that in light, my previous post will make more sense.

...

I said it was reasonable.

Still a **** move.

Same response as above.

While yes, any good DM will rule in favor of your argument, because, after all, if your players are not having fun, they wont come back.

But RAW agrees with me. The BSF doesn't know the difference if the wizard is acting normally, or under a dominate person, or a doppleganger, etc.

Then again, a BSF, by RAW, doesn't know those spells and creatures exist.

*sigh*


However...who's around to gather that information? If the party frequently shuts down the FB before he attacks his allies, that is. NPCs, even resourceful ones, are not necessarily privvy to the knowledge of exactly how his class mechanics work, and how many times per day he can frenzy. That's metagaming to too much of an extent.

Your PCs still know it. do they ever go to the tavern? Do they ever get drunk? Really? What a surprise! Everyone who plays D&D has their characters do that. What if someone uses that inebriation to grease the wheels and gather info? What if you make it a plot element? Spot checks from other party members to notice, will save from the PC not to spill the beans about a random party member?

A DC 40 gather info check represents getting info about a subject only a few in the whole world know about. Heck, I think it is a DC 50-60 gather info to learn about the deities above greater deities that no one knows about.


The rules say "If you take damage from an attack, spell, trap, or any other source".

The rules you quote also say "may" not react normally to damage. By a strict RAW reading, since you are still taking damage, you must make a save or go into frenzy. A DM may well rule the way you suggest, but that's DM fiat, not RAW.

Still sick, though.

The key phrase is not "may" it is "may not" that (entering a frenzy) is still a normal reaction to taking that damage. You are trying too hard to read a loophole where it doesn't exist. Feel free to check it out for yourself, BoVD I think it is page 42?

[RedMage125]

While yes, any good DM will rule in favor of your argument, because, after all, if your players are not having fun, they wont come back.

But RAW agrees with me. The BSF doesn't know the difference if the wizard is acting normally, or under a dominate person, or a doppleganger, etc.

Then again, a BSF, by RAW, doesn't know those spells and creatures exist.

*sigh*
Is BSF Big Stupid Fighter?

Also, I don't have my books in front of me, but isn't Calm Emotions just a cleric spell? Clerics infrequently drop Fireballs and Lightning Bolts on their allies. Even counting Flame Strike, most of the spells a cleric casts on his/her allies, over a period of several levels, will be beneficial ones. I think we can assume a fair level of trust. That trust is on the FB.

And like I said, it's still in the FB's hands to accept the spell or not. Unless the person casting it is the person the FB is attacking, there is zero rules support to suggest that the FB sees that caster as an enemy. And if he's in the habit of accepting spells cast on him as buffs in combat, why would resisting such a spell be "fighting to the best of his ability"?

And what makes you think characters don't communicate in battle? Wizards call out when a fireball is incoming. Druids announce that they're going to boost someone's strength or endurance. Clerics tell an ally they are going to shield him/her. It only makes sense. And nothing about Frenzy says that the FB becomes incapable of understanding any communication. Party cleric doesn't even need to lie to him. The FB has, before the battle, agreed to the Wand of Calm Emotions Plan. Cleric, in combat, says "Casting that spell to help you now", and then casts it.


Your PCs still know it. do they ever go to the tavern? Do they ever get drunk? Really? What a surprise! Everyone who plays D&D has their characters do that. What if someone uses that inebriation to grease the wheels and gather info? What if you make it a plot element? Spot checks from other party members to notice, will save from the PC not to spill the beans about a random party member?

I would say that in-game information, even very privvy, could reveal that the FB goes into a mouth-foaming rage at the drop of a hat is okay. Knowing that after a battle his battle rage sometimes carries him away and he may attack his allies is okay.
The following are STILL too much meta-game elements:
Knowing that he can frenzy 3 times per day.
That his frenzy is different than his barbarian rage.
That frenzy-and not rage-can trigger off of any damage received.
The attacking his allies is only a result of frenzy and not rage. And that frenzy could immediately result in attacking an ally, unless that has ever happened at least once. Remember, in-game world, it usually happens after he's already been raging and killing things for several rounds, and runs out of enemies to fight, basically getting carried away. So unless anyone's ever triggered his frenzy with no enemies in sight, that may be knowledge that no one knows.



A DC 40 gather info check represents getting info about a subject only a few in the whole world know about. Heck, I think it is a DC 50-60 gather info to learn about the deities above greater deities that no one knows about.

Simply making a skill check with no one to actually get that information from, such as in a city far from where the party has ever been, is a little TOO Order of the Stick-universe for me. Ironinc that this conversation is on the OotS forums.



The key phrase is not "may" it is "may not" that (entering a frenzy) is still a normal reaction to taking that damage. You are trying too hard to read a loophole where it doesn't exist. Feel free to check it out for yourself, BoVD I think it is page 42?
But both "may" and "may not" are not certainties. And when discussing RULES, only absolutes are facts. The only absolute in the RAW is that when a FB "takes damage" his frenzy is triggered unless he makes a save. Now, is your suggestion reasonable? Yes. And a DM could rule in your favor. But what you do not have is an absolute rule that says "whenever a character is under the influence of this drug, he ignores the effects of taking damage other than hit point loss". You have a rule that says he "may not" react normally. Now it's in the DM's hands. A DM could say he doesn't need a save. A DM could say that the muted sensation of pain means a bonus to the saving throw to not frenzy. Or a DM could say "doesn't work this time" and give no benefit. All 3 could happen in the same game, with different uses of the drug. And all are well within the rules, because the RAW say "may not" instead of coaching it in absolutes.

[Immabozo]

Is BSF Big Stupid Fighter?

Yes.


Also, I don't have my books in front of me, but isn't Calm Emotions just a cleric spell? Clerics infrequently drop Fireballs and Lightning Bolts on their allies. Even counting Flame Strike, most of the spells a cleric casts on his/her allies, over a period of several levels, will be beneficial ones. I think we can assume a fair level of trust. That trust is on the FB.

And like I said, it's still in the FB's hands to accept the spell or not. Unless the person casting it is the person the FB is attacking, there is zero rules support to suggest that the FB sees that caster as an enemy. And if he's in the habit of accepting spells cast on him as buffs in combat, why would resisting such a spell be "fighting to the best of his ability"?

True, I am using wizard spells as an example when Cleric spells are under question. It is merely because I am unfamiliar with cleric spells.

