Choose to fail a will save? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Choose to fail a will save? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Marendithas_the_Necro
08-18-05, 09:53 AM 1. One method could be to easily use a collar of calm emotions or something. Say an activation word, like "Heel" and have the spell cast on them. The Beserker can always choose to fail her save and take the effect, calming down. You could do the same with any other spell that'd neutralize them.

Some people just forget that you can choose to fail the save. I'm sure a beserker trying to snap out of the frenzy would too.

Can it be possible?I never hearded of that, that will be great for a Frenzied Berzerker who choose to fail a save against calm emotions!
Moon-Lancer
08-18-05, 10:02 AM yeah. you can choose to do that....
runestar
08-18-05, 10:17 AM Normally, you could, but since the FB cannot make any distinction between friend or foe, I doubt he would in the right mindset to willingly fail a save. Seems contradictory spirit-wise that he would whack them with a sword with impunity but not approach a save with that same resolve.
DrMorganes
08-18-05, 10:24 AM I agree. Assuming that I was ever insane enough to actually allow a Frenzied Berzerker in one of my games, I would not allow said FB to willingly fail a Will save while frenzied. Gotta enforce those checks and balances, ya know.
Dunelord
08-18-05, 10:33 AM You can ALWAYS choice to fail a will save else you couldn't do things like not have to roll a fort save for heal spells. As for this idea that a FB can't choice to save it I see it having NO basis in rules or flavor. After all if he is with it enough to try a will save on his own he is with it enough to fail one that someone else gave him.
Jell_Moo
08-18-05, 10:35 AM The relevant part of the Frenzy text is:

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 creture (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).

Failing a Will save voluntarily seems to be out. So does doing subdual damage, bull rushing, grappling, or what have you. The Frenzied Berserker has to fight to win, regardless of the foe.
Vrellum
08-18-05, 10:41 AM For the FB, purposely failing a will save to end frenzy is at best severe rules bending. The FB thinks everyone is his enemy and tries to kill everything. In that mindset he is not going to automatically fail a will save.
Jerks
08-18-05, 10:44 AM Jell Moo is right on the money with his interpretation. After failing the Will save to end his frenzy the Barbarian loses the ability to distinguish friend from foe. Voluntarily failing a Will save requires a conscious decision on the part of the character to allow a certain magic to affect him. This is usually ONLY done with magic cast by a FRIENDLY caster. A FB in full battle hysteria CANNOT distinguish friend from foe and therefore cannot voluntarily decide to lower his Will save.
Thorak
08-18-05, 11:57 AM You can ALWAYS choice to fail a will save else you couldn't do things like not have to roll a fort save for heal spells. As for this idea that a FB can't choice to save it I see it having NO basis in rules or flavor. After all if he is with it enough to try a will save on his own he is with it enough to fail one that someone else gave him.
You can normally choose to fail a Will save. However, the FB is forced, when he loses control, to attack her allies "to the best of her ability". And to do so "without regard to friendship, innocence, or health (the target's or her own)."

The important bit here is "without regard to friendship". Sure, you would voluntarily fail a Will save a friend forced on you. But you're fighting without regard to friendship, so unless you go around voluntarily failing every Will save you're inflicted with, you have no justification for showing regard for friendship by choosing to fail a friend's Will save, if you're Frenzied.

Not only is it contrary to the flavor, it is contrary to the mechanics.
Dunelord
08-18-05, 11:25 PM PHB page 177 "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willing accept a spell's result." So RAW it works, weather it should or not. As for flavor we can go round that all day and never get any place but I'm of the mind set that if they are with it enough to be able to try and make the first saving throw they are with it enough to fail one. Further attacking your allies in no way requires you to defend yourself from magical attacks.
Jell_Moo
08-19-05, 12:10 AM PHB page 177 "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willing accept a spell's result." So RAW it works, weather it should or not. As for flavor we can go round that all day and never get any place but I'm of the mind set that if they are with it enough to be able to try and make the first saving throw they are with it enough to fail one. Further attacking your allies in no way requires you to defend yourself from magical attacks.

The relevant text for the Frenzy ability supercedes what's written in the PHB in this instance. Since the Frenzied Berserker was written after the Core books, it introduces rules and exceptions all it's own.

