[3.5] How can I not fail a nat 1 Will save?

[RoTWS]

Trying to make a Frenzied Berserker who cannot fail the will save, but haven't found a way around a natural 1 being an automatic failure. Is there a feat or item that lets you negate that for Will saves like Steadfast Determination does for Fortitude saves? If not, where can I get rerolls I can use when I do roll that nat 1?
Other ways to improve my Will saves are welcome, though I've already made it to +19 without rage by the time I have more frenzies than rages. I already have Steadfast Determination, Iron Will, dips in Cleric and variant-alignment Paladin, stat-boosting items for both Constitution and Charisma, a Vest of Resistance, and a Crystal Mask of Mindarmor (which is a godsend for this build).

[Bavarian itP]

Dumb Luck, from Complete Scoundrel. Needs two other luck feats as pre-req.

https://dndtools.net/feats/complete-scoundrel--60/dumb-luck--778/

[Darg]

Protected Destiny from RoD
Luck Domain power
Guardian Spirit feat that requires 1 level Wu Jen
Lucky from 11 levels Swashbuckler

And if you don't mind some pretty heavy requirements there is the Luckstealer Prc which would take away from you being an actual barbarian.

[noce]

Moment of perfect mind is an immediate activation maneuver that lets you use concentration in place of will save, and a natural 1 is not an automatic failure. You can take it with Martial Study, which also gives you concentration as a class skill, and you can use that maneuver 1/encounter.
You could also take this maneuver with a Novice ring of the Diamond Mind.

Amulet of fortune prevailing is a magic item from Magic Item Compendium that lets you reroll a save 1/day.

Mantle of second chances is a magic item from Magic Item Compendium that lets you reroll a d20 1/day, but it's more expensive than the amulet.

[Buufreak]

Being a god helps. I believe anything above DiR 0 doesn't auto fail anything.

[Kaleph]

Planar touchstone, catalogue of enlightenment --> pride domain should let you automatically reroll any roll of 1 on a save.

[Gruftzwerg]

While coming a bit late, imho the most elegant way is the "Iron Heart Surge" maneuver (Warblade 3, requires a iron heart maneuver). Maneuvers are allowed while raging. Just use Iron Heart Surge to end your Rage ability. Further you can use it to get rid of the fatigued/exhausted conditions of your rage abilities.

@lvl 10:
- Either get it via a single lvl dip into Warblade
- with 2x Martial Study feat (one for the Iron Heart maneuver prerequisite)
- a double enchanted Iron Heart Vest (one for the Iron Heart maneuver prerequisite); costs 2.5 x 1.5k g= 3.75k gold

Since a single use per encounter is enough, all options are viable.

Sure comes late, but will never fail to work and can be abused for so many other things as panic button.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The Pride Domain granted power lets you reroll nat 1's the first time you roll them each roll.

[Elkad]

Moment of perfect mind ...

Concentration check. Normally disallowed while raging, though I think there is a workaround for that as well.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Moment of perfect mind is an immediate activation maneuver that lets you use concentration in place of will save, and a natural 1 is not an automatic failure. You can take it with Martial Study, which also gives you concentration as a class skill, and you can use that maneuver 1/encounter.
You could also take this maneuver with a Novice ring of the Diamond Mind.

Amulet of fortune prevailing is a magic item from Magic Item Compendium that lets you reroll a save 1/day.

Mantle of second chances is a magic item from Magic Item Compendium that lets you reroll a d20 1/day, but it's more expensive than the amulet.Unfortunately, Rage/Frenzy specifically call out not being able to use the Concentration skill. It's debatable whether that applies to Moment of Perfect Mind, but I'd ask the DM before you take the dip into Warblade.


While coming a bit late, imho the most elegant way is the "Iron Heart Surge" maneuver (Warblade 3, requires a iron heart maneuver). Maneuvers are allowed while raging. Just use Iron Heart Surge to end your Rage ability. Further you can use it to get rid of the fatigued/exhausted conditions of your rage abilities.
Similarly, watch how Iron Heart Surge interacts with Frenzy. IHS absolutely ends a Frenzy if you trigger it(and DOES work on the Fatigue), but Frenzy requires you attack to the best of your ability every turn, and IHS requires a standard action spent not attacking. I don't see IHS ever being useful in this case.

[noce]

Honorable mention: Righteous Wrath from Book of Exalted Deeds.

By RAW it only works for Rage, not Frenzy.
What it does is allowing you to deal nonlethal damage, discern friends from foes, and allowing you to stop attacking.

I mention this feat because a raging barbarian can already do all these things, so it's reasonable to talk to your DM asking to apply the feat during Frenzy.

[Gruftzwerg]

Unfortunately, Rage/Frenzy specifically call out not being able to use the Concentration skill. It's debatable whether that applies to Moment of Perfect Mind, but I'd ask the DM before you take the dip into Warblade.


Similarly, watch how Iron Heart Surge interacts with Frenzy. IHS absolutely ends a Frenzy if you trigger it(and DOES work on the Fatigue), but Frenzy requires you attack to the best of your ability every turn, and IHS requires a standard action spent not attacking. I don't see IHS ever being useful in this case.

Let's have a look at Frenzy:

While frenzied, the character cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Intimidate), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can she cast spells, drink potions, activate magic items, or read scrolls. She can use any feat she has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, or metamagic feats. She can use her special ability to inspire frenzy (see below) normally.

During a frenzy, the frenzied berserker must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability.
1. First Frenzy talks about those action that you may not do. Maneuvers is not one of em and IIRC there are statements from the customer support that supports this. So you may use Maneuvers that don't fall under the forbidden actions (e.g. maneuvers with Concentration checks wouldn't work).

2. Since you can get maneuvers via feats, you have another indicator that it is allowed.

3. Imho Frenzy only forces you to attack if you don't use any other legal actions. There is no indicator that you may not do anything else than attacking. It's just if you don't take any (legal) actions (like a feat or a non forbidden maneuver), you have to attack no matter what else you had in mind. You may not stand idle away from enemies, nor may you move away without the intention of a ranged attack (tactical repositioning for ranged attack = yes; retreat = no). That's my point of view about IHS. If attacking would be the primary restriction of the ability imho they would have mentioned it first and not last. But IHS first tells you what you are not allowed, than what is allowed and finally restricts you to attacking your enemies to your best.
I mean, if they had it the other way in mind, than they would have indicated that with something like "you may use feats while/for attacking".

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You can use Rage and Frenzy at the same time, so Righteous Wrath in BoED will work for frenzy as long as you're also raging.

If you go with the Dumb Luck feat, you can say you visited the Court of Thieves in CS to get a bonus luck feat to help qualify that for 6,000 gp instead of spending a feat on it. That saves you one feat, and the Otyugh Hole gets you Iron Will for 3,000 gp, saving you another feat.

[Biggus]

Planar touchstone, catalogue of enlightenment --> pride domain should let you automatically reroll any roll of 1 on a save.

This is the best solution if it's available, it's the only thing which will allow you to reroll it every time. See Planar Handbook p.41, 153-154, and 166-167.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

1. First Frenzy talks about those action that you may not do. Maneuvers is not one of em and IIRC there are statements from the customer support that supports this. So you may use Maneuvers that don't fall under the forbidden actions (e.g. maneuvers with Concentration checks wouldn't work).

2. Since you can get maneuvers via feats, you have another indicator that it is allowed.

3. Imho Frenzy only forces you to attack if you don't use any other legal actions. There is no indicator that you may not do anything else than attacking. It's just if you don't take any (legal) actions (like a feat or a non forbidden maneuver), you have to attack no matter what else you had in mind. You may not stand idle away from enemies, nor may you move away without the intention of a ranged attack (tactical repositioning for ranged attack = yes; retreat = no). That's my point of view about IHS. If attacking would be the primary restriction of the ability imho they would have mentioned it first and not last. But IHS first tells you what you are not allowed, than what is allowed and finally restricts you to attacking your enemies to your best.
I mean, if they had it the other way in mind, than they would have indicated that with something like "you may use feats while/for attacking".
You cut the Frenzy text off early.

During a frenzy, the frenzied berserker must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability. Should she run out of enemies before her frenzy expires, her rampage continues. She must then attack the nearest creature (determine randomly if several potential foes are equidistant) and fight that opponent without regard to friendship, innocence, or health (the target's or her own).
That says to me that the person needs to be using the full-attack action, charge, standard action attack, or maneuvers that involve attacks if those are possible, since it spells out that you have to keep attacking even if all the enemies are dead and you are now surrounded by orphans and puppies. IHS is one of the few standard-action maneuvers that doesn't involve an attack, so it's not available unless you're unable to attack.

Ask yourself this: Would you be fine with a Frenzied Berserker using standard-action Intimidate every round until the Frenzy ends so that he doesn't attack his friends?

Edit: Iron Heart Focus lets you reroll any save, but it's a 5th level maneuver, meaning you can't get it until roughly level 17 if I'm doing the math right.

