Just an idea...
Shaken: -2 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -1
Frightened: -4 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -2
Panicked: -6 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -3
Cowering -8 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC's -4
I think that cowering, by definition, means you can no longer attack at all. Apply the -8 penalty to saves, ability or skill checks (like perception), and other defensive stuff.
But I wouldn't allow a cowering individual to attack.
Once they initiate an attack, they are, by definition, no longer cowering - so if the cowering is imposed on them magically, for a duration, they are, by definition, unable to stop cowering long enough to attack until that duration expires.
I would allow a cowering individual to choose to run away. Sure, he's not cowering anymore, but running is just cowering in motion, really...
Further, I would not apply any penalties to save DCs. If a frightened mage gets off a fireball, it will be just as big and just as hot as a fireball from the same mage when he isn't frightened.
Instead, I would impose a mandatory caster check. Maybe the same as if he takes damage during casting, with the -2/-4/-6/-8 penalty applied to the roll. Obviously, a cowering caster won't be casting anything offensively for the same reason he won't hit the source of his fear with his dagger. But since I allow cowering people to run away, maybe some "getaway" spells might be situationally appropriate when cowering, such as Expeditious Retreat or maybe even Teleport.
Of course failing the caster check means the spell is miscast due to fear, and like all miscast spells, it is lost.
Rules like fear shouldn't be nerfed in such a way so that it becomes a tactical choice for a character to make any more than gravity should be a tactical choice on whether the character should fall. Certain creatures rely on fear as a weapon (dragons) as a means to thin the opposition into manageable, bite-sized pieces, and to help avoid the full barrage that would come if characters could mitigate their fear.
Fear is an autonomic response by the mind to something terrifying. It's something that should be completely out of the character's (and player's) control, insofar as being able to consciously make a decision to try and resist the fear. If a mechanic is needed to determine if and when a character gets over their initial shock (which I think is needed, lest they run and keep on running until the DM says they can stop), it should be done through a character stat imo, such as wisdom, on a round by round basis. The more terrifying the creature or effect, the greater the penalty to their checks. That's how I run fear.
Fear is an autonomic response by the mind to something terrifying. It's something that should be completely out of the character's (and player's) control.
Disagree, having had a pistol pointed at my face within the last couple years. Your reaction to fear is to some extent up to you: you might shake a lot ("take penalties" in game-talk) if you try to act, or you might just run, or you might stand there and hope that it "just turns out OK" -- but the action itself is up to you, even if your ability to perform it might be impaired. In my experience with past terrifying situations, it was always after the situation was over that I was shaking too badly to act. During the situation, I had choices.
I personally don't have much problem with fear.
It's no worse than paralysis, sleep, hold, etc. In some ways, it's better, since you cannot be killed with a coup de grace.
One rule I have is that even magical fear leaves you some sense of reason. Adventurers (and virtually all other dungeon denizens) are afraid of unexplored passages and unopened doors (could be trapped, could lead to monsters, etc.) and are 10x more afraid of such things when they are alone.
Given that, it doesn't matter if they are under a magical fear effect and compelled to run away, they will only run where they know it's safe.
Despite anything that says otherwise, my ruling on fear is that the victim will run away, but will not run to areas that frighten them - the new fear of the unexplored dangers overrides the first fear of the dragon/lich/mage/etc. and they have to respond to both fears, thereby picking a safe path, even in their panicked flight.
It's similar to the fact that you cannot use Fear to make someone jump off a cliff or into lava - they aren't thatafraid.
On the other hand, fear effects that make enemies run away can be counter-productive.
Why would a dragon want to chase it's lunch? Why would a cleric want half of the skeletons to run off to the far end of the dungeon when what he really wants to do is destroy them, right here, right now?
So I very often evaluate the purpose of the fear and ask myself whether the Panicked condition should be changed to Cowering.
Wouldn't a dragon rather have you cower, helpless, while it munches your buddies then gobbles you down as dessert, without having to chase you? Sure he would.
Arguably, dragonfear is an evolved racial ability, but I think successful Darwinian evolution would have eveloved along a line that keeps the food near the dragon.