But I know Clerics get some nasty spells, they are not all beneficial. Heck, a cleric with the "spell domain" has access to any wizard spell 0-6 (or maybe it is 5)

but yes, a FB could be told that X spell is being cast on him and voluntarily fail his save. But my point is, if a doppleganger replaced him, a ragamuffin took control, a domination spell dictated his actions, a geas spell forced him to act, etc, then told him "I am casting enlarge person on you" and then cast Greater Curse (to use a cleric spell for example's sake) then the FB has no chance to save.

Although, that is a FANTASTIC way around our problem! Greater Curse! Just Greater Curse him to abruptly end his rage upon slaying his final foe in the encounter, or seeing them slain!


And what makes you think characters don't communicate in battle? Wizards call out when a fireball is incoming. Druids announce that they're going to boost someone's strength or endurance. Clerics tell an ally they are going to shield him/her. It only makes sense. And nothing about Frenzy says that the FB becomes incapable of understanding any communication. Party cleric doesn't even need to lie to him. The FB has, before the battle, agreed to the Wand of Calm Emotions Plan. Cleric, in combat, says "Casting that spell to help you now", and then casts it.

They do, but that is information the enemy can use too, so not much info can be given. "Look out, I am casting grease" makes the enemy go "Oh crap, GTFO". Or "I am casting Wail of the Banshee, the enemy goes "It is now time to counter-spell". Or even "Attack him" and now he is braced for your charge.

"oh, the cleric shielded you, it is pointless to waste my attacks on you, I'll turn my attention elsewhere."

But again, we run into the above problem. What if the caster is lying? There is no way for the BSF to know and then gets no save.


I would say that in-game information, even very privvy, could reveal that the FB goes into a mouth-foaming rage at the drop of a hat is okay. Knowing that after a battle his battle rage sometimes carries him away and he may attack his allies is okay.
The following are STILL too much meta-game elements:
Knowing that he can frenzy 3 times per day.
That his frenzy is different than his barbarian rage.
That frenzy-and not rage-can trigger off of any damage received.
The attacking his allies is only a result of frenzy and not rage. And that frenzy could immediately result in attacking an ally, unless that has ever happened at least once. Remember, in-game world, it usually happens after he's already been raging and killing things for several rounds, and runs out of enemies to fight, basically getting carried away. So unless anyone's ever triggered his frenzy with no enemies in sight, that may be knowledge that no one knows.

some of that meta game, yes. Like 3/day. But if someone is real slick, why can get that information. And then someone familiar with barbarians can just watch him and go "whoa, that's different." the attacking allies, frenzy triggering off damage, etc, is all info that is out there to be learned, even if someone has to be slicker than a lubed up snail to get it, it can still be gotten.


Simply making a skill check with no one to actually get that information from, such as in a city far from where the party has ever been, is a little TOO Order of the Stick-universe for me. Ironinc that this conversation is on the OotS forums.

Making a skill check means there is an opportunity to use said skill. No DM, or RAW, will ever allow someone to go "I gather info in this town I am not in, and not remotely close to, but my check is high enough!" DM: "great, you discover that you are not at that city."


But both "may" and "may not" are not certainties. And when discussing RULES, only absolutes are facts. The only absolute in the RAW is that when a FB "takes damage" his frenzy is triggered unless he makes a save. Now, is your suggestion reasonable? Yes. And a DM could rule in your favor. But what you do not have is an absolute rule that says "whenever a character is under the influence of this drug, he ignores the effects of taking damage other than hit point loss". You have a rule that says he "may not" react normally. Now it's in the DM's hands. A DM could say he doesn't need a save. A DM could say that the muted sensation of pain means a bonus to the saving throw to not frenzy. Or a DM could say "doesn't work this time" and give no benefit. All 3 could happen in the same game, with different uses of the drug. And all are well within the rules, because the RAW say "may not" instead of coaching it in absolutes.

Perhaps the "immune to pain" text is appropriate? Even immune to spells such as power word: pain

Immune is an absolute.

[Person_Man]

My questions are as follows
Q1: Do the 3 rage/Rage like abilities this character has at his disposal stack (rage, Battle fury, Frenzy)? I know the Whirling Rage variant specifically says that it doesn't stack with other rages, but i was wondering if these 3 do.
Q2: I grabbed Weapon Focus (Greatsword) but i'm not happy with the selection, is there some feat i'm missing that would play to this characters strong suits?

Also in general, if you have comments on the build I'd love to hear them and thanks in advance!

A1: Rage, Battle Fury, and Frenzy all provide untyped bonuses, and thus stack, unless the description of the ability explicitly says that it doesn't stack (as with Whirling Frenzy). Typed bonuses (Enhancement, Insight, etc) do not stack unless they explicitly say that they stack, with the exception of Dodge bonuses, which always stack.

A2. With the exception of Extra Rage, all of your Feat choices are generally considered weak. Weaker Feats provide minor bonuses (Weapon Focus) and/or have rare trigger effects (Cleave) and/or have cruddy prerequisites (Whirlwind Attack). Strong Feats provide a well scaled bonus (Power Attack, Ancestral Relic, Knowledge Devotion), multiply damage (Leap Attack, Battle Jump, Headlong Rush, Spirited Charge), or provide a useful special ability that can't cheaply be purchased (Shock Trooper, Shape Soulmeld, Mage Slayer, Knockback), and have few or no cruddy pre-reqs.

Also, as a point of general metagame optimization advice, you should avoid putting all of your eggs into any one basket. This is particularly true when it comes to maximizing damage/Strength, AC/Dexterity, and hit points/Constitution. D&D is not a video game, your DM is not a computer that processes predetermined combats, and the game rarely becomes easier when you achieve radically high numbers of any particular type.

In particular, you should consider getting access to any subsystem which provides you with a range of options. You could make a mostly full caster that focuses on melee ("Gish"), psionics (Psychic Warrior, Warmind), Incarnum (Barbarian/Totemist/Totem Rager), vestiges (Binder), Wildshape (Bear Warrior, Landforged Walker, Master of Many Forms), or anything from Tome of Battle.

Helpful links for melee builds in general:

Optimizing Power Attack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7165087)
Increasing Size, Unarmed Damage, and Reach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7081777)
How to get Extra Attacks, Natural Attacks, and AoO (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7066595)
How to get Pounce or Free Movement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103358)
Guide to Shields (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630)

[RedMage125]

True, I am using wizard spells as an example when Cleric spells are under question. It is merely because I am unfamiliar with cleric spells.

But I know Clerics get some nasty spells, they are not all beneficial. Heck, a cleric with the "spell domain" has access to any wizard spell 0-6 (or maybe it is 5)

but yes, a FB could be told that X spell is being cast on him and voluntarily fail his save. But my point is, if a doppleganger replaced him, a ragamuffin took control, a domination spell dictated his actions, a geas spell forced him to act, etc, then told him "I am casting enlarge person on you" and then cast Greater Curse (to use a cleric spell for example's sake) then the FB has no chance to save.
Again, I agree. I don't see that as a problem. It's a valid tactic, but a DM should use such a tactic sparingly, lest it get overdone.


Although, that is a FANTASTIC way around our problem! Greater Curse! Just Greater Curse him to abruptly end his rage upon slaying his final foe in the encounter, or seeing them slain!
I'm not as familiar with Greater Curse. Is that a valid use of the spell?
Could you also trigger it to be "When trigger phrase X is spoken you become subjected to a Calm Emotions spell with no save?" Where "trigger phrase X" is something like "Prety Pink Bunnies love ice cream" in Abyssal or something equally unlikely to be heard in combat?

Alternatively, could the trigger phrase be specified that it only triggers when spoken by the other members of the party?

And would The Curse need to be renewed each time, like the curse is discharged and then it's done? Or would that be a permanent, renewable effect?

Sorry, but I am really unfamiliar with the parameters of that spell.


They do, but that is information the enemy can use too, so not much info can be given. "Look out, I am casting grease" makes the enemy go "Oh crap, GTFO". Or "I am casting Wail of the Banshee, the enemy goes "It is now time to counter-spell". Or even "Attack him" and now he is braced for your charge.
Except that speaking is a Free Action, and moving, or readying for a charge or counterspell require it to be the creature's turn. Saying "Incoming Fireball" gives the party a heads up that they need to dodge (make a Reflex save). Knowing a fireball is about to be dropped on them gives the enmey no advanatge if it's not their turn.


"oh, the cleric shielded you, it is pointless to waste my attacks on you, I'll turn my attention elsewhere."
Valid tactic anyway. Even better if the cleric's shielding spell is a Bluff.


But again, we run into the above problem. What if the caster is lying? There is no way for the BSF to know and then gets no save.
I think you've gotten so focused on the microcosm of this that you've lost sight of the point that "not getting a save" is a Good Thing with respect to the Calm Empotions we are talking about.


some of that meta game, yes. Like 3/day. But if someone is real slick, why can get that information. And then someone familiar with barbarians can just watch him and go "whoa, that's different." the attacking allies, frenzy triggering off damage, etc, is all info that is out there to be learned, even if someone has to be slicker than a lubed up snail to get it, it can still be gotten.And if the FB also has Immediate Rage? My point is that with respect to in-game information, Frenzy is nearly indistinguishable from Rage. What becomes apparent is that once he's taken FB levels, sometimes when he rages (frenzies) he gets carried away and may attack his allies before he calms down.
Also, from what is observable under normal circumstances, the rage (frenzy) usually occurs in combat, with the FB continuing to fight after he has already killed a bunch of others and seems carried away by bloodlust. Unless it has already occured and been observed that THIS INDIVIDUAL has taken damage and went into frenzy with no enemies in sight and immediately attacked an ally as the only visible creature, then that knowledge simply doesn't exist as in-character knowledge. That means that, in-character, the rest of the party may not even know that such is a possibility. How would a Gather Information check aquire that knowledge then?

I am not challenging the ability of an enemy reasearching the party to find information on them. That's totally valid. I am challenging the idea that SPECIFICALLY a FB could be damaged by an invisible foe and made to attack the party, if that has never happened before. Could they know that a FB may continue attacking even after all other enemies are gone? Certainly. But knowing that a triggered frenzy WILL make him attack allies immediately with no enemies around is meta-gaming. Unless it's already happened before (such as taking damage from a trap).


Making a skill check means there is an opportunity to use said skill. No DM, or RAW, will ever allow someone to go "I gather info in this town I am not in, and not remotely close to, but my check is high enough!" DM: "great, you discover that you are not at that city."
Well, if no one knows the information (as I have re-iterated above), the Gather Information doesn't help, does it? That's all I meant. Is that it is not as simple as making a skill check.


Perhaps the "immune to pain" text is appropriate? Even immune to spells such as power word: pain

Immune is an absolute.
But "immune to the sensation of pain" is not the same as "doesn't take damage from an attack, spell, trap, etc.". And the trigger for frenzy is "takes damage". And if you want a strict RAW reading, it boils down to a series of yes/no questions based in fact.
-The drug says "may not respond normally to pain". Is that an absolute? No, so it's not even going to be true that he ignores pain every time he experiences it under the influence of the drug.
-Is frenzy a "normal response to pain" for the FB? Arguably*, yes. More correctly, it is a response to taking damage.
-Did the FB under the influence of this drug take damage? If yes, frenzy triggers as appropriate (save allowed, of course).

*This is a technicality, but: Hit points are a metagame concept that represent a combatant's ability to remain "in the fight". Hit points are not meat. Hit point loss (or "damage")does not necessarily reflect a physical wound on the character. Hit point loss could narratively represnt a narrow miss that made a character dodge in a way that tired him a little bit and made him less able to do that later in this fight. So just because "damage" was done and hit points lost does not STRICTLY SPEAKING mean that pain is inflicted. "Damge" may or may not correspond to "pain". Someone pinching the FB's fatty bit on the back of his arm could cause "pain" but not damage, thus not triggering frenzy even in a FB not under the inlfuence of this drug.

A character wearing the Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pain (and it shames me that I can recall this even without the book) experiences the sensation of pain as pleasure. This applies to ALL forms of pain, even damage. They explicitly say that a character wearing them still takes all damage, but may respond differently to said damage. A FB wearing this magic item, by the RAW, will go trigger a frenzy response if attacked, because the black and white answer is that he still took damage.

Now, keep in mind, I acknowledged that it is a valid line of reasoning to say that the drug could be used in the way you prescribe. What I am simply saying is that TECHNICALLY, by RAW, it is not true. That particular solution requires the DM to look at the situation and make a judgement call. SO it depends on your DM. I even said that 3 responses could come from the same DM in the same game. 1) While under the influence of the drug, sesation of pain is numbed to the point that the FB need not worry about triggering frenzy. 2) Because he's still taking the damage, a save against frenzy must still be made, but the drug's influence affected the way the FB felt the pain, and the DM grants a circumstantial +2 drug bonus to the save. 3)Because the drug says "may not" instead of "does not" regarding response to pain, sometimes when the FB is damaged, he still feels the pain normally, and must make a save as normal.

All 3 are logical responses that could come from a sensible person in the DM's chair who reads how these rules interact with each other. But if your DM was some kind of logical supercomputer that only worked with a very strict RAW interpretation and could not be swayed by arguments, then no, it would not work.

EDIT: If you were Immune to Power Word: Pain, or Symbol of Pain, then you would take no damage from them, because, as you said, Immunity is absolute. And if you take no damage, you don't trigger frenzy. That much is correct.

[Immabozo]

Again, I agree. I don't see that as a problem. It's a valid tactic, but a DM should use such a tactic sparingly, lest it get overdone.

Totally agreed. This is the type of tactic that might be a major plot element, likely leading up to the campaign climax, not a normal encounter.


I'm not as familiar with Greater Curse. Is that a valid use of the spell?
Could you also trigger it to be "When trigger phrase X is spoken you become subjected to a Calm Emotions spell with no save?" Where "trigger phrase X" is something like "Prety Pink Bunnies love ice cream" in Abyssal or something equally unlikely to be heard in combat?

Alternatively, could the trigger phrase be specified that it only triggers when spoken by the other members of the party?

And would The Curse need to be renewed each time, like the curse is discharged and then it's done? Or would that be a permanent, renewable effect?

Sorry, but I am really unfamiliar with the parameters of that spell.


Transmutation
Level: Demonologist 4, Bard 6, Cleric 7, Sorcerer 8, Wizard 8,
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

The caster places a curse on the creature touched, choosing one of the following three effects:

One ability score is reduced to 1, or two ability scores take -6 penalties (to a minimum score of 1).
-8 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks, and skill checks.
Each turn, the subject has a 25% chance to act normally; otherwise, he takes no action.


A player may invent a new curse, but it should be no more powerful than those listed above, and the Dungeon Master (DM) has final say on the curse's effect.
A greater curse cannot be dispelled, nor can it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, or remove curse spell.
A miracle or wish spell removes the greater curse, and any particular greater curse can be removed if the subject performs some deed that the caster designates.
The deed must be something that the subject can accomplish within one year (assuming he undertakes it immediately).
For example, the deed might be "Slay the dragon under Castle Bluecraft", or "Climb the tallest mountain in the world".
The cursed victim can have help accomplishing the task, and in some cases another character can lift the curse (see the Curses section of Chapter 2 for guidelines).

So yes, you can invent a curse to nerf a character's fighting ability on command word (i.e. stop frenzy), that is no more powerful than the listed suggested curses.


Except that speaking is a Free Action, and moving, or readying for a charge or counterspell require it to be the creature's turn. Saying "Incoming Fireball" gives the party a heads up that they need to dodge (make a Reflex save). Knowing a fireball is about to be dropped on them gives the enmey no advanatge if it's not their turn.

Valid tactic anyway. Even better if the cleric's shielding spell is a Bluff.

You are correct. Just saying, it is something to think about.


I think you've gotten so focused on the microcosm of this that you've lost sight of the point that "not getting a save" is a Good Thing with respect to the Calm Empotions we are talking about.
And if the FB also has Immediate Rage? My point is that with respect to in-game information, Frenzy is nearly indistinguishable from Rage. What becomes apparent is that once he's taken FB levels, sometimes when he rages (frenzies) he gets carried away and may attack his allies before he calms down.
Also, from what is observable under normal circumstances, the rage (frenzy) usually occurs in combat, with the FB continuing to fight after he has already killed a bunch of others and seems carried away by bloodlust. Unless it has already occured and been observed that THIS INDIVIDUAL has taken damage and went into frenzy with no enemies in sight and immediately attacked an ally as the only visible creature, then that knowledge simply doesn't exist as in-character knowledge. That means that, in-character, the rest of the party may not even know that such is a possibility. How would a Gather Information check aquire that knowledge then?

I am not challenging the ability of an enemy reasearching the party to find information on them. That's totally valid. I am challenging the idea that SPECIFICALLY a FB could be damaged by an invisible foe and made to attack the party, if that has never happened before. Could they know that a FB may continue attacking even after all other enemies are gone? Certainly. But knowing that a triggered frenzy WILL make him attack allies immediately with no enemies around is meta-gaming. Unless it's already happened before (such as taking damage from a trap).

Well, if no one knows the information (as I have re-iterated above), the Gather Information doesn't help, does it? That's all I meant. Is that it is not as simple as making a skill check.

My point is that the information is still in existence to be had, in it's utter simplicity, no matter how few people know it. With a sufficiently high gather info check, the information is available. It might be incredibly high check, but the check DC exists.

And a Divination Specialist may not even need to roll gather info. The right spells might do it. I am sure a miracle/wish could get the information, or at least enough of a gather info bonus to attempt a roll.


But "immune to the sensation of pain" is not the same as "doesn't take damage from an attack, spell, trap, etc.". And the trigger for frenzy is "takes damage". And if you want a strict RAW reading, it boils down to a series of yes/no questions based in fact.
-The drug says "may not respond normally to pain". Is that an absolute? No, so it's not even going to be true that he ignores pain every time he experiences it under the influence of the drug.
-Is frenzy a "normal response to pain" for the FB? Arguably*, yes. More correctly, it is a response to taking damage.
-Did the FB under the influence of this drug take damage? If yes, frenzy triggers as appropriate (save allowed, of course).

*This is a technicality, but: Hit points are a metagame concept that represent a combatant's ability to remain "in the fight". Hit points are not meat. Hit point loss (or "damage")does not necessarily reflect a physical wound on the character. Hit point loss could narratively represnt a narrow miss that made a character dodge in a way that tired him a little bit and made him less able to do that later in this fight. So just because "damage" was done and hit points lost does not STRICTLY SPEAKING mean that pain is inflicted. "Damge" may or may not correspond to "pain". Someone pinching the FB's fatty bit on the back of his arm could cause "pain" but not damage, thus not triggering frenzy even in a FB not under the inlfuence of this drug.

A character wearing the Nipple Clamps of Exquisite Pain (and it shames me that I can recall this even without the book) experiences the sensation of pain as pleasure. This applies to ALL forms of pain, even damage. They explicitly say that a character wearing them still takes all damage, but may respond differently to said damage. A FB wearing this magic item, by the RAW, will go trigger a frenzy response if attacked, because the black and white answer is that he still took damage.

Now, keep in mind, I acknowledged that it is a valid line of reasoning to say that the drug could be used in the way you prescribe. What I am simply saying is that TECHNICALLY, by RAW, it is not true. That particular solution requires the DM to look at the situation and make a judgement call. SO it depends on your DM. I even said that 3 responses could come from the same DM in the same game. 1) While under the influence of the drug, sesation of pain is numbed to the point that the FB need not worry about triggering frenzy. 2) Because he's still taking the damage, a save against frenzy must still be made, but the drug's influence affected the way the FB felt the pain, and the DM grants a circumstantial +2 drug bonus to the save. 3)Because the drug says "may not" instead of "does not" regarding response to pain, sometimes when the FB is damaged, he still feels the pain normally, and must make a save as normal.

All 3 are logical responses that could come from a sensible person in the DM's chair who reads how these rules interact with each other. But if your DM was some kind of logical supercomputer that only worked with a very strict RAW interpretation and could not be swayed by arguments, then no, it would not work.

EDIT: If you were Immune to Power Word: Pain, or Symbol of Pain, then you would take no damage from them, because, as you said, Immunity is absolute. And if you take no damage, you don't trigger frenzy. That much is correct.

Spoilered for wall of text and reader sanity.

I do see what you mean, but in this case, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I believe RAW says I am correct. Entering Frenzy is still a reaction to pain.

Although, again, a greater bestow curse could make it so that his rage can only be triggered by a command word. Now frenzy is an off/on switch not likely to be accidentally triggered. Bonus points for making it in a secret language. Even bigger bonus points for making it in that language in BoVD that kills those who speak it, unless they have the feat, or something like that.

[RedMage125]

My point is that the information is still in existence to be had, in it's utter simplicity, no matter how few people know it. With a sufficiently high gather info check, the information is available. It might be incredibly high check, but the check DC exists.
Again, if no one has ever observed that exact phenomena, how does that information even exist? It is solely a meta-game element. The POSSIBILITY of it happening is not even in-character knowledge for anyone (and thus cannot be gained through a skill that uses conversations with in-game characters to accrue knowledge), if it has not yet happened.

Look: if the FB has never had that situation occur (through taking damage from a trap, or whatnot), then it's entirely possible that in-character, HE doesn't even know.

If it's happened, then yes, at the very least, the party knows about it, and as you said, may have spilled the beans while drunk one night. But if it has never happened, then it is not in-game knowledge.


And a Divination Specialist may not even need to roll gather info. The right spells might do it. I am sure a miracle/wish could get the information, or at least enough of a gather info bonus to attempt a roll.

Well, magic solves everything. Which is why wizards are awesome.



I do see what you mean, but in this case, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I believe RAW says I am correct. Entering Frenzy is still a reaction to pain.
Except that is is not an "opinion" matter. You are saying RAW say you are correct. I say: Prove it.
Here's what I can prove:
The RAW under the FB PrC says: "When the FB takes damage from an attack, spell, trap or any other source, she automatically enters a frenzy at the start if her next action"
Nothing under the description of Luhix says that the character would not take damage from an attack, spell, trap or other source. To the contrary, it explicitly states that damage is still taken.
So RAW boils down to this:
Is damage taken? (Yes/No)
If yes, save or enter frenzy.
That's it.

Even your argument about "may not react normally to damage" is hinged upon the words "may not". "May not" leaves elbow room for doubt, and is therefore not a hard-and-fast rule. If it's "may not" react normally to damage, who decides when it is and is not a normal reaction to damage? Looks like the DM. So once again, it is DM fiat, and NOT a hard ruling.

Furthermore, did you look up HOW to take Luhix? It requires a self-inflicted bleeding wound, first off all. Then you take ability score damage. And if your CON mod drops, you lose 1 hp per level. So you've got a couple of opportunities to enter frenzy just taking this drug.

HOWEVER, one more time, look to what I have been saying. I am saying that I AGREE with your supposition. I agree that it is logical, and if I were your DM, I may in fact rule in your favor. BUT, it would be Rule 0. DM fiat overriding a strict RAW reading. Which says no. Because you still take damage, which triggers frenzy.


Although, again, a greater bestow curse could make it so that his rage can only be triggered by a command word. Now frenzy is an off/on switch not likely to be accidentally triggered. Bonus points for making it in a secret language. Even bigger bonus points for making it in that language in BoVD that kills those who speak it, unless they have the feat, or something like that.
I like it!
And Dark Speech, btw.

[Immabozo]

Again, if no one has ever observed that exact phenomena, how does that information even exist? It is solely a meta-game element. The POSSIBILITY of it happening is not even in-character knowledge for anyone (and thus cannot be gained through a skill that uses conversations with in-game characters to accrue knowledge), if it has not yet happened.

Look: if the FB has never had that situation occur (through taking damage from a trap, or whatnot), then it's entirely possible that in-character, HE doesn't even know.

If it's happened, then yes, at the very least, the party knows about it, and as you said, may have spilled the beans while drunk one night. But if it has never happened, then it is not in-game knowledge.

Ok, well circumstances of your campaign may make my argument moot. But even if only the FB knows about it, it is still info that SOMEBODY knows. I dont know about you, but for me, people are very comfortable talking to me. It's not uncommon for someone I barely just met, all the way to my best friends and family, to tell me some deep dark secret that not even their best friend/significant other/anybody else knows.

Including weaknesses, blind spots, etc. Maybe I have a passive [SU] aura of gather information, but it happens to me, personally.

If one person knows it, it is suddenly possible to know, even if only the gods know about it (although the later might require a lot more, gather info to find WHICH deity, divine spells to contact the diety, diplomacy and gather info to get the information, etc)


Well, magic solves everything. Which is why wizards are awesome.

true.


Except that is is not an "opinion" matter. You are saying RAW say you are correct. I say: Prove it.
Here's what I can prove:
The RAW under the FB PrC says: "When the FB takes damage from an attack, spell, trap or any other source, she automatically enters a frenzy at the start if her next action"
Nothing under the description of Luhix says that the character would not take damage from an attack, spell, trap or other source. To the contrary, it explicitly states that damage is still taken.
So RAW boils down to this:
Is damage taken? (Yes/No)
If yes, save or enter frenzy.
That's it.

Even your argument about "may not react normally to damage" is hinged upon the words "may not". "May not" leaves elbow room for doubt, and is therefore not a hard-and-fast rule. If it's "may not" react normally to damage, who decides when it is and is not a normal reaction to damage? Looks like the DM. So once again, it is DM fiat, and NOT a hard ruling.

Furthermore, did you look up HOW to take Luhix? It requires a self-inflicted bleeding wound, first off all. Then you take ability score damage. And if your CON mod drops, you lose 1 hp per level. So you've got a couple of opportunities to enter frenzy just taking this drug.

HOWEVER, one more time, look to what I have been saying. I am saying that I AGREE with your supposition. I agree that it is logical, and if I were your DM, I may in fact rule in your favor. BUT, it would be Rule 0. DM fiat overriding a strict RAW reading. Which says no. Because you still take damage, which triggers frenzy.

I know you are saying it is a clever idea, and I appreciate it, I am merely making a friendly debate. We both obviously enjoy talking about the topic.

As far as the term "may not" it is not saying "may" as in you have a choice. "May not" is an idiom with a definition that is different than the sum of the definitions of the words that make it up. May not shows something which you are not allowed to do.

So it is showing that you are not permitted to react to pain normally.

Entering a frenzy is a reaction to taking damage, pain is the method the body tells the brain that it has been damaged. You have taken a drug that blocks this communication, so the brain doesn't recognize that your took damage. So you cannot react normally, you cannot enter the frenzy that is a normal reaction (for you).

RAW is very specific. You may not react to pain (damage) normally, being forced into a rage IS a reaction to that damage (pain).

As far as the taking the drug, you are right. However, extract drug makes it come out of an object as a vapor, which you inhale and get the effects of the drug.

BUT, even if you normally took the drug, that is at most, 1 point of damage. So you must make a what? DC 15 will save I think it is? If you are building a FB anywhere close to right, your will saves are and should be ready for making much more difficult DCs.

But yes, you could still roll a 1.

Con dropping and loosing 1 hp per level is not damage, it is hit point loss. It is not subject to causing a frenzy.


I like it!
And Dark Speech, btw.

Yeah! Thats it!! And thank you. I would love to know what your players think of this solution. It is a rather solid one I think! It handles all the downsides (well, the major "I am gonna kill my friends" ones) of the class!

[RedMage125]

Ok, well circumstances of your campaign may make my argument moot. But even if only the FB knows about it, it is still info that SOMEBODY knows. I dont know about you, but for me, people are very comfortable talking to me. It's not uncommon for someone I barely just met, all the way to my best friends and family, to tell me some deep dark secret that not even their best friend/significant other/anybody else knows.

Including weaknesses, blind spots, etc. Maybe I have a passive [SU] aura of gather information, but it happens to me, personally.
You know what? I read this and laughed my butt off. Because my wife has a similar...affliction. She'll be sitting in a restaurant or something, and have the wait staff just come up to her and spill their whole life story. It's like she's got some kind of giant neon sign over her head that reads "Dump emotional baggage HERE!"

And random strangers will just spill some of the most private details of their life to her for some unknown reason.


If one person knows it, it is suddenly possible to know, even if only the gods know about it (although the later might require a lot more, gather info to find WHICH deity, divine spells to contact the diety, diplomacy and gather info to get the information, etc)
Yes, if only the gods know, then magic would be required. But I never contested using magic to gain said information. I was nitpicking on Gather Information skill checks.


I know you are saying it is a clever idea, and I appreciate it, I am merely making a friendly debate. We both obviously enjoy talking about the topic.
Me too! I love a good debate, especially a friendly one where even when both people are vehement, they are still both having fun.


As far as the term "may not" it is not saying "may" as in you have a choice. "May not" is an idiom with a definition that is different than the sum of the definitions of the words that make it up. May not shows something which you are not allowed to do.

So it is showing that you are not permitted to react to pain normally.
That's not entirely correct. "May not" does not have a different meaning than "may", it is simply adding a negative.

A quick dictionary search of "may" results:
may1
/mā/
verb
modal verb: may
1. expressing possibility.
"that may be true"
•used when admitting that something is so before making another, more important point.
"they may have been old-fashioned, but they were excellent teachers"
2. expressing permission.
"you may use a sling if you wish"
3. expressing a wish or hope.
"may she rest in peace"

So "may not" does not explicitly mean "denied permission" while "may" means "possibility", because "may" can mean either. And "may not" can mean either, just to the negative.

What this tells me is the the writers of the BoVD used unclear language. If they intended to make the effect of the drug "you are not permitted" to react to pain normally, they should have used the much more concise language of "do not" or "will not". That leaves no room for error nor interpretation of the language used. And if they meant it to indictae that users of the drug "have the possibility" or reacting to pain normally, they could have been equally concise, saying "might not" or heck, even "may or may not", because including both positive and negative clearly indicates possibility, and not permission.

Since the language used is not concise, DM fiat still must enter the equation. Only this time, DM fiat even covers interpretation of whther or not you even feel pain under the influence of the drug. He becomes entirely within his rights, RAW, to judge that sometimes you DO feel pain when on Luhix, because the language is unclear.



Entering a frenzy is a reaction to taking damage, pain is the method the body tells the brain that it has been damaged. You have taken a drug that blocks this communication, so the brain doesn't recognize that your took damage. So you cannot react normally, you cannot enter the frenzy that is a normal reaction (for you).

RAW is very specific. You may not react to pain (damage) normally, being forced into a rage IS a reaction to that damage (pain).
There is not, unfortunately, a rule that expressly connects "damage" to "pain" in a concrete way. In fact, in the 3.5e PHB, page 145, under the heading "Injury and Death" it says that hit points are a measure of how hard you are to kill. It goes on to express that hit points mean different things to different characters. For some, it may be divine favor or inner power. So hit points do not-as a hard and fast rule-equal meat. So loss of hit points cannot be said-as a rule-to be a wound that causes pain.

Because the PHB says: "No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn't hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower." So an evil mage drops a fireball on the whole party, let's say the whole party makes their save. Narratively, the follwoing is totally legit (although by no means mandatory) by RAW: when the flames clear, the rogue has nimbly dodged out of the way; the fighter curled up, to keep his exposed flesh protected by his armor; the cleric grasped her holy symbol, closed her eyes, and prayed; the wizard thrust his staff into the ground and produced a reactive field of arcane energy. The rogue is obviously completely unharmed, the fighter's armor has some soot, and maybe some of his arm hair got a little crispy, the cleric appears untouched, and the wizard is not only untouched, but so is the grass in a 2' circle around him. Now, all of them except the rogue still took half damage from the fireball, but that means different things to each of them. The wizard can only call on so much of that protective energy a day, same with the cleric. It's tiring. The fighter's skin may be a little flushed, it has exhausted a little bit of his ability to resist or avoid future injury until he gets healing.

Now-by that same virtue-you are within your rights to say that your FB takes an actual hit on his body when he takes damage (his skin would be one big scar after like, 2 more levels), it's still fluff, and requires your DM to be on board to rule that Luhix prevents you from going into frenzy.

Me, personally, even running 3.5e, I took a page out of 4e's book and intorduced the "bloodied" condition when a creature is at half hp or lower. Players announce when they are bloodied, and I announce whenever a monster is bloodied. When I DM (and me doing this precedes the D&D Next playtest, so I find it amusing that it's similar), whenever a PC is above half hit points, he/she has not been touched in combat. When "Bloodied", a creature has gotten a little roughed up, but not seriously impaired. And at 0, a solid hit has been delivered. I also usually rule that crits are actual hits as well.


As far as the taking the drug, you are right. However, extract drug makes it come out of an object as a vapor, which you inhale and get the effects of the drug.

BUT, even if you normally took the drug, that is at most, 1 point of damage. So you must make a what? DC 15 will save I think it is? If you are building a FB anywhere close to right, your will saves are and should be ready for making much more difficult DCs.

But yes, you could still roll a 1.

Con dropping and loosing 1 hp per level is not damage, it is hit point loss. It is not subject to causing a frenzy.
Fair enough. Unless "ability score damage" is still "damage", which is unclear.



Yeah! Thats it!! And thank you. I would love to know what your players think of this solution. It is a rather solid one I think! It handles all the downsides (well, the major "I am gonna kill my friends" ones) of the class!
Regrettably, that game came to an end when too many of my players stopped being able to show up for sessions. One moved too far away, and another told me he had family things to attend to (usually cancelling the day before), and I found out almost a year after I called the campaign over that he had an issue with one of the other players and didn't like gaming with him, so rather than man up and say something to let me know, he lied and made excuses about why he could not be there.

Sad for me, because I was finally getting to run the Age of Worms Adventure Path, which I have wanted to run ever since the first installment came in my monthly issue of DUNGEON. One of my gamer buddies requested a return to 3.5e for a game (I usually DM 4e), and I said "okay, but I've advanced my game world to 4e and made a lot of changes, and I don't feel like writing my own new material other than the 4e stuff I have in my idea notebook". So if I ran 3.5e it would be Age of Worms. Everyone was on board. I don't normally run pre-published stuff, but AoW is too good. They got to about 12th or 13th level, and were about to get into the really really juicy stuff.

I am, however, still in contact with the guy who played the FB. He's in my current 4e game. I'll pass the solution along to him.

Not the drug or Dark Speech part, though. His character was CG.

[Immabozo]

You know what? I read this and laughed my butt off. Because my wife has a similar...affliction. She'll be sitting in a restaurant or something, and have the wait staff just come up to her and spill their whole life story. It's like she's got some kind of giant neon sign over her head that reads "Dump emotional baggage HERE!"

And random strangers will just spill some of the most private details of their life to her for some unknown reason.

So I am not patient zero! It is a curse, or an odd sort of blessing.

But you see my point? If it's even only one person who knows it, the right person, maybe the right greasing with alcohol, maybe a woman and her.... beauty.... whatever, could get anything out of anyone.

It is going to be difficult, might take a few tries, might attract attention, might cost a small fortune, it may take time, but if the information exists, it can be gotten. But if not even the FB knows it (like 3 frenzies per day? No, all the FB knows is it tires him out too much to do it more) then no, I agree, that's metagaming.


Yes, if only the gods know, then magic would be required. But I never contested using magic to gain said information. I was nitpicking on Gather Information skill checks.

Fair enough. Magic does solve everything.


Me too! I love a good debate, especially a friendly one where even when both people are vehement, they are still both having fun.

I agree. It is a lot of fun. But it is a rare, or at least uncommon gift, to have such strong emotion and not let them tarnish your friendship, or opinion of the other person. It's great when I find someone else like that.


That's not entirely correct. "May not" does not have a different meaning than "may", it is simply adding a negative.

A quick dictionary search of "may" results:
may1
/mā/
verb
modal verb: may
1. expressing possibility.
"that may be true"
•used when admitting that something is so before making another, more important point.
"they may have been old-fashioned, but they were excellent teachers"
2. expressing permission.
"you may use a sling if you wish"
3. expressing a wish or hope.
"may she rest in peace"

So "may not" does not explicitly mean "denied permission" while "may" means "possibility", because "may" can mean either. And "may not" can mean either, just to the negative.

What this tells me is the the writers of the BoVD used unclear language. If they intended to make the effect of the drug "you are not permitted" to react to pain normally, they should have used the much more concise language of "do not" or "will not". That leaves no room for error nor interpretation of the language used. And if they meant it to indictae that users of the drug "have the possibility" or reacting to pain normally, they could have been equally concise, saying "might not" or heck, even "may or may not", because including both positive and negative clearly indicates possibility, and not permission.

Since the language used is not concise, DM fiat still must enter the equation. Only this time, DM fiat even covers interpretation of whther or not you even feel pain under the influence of the drug. He becomes entirely within his rights, RAW, to judge that sometimes you DO feel pain when on Luhix, because the language is unclear.

You know, I am starting to agree with you (admitting you were wrong isn't always as easy as flipping a switch), the major thing is that I realized, we are talking about a drug user, have you ever seen them act? Nothing is certain about their behavior.


There is not, unfortunately, a rule that expressly connects "damage" to "pain" in a concrete way. In fact, in the 3.5e PHB, page 145, under the heading "Injury and Death" it says that hit points are a measure of how hard you are to kill. It goes on to express that hit points mean different things to different characters. For some, it may be divine favor or inner power. So hit points do not-as a hard and fast rule-equal meat. So loss of hit points cannot be said-as a rule-to be a wound that causes pain.