[Gruftzwerg]

You cut the Frenzy text off early.

That says to me that the person needs to be using the full-attack action, charge, standard action attack, or maneuvers that involve attacks if those are possible, since it spells out that you have to keep attacking even if all the enemies are dead and you are now surrounded by orphans and puppies. IHS is one of the few standard-action maneuvers that doesn't involve an attack, so it's not available unless you're unable to attack.

Ask yourself this: Would you be fine with a Frenzied Berserker using standard-action Intimidate every round until the Frenzy ends so that he doesn't attack his friends?

Edit: Iron Heart Focus lets you reroll any save, but it's a 5th level maneuver, meaning you can't get it until roughly level 17 if I'm doing the math right.

I did cut it off because it just further explained the attack-clause, but that doesn't affect/change my argument in any way. Sorry if you had the impression that it is deceiving, that was not my intention.

Let me try another approach to explain my point of view:

Frenzy allows you to express the wish to end frenzy with a will save (in the moment as you see it fit). It's silent if that is the sole way to end the Frenzy, which allows for other "legal" methods to end the Frenzy, if you should have any.

Iron Heart Surge is as maneuver/feat legal, since the rule allowing feats doesn't explicitly require you to use an attack feat. It just limits the selection of usable feats, nothing more.

The Attack-clause only comes into effect if you didn't choose any other legal option.

_____________

Intimidate:
Intimidate is only legal if you use it on any real enemy or on your nearest ally if no enemy is available. Once there is no real enemy left, your targeting gets locked to the nearest.
With that in mind, you could use it on the first round after all enemies have dropped on your nearest ally which you need to threaten, which includes moving up to the nearest ally.
If you succeed and your ally fails his roll, you can't intimidate him again due to the 1 round debuff duration and thus have to attack him in the next round.
Unless your nearest target has changed:
if your allies are smart enough to play aggro ping-pong and you have now a new nearest target, you could choose to intimidate the new target. Remember that this rule kicks in the moment the last enemy is down (or you can't see any more). Imho this is even a good example, how it's depicted in fantasy stories, when allies deal with their Berserker friend. They switch his attention constantly and by that provoke an Intimidate attempt from the Berserker every time, since he get even more angry/annoyed with each switch. Imho this is not only RAW, but also RAI that it works.

____________________

Iron Heart Surge is a Crusader 3 ability not 5. And thus a Crusader with 5 Initiatorlevel could get it. As noninitiator class your Initiatorlevel is 1/2 and thus the latest moment it becomes available is at lvl 10, when you don't have Warbalde level or only dip1 lvl. If you dip more, it comes even earlier available (e.g. @lvl8 = abc 6 / Warblade 2).

[Gorthawar]

Let's have a look at Frenzy:

...

3. Imho Frenzy only forces you to attack if you don't use any other legal actions. There is no indicator that you may not do anything else than attacking.
....
I mean, if they had it the other way in mind, than they would have indicated that with something like "you may use feats while/for attacking".

As you say this is your interpretation that might not work on many a table.

There are 3 rules that govern the actions you can do during a frenzy and you have to comply with all of them and not in a specific order.

1. Can't do a bunch of things. This is clear and nobody argues this point.
2. Can use feats with some exceptions. The important thing here is the use of [b]can[b] which means it's an optional choice.
3. [B]Must attack[b]. Must is a very strong word that implies that you have to do something.

As such you can use any feat or maneuver you want as long as you attack somebody following RAW. Using IHS is not one of these.

Your example of using intimate is not an attack either. If you we're allowed to use feats and skills like you describe you could just use the track feat mid combat to avoid attacking your party or start basket weaving once all opponents are defeated.

The one bit were the frenzy rules are open is when it states that you have to attack to the best of your ability. Do you have to attack your party without best maneuver? Do you have to charge/pounce on your mates and use the full might of your shock trooper PA?
This will depend on your DM and is good thing to review before the session starts.

RAW you could just arm your berserker with a truncheon only and do non-lethal damage to your team only. Might make for some interesting RPG opportunities as well. "Nooo, don't touch that sharp sword"

[Gruftzwerg]

As you say this is your interpretation that might not work on many a table.

There are 3 rules that govern the actions you can do during a frenzy and you have to comply with all of them and not in a specific order.

1. Can't do a bunch of things. This is clear and nobody argues this point.
2. Can use feats with some exceptions. The important thing here is the use of can[b] which means it's an optional choice.
3. [B]Must attack[b]. Must is a very strong word that implies that you have to do something.

As such you can use any feat or maneuver you want as long as you attack somebody following RAW. Using IHS is not one of these.

Your example of using intimate is not an attack either. If you we're allowed to use feats and skills like you describe you could just use the track feat mid combat to avoid attacking your party or start basket weaving once all opponents are defeated.

The one bit were the frenzy rules are open is when it states that you have to attack to the best of your ability. Do you have to attack your party without best maneuver? Do you have to charge/pounce on your mates and use the full might of your shock trooper PA?
This will depend on your DM and is good thing to review before the session starts.

RAW you could just arm your berserker with a truncheon only and do non-lethal damage to your team only. Might make for some interesting RPG opportunities as well. "Nooo, don't touch that sharp sword"

1. -----

2. If feats and skills would be just an option for while attacking, it would be more logical to tell you the attack condition first and than explain what you may do while attacking. But the text ain't formulated in any kind like that. It explains, what you may not do, what you may do, and gives you a default action you have to fall back when you don't pick any other legal actions.

3. Pls reread the ability again. But I'll requote the important part again to support my argument still.


While frenzied, the character cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills [B](except for Intimidate),
Intimidate is a clear exception from the forbidden Skills. And since the use of Intimidate is a non attack action, you have a clear indicator that you are not doomed to pick "attack actions" every turn while Frenzied. You may pick other legal actions as described. So what happened to "must attack" now?

As you can clearly see, "must attack" don't have any kind of priority over the other legal options. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to use Intimidate. It's just as said, the default option to fallback, when you don't or can't pick any other legal actions for your Frenzy state.

Frenzy is not 100% brain-dead, only to 99%^^
You may have the wish to try to end you Frenzy which is an indicator that you aren't totally out of your mind. For me this translates to "just have barely control over your body reactions". Cause the desire to end the Frenzy needs some mental reasoning to do so. So you are mentally aware what is happening and try to regain control over your body with your mental actions. Further she can discern between friend and foe, cause the attack nearest ally condition starts when all foes are dropped which is an indicator for that
.
This all leads to the result that the mental decision making may abuse legal actions that prevent you from attacking. Like the use of Intimidate, you may use Iron Heart Surge. Both legal actions. Neither Skills nor Feats have the attack condition and may be abused to not attack in this round, as long as the action is legal.

It just have to be a legal action. Remember that Intimidate is thus a limited option as in my previous post above (you can't Intimidate the same target in the following round if the Intimidate in the first round was successful and you can only Intimidate the nearest target).

edit: twisted a ability name.. corrected.

[Gorthawar]

Yes intimidate is a skill you are allowed to use. As is balance, jump and profession (basketweaver). The reason you can't start weaving baskets in the middle of combat is the requirement that you must attack to the best of your ability. If that means jumping a chasm to attack your nearest ally you can do so because jump is not a forbidden skill. But again you can't just start jumping up and down for the fun of it.
As such you can only use the intimidate skill whilst you attack to the best of your abilities as well and therefore fulfill all three rules criteria. Two examples from CW that make this possible are the feats intimidating rage and intimidating strike.

[Jowgen]

As a note, instead of Planar Touchstone, you can also simply take the regular Touchstone feat from Sandstorm. Easier to qualify for (i.e. having a touchstone key is an OR requirement to the Ranks) and explicitly can be used to attune to planar sites as well.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yes intimidate is a skill you are allowed to use. As is balance, jump and profession (basketweaver). The reason you can't start weaving baskets in the middle of combat is the requirement that you must attack to the best of your ability. If that means jumping a chasm to attack your nearest ally you can do so because jump is not a forbidden skill. But again you can't just start jumping up and down for the fun of it.
As such you can only use the intimidate skill whilst you attack to the best of your abilities as well and therefore fulfill all three rules criteria. Two examples from CW that make this possible are the feats intimidating rage and intimidating strike.

It would be nice if you would reread the ability text as I said before you post more nonsense. It's getting annoying to point you to the same sentence again and again:



While frenzied, the character cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Intimidate), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can she cast spells, drink potions, activate magic items, or read scrolls. She can use any feat she has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, or metamagic feats. She can use her special ability to inspire frenzy (see below) normally.

Profession (Cha) (Wis)- Not allowed (edit:)Requires to much concentration and or fine movement.
Balance (Dex) - Not allowed
Jump (Str) - Allowed, but since it's only a moveaction as it's best, you still have to attack after that and may not jump away from targets.

