|
Post by reaperwolf on Dec 31, 2014 18:53:21 GMT -5
Berserk Attack grants +1 attack to be used against the same or different opponent but you lose all Armor and Shield AV.
Absurd.
Your armor is the only defense you have against an opponent when you throw caution to the wind and all-out-attack but RAW your foe suddenly targets your weakest spots because of the berserk attack?
This penalty only penalizes characters wearing armor, the unarmored lose NOTHING by making berserk attacks so why not do it all the time? Armor only reduces damage from most attacks by about 1/2 to 1/3 but makes you easier to hit, reduces your accuracy and movement, so why bother with armor?
What should happen is the berserker should be easier to hit with either a static bonus +3 sounds about right or a reduction in the number of dice rolled on part with surprise so an attack against a berserker should be made with 2D/DX instead of 3D/DX. All attacks directed at the berserker should have this bonus till the berserker's next action the following round.
One question does arise is should the berserker be entitled to reactions, which include counterattack? RAW, there's no mention but since the berserker is focused solely on attack, IMO the berserker shouldn't be entitled to reactions, not even counterattack.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 0:00:49 GMT -5
EXACTLY the point i tried to make in an older thread! armor is not your friend! not until you have sufficient weapon skill. i like the way this works. it is true to reality. starting characters shouldn't be running around in plate anyway, especially if starting characters aren't allowed to know spells above IQ12 i believe Mr. Brandon arrived at this 'berserk' formula from real-life History. the real-life historical berserkers typically didn't wear armor and seemed unfazed by their wounds. i am OK with RAW but i do think your suggestion of -1 die to hit a berserker is a better fit in the framework of this game and certainly meshes well with the D&D versions of berserk...but to call it 'absurd' is...absurd! i would allow a berserker to parry or counterattack but i would not allow him to dodge or shield block. why? again, a berserker is stark-raving made and singularly focused on using his weapons. however, i wouldn't have a problem playing it your way (no reactions) if that was the consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway5 on Jan 3, 2015 13:07:30 GMT -5
Historically speaking berserkers did not walk around in armor, they were unarmored (naked or furs). Yes the armored lose their benefit and the unarmored lose nothing. A berserk attack is, in my mind, and all or nothing attack. Not a strategic, well thought out, skilled effort--it is a hail mary, all or nothing, try to defeat a foe.
The intent was not for a well armored, highly skilled character to execute multiple attacks and become a reaping machine by "going berserk" and wading through rivers of foes. It is was more meant for low skilled, vulnerable types to have a chance against the well armored/ high skilled.
I fully understand my error in writing that my intent and RAW do no line up clearly. Long term, Berserk may be re-written or may just go away and be replaced by something else. Again sorry for the lack of clarity and confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 22:23:34 GMT -5
Berserk should die a quick and merciful death. As written, it was too powerful and too D&Dish for me. I simply ignored it. It really isn't necessary with a Counterattack that only gives up movement. It could always be a 'character option' later on.
|
|