The text clearly states you have to attack to the best of your ability, regardless of who it is. Voluntarily failing a saving throw is hardly attacking to the best of your ability. When you fight evil Wizards, do you voluntarilly fail the save when he casts spells? Of course not. This is exactly the same thing since the text explicitly states that A) you must fight to the best of your ability, B) The nature of the opponent does not matter. There is no room for interpretation here.

The first save is to see if you lose control. If you do, you are not "with it". The entire point of the saving throw is to see whether or not you "lose it".
melp
08-19-05, 03:26 AM The text clearly states you have to attack to the best of your ability, regardless of who it is. Voluntarily failing a saving throw is hardly attacking to the best of your ability. When you fight evil Wizards, do you voluntarilly fail the save when he casts spells? Of course not. This is exactly the same thing since the text explicitly states that A) you must fight to the best of your ability, B) The nature of the opponent does not matter. There is no room for interpretation here.

The first save is to see if you lose control. If you do, you are not "with it". The entire point of the saving throw is to see whether or not you "lose it".

This is where we get into sim-antics of the words, which is where the problem lies. While I generally agree that the FB shouldn't be able to just "opt-out" of the frenzy, here's the loop-hole. Defending yourself in anyway or resisting anything has nothing to do with attacking something to your fullest. You can Power Attack and smash and break all day, but watching out for you flanks is a concept not necessarily matching the idea of smashing this worm infront of you. You don't regard your friends as foes either, you just attack them anyway, because you're in a frenzy. in any case, I still think it adds a bit of flavor to the game to force experienced players to find other ways to deal with this problem when it comes (I'm typicaly a player though...)
Arklich
08-19-05, 05:14 AM Negating entirelly the drawback of a class... lol
runestar
08-19-05, 05:43 AM The only way my dm would ever allow this would be if said FB were also a thayan knight.
Jell_Moo
08-19-05, 09:23 AM This is where we get into sim-antics of the words, which is where the problem lies. While I generally agree that the FB shouldn't be able to just "opt-out" of the frenzy, here's the loop-hole. Defending yourself in anyway or resisting anything has nothing to do with attacking something to your fullest. You can Power Attack and smash and break all day, but watching out for you flanks is a concept not necessarily matching the idea of smashing this worm infront of you. You don't regard your friends as foes either, you just attack them anyway, because you're in a frenzy. in any case, I still think it adds a bit of flavor to the game to force experienced players to find other ways to deal with this problem when it comes (I'm typicaly a player though...)

Do players usually voluntarily fail their saving throws when the enemy spellcasters barrage them with spells? When the Dragon decides it's time to breathe?

The quote says "attack that creature to the best of her ability". Voluntarily failing a save is hardly to the best of one's ability. There just isn't any wiggle room there. You have to fight to win.

You attack the closest person to you without regard to friendship or innocence. For the duration of the Frenzy, that person is your enemy. You just don't know any better, that's how far out of it you are.
Thorak
08-19-05, 10:30 AM Do players usually voluntarily fail their saving throws when the enemy spellcasters barrage them with spells? When the Dragon decides it's time to breathe?

The quote says "attack that creature to the best of her ability". Voluntarily failing a save is hardly to the best of one's ability. There just isn't any wiggle room there. You have to fight to win.

You attack the closest person to you without regard to friendship or innocence. For the duration of the Frenzy, that person is your enemy. You just don't know any better, that's how far out of it you are.
Exactly.

To the best of your ability, without regard to friendship or innocence. If you're not fighting just as hard to kill them as you would be against a real enemy, you're not playing the FB as it is designed to be played. If you voluntarily fail a will save, that's not "to the best of your ability". And doing so only against a friend and not every spellcaster is showing "regard to friendship".

You guys might have had a point, except that the FB text explicitly forbids what you're talking about.

The same is true of other exploits, like Power Attacking for your full allowable amount. Unless you do that to every enemy, it isn't "the best of your ability", so again, you're cheating if you choose to get around the class' issues like that.

The FB is not a balanced class without these drawbacks. If I had a PC try and pull any of this stuff when playing one, I'd be taking control of the character when he failed that will save to control himself, because the player is obviously incapable of playing the character without metagaming outrageously.
Dunelord
08-19-05, 12:23 PM They can try the save to end the Frenzy once every round as a free action. If they are with it enough to try and force themself down, they are with it enough to fail a will save. Further while they are required to attack those around them, at no point does anything in the FB text say they have to defend themself or that they must attempt a Will save if presented with one. It might not be balanced but it works, RAW and we can go over the flavor all day.
Thorak
08-19-05, 12:30 PM They can try the save to end the Frenzy once every round as a free action. If they are with it enough to try and force themself down, they are with it enough to fail a will save. Further while they are required to attack those around them, at no point does anything in the FB text say they have to defend themself or that they must attempt a Will save if presented with one. It might not be balanced but it works, RAW and we can go over the flavor all day.
Except that voluntarily failing a will save is showing regard for friendship. As well as not fighting to the best of your ability.

Voluntarily failing will saves and deliberately screwing your defenses is in no way "fighting to the best of your ability", nor would you be doing it if the target weren't a friend. You're metagaming, and breaking the limitations on the FB outrageously.
Jerks
08-19-05, 12:57 PM This debate all boils down to what you thinking the definition of "fighting" is?

Some seem to think that fighting ONLY encompasses swinging your weapon.

Others seem to think that fighting is dodging, swinging, biting, spitting and resisting your enemies in anyway shape or form.

I'm in the second camp on this one. An out of control FB is not akin to someone under a Domination spell that is forced to do an action but mentally trying to subvert such action. For one round, he completely loses it and attacks the nearest moving thing or person. He can no more volutarily fail his Will save agasint a friend than he can drop his weapon and power attack for full with his bare fists when "forced" to attack said friend.
Dunelord
08-21-05, 01:27 AM The FB has to ATTACK. The word fighting, defend, combat, try to defeat, or save are never used. The FB isn't required to do any of them. Further classes that are required to make saves, such as the Forsaker, have it spelled out in the class.
Jell_Moo
08-21-05, 01:34 AM 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 creture (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).

How is this in any way not clear?
dedicated
08-21-05, 02:28 AM attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability

not fight those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability
;)
Jell_Moo
08-21-05, 02:30 AM yes "fight that opponent "
Arklich
08-21-05, 03:00 AM Umm... lol?
This thread is funny. Use the class however you want. See if your DM let's you...
:rolleyes:
Thorak
08-21-05, 11:03 AM Right. Dunelord, stop insisting that one out of context line is the entire description of how they act when they are out of control. There's more to it than just attacking. If anything, the second line, which says "fight that opponent", is the explanation of the former line, and is therefore the more accurate wording.

See, it says you fight the opponent to the best of your ability. I don't care what else it might say, it does say that. And unless "the best of your ability" includes failing Will saves voluntarily in your twisted little world, you don't have any point whatsoever, and are relying on selective quoting out of context to try and manufacture some form of justification for your point.
Lilt
08-21-05, 11:44 AM I have to agree that it's possible for a frenzied berzerkerto voluntarily fail their save. Thewre are two things that I think some peopel are reading into this which aren't really there:
1) That she cannot percieve friend from foe
2) That she must fight everyone to the best of her ability whilst in a frenzy

1) "During a frenzy, the frienzied berzerker must attack those she percieves as foes to the best of her ability." IE: the FB still has perception as to wether or not a creature is a foe. Nowhere does it say that the FB percieves all allies as foes.

2) "She must then attack the nearest creture (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)." 'Fight that opponent' does not mean 'fight everyone'. If the FB turned on the party cleric, for example, then the FB would still be able to voluntarily fail the save of a calm emotions cast by the party wizard.
Worloch
08-21-05, 12:38 PM Agree to disagree. Rule #1, The DM is always right.

If your DM allows you to voluntarily fail will saving throws in a frenzy, ok.
If not, ok.

It's clearly against the spirit of the FB, however, and everyone who's arguing for it clearly looking for a loop hole.

If I were the DM, I'd allow the FB to use the loop hole. The very next encounter the FB was faced with a will save in a frenzy, I'd make him "voluntarily" fail that save too, like from a hold person, or a dominate person from that evil wizard.

My players quickly learn to not bend the rules against the spirit of the game.
Lilt
08-21-05, 01:56 PM Agree to disagree. Rule #1, The DM is always right.