What was your point again? Could you finally read the ability before annoying me with more nonsense what you think what stays in the ability text and try to confirm it first with the ability text before posting? thx. I have quoted the ability several times for you and you still seem to haven't read it once. Otherwise it is a riddle for me how you can have these responses.
I really have to genuinely ask: Are you trying to troll me here?

edit: corrected Profession. I must have been sleeping or something. Maybe because I am working on a Perform build simultaneously dunno^^

[Gorthawar]

Ah yes slight mistake there. Balance is off limits that's why grease is so efficient against a berserker. My bad. Profession or survival however are Wisdom based and therefore allowed according to your rules understanding. I just don't understand even after reading the section you've posted multiple times how you can ignore the must attack part of the rules. Just because it states that you can use intimidate amongst a number of skills it doesn't remove the requirement to attack.

Edit: clarification on balance by including grease spell.

[Gruftzwerg]

Ah yes slight mistake there. Balance is off limits that's why grease is so efficient against a berserker. My bad. Profession or survival however are Wisdom based and therefore allowed according to your rules understanding. I just don't understand even after reading the section you've posted multiple times how you can ignore the must attack part of the rules. Just because it states that you can use intimidate amongst a number of skills it doesn't remove the requirement to attack.

Edit: clarification on balance by including grease spell.

It doesn't remove the attack requirement. It bypasses it as long as you do other legal actions, since it doesn't have priority over the other legal action as you want to make it look like. Using Intimidate is legal as the rules explicitly point out. And using it in combat is a Standard Action. Thus the legal actions for Frenzy may include abilities/skills that use up the actions needed otherwise to attack.
If intimidate is a legal action, so is Iron Heart Surge. Both use up a standard action and deny you any regular attacks for that round. There is no difference. Both are on the legit abilities side which you may use while on Frenzy.

Where is the difference between wasting your possible attack action with a Standard Action from Intimidate, to the Standard Action of Iron Heart Surge? There is none as far as I can tell. Explain me pls, where you see the difference?


@professions/survival...: You need to much concentration for things like this and thus not a legal target if it isn't obvious for you. (maybe not intensive as other things you can concentrate on but enough to deny it by RAW). How can you expect that crafting, professions or thoughts about survival (skill) takes less concentration than lets say "tumble (Dex)"? You need to much patience and/or accurate body movement for both.

________________

You assume that the "must attack" condition has priority over everything else. But that is not the chase. It is mentioned last and nothing in the text indicated that it takes precedence.

if you can follow my arguments so far, the Frenzy Restriction-Priority-list for legal actions looks like this:
1. you may select a non forbidden action if it is available/legal atm (including legal non attack options)
2. if you don't (want to) pick a legal action yourself, check if there are foes left to attack and do so if they are
3. if there aren't any foes left, target the nearest ally

If you think that the restriction priority for Frenzy looks different, than explain it and show us how Intimidate (standard action) works out with those restriction-priorities.

[OrbanSirgen]

Profession (Cha) - Not allowed

Profession is Wis...

[Gruftzwerg]

Profession is Wis...

oh yeah, i must have been sleeping..^^ thx for pointing it out.
but doesn't change that it still requires to much concentration and/or fine body movement imho.

[AnimeTheCat]

I suspect that Intimidate is called out as allowed specifically because the feat "Intimidating Rage" is required for the class, which allows you to use Intimidate as a free action against one target, thus not rendering you unable to attack in that same round. You still must attack those you perceive as enemies, but you can also intimidate them too, as it does not negatively impact your ability to attack.

Just my 2 cp.

[ShurikVch]

If 3rd-party stuff is allowed...

Fool's Luck
You have an innate ability to turn bad situations to your advantage.
Benefits: Once per day, you may choose to ignore the effects of a failed roll of any sort (attack roll, saving throw, skill check) and convert it into a success, provided you can explain how what at first appeared to be a failure was, in fact, a success. For example, you make a swing in a crowded cabin on a ship and fail to hit the evil buccaneer that threatens your life. You choose to invoke Fool's Luck and explain that you did not actually miss the buccaneer. Instead, you were taking advantage of the close quarters to initiate a feint, which you then followed up with a quick attack at close range when the buccaneer moved in to strike you. If the DM agrees to this explanation, you may roll normal damage against the buccaneer, as if he had been hit in the first place. The DM should give wide latitude for explanations to invoke this feat, but he is under no obligation to accept any given explanation, especially if he feels it is outlandish or implausible.
Special: You may take this feat more than once. Each subsequent acquisition of the feat increases the number of times it may be used each day by one.

[Gruftzwerg]

I suspect that Intimidate is called out as allowed specifically because the feat "Intimidating Rage" is required for the class, which allows you to use Intimidate as a free action against one target, thus not rendering you unable to attack in that same round. You still must attack those you perceive as enemies, but you can also intimidate them too, as it does not negatively impact your ability to attack.

Just my 2 cp.

It might be the intention yeah. But that's not what the text says. If the text would start with the attack condition and than call out what you may or may not do while attacking, I would have no problems. But RAW that is not the chase. Typical 3.5 issue.

[rel]

Using IHS to end the frenzy seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Seto]

Being a god helps. I believe anything above DiR 0 doesn't auto fail anything.

Ha! That is such a GitP answer, I love it :smallbiggrin:
"- How can I avoid failing a save?
- Well, hear me out, step 1 is becoming a God. Step 2..."

[AnimeTheCat]

It might be the intention yeah. But that's not what the text says. If the text would start with the attack condition and than call out what you may or may not do while attacking, I would have no problems. But RAW that is not the chase. Typical 3.5 issue.

In a logical argument (argument meaning a phrase or series of rules that resolve to an end result) it doesn't matter where a "Must" argument falls. To me, the argument reads:

Target: Action
not allowed: Charisma, Dexterity, intelligence skills, concentration skill, abilities that require patience or concentration, spells, potions, activating magic items, reading scrolls.
allowed: Any feat except combat expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats, and inspire frenzy.
Must: attack perceived foes, attack nearest creature regardless of friendship if perceived foes do not exist.

Regardless of the fact that "Must" comes at the end of the logical argument, it is the strictest rule. If you choose an action and it isn't explicitly disallowed, and is allowed, but isn't an attack, it isn't an allowed action while in a frenzy. In another logical method, it isn't an attack, it isn't allowed while in a frenzy. I just skipped the first two, more lenient arguments, and checked the most strict rule first.

Bottom line, where the arguments lie, unless they are "if" arguments, doesn't matter. You'll get the same result no matter when the "Must" is applied, one method just takes more steps to get there.

[Gruftzwerg]

In a logical argument (argument meaning a phrase or series of rules that resolve to an end result) it doesn't matter where a "Must" argument falls. To me, the argument reads:

Target: Action
not allowed: Charisma, Dexterity, intelligence skills, concentration skill, abilities that require patience or concentration, spells, potions, activating magic items, reading scrolls.
allowed: Any feat except combat expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats, and inspire frenzy.
Must: attack perceived foes, attack nearest creature regardless of friendship if perceived foes do not exist.

Regardless of the fact that "Must" comes at the end of the logical argument, it is the strictest rule. If you choose an action and it isn't explicitly disallowed, and is allowed, but isn't an attack, it isn't an allowed action while in a frenzy. In another logical method, it isn't an attack, it isn't allowed while in a frenzy. I just skipped the first two, more lenient arguments, and checked the most strict rule first.

Bottom line, where the arguments lie, unless they are "if" arguments, doesn't matter. You'll get the same result no matter when the "Must" is applied, one method just takes more steps to get there.

1: Imho it is totally illogical to put a top priority restriction rule at the bottom of the restrictions. Who starts an explanation with: "You may not do this, but you are allowed to do this.. yada yada.. and btw, don't forget that you always have to do this." It's just plain stupid to explain it that way, cause that would beg for misinterpretation.

2: If I am really nitpicky: the whole sentence

During a frenzy, the frenzied berserker must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability. is so slack formulated because of the absence of any keywords that you can just lol about it.

Where does it say that you need to attack every turn?

The "must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability" without the "every turn" key term implies that you may use legal non attack options (e.g. legal combat buffs like wild shape) between the attacks.

This is why Intimidate is noted as legal action, before the default fallback option (keep attacking) is mentioned.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

1: Imho it is totally illogical to put a top priority restriction rule at the bottom of the restrictions. Who starts an explanation with: "You may not do this, but you are allowed to do this.. yada yada.. and btw, don't forget that you always have to do this." It's just plain stupid to explain it that way, cause that would beg for misinterpretation.
I think that, maybe, just maybe, WOTC doesn't always edit their products to the best of their ability.

Also:
Frenzy (Ex): When frenzied, Shanna gains a +10 bonus to Strength, and she gains a single extra attack at a +21 bonus if she makes a full attack action. She takes a –4 penalty to Armor Class and takes 2 points of nonlethal damage every round. The frenzy lasts for 5 rounds, or 7 rounds if she is also raging. If she takes damage and still has uses of greater frenzy remaining that day, she goes into greater frenzy as a free action during her next turn unless she succeeds on a Will save (DC 10 + points of damage). While in a frenzy, she must attack foes, or a random creature if no foes remain. She isn’t considered disabled if she has 0 hit points or incapacitated below –1 hit point. Even if she’s below –9 hit points, she doesn’t die until the frenzy is over.
While the class rules have precedence, I'd say it's fairly clear what WOTC wanted to have happen with the ability.

[Gruftzwerg]

I think that, maybe, just maybe, WOTC doesn't always edit their products to the best of their ability.

Also:
Frenzy (Ex): When frenzied, Shanna gains a +10 bonus to Strength, and she gains a single extra attack at a +21 bonus if she makes a full attack action. She takes a –4 penalty to Armor Class and takes 2 points of nonlethal damage every round. The frenzy lasts for 5 rounds, or 7 rounds if she is also raging. If she takes damage and still has uses of greater frenzy remaining that day, she goes into greater frenzy as a free action during her next turn unless she succeeds on a Will save (DC 10 + points of damage). While in a frenzy, she must attack foes, or a random creature if no foes remain. She isn’t considered disabled if she has 0 hit points or incapacitated below –1 hit point. Even if she’s below –9 hit points, she doesn’t die until the frenzy is over.
While the class rules have precedence, I'd say it's fairly clear what WOTC wanted to have happen with the ability.

I still miss any keywords forcing me to attack every turn or that I have to spend all actions for attacks. we now have 2 text passages where they clearly avoided the use of binding keywords. They could have said "every turn", "only attack actions" or something similar.

Sorry , I don't buy the bad editing argument. The terms "every turn" or "being restricted to a specific action type" (attack in this chase) are very commonly used by WotC. It would be out of the picture if they would missed/forgot their regular language structure/vocabulary twice for such a "simple" to explain ability.

You all get "the impression of what is commonly seen as a berserker" (a brain-dead non stop attacking machine) but fail to realize the absence of specifying keywords to back it up. Sure the is a attack condition bound to Frenzy. But is it really such a hard rule as you want it to look like or is it just a default option to fallback when you don't pic any other legal action. Imho it's clearly the latter.

Did they had other intentions? Maybe, but for me the rules are clearly pointing you into another directions.

[Buufreak]

I think that, maybe, just maybe, WOTC doesn't always edit their products to the best of their ability.

Also:
Frenzy (Ex): When frenzied, Shanna gains a +10 bonus to Strength, and she gains a single extra attack at a +21 bonus if she makes a full attack action. She takes a –4 penalty to Armor Class and takes 2 points of nonlethal damage every round. The frenzy lasts for 5 rounds, or 7 rounds if she is also raging. If she takes damage and still has uses of greater frenzy remaining that day, she goes into greater frenzy as a free action during her next turn unless she succeeds on a Will save (DC 10 + points of damage). While in a frenzy, she must attack foes, or a random creature if no foes remain. She isn’t considered disabled if she has 0 hit points or incapacitated below –1 hit point. Even if she’s below –9 hit points, she doesn’t die until the frenzy is over.
While the class rules have precedence, I'd say it's fairly clear what WOTC wanted to have happen with the ability.

Where did you get that cite from? I just looked up FB in CW and MotW, and neither have such text.

[icefractal]

I think if "must attack" doesn't mean "must use actions to attack", it's pretty meaningless. Moving, including running, is an allowed action. Dropping and picking up weapons are allowed actions. But if FBs could just sprint around or practice their juggling then the whole business of Will saves to not attack your friends would be moot, because they'd just spend the actions on other things.

[AnimeTheCat]

1: Imho it is totally illogical to put a top priority restriction rule at the bottom of the restrictions. Who starts an explanation with: "You may not do this, but you are allowed to do this.. yada yada.. and btw, don't forget that you always have to do this." It's just plain stupid to explain it that way, cause that would beg for misinterpretation.
It's a difference between a mathematical logical argument and a literal logical argument. In coding and mathematics, where the most strict argument comes from doesn't matter, so long as you're not adding additional information after that argument (in this case you're not). In a literal argument, it is most common for the most strict rule to take the first position, however even this is not the case all the time. In law, it is a common tactic to first present the arguments you have the least evidence for first, as these arguments are less likely to hold weight. You do so because you want to leave the strongest and most well made arguments for your final thoughts, the last thing you leave the jury with before their deliberation. In this way, it is very logical much to put your most strict or highest priority rule last, as it will be the last thing that is remembered upon reading or hearing. Regardless, it doesn't matter where the most strict rule or argument is, it is still present and any action has to pass that argument. Earlier or later in the rules does not give the player or DM any grounds to ignore it.


2: If I am really nitpicky: the whole sentence
is so slack formulated because of the absence of any keywords that you can just lol about it.

Where does it say that you need to attack every turn?

But that nitpick is, for lack of a better word, misguided. The keyword you're missing is "Must". Must means, "be obliged to; should (expressing necessity)" which in turn means that it is necessary for you to attack or that you are, in fact, obliged to attack. If the word used was, for instance, "May" then you would be correct in that it would have to include "every round" but since the word used was binding and infered an obligatory sense to the action, there's no need to say "every round". That's simply redundant. IceFractal has the right idea as well in this regard:

I think if "must attack" doesn't mean "must use actions to attack", it's pretty meaningless. Moving, including running, is an allowed action. Dropping and picking up weapons are allowed actions. But if FBs could just sprint around or practice their juggling then the whole business of Will saves to not attack your friends would be moot, because they'd just spend the actions on other things.



The "must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability" without the "every turn" key term implies that you may use legal non attack options (e.g. legal combat buffs like wild shape) between the attacks.

This is why Intimidate is noted as legal action, before the default fallback option (keep attacking) is mentioned.

Intimidate is noted as a legal action because, immediately prior to it being noted as such, charisma-based skill checks are noted as being illegal to take. This has far less to do with intimidate and the functionality of the skill itself, and more to call out an exception to a previously made rule. In context, the callout to Intimidate is contextually closer and more relevant to the prohibition on charisma-based skills rather than allowable actions in combat. If the exception to the rules were placed closer and more directly connected to actions in combat, I would expect the exception to be contextually closer and more directly connected to the direct rule about actions allowed in combat, thus putting it as an exception to the "must attack" clause. As it is now, allowing intimidate is an exception to the no charisma skills clause rather than the must attack clause.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Where did you get that cite from? I just looked up FB in CW and MotW, and neither have such text.The sample NPC in Complete Warrior. As I said, that's not technically RAW, but it's a pretty clear indication of designer intent.

[Gruftzwerg]

Intimidate is noted as a legal action because, immediately prior to it being noted as such, charisma-based skill checks are noted as being illegal to take. This has far less to do with intimidate and the functionality of the skill itself, and more to call out an exception to a previously made rule. In context, the callout to Intimidate is contextually closer and more relevant to the prohibition on charisma-based skills rather than allowable actions in combat. If the exception to the rules were placed closer and more directly connected to actions in combat, I would expect the exception to be contextually closer and more directly connected to the direct rule about actions allowed in combat, thus putting it as an exception to the "must attack" clause. As it is now, allowing intimidate is an exception to the no charisma skills clause rather than the must attack clause.

The question is, how you are supposed to use intimidate, if all actions you take have to be Attack Actions? If Intimidate is a legal non attack action, why shouldn't non attack combat related feats be forbidden? It's one or the other. And since Intimidate is called out as legal exception, there is only one way to interpret this. You may take legal non attack actions.
Or can you provide any general use of Intimidate where you still attack in the same turn? And note that it has to be a general aspect of the skill, since "intimidate overall" is the exception and not an "special intimidate attack" (feat or ability) or something like that.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

The question is, how you are supposed to use intimidate, if all actions you take have to be Attack Actions? If Intimidate is a legal non attack action, why shouldn't non attack combat related feats be forbidden? It's one or the other. And since Intimidate is called out as legal exception, there is only one way to interpret this. You may take legal non attack actions.
Or can you provide any general use of Intimidate where you still attack in the same turn? And note that it has to be a general aspect of the skill, since "intimidate overall" is the exception and not an "special intimidate attack" (feat or ability) or something like that.As has already been said, Frenzied Berserkers all have Intimidating Rage, which lets them intimidate as a free action once per encounter. Likely, the designers didn't want to call out every way of getting Intimidate faster across all splatbooks, so they wrote an exception and assumed people would be able to parse that Intimidate is not an exception to the "must attack" rule, just an available option when you have it as a free or move action.

[zfs]

For the sake of completeness, Knight's Level 17 ability lets you do this. Of course, even in a gestalt game, you couldn't be a Knight 17 and a Frenzied Berserker due to alignment restrictions.

[tterreb]

For the sake of completeness, Knight's Level 17 ability lets you do this. Of course, even in a gestalt game, you couldn't be a Knight 17 and a Frenzied Berserker due to alignment restrictions.

You could if you changed alignment after hitting level 17. Impetuous Endurance isn't one of the abilities lost by becoming an ex-knight. However, knight 17/barbarian 1/ frenzied berserker 2 isn't exactly a great build...

[Gruftzwerg]

As has already been said, Frenzied Berserkers all have Intimidating Rage, which lets them intimidate as a free action once per encounter. Likely, the designers didn't want to call out every way of getting Intimidate faster across all splatbooks, so they wrote an exception and assumed people would be able to parse that Intimidate is not an exception to the "must attack" rule, just an available option when you have it as a free or move action.

That may have been the intention , yeah. But intention = RAI not RAW. The things you called out are not part of the ability text. Frenzy only calls out intimidate as exception without any limitations associated with that.

So by RAW, we are allowed to make use of Intimidate without restrictions. That the text tells us several sentences later that we "must attack the nearest ally to our best when no enemies are available" without any actions restrictions associated with that or the "every turn" keywords/term, doesn't affect that any kind of intimidate use is still legal. Sure it must still be a legal target/attempt to intimidate. You can't intimidate someone who is already intimidated by you the last round.
And the same can be said about the use of feats and thus maneuvers (IHS), that they are legal options.

the "must attack" only restricts your from any non legal action. Like only taking move actions and doing nothing else. Or full retreats. Imho these are the things that are forbidden by RAW due to the "must attack" without any indicator for every turn/action.

[AnimeTheCat]

The question is, how you are supposed to use intimidate, if all actions you take have to be Attack Actions? If Intimidate is a legal non attack action, why shouldn't non attack combat related feats be forbidden? It's one or the other. And since Intimidate is called out as legal exception, there is only one way to interpret this. You may take legal non attack actions.
Or can you provide any general use of Intimidate where you still attack in the same turn? And note that it has to be a general aspect of the skill, since "intimidate overall" is the exception and not an "special intimidate attack" (feat or ability) or something like that.

First I want to note that, via context, Intimidate is NOT called out as an allowed action. It is called out as an allowed skill to use that formerly had a prohibition put on it:


While frenzied, the character cannot use any charisma-, dexterity-, or intelligence based skills (except for intimidate)...
This is distinctly saying you can use that specific charisma based skill. It is not stating how you can use it, rather that it is allowed to be used, contrary to the charisma-based skill prohibition that was just stated. The parenthesis are quite indicative that it is making exception to that specific skill prohibition, not an action prohibition.


That may have been the intention , yeah. But intention = RAI not RAW. The things you called out are not part of the ability text. Frenzy only calls out intimidate as exception without any limitations associated with that.

So by RAW, we are allowed to make use of Intimidate without restrictions. That the text tells us several sentences later that we "must attack the nearest ally to our best when no enemies are available" without any actions restrictions associated with that or the "every turn" keywords/term, doesn't affect that any kind of intimidate use is still legal. Sure it must still be a legal target/attempt to intimidate. You can't intimidate someone who is already intimidated by you the last round.
And the same can be said about the use of feats and thus maneuvers (IHS), that they are legal options.

the "must attack" only restricts your from any non legal action. Like only taking move actions and doing nothing else. Or full retreats. Imho these are the things that are forbidden by RAW due to the "must attack" without any indicator for every turn/action.

So a paragraph later, after saying all the things you can or can't use while in a frenzy, you are told what you can do in a frenzy, which is attack. Something to note about all of the things in the first paragraph are all tools/options/choices that you use rather than things that you do with your actions. Within your turn you can use intimidate, but you must attack. This means that you can use your feat to intimidate as an immediate action, move, and then attack. What you can't do is move and intimidate, you didn't attack. You can't just move, you didn't attack. You can't withdraw or full retreat, you didn't attack. It's really not complex at all. You must attack.

Since you mentioned it, let's talk about Iron Heart Surge. While yes you are using a feat, are you attacking? There are a variety of ways you can attack, and to my knowledge using Iron Heart Surge is a standard action. If you use your Standard Action to use Iron Heart Surge, what options are you left with to attack? If the answer is none, that isn't a legal action you can take because you must attack. That's simple, straightforward, and RAW. Iron Heart Surge doesn't even involve an attack role of any sort, so you can't even claim that using the feat to use the maneuver is an attack, because it's simply not. Since you're using the feat to dictate your action, the action must be an attack, similar to power attack or shock trooper. Those are feats that you can use and still attack, and thusly would be legal.

[Gruftzwerg]

First I want to note that, via context, Intimidate is NOT called out as an allowed action. It is called out as an allowed skill to use that formerly had a prohibition put on it:

This is distinctly saying you can use that specific charisma based skill. It is not stating how you can use it, rather that it is allowed to be used, contrary to the charisma-based skill prohibition that was just stated. The parenthesis are quite indicative that it is making exception to that specific skill prohibition, not an action prohibition.



So a paragraph later, after saying all the things you can or can't use while in a frenzy, you are told what you can do in a frenzy, which is attack. Something to note about all of the things in the first paragraph are all tools/options/choices that you use rather than things that you do with your actions. Within your turn you can use intimidate, but you must attack. This means that you can use your feat to intimidate as an immediate action, move, and then attack. What you can't do is move and intimidate, you didn't attack. You can't just move, you didn't attack. You can't withdraw or full retreat, you didn't attack. It's really not complex at all. You must attack.

Since you mentioned it, let's talk about Iron Heart Surge. While yes you are using a feat, are you attacking? There are a variety of ways you can attack, and to my knowledge using Iron Heart Surge is a standard action. If you use your Standard Action to use Iron Heart Surge, what options are you left with to attack? If the answer is none, that isn't a legal action you can take because you must attack. That's simple, straightforward, and RAW. Iron Heart Surge doesn't even involve an attack role of any sort, so you can't even claim that using the feat to use the maneuver is an attack, because it's simply not. Since you're using the feat to dictate your action, the action must be an attack, similar to power attack or shock trooper. Those are feats that you can use and still attack, and thusly would be legal.

Nowhere the text implies to attack every turn. The text only demands "... must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability. Should she run out of enemies before her frenzy expires, her rampage continues. She must then attack the nearest creature ...".
RAW lacks the context to force you to attack every turn. There are enough common used 3.5 terms that would have covered that very easily. Like "forced to only attack actions" or "every turn" added to the must attack condition. Without that it is far less restricting than you have the impression. "Must attack to her best" isn't a defined term and the regular interpretation doesn't force you attack nonstop. Sure it can be an valid interpretation (to attack nonstop), but it is not the sole valid interpretation. Since we lack keywords that restrict us to attack actions or to attack every turn, it's just a fallback option if you didn't picked any other valid action.

You read a "every turn" or "all actions" condition without any text passage indicating that. As said, I have no problem assuming that your point of view might have been the intention (RAI). But RAW says something else. No forced attack actions and no must attack every turn. Just an undefined and thus weak rule to "attack to your best". Since you are the one who knows best how you attack to your best, this further leaves much room for interpretation.
Call it bad editing or whatsoever, but since FB already had its errata, we have to live with the text as it is.
I'm not saying that you should force yourself to play Frenzy out as RAW, but don't assume that your point of view is RAW. Maybe RAI, but that is not what I am arguing here about.

[AnimeTheCat]

Nowhere the text implies to attack every turn. The text only demands "... must attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability. Should she run out of enemies before her frenzy expires, her rampage continues. She must then attack the nearest creature ...".
RAW lacks the context to force you to attack every turn. There are enough common used 3.5 terms that would have covered that very easily. Like "forced to only attack actions" or "every turn" added to the must attack condition. Without that it is far less restricting than you have the impression. "Must attack to her best" isn't a defined term and the regular interpretation doesn't force you attack nonstop. Sure it can be an valid interpretation (to attack nonstop), but it is not the sole valid interpretation. Since we lack keywords that restrict us to attack actions or to attack every turn, it's just a fallback option if you didn't picked any other valid action.

You read a "every turn" or "all actions" condition without any text passage indicating that. As said, I have no problem assuming that your point of view might have been the intention (RAI). But RAW says something else. No forced attack actions and no must attack every turn. Just an undefined and thus weak rule to "attack to your best". Since you are the one who knows best how you attack to your best, this further leaves much room for interpretation.
Call it bad editing or whatsoever, but since FB already had its errata, we have to live with the text as it is.

What else, exactly, are you going to do on your combat turns if you are in a frenzy and the frenzy says "During a frenzy, the frenzied berserker must attack..."

Seriously, I dont see what is the confusing part of the text there. You are in a frenzy. During that frenzy you must attack. If the best of your ability means immediate action intimidate them, then charge, shock trooper, leap attack, power attack them... then you must do that. Theres really no gray area here.

I guess in closing I can say,

I'm not saying that you should force yourself to play Frenzy out as RAW, but don't assume that your point of view is RAW. Maybe RAI, but that is not what I am arguing here about.
right back atcha, because I feel the same way about your stance. Difference of opinions, and agree to disagree. This is going nowhere with us both citing what we read as RAW and simply repeating those statements. Ultimately, play the game the way you want to play it, far be it from me to say you're having badwrongfun.

[Gruftzwerg]

What else, exactly, are you going to do on your combat turns if you are in a frenzy and the frenzy says "During a frenzy, the frenzied berserker must attack..."

Seriously, I dont see what is the confusing part of the text there. You are in a frenzy. During that frenzy you must attack. If the best of your ability means immediate action intimidate them, then charge, shock trooper, leap attack, power attack them... then you must do that. Theres really no gray area here.

I guess in closing I can say,

right back atcha, because I feel the same way about your stance. Difference of opinions, and agree to disagree. This is going nowhere with us both citing what we read as RAW and simply repeating those statements. Ultimately, play the game the way you want to play it, far be it from me to say you're having badwrongfun.

What else? As you said we are repeating our selfs here all the time, so come on.. you know my answer^^ It's the weakest condition that can be trumped by all the other noted legal actions. A weak fallback rule, not a top priority rule. And no, I don't buy the argument, that you can put the top priority rule somewhere in the back and hope that everybody still notice it as priority. It's not like that the paragraph title is indicating that (this is how it works in laws, when they use to put the important stuff as title and as the end of paragraph. But not just the end sentence without the title that prepared you to what is coming in the paragraph. But in our chase, the title is "Frenzy" and not "Frenzy action restrictions".

And I'm sorry if that was really their intention, but that is not what the RAW are telling us. You need to read either intentions or keywords into the text, that are not in the text, to come to that result.
That is not RAW.
RAW is not what the designers might have in mind, nor it has to make sense or be on a sane lvl (see healing by drowning). RAW is what it is, the ugly outcome if you stick to the text. RAW is rule/word lawyering, nothing else.

And what you do is to work with designer lvl intentions and common sense logic, which RAW doesn't care about. RAW works within its own "common sense".

e.g.
It's "3.5 common sense" that you multiply things not the same way what would be regular/normal "common sense".

As said, RAW has rules that suppress those designer intentions. And without them, the text has no hard rule due to the absence of simple (!) 3.5 language (not talking about action nor about every turn/round or whatsoever that would give the rule some impact by text and not by intentions).

Let's try to apply common sense and imho even there you can see that the wording, does sound more demanding than it really is. Let us assume we are 2 military guys and you are giving me the command:
you: "you must attack"
me: "yes sir, when, where, for how long, with or without breaks....."

While not all my questions apply to our situation here, you should be able to see that sole "must attack"term lacks the context to be impactful. It opens more questions than it solves. And by RAW it's the same here. As said, you can call it bad editing. But that doesn't change which words are there and which ones are not.

[AnimeTheCat]

What else? As you said we are repeating our selfs here all the time, so come on.. you know my answer^^ It's the weakest condition that can be trumped by all the other noted legal actions. A weak fallback rule, not a top priority rule. And no, I don't buy the argument, that you can put the top priority rule somewhere in the back and hope that everybody still notice it as priority. It's not like that the paragraph title is indicating that (this is how it works in laws, when they use to put the important stuff as title and as the end of paragraph. But not just the end sentence without the title that prepared you to what is coming in the paragraph. But in our chase, the title is "Frenzy" and not "Frenzy action restrictions".

And I'm sorry if that was really their intention, but that is not what the RAW are telling us. You need to read either intentions or keywords into the text, that are not in the text, to come to that result.
That is not RAW.
RAW is not what the designers might have in mind, nor it has to make sense or be on a sane lvl (see healing by drowning). RAW is what it is, the ugly outcome if you stick to the text. RAW is rule/word lawyering, nothing else.

And what you do is to work with designer lvl intentions and common sense logic, which RAW doesn't care about. RAW works within its own "common sense".

e.g.
It's "3.5 common sense" that you multiply things not the same way what would be regular/normal "common sense".

As said, RAW has rules that suppress those designer intentions. And without them, the text has no hard rule due to the absence of simple (!) 3.5 language (not talking about action nor about every turn/round or whatsoever that would give the rule some impact by text and not by intentions).

Let's try to apply common sense and imho even there you can see that the wording, does sound more demanding than it really is. Let us assume we are 2 military guys and you are giving me the command:
you: "you must attack"
me: "yes sir, when, where, for how long, with or without breaks....."

While not all my questions apply to our situation here, you should be able to see that sole "must attack"term lacks the context to be impactful. It opens more questions than it solves. And by RAW it's the same here. As said, you can call it bad editing. But that doesn't change which words are there and which ones are not.

So it's ok to ignore the paragraph that begins with the sentence "During a frenzy, the Frenzied Berserker must..."? That's what you're indicating.

Is that truly what you're trying to peddle here? That it's ok to willfully ignore an entire, very important, paragraph of rules text, and then not only ignore it but claim following it is RAI as opposed to RAW? That's absolutely rich...

[Gruftzwerg]

So it's ok to ignore the paragraph that begins with the sentence "During a frenzy, the Frenzied Berserker must..."? That's what you're indicating.

Is that truly what you're trying to peddle here? That it's ok to willfully ignore an entire, very important, paragraph of rules text, and then not only ignore it but claim following it is RAI as opposed to RAW? That's absolutely rich...

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just not reading keywords into it that are missing. And in their absence the must attack is far less restricting. RAW vs RAI.
RAW doesn't care for intentions or things that are not explicitly in the text.

Yeah you must attack to your best (undefined term in 3.5) while in a frenzy.
Does it say every turn? No
Does it say only attack actions? Again No

RAW is word lawyering and not reading words into text that are not there. The editors **** up here, sorry. But if you follow strict RAW reading, that's the result.
I'm not saying you should play it that way. Cause nobody plays RAW and imho not even RAI. We all play "how the DM sees it fit". We can assume what would have made the most sense or the intention of the designers = RAI.
Or we can just stick to the ruletext = RAW. Nothing more, nothing less. And if the rule text is incomplete like in this case, this opens RAW abuse. That's how poorly edited rules give birth to silly (!) things like "healing while drowning". Because word lawyering RAW fetishists discovered the poorly wording in the drowning rule.
The same can be said here. Poor wording leads to RAW abuse.
But I am not even fully convinced that this wasn't even the intention. I mean, why it shouldn't have been the intention to make it a less restricting default fallback option, when you haven't picked any other legal action? We have nothing else what the text gives us and what we think might be the intention. But they missed several opportunities in the rule text to make it really as restricting as you want to see Frenzy. But they didn't and that is the problem if you stick to/talk about RAW.

[icefractal]

I mean, Profession is a Wis-based skill, so you're allowed to use it. Would you say it's legitimate to spend your actions cooking a meal?

I think some flexibility is intended - for example, if the enemy is flying and your bow is on the ground 20' away, it's ok to spend your turn picking it up rather than make technically possible but very ineffective "throwing random inventory items at them as improvised weapons" attacks.

But at the point you're allowed to take an action that solely has the purpose to stop fighting, you may as well burn off the rest of the frenzy doing laps around the room.

[Gruftzwerg]

I mean, Profession is a Wis-based skill, so you're allowed to use it. Would you say it's legitimate to spend your actions cooking a meal?
Is covered by "..or any abilities that require patience or concentration.." that it is an illegal action. Really, just try to read the text carefully without being biased by how you think/picture a berserker works in your mind. Imho you just get distracted by that and stop to interpret the text as RAW and drift into RAI land.


I think some flexibility is intended - for example, if the enemy is flying and your bow is on the ground 20' away, it's ok to spend your turn picking it up rather than make technically possible but very ineffective "throwing random inventory items at them as improvised weapons" attacks.

But at the point you're allowed to take an action that solely has the purpose to stop fighting, you may as well burn off the rest of the frenzy doing laps around the room.

And is something wrong with that? As I explained earlier, Frenzy doesn't make you 100% braindead. Just about only 99%^^

You are still aware if enemies are standing or if you have started to already attack your friends. You are further still so conscious to have the desire to end your Frenzy. This is due to the regular method described to end Frenzy with a Will save.
Does it say it's the sole ways to end Frenzy legal? No
Is the IHS maneuver a legal non-attack action? (if you can follow my argumentation and agree..) Yes

If you don't put in keywords into the text and just take the text as it is given, imho it is clear. Just stop being biased how it should work if you make RAW claims. I have no issue with other views on RAI to make this clear. RAI leaves much more room for interpretation and can lead to different results and assumptions and that's fine imho. Because as said, we all play how the DM sees it fit. Not RAW nor RAI.

[icefractal]

Ok, look - if you could effectively end your frenzy at any point by deciding to spend the rest of it simply doing other things, why would the Will save even be necessary?

Also, re: "Can't Intimidate the same person repeatedly" - where are you getting that from anyway? The retry description says they are allowed if not usually useful, and in fact since the demoralize usage only lasts one round it would be necessary to repeatedly intimidate someone if you wanted to keep them shaken.

More unambiguously - attempt to set a long jump record, or practice climbing the walls. Or just do various actions like switching weapons, getting things from your pack, etc. If the restriction doesn't prevent you from choosing "instead of continuing to attack people, I'm going to spend my action specifically ceasing the fight" then it's meaningless.

