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

[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:

Spoiler: Sample Frenzied Berserker statblock

Show

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:

Spoiler: Sample Frenzied Berserker statblock

Show

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:

Spoiler: Sample Frenzied Berserker statblock

Show

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.