If your DM allows you to voluntarily fail will saving throws in a frenzy, ok.
If not, ok.And what should the DM do if they're trying to go by the rules?It's clearly against the spirit of the FB, however, and everyone who's arguing for it clearly looking for a loop hole.It is not 'clerarly against the spirit of the FB' to allow the character to voluntarily fail a will save. The FB has limited control over himself but he's still knows friend from foe. Otherwise how would he know to try to end a frenzy in the first place? I'll agree that he possibly wouldn't voluntarily fail a will save if the caster was his current foe, but I see no problem with a 3rd party coming allong and smoothing things over.If I were the DM, I'd allow the FB to use the loop hole. The very next encounter the FB was faced with a will save in a frenzy, I'd make him "voluntarily" fail that save too, like from a hold person, or a dominate person from that evil wizard.

My players quickly learn to not bend the rules against the spirit of the game.Why don't you have the FB make will saves to drop out of frenzy when they're fighting actual enemies too? I mean, for all they know they might be beating the party wizard not some necromancer! That'd screw your players real good, and hopefully remove some of the fun from playing the character too! :rolleye2:

I see no real problem with using a voluntarily failed will save versus calm emotions to end a FB's frenzy. It's not a loophole, it's just a usage for the spell. The FB is still down one usage of frenzy that day, and they're down a second level spell slot (or an item usage) to boot.
Norhg
08-21-05, 02:00 PM Advice, before battle. Suggestion, "if someone yells aaaichieehoho! You will immediately drop your weapon and calm down".

Suggestion has a long duration. A Frenzied Berserker can opt to fail his saving throw against the suggestion effect. Then later he can be calmed without a saving throw.
Remember, talking is a free action.

"If you are to attack x, y or z abstain from it" is also an option.
Arklich
08-21-05, 02:35 PM Maybe the name "Frenzy" should be changed to "Blood Lust" to avoid the current problem:
People confusing it with "teen mild and generic anger".

Seriously now, you are in some kind of rage... Blinding animal rage.
Have you ever felt this kind of rage?
The kind that makes you punch your friend who's holding you not to fight someone else in the bar?
Frenzy is that^�, no less.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Marendithas_the_Necro 08-18-05, 09:53 AM	1. One method could be to easily use a collar of calm emotions or something. Say an activation word, like "Heel" and have the spell cast on them. The Beserker can always choose to fail her save and take the effect, calming down. You could do the same with any other spell that'd neutralize them. Some people just forget that you can choose to fail the save. I'm sure a beserker trying to snap out of the frenzy would too. Can it be possible?I never hearded of that, that will be great for a Frenzied Berzerker who choose to fail a save against calm emotions!
Moon-Lancer 08-18-05, 10:02 AM	yeah. you can choose to do that....
runestar 08-18-05, 10:17 AM	Normally, you could, but since the FB cannot make any distinction between friend or foe, I doubt he would in the right mindset to willingly fail a save. Seems contradictory spirit-wise that he would whack them with a sword with impunity but not approach a save with that same resolve.
DrMorganes 08-18-05, 10:24 AM	I agree. Assuming that I was ever insane enough to actually allow a Frenzied Berzerker in one of my games, I would not allow said FB to willingly fail a Will save while frenzied. Gotta enforce those checks and balances, ya know.
Dunelord 08-18-05, 10:33 AM	You can ALWAYS choice to fail a will save else you couldn't do things like not have to roll a fort save for heal spells. As for this idea that a FB can't choice to save it I see it having NO basis in rules or flavor. After all if he is with it enough to try a will save on his own he is with it enough to fail one that someone else gave him.
Jell_Moo 08-18-05, 10:35 AM	The relevant part of the Frenzy text is: 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 creture (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). Failing a Will save voluntarily seems to be out. So does doing subdual damage, bull rushing, grappling, or what have you. The Frenzied Berserker has to fight to win, regardless of the foe.
Vrellum 08-18-05, 10:41 AM	For the FB, purposely failing a will save to end frenzy is at best severe rules bending. The FB thinks everyone is his enemy and tries to kill everything. In that mindset he is not going to automatically fail a will save.
Jerks 08-18-05, 10:44 AM	Jell Moo is right on the money with his interpretation. After failing the Will save to end his frenzy the Barbarian loses the ability to distinguish friend from foe. Voluntarily failing a Will save requires a conscious decision on the part of the character to allow a certain magic to affect him. This is usually ONLY done with magic cast by a FRIENDLY caster. A FB in full battle hysteria CANNOT distinguish friend from foe and therefore cannot voluntarily decide to lower his Will save.
Thorak 08-18-05, 11:57 AM	You can ALWAYS choice to fail a will save else you couldn't do things like not have to roll a fort save for heal spells. As for this idea that a FB can't choice to save it I see it having NO basis in rules or flavor. After all if he is with it enough to try a will save on his own he is with it enough to fail one that someone else gave him. You can normally choose to fail a Will save. However, the FB is forced, when he loses control, to attack her allies "to the best of her ability". And to do so "without regard to friendship, innocence, or health (the target's or her own)." The important bit here is "without regard to friendship". Sure, you would voluntarily fail a Will save a friend forced on you. But you're fighting without regard to friendship, so unless you go around voluntarily failing every Will save you're inflicted with, you have no justification for showing regard for friendship by choosing to fail a friend's Will save, if you're Frenzied. Not only is it contrary to the flavor, it is contrary to the mechanics.
Dunelord 08-18-05, 11:25 PM	PHB page 177 "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willing accept a spell's result." So RAW it works, weather it should or not. As for flavor we can go round that all day and never get any place but I'm of the mind set that if they are with it enough to be able to try and make the first saving throw they are with it enough to fail one. Further attacking your allies in no way requires you to defend yourself from magical attacks.
Jell_Moo 08-19-05, 12:10 AM	PHB page 177 "A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willing accept a spell's result." So RAW it works, weather it should or not. As for flavor we can go round that all day and never get any place but I'm of the mind set that if they are with it enough to be able to try and make the first saving throw they are with it enough to fail one. Further attacking your allies in no way requires you to defend yourself from magical attacks. The relevant text for the Frenzy ability supercedes what's written in the PHB in this instance. Since the Frenzied Berserker was written after the Core books, it introduces rules and exceptions all it's own. The text clearly states you have to attack to the best of your ability, regardless of who it is. Voluntarily failing a saving throw is hardly attacking to the best of your ability. When you fight evil Wizards, do you voluntarilly fail the save when he casts spells? Of course not. This is exactly the same thing since the text explicitly states that A) you must fight to the best of your ability, B) The nature of the opponent does not matter. There is no room for interpretation here. The first save is to see if you lose control. If you do, you are not "with it". The entire point of the saving throw is to see whether or not you "lose it".
melp 08-19-05, 03:26 AM	The text clearly states you have to attack to the best of your ability, regardless of who it is. Voluntarily failing a saving throw is hardly attacking to the best of your ability. When you fight evil Wizards, do you voluntarilly fail the save when he casts spells? Of course not. This is exactly the same thing since the text explicitly states that A) you must fight to the best of your ability, B) The nature of the opponent does not matter. There is no room for interpretation here. The first save is to see if you lose control. If you do, you are not "with it". The entire point of the saving throw is to see whether or not you "lose it". This is where we get into sim-antics of the words, which is where the problem lies. While I generally agree that the FB shouldn't be able to just "opt-out" of the frenzy, here's the loop-hole. Defending yourself in anyway or resisting anything has nothing to do with attacking something to your fullest. You can Power Attack and smash and break all day, but watching out for you flanks is a concept not necessarily matching the idea of smashing this worm infront of you. You don't regard your friends as foes either, you just attack them anyway, because you're in a frenzy. in any case, I still think it adds a bit of flavor to the game to force experienced players to find other ways to deal with this problem when it comes (I'm typicaly a player though...)
Arklich 08-19-05, 05:14 AM	Negating entirelly the drawback of a class... lol
runestar 08-19-05, 05:43 AM	The only way my dm would ever allow this would be if said FB were also a thayan knight.
Jell_Moo 08-19-05, 09:23 AM	This is where we get into sim-antics of the words, which is where the problem lies. While I generally agree that the FB shouldn't be able to just "opt-out" of the frenzy, here's the loop-hole. Defending yourself in anyway or resisting anything has nothing to do with attacking something to your fullest. You can Power Attack and smash and break all day, but watching out for you flanks is a concept not necessarily matching the idea of smashing this worm infront of you. You don't regard your friends as foes either, you just attack them anyway, because you're in a frenzy. in any case, I still think it adds a bit of flavor to the game to force experienced players to find other ways to deal with this problem when it comes (I'm typicaly a player though...) Do players usually voluntarily fail their saving throws when the enemy spellcasters barrage them with spells? When the Dragon decides it's time to breathe? The quote says "attack that creature to the best of her ability". Voluntarily failing a save is hardly to the best of one's ability. There just isn't any wiggle room there. You have to fight to win. You attack the closest person to you without regard to friendship or innocence. For the duration of the Frenzy, that person is your enemy. You just don't know any better, that's how far out of it you are.
Thorak 08-19-05, 10:30 AM	Do players usually voluntarily fail their saving throws when the enemy spellcasters barrage them with spells? When the Dragon decides it's time to breathe? The quote says "attack that creature to the best of her ability". Voluntarily failing a save is hardly to the best of one's ability. There just isn't any wiggle room there. You have to fight to win. You attack the closest person to you without regard to friendship or innocence. For the duration of the Frenzy, that person is your enemy. You just don't know any better, that's how far out of it you are. Exactly. To the best of your ability, without regard to friendship or innocence. If you're not fighting just as hard to kill them as you would be against a real enemy, you're not playing the FB as it is designed to be played. If you voluntarily fail a will save, that's not "to the best of your ability". And doing so only against a friend and not every spellcaster is showing "regard to friendship". You guys might have had a point, except that the FB text explicitly forbids what you're talking about. The same is true of other exploits, like Power Attacking for your full allowable amount. Unless you do that to every enemy, it isn't "the best of your ability", so again, you're cheating if you choose to get around the class' issues like that. The FB is not a balanced class without these drawbacks. If I had a PC try and pull any of this stuff when playing one, I'd be taking control of the character when he failed that will save to control himself, because the player is obviously incapable of playing the character without metagaming outrageously.
Dunelord 08-19-05, 12:23 PM	They can try the save to end the Frenzy once every round as a free action. If they are with it enough to try and force themself down, they are with it enough to fail a will save. Further while they are required to attack those around them, at no point does anything in the FB text say they have to defend themself or that they must attempt a Will save if presented with one. It might not be balanced but it works, RAW and we can go over the flavor all day.
Thorak 08-19-05, 12:30 PM	They can try the save to end the Frenzy once every round as a free action. If they are with it enough to try and force themself down, they are with it enough to fail a will save. Further while they are required to attack those around them, at no point does anything in the FB text say they have to defend themself or that they must attempt a Will save if presented with one. It might not be balanced but it works, RAW and we can go over the flavor all day. Except that voluntarily failing a will save is showing regard for friendship. As well as not fighting to the best of your ability. Voluntarily failing will saves and deliberately screwing your defenses is in no way "fighting to the best of your ability", nor would you be doing it if the target weren't a friend. You're metagaming, and breaking the limitations on the FB outrageously.