Now if your position is that the "killing your allies" part is stupid, and the FB doesn't really need it for balance reasons - sure, I don't disagree. But I'd call that a houserule and just remove the ally-killing entirely.

[Gruftzwerg]

Ok, look - if you could effectively end your frenzy at any point by deciding to spend the rest of it simply doing other things, why would the Will save even be necessary?

Also, re: "Can't Intimidate the same person repeatedly" - where are you getting that from anyway? The retry description says they are allowed if not usually useful, and in fact since the demoralize usage only lasts one round it would be necessary to repeatedly intimidate someone if you wanted to keep them shaken.

More unambiguously - attempt to set a long jump record, or practice climbing the walls. Or just do various actions like switching weapons, getting things from your pack, etc. If the restriction doesn't prevent you from choosing "instead of continuing to attack people, I'm going to spend my action specifically ceasing the fight" then it's meaningless.

Now if your position is that the "killing your allies" part is stupid, and the FB doesn't really need it for balance reasons - sure, I don't disagree. But I'd call that a houserule and just remove the ally-killing entirely.

You can't intimidate the same person again "while frenzy"(!), because that would inflict with the "must attack as his best".
Intimidating someone, who isn't already Intimidated, in preparation to attack is thus legal. But since it has a 1 round duration, the next round would be a waste to intimidate him again. This would not be "attacking to his best". You would need to have 2 allies that switch places (change your nearest ally) so the frenzied berserker has a new target each turn to intimidate so that it isn't a full waste and thus legal by the rules.
And imho this is something that is often depicted in fantasy stories how allies try to handle berserkers. They taunt him just by being the nearest target (as in 3.5) and force him always to target switch due to coordinated movement with their other allies. And if they are lucky the berserker even wastes time taunting em (with an standard action just like in d&d) and thus wastes his opportunity to attack.
You have to stay within the Frenzy rules. It's not an entire free ticket. But that shouldn't stop you to be creative within the rules. Imho you may use actions to end Frenzy, be it your free action Will save or any other legal action that would end it. And since I don't see any forced attack actions, you can use a standard action to take a legal feat/maneuver to end your frenzy.

See it like this:
You boss says, that if you have nothing else to do (no real work), that you should clean your workplace. (a fallback option)
But you are a lazy guy and want to avoid this.
So you try to fill free time with other "legal" things:
Going to toilette, asking others a question and so on.
Smoking a cigarette, drinking a coffee or doing nothing would not be considered a legal action.
While your options are limited and restricted, that doesn't stop you from being creative.


And Frenzy is either poor edited or the intention was never meant to be that restrictive as you imagine. Take it as you see it. But RAW is pretty clear imho, maybe not at first glance, but upon careful reading.

[Jowgen]

Also, Phaant's Luck stone, Ghostwalk p. 72.

For 1000 gold, you get a 1 time reroll of any roll per Luck domain rules. You just need to have it on you. You can have 5 of them on you and re-stock as needed.

Not a popular option since it's consumable, but at the end of the day perfectly cost effective so long as you earn at least 1000 gold in loot over 20 combats or so.

[AnimeTheCat]

Yeah you must attack to your best (undefined term in 3.5) while in a frenzy.
Does it say every turn? No
Does it say only attack actions? Again No


I'm just going to ignore the rest of what you said because it is wholesomely irrelevant. Here's is where you're wrong. The wording is specific, so pay attention:


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

Ok, that one sentence contains all of the information you need to completely refute your statement.

Check 1: Are you in a frenzy? Yes=you must attack those you perceive as enemies to the best of your ability/No=You may act normally with no modification from the rules


Does it say every turn? No
No, it doesn't need to. Are you in a frenzy? Because during a fenzy you must attack those you perceive as enemies to the best of your ability.


Does it say only attack actions? Again No
No, again it doesn't need to. Attacks aren't actions. The actions in combat are Standard, Full Round, Free, Move, Immediate, and Swift. Rules Compendium neatly lays out tables for what activities qualify as each action, though you can just as easily use the text and table in the PHB if you don't like the Rules Compendium, as they are identical when it comes to attacks. Wouldn't you know it, "attack" shows up in the Standard and Full Round actions. From the Players Handbook,

Making an attack is a standard action.

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus in high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item) you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.
So, "attack" carries with it a specific meaning, that is "to spend your standard action to attack (melee), attack (ranged), or attack (unarmed), or use your Full-Round Action to full attack". If you plug that very specific and very equivalent statement in to the line of text, it is obvious as to what the rule is stating. A purely binary reading would read, "During a frenzy, the frenzied berserker must [spend your standard action to attack (melee), attack (ranged), or attack (unarmed), or use your Full-Round Action to full attack] those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability."

There's no grey area here. If you're in a frenzy, you must use your standard or full-round actions to attack those you perceive as an enemy to the best of your ability.

Keywords used: During, Frenzy, Attack

[Gruftzwerg]

*snip*

Everything what you said explains the intentions and what a DM may read into it. But Rules As Written doesn't work like that.
I have no problems as how it should work. So don't get me wrong.

But if you stick to the text, the designers failed to use the correct 3.5 wording to make it RAW.

RAW is word lawyering, not what the designers had in mind, not how it should work, not what would make the most sense. Only the text that is given. Even if it leads to silly situations like "healing by drowning".
And there is no Action restriction. Only the that you have to "attack to your best", which is still an undefined term. It is not equal to "use attack action" nor "attack every turn if possible". And if we fall back to regular English definition, "attack to your best" dosn't have to be non stop brainless attacks and may involve tactical non attack actions to make the "best attack as possible"..

Using a free action for a Will save to end Frenzy is as legal as using a maneuver/feat, since both (will save & feat) are listed as allowed options before the attack restriction comes.

If you can understand why thinks like "healing by drowning" are RAW, we can talk.
Drowning does nowhere mention that it heals you. But it sets you to a specific HP score (0 and the condition associated with it) and that is the reason why it works as healing method if you go strict by RAW.
Was it intended (by the designers)? No
Is it common sense? No
Should you play with it? No (unless you want a good laugh for a single occasion, cause it won't be that funny for a second time).
So it is just the strict RAW reading of bad edited rule text? Yes.


(again, I am not suggesting to play thing by RAW, but that doesn't change the difference between RAW and RAI in our forum discussions here).

If you want to discuss by RAW, stick to the text and don't insert defined keywords into the text when they are not there.

And if you want to talk about intentions (RAI), I see no reason, why the intention should not have been a fallback restriction and not a top priority restriction as you suggest. They missed to use defined keywords on several occasions to make it clear RAW and thus I have the impression that it is not only RAW but maybe even RAI.
RAI can have many different outcomes, since we can't track the designer down, we can only make assumptions about the intentions and thus all are equal and there is no right or wrong RAI unless you have a quote from the designer somewhere.

[AnimeTheCat]

Everything what you said explains the intentions and what a DM may read into it. But Rules As Written doesn't work like that.
I have no problems as how it should work. So don't get me wrong.

But if you stick to the text, the designers failed to use the correct 3.5 wording to make it RAW.

RAW is word lawyering, not what the designers had in mind, not how it should work, not what would make the most sense. Only the text that is given. Even if it leads to silly situations like "healing by drowning".
And there is no Action restriction. Only the that you have to "attack to your best", which is still an undefined term. It is not equal to "use attack action" nor "attack every turn if possible". And if we fall back to regular English definition, "attack to your best" dosn't have to be non stop brainless attacks and may involve tactical non attack actions to make the "best attack as possible"..
Attack is a defined term.

Attacks and Damage
Attacking is a basic part of combat. Doing so takes a standard action or a part of a full-round action...
You're correct in saying that it isn't equal to "use attack action" because one exists and the other doesn't. (hint: attacks exist, attack actions don't). So attack means to use your standard action to attack or using your full round action to do so. Glad we've covered that very explicit bit of information a second time. Attack actions don't exist, standard actions used to attack to. Attacks are standard actions.

Secondly, there is no need to say "attack every turn if possible", because the clarifying indication has already been identified. The text says "While in a Frenzy,..." to tell you when, "You must attack those you perceive as foes to the best of your ability". You're claiming that there is no indication of when you have to follow the rule, "You must attack those you perceive as foes to the best of your ability" and that's BS because the four words that preceed that tell you when, "While in a frenzy,..." So you're wrong on the second objection in a strictly RAW reading. Again, there has been no interpretation here. Just strict reading of RAW.

Thirdly, if we fall back on the regular English definition (even though we don't need to as attacks are defined as either a standard or full round action to attack), you're correct in what you're saying. However if your options include not attacking because you're spending your standard or full round action on anything but an attack, you're in a direct rules violation. You can use other action, like swift, free, immediate, or move, on things other than attacking. Nothing is stopping you from using Intimidate as a free action or move action, but you can't use your standard action because you have to use that to attack because, as we've defined, an attack is using your standard action or your full round action to attack.


Using a free action for a Will save to end Frenzy is as legal as using a maneuver/feat, since both (will save & feat) are listed as allowed options before the attack restriction comes.
You're simply wrong. Free actions can't be used to attack, and feats either don't require an action (i.e. Improved Unarmed Strike), or require a standard action, which would again put them at odds with the term attack. Further, just because a rule comes later doesn't mean you can ignore it. If that were the case, we could just ignore the movement speed rules because Human movement speed is defined as 30 feet in chapter 2 of the PHB, so even if you wear heavy armor, the rule is more restrictive but it comes later, so you still move at 30 feet. That is 100% not how the rules work there, and that's not how they work here. You have to abide by ALL of the rules, regardless of what rule is written first. If you can use a feat while still using your standard or full round action to attack, you can use the feat. If using the feat is a standard action and does not result in using your standard action to attack, you can't. You haven't satisfied all of the rules.


If you can understand why thinks like "healing by drowning" are RAW, we can talk.
Drowning does nowhere mention that it heals you. But it sets you to a specific HP score (0 and the condition associated with it) and that is the reason why it works as healing method if you go strict by RAW.
Was it intended (by the designers)? No
Is it common sense? No
Should you play with it? No (unless you want a good laugh for a single occasion, cause it won't be that funny for a second time).
So it is just the strict RAW reading of bad edited rule text? Yes.
Don't patronize me. I understand how Drowned Healing works. That is not what we're seeing here, and I've explained in specific rules terminology how it isn't. I have used definitions from the Player's Handbook and the Rules Compendium to showcase precisely how you are incorrect.



(again, I am not suggesting to play thing by RAW, but that doesn't change the difference between RAW and RAI in our forum discussions here).

If you want to discuss by RAW, stick to the text and don't insert defined keywords into the text when they are not there.
Quote specifically where I did not define the word I indicated as a keyword? Don't worry, I'll wait.


And if you want to talk about intentions (RAI), I see no reason, why the intention should not have been a fallback restriction and not a top priority restriction as you suggest. They missed to use defined keywords on several occasions to make it clear RAW and thus I have the impression that it is not only RAW but maybe even RAI.
RAI can have many different outcomes, since we can't track the designer down, we can only make assumptions about the intentions and thus all are equal and there is no right or wrong RAI unless you have a quote from the designer somewhere.
The only one not following the rules is you. You're saying that you can ignore an entire paragraph of rules because they were written second. I'm not the one claiming that attack isn't defined, I've shown you the definition in two books now. The rule you're calling an intention isn't a fallback, it's simply the most restrictive designation of what you can use your actions for in combat.

I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, but stop saying that I'm interpreting rules when I've been the one posting definitions and you've just been spouting that i'm claiming rules as intended. When you start posting defintions and rules that support your claims, then we can have a discussion, but as of yet you're the one doing the interpreting, not me.

[Gruftzwerg]

Attack is a defined term.

You're correct in saying that it isn't equal to "use attack action" because one exists and the other doesn't. (hint: attacks exist, attack actions don't). So attack means to use your standard action to attack or using your full round action to do so. Glad we've covered that very explicit bit of information a second time. Attack actions don't exist, standard actions used to attack to. Attacks are standard actions.
I know that you have to use a standard/full-round action to attack. But the text only talks about "attack to your best while in a frenzy".. still not every turn/action. Only "to your best" which has no rule clarification. You interpret "to you best" as attack non stop without any tactics and I interpret it as attack with tactics (e.g. Intimidate), which may include non attack actions that are called out as legal before the attack restriction comes at the end of the rule.


Secondly, there is no need to say "attack every turn if possible", because the clarifying indication has already been identified. The text says "While in a Frenzy,..." to tell you when, "You must attack those you perceive as foes to the best of your ability". You're claiming that there is no indication of when you have to follow the rule, "You must attack those you perceive as foes to the best of your ability" and that's BS because the four words that preceed that tell you when, "While in a frenzy,..." So you're wrong on the second objection in a strictly RAW reading. Again, there has been no interpretation here. Just strict reading of RAW.
Same here. Still not "attack every turn while in a fernzy" nor "you have to attack if possible". You could interpret (RAI not RAW) it as that, but other (DMs) may interpret it as "attack if you don't pic any other legal action" (RAI), because of the absence of restrictions for every turn/all actions.


Thirdly, if we fall back on the regular English definition (even though we don't need to as attacks are defined as either a standard or full round action to attack), you're correct in what you're saying. However if your options include not attacking because you're spending your standard or full round action on anything but an attack, you're in a direct rules violation. You can use other action, like swift, free, immediate, or move, on things other than attacking. Nothing is stopping you from using Intimidate as a free action or move action, but you can't use your standard action because you have to use that to attack because, as we've defined, an attack is using your standard action or your full round action to attack. You only have "While in a frenzy.." and "must attack to your best". I'll repeat it until you get it. RAW doesn't read other keywords into the text that are not there.
Yeah attack is defined and it's actions (standard/full-round action) are defined. But "to your best" ain't defined. And as said, regular English definition can also include "preparations" to attack to your best (e.g. Intimidate).
Stop reading keywords into the text. You are consistently doing it. Nowhere does it say "every turn" or to "spend all your actions to attack". Must attack to your best is not defined as that what you want to make it look like. It can be interpreted (RAI or rules how the DM interests it) as that, sure but it not RAW nor the sole possible legit RAI interpretation.



You're simply wrong. Free actions can't be used to attack, and feats either don't require an action (i.e. Improved Unarmed Strike), or require a standard action, which would again put them at odds with the term attack. Further, just because a rule comes later doesn't mean you can ignore it. If that were the case, we could just ignore the movement speed rules because Human movement speed is defined as 30 feet in chapter 2 of the PHB, so even if you wear heavy armor, the rule is more restrictive but it comes later, so you still move at 30 feet. That is 100% not how the rules work there, and that's not how they work here. You have to abide by ALL of the rules, regardless of what rule is written first. If you can use a feat while still using your standard or full round action to attack, you can use the feat. If using the feat is a standard action and does not result in using your standard action to attack, you can't. You haven't satisfied all of the rules.
Again you assume that you are limited to attacks every turn, stop reading keywords into it and the problem vanishes away..



Quote specifically where I did not define the word I indicated as a keyword? Don't worry, I'll wait.
I hope that you did get it by now. The problem is that you read keywords into the text that are not there. "to your best" is not a key word/term. You have to use any (!) of the available interpretations. And since it is not a game rule term, it doesn't automatically mean "every turn" nor "spend all your actions on attack" nor deny any attack preparing non attack actions like Intimidate. And it doesn't prevent you from doing all the other called out legal options/actions between your attacks.
You may interpret it as every turn yeah, but that is only one of the possible interpretations and no stircts RAW. The editing is either not clear enough to be that restricting by RAW or was never meant to be that restrictive. Take is as you like it.




The only one not following the rules is you. You're saying that you can ignore an entire paragraph of rules because they were written second. I'm not the one claiming that attack isn't defined, I've shown you the definition in two books now. The rule you're calling an intention isn't a fallback, it's simply the most restrictive designation of what you can use your actions for in combat.

I don't care if you agree or disagree with me, but stop saying that I'm interpreting rules when I've been the one posting definitions and you've just been spouting that i'm claiming rules as intended. When you start posting defintions and rules that support your claims, then we can have a discussion, but as of yet you're the one doing the interpreting, not me.
You have problems to differentiate between Rules As Written and Rules How I/the DM sees it fit. For RAW, you may not alter the text in any kind for your interpretation. For Rules As Intended you may alter it by adding other keywords as you see it fit.
I have no problems to see your interpretation as a legal valid RAI option, but it is not RAW.
You have to take RAW pure, you may not add ingredients (in our chase keywords) to make it more tasteful. You take it as it is. Sorry that they either picked a loose term or never intended to be that restrictive, but it is at it is. A loose term: "attack to your best" when it comes to 3.5 rules.

Rules work like Laws and for the same reason people are sometimes struggling why they are so.
It's like a procedural errors causing a "bad guy" to become free. The intention of laws are to get the "bad guys" one might thing, but laws demand that you stick 100% to the text (RAW) and not the intentions behind it.
The same is here. You have to stick 100% to the text to be RAW and not only 95% and add some other rules not mentioned there to it.
(e.g.) The police may do house searches, but only if they have the permission in "this chase" to do so. They may not say, "hey we have laws for house searches, so i can apply it wherever I want it to apply". They have to follow the strict rules when they may apply it.
And you rule text doesn't force you to attack every turn nor to spend all you actions on it. That are things that you read into "attack to your best" and thus leave the RAW interpretation and only show me your opinion about how RAI could be.

[RNightstalker]

The Pride Domain granted power lets you reroll nat 1's the first time you roll them each roll.

Where is the pride domain listed?

[Afghanistan]

Where is the pride domain listed?

Spell Compendium, page 278.

[Thurbane]

Late to the party, but there's a fair bit of stuff discussed about saves in this thread: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?587185-3-5-Sir-Saves-a-lot