Because the PHB says: "No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn't hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower." So an evil mage drops a fireball on the whole party, let's say the whole party makes their save. Narratively, the follwoing is totally legit (although by no means mandatory) by RAW: when the flames clear, the rogue has nimbly dodged out of the way; the fighter curled up, to keep his exposed flesh protected by his armor; the cleric grasped her holy symbol, closed her eyes, and prayed; the wizard thrust his staff into the ground and produced a reactive field of arcane energy. The rogue is obviously completely unharmed, the fighter's armor has some soot, and maybe some of his arm hair got a little crispy, the cleric appears untouched, and the wizard is not only untouched, but so is the grass in a 2' circle around him. Now, all of them except the rogue still took half damage from the fireball, but that means different things to each of them. The wizard can only call on so much of that protective energy a day, same with the cleric. It's tiring. The fighter's skin may be a little flushed, it has exhausted a little bit of his ability to resist or avoid future injury until he gets healing.

Now-by that same virtue-you are within your rights to say that your FB takes an actual hit on his body when he takes damage (his skin would be one big scar after like, 2 more levels), it's still fluff, and requires your DM to be on board to rule that Luhix prevents you from going into frenzy.

Me, personally, even running 3.5e, I took a page out of 4e's book and intorduced the "bloodied" condition when a creature is at half hp or lower. Players announce when they are bloodied, and I announce whenever a monster is bloodied. When I DM (and me doing this precedes the D&D Next playtest, so I find it amusing that it's similar), whenever a PC is above half hit points, he/she has not been touched in combat. When "Bloodied", a creature has gotten a little roughed up, but not seriously impaired. And at 0, a solid hit has been delivered. I also usually rule that crits are actual hits as well.

Again, spoilered for the sake of reading.

You are very right. I tend to agree. I dont care how experienced you are, an axe to the face never becomes more bearable.


Fair enough. Unless "ability score damage" is still "damage", which is unclear.

It is unclear, but I dont think the two translate as such, but it might. Now that I think about it, con loss CAN, probably, be argued to be damage, in light of your above small novel.


Regrettably, that game came to an end when too many of my players stopped being able to show up for sessions. One moved too far away, and another told me he had family things to attend to (usually cancelling the day before), and I found out almost a year after I called the campaign over that he had an issue with one of the other players and didn't like gaming with him, so rather than man up and say something to let me know, he lied and made excuses about why he could not be there.

Sad for me, because I was finally getting to run the Age of Worms Adventure Path, which I have wanted to run ever since the first installment came in my monthly issue of DUNGEON. One of my gamer buddies requested a return to 3.5e for a game (I usually DM 4e), and I said "okay, but I've advanced my game world to 4e and made a lot of changes, and I don't feel like writing my own new material other than the 4e stuff I have in my idea notebook". So if I ran 3.5e it would be Age of Worms. Everyone was on board. I don't normally run pre-published stuff, but AoW is too good. They got to about 12th or 13th level, and were about to get into the really really juicy stuff.

I am, however, still in contact with the guy who played the FB. He's in my current 4e game. I'll pass the solution along to him.

Not the drug or Dark Speech part, though. His character was CG.

Unfortunately, not everyone is capable of confronting problems. Some have even less ability.

But I'd love to know his opinion on the drugs and dark speech parts too! Even if they weren't character appropriate

But I am unfamiliar with that campaign, but you made me want to read it!

[RedMage125]

But you see my point? If it's even only one person who knows it, the right person, maybe the right greasing with alcohol, maybe a woman and her.... beauty.... whatever, could get anything out of anyone.

It is going to be difficult, might take a few tries, might attract attention, might cost a small fortune, it may take time, but if the information exists, it can be gotten. But if not even the FB knows it (like 3 frenzies per day? No, all the FB knows is it tires him out too much to do it more) then no, I agree, that's metagaming.

Fair enough. Magic does solve everything.

I agree. It is a lot of fun. But it is a rare, or at least uncommon gift, to have such strong emotion and not let them tarnish your friendship, or opinion of the other person. It's great when I find someone else like that.

I agree with everything here. Was going to put it in seerate responses, but am trying to conserve some space.


You know, I am starting to agree with you (admitting you were wrong isn't always as easy as flipping a switch), the major thing is that I realized, we are talking about a drug user, have you ever seen them act? Nothing is certain about their behavior.
Lol. That's for sure.


You are very right. I tend to agree. I dont care how experienced you are, an axe to the face never becomes more bearable.
Funny, the specific wording used in the book is "Even if you have lots of hit points, a dagger to the eye is still a dagger to the eye".


It is unclear, but I dont think the two translate as such, but it might. Now that I think about it, con loss CAN, probably, be argued to be damage, in light of your above small novel.
I honestly don't know what the RAW stance is on this.


Unfortunately, not everyone is capable of confronting problems. Some have even less ability.

But I'd love to know his opinion on the drugs and dark speech parts too! Even if they weren't character appropriate
I'll get back to you. My 4e game runs tomorrow.


But I am unfamiliar with that campaign, but you made me want to read it!
It's excellent. An adventure that runs characters from level 1 to 20 (and probably 21 during the last adventure!). The story is great. The only restriction on character creation is that the PCs are all supposed to be residents of this s***hole town, Diamond Lake. There are plenty of suggested backgrounds to tie players into the story. There's a lot of great opportunities for roleplaying, as well. I strongly suggest checking it out if you can find it.

[Immabozo]

I agree with everything here. Was going to put it in seerate responses, but am trying to conserve some space.

Lol. That's for sure.

Thank you, thank you.


Funny, the specific wording used in the book is "Even if you have lots of hit points, a dagger to the eye is still a dagger to the eye".

lol, thats awesome!


I honestly don't know what the RAW stance is on this.

I dont either. But maybe the term damage is all that RAW needs in this case??


I'll get back to you. My 4e game runs tomorrow.

I hope s/he likes it! I was rather proud of my solutions.


It's excellent. An adventure that runs characters from level 1 to 20 (and probably 21 during the last adventure!). The story is great. The only restriction on character creation is that the PCs are all supposed to be residents of this s***hole town, Diamond Lake. There are plenty of suggested backgrounds to tie players into the story. There's a lot of great opportunities for roleplaying, as well. I strongly suggest checking it out if you can find it.

I'll look it up! Sounds fun!