Jerks 08-19-05, 12:57 PM	This debate all boils down to what you thinking the definition of "fighting" is? Some seem to think that fighting ONLY encompasses swinging your weapon. Others seem to think that fighting is dodging, swinging, biting, spitting and resisting your enemies in anyway shape or form. I'm in the second camp on this one. An out of control FB is not akin to someone under a Domination spell that is forced to do an action but mentally trying to subvert such action. For one round, he completely loses it and attacks the nearest moving thing or person. He can no more volutarily fail his Will save agasint a friend than he can drop his weapon and power attack for full with his bare fists when "forced" to attack said friend.
Dunelord 08-21-05, 01:27 AM	The FB has to ATTACK. The word fighting, defend, combat, try to defeat, or save are never used. The FB isn't required to do any of them. Further classes that are required to make saves, such as the Forsaker, have it spelled out in the class.
Jell_Moo 08-21-05, 01:34 AM	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 creture (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). How is this in any way not clear?
dedicated 08-21-05, 02:28 AM	attack those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability not fight those she perceives as foes to the best of her ability ;)
Jell_Moo 08-21-05, 02:30 AM	yes "fight that opponent "
Arklich 08-21-05, 03:00 AM	Umm... lol? This thread is funny. Use the class however you want. See if your DM let's you... :rolleyes:
Thorak 08-21-05, 11:03 AM	Right. Dunelord, stop insisting that one out of context line is the entire description of how they act when they are out of control. There's more to it than just attacking. If anything, the second line, which says "fight that opponent", is the explanation of the former line, and is therefore the more accurate wording. See, it says you fight the opponent to the best of your ability. I don't care what else it might say, it does say that. And unless "the best of your ability" includes failing Will saves voluntarily in your twisted little world, you don't have any point whatsoever, and are relying on selective quoting out of context to try and manufacture some form of justification for your point.
Lilt 08-21-05, 11:44 AM	I have to agree that it's possible for a frenzied berzerkerto voluntarily fail their save. Thewre are two things that I think some peopel are reading into this which aren't really there: 1) That she cannot percieve friend from foe 2) That she must fight everyone to the best of her ability whilst in a frenzy 1) "During a frenzy, the frienzied berzerker must attack those she percieves as foes to the best of her ability." IE: the FB still has perception as to wether or not a creature is a foe. Nowhere does it say that the FB percieves all allies as foes. 2) "She must then attack the nearest creture (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)." 'Fight that opponent' does not mean 'fight everyone'. If the FB turned on the party cleric, for example, then the FB would still be able to voluntarily fail the save of a calm emotions cast by the party wizard.
Worloch 08-21-05, 12:38 PM	Agree to disagree. Rule #1, The DM is always right. If your DM allows you to voluntarily fail will saving throws in a frenzy, ok. If not, ok. It's clearly against the spirit of the FB, however, and everyone who's arguing for it clearly looking for a loop hole. If I were the DM, I'd allow the FB to use the loop hole. The very next encounter the FB was faced with a will save in a frenzy, I'd make him "voluntarily" fail that save too, like from a hold person, or a dominate person from that evil wizard. My players quickly learn to not bend the rules against the spirit of the game.
Lilt 08-21-05, 01:56 PM	Agree to disagree. Rule #1, The DM is always right. If your DM allows you to voluntarily fail will saving throws in a frenzy, ok. If not, ok.And what should the DM do if they're trying to go by the rules?It's clearly against the spirit of the FB, however, and everyone who's arguing for it clearly looking for a loop hole.It is not 'clerarly against the spirit of the FB' to allow the character to voluntarily fail a will save. The FB has limited control over himself but he's still knows friend from foe. Otherwise how would he know to try to end a frenzy in the first place? I'll agree that he possibly wouldn't voluntarily fail a will save if the caster was his current foe, but I see no problem with a 3rd party coming allong and smoothing things over.If I were the DM, I'd allow the FB to use the loop hole. The very next encounter the FB was faced with a will save in a frenzy, I'd make him "voluntarily" fail that save too, like from a hold person, or a dominate person from that evil wizard. My players quickly learn to not bend the rules against the spirit of the game.Why don't you have the FB make will saves to drop out of frenzy when they're fighting actual enemies too? I mean, for all they know they might be beating the party wizard not some necromancer! That'd screw your players real good, and hopefully remove some of the fun from playing the character too! :rolleye2: I see no real problem with using a voluntarily failed will save versus calm emotions to end a FB's frenzy. It's not a loophole, it's just a usage for the spell. The FB is still down one usage of frenzy that day, and they're down a second level spell slot (or an item usage) to boot.
Norhg 08-21-05, 02:00 PM	Advice, before battle. Suggestion, "if someone yells aaaichieehoho! You will immediately drop your weapon and calm down". Suggestion has a long duration. A Frenzied Berserker can opt to fail his saving throw against the suggestion effect. Then later he can be calmed without a saving throw. Remember, talking is a free action. "If you are to attack x, y or z abstain from it" is also an option.
Arklich 08-21-05, 02:35 PM	Maybe the name "Frenzy" should be changed to "Blood Lust" to avoid the current problem: People confusing it with "teen mild and generic anger". Seriously now, you are in some kind of rage... Blinding animal rage. Have you ever felt this kind of rage? The kind that makes you punch your friend who's holding you not to fight someone else in the bar? Frenzy is that^�, no less.