What about clerics and undead. Destroying the undead is a good clericky thing to do. Their gods appreciate that (well, the evil gods don't, but they give negative energy instead, so all the gods who give positive energy to their clerics appreciate destroyed undead).
Sending the undead running off, out of the graveyard, to run through the town and, after the effect wears off, be free to rampage through the helpless citizens is not a very good clericky thing to do, but making them cower, right at the cleric's feet, long enough to kill the one that saved then easily destroy the cowering ones, is very clericky and a much more desirable effect.
Surely the goody gods would see it this way too and make it so.
So I take fear on a case by case basis.
Some things really do want you to run away. So be it, make your save or off you go - along a safe path that won't scare you more than the monster did.
That almost always takes the player off of the battlemat.
No big deal. Stand the mini at the edge of the mat and write down how many feet he runs each round until the fear wears off, then leave him at the edge while you deduct how many feat he runs back each round until he gets on the mat again. You can easily write this right on the mat so all can see if you like - let the player track it while the DM moves on to the next player to speed up combat.
So those two simple little house rules have saved me endless pain in adjudicating fear. And they're so very easy to remember, too.
I disagree. There is nothing physical about courage. Courage is of the spirit and mind so again goes back to Will. Fear is a mind thing and again a Will save.
Now if you had to save against a chemical or poison that cause the body to react as if it was fearful, then I agree fortitude save, as it is a physical resistance at that point.
However Fortitude is body related, and physical in nature which is why I don't see it helping with most forms of fear.
AS, Fortitude has a relation to one's body and mentality. In fact, I'd hazard to say that the word "Fortitude" represents one's courage better than one's stamina. It certainly supports both.
I'm taking my queue from the very definition of the words Fortitude and Will. While I admit there is validity to your claim that Will is appropriate, Fortitude carries yet more validity by definition:
Warning… definitions gleaned from various sources exist beyond the spoiler. Some readers may find it exceedingly boring.
1. mental or emotional strength in facing difficulty, adversity, danger, or temptation courageously
2. strength of mind that allows one to endure pain or adversity with courage
3. power to resist attack; strength; firmness
4. that strength or firmness of mind which enables a person to encounter danger with coolness and courage, or to bear pain or adversity without murmuring, depression, or despondency; passive courage; resolute endurance; firmness in confronting or bearing up against danger or enduring trouble
5. strength of mind; guts
Synonyms (please note I didn't include all I found): backbone, boldness, bravery, constancy, courage, dauntlessness, determination, firmness, grit, hardihood, heart, mettle, moxie, nerve, patience, perseverance, stamina, staying power, stomach, tenacity, valor
Antonyms: cowardice, helplessness, weakness
Will- noun:
1. the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action
2. the power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or weak will
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will
4. deliberate intention or wish
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: the will to succeed
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out; to work one's will
7. free discretion; inclination or pleasure
8. to decide on; choose
Synonyms (again, I didn't list all I found): appetite, attitude, character, conviction, craving, decision, desire, determination, discipline, discretion, disposition, inclination, intention, mind, passion, pleasure, power, resolve, self-control, self-restraint, urge, willpower, wish, yearning
Antonyms: can't find any
So yes, you can definitely make a case for a Will save vs. Fear. But you can make a far better case for Fortitude vs. fear.
I disagree about the Wizard's being cowardly thing -- it takes conjones of brass to summon a demon and expect it do to your will.
Mechanically, summoning a demon doesn't require a saving throw vs. fear, so in this instance it doesn't matter.
On the other hand… if the summoned demon has a fear aura, or can cause fear, or is versed in Intimidation, that may make the summoner think twice about summoning the demon in the first place (If he has low Fortitude). I actually think that's a nice check for the spell.
Hmm… I'm liking this idea more and more. (The change to Fort save anyway.) :)
Rules like fear shouldn't be nerfed in such a way so that it becomes a tactical choice for a character to make any more than gravity should be a tactical choice on whether the character should fall. Certain creatures rely on fear as a weapon (dragons) as a means to thin the opposition into manageable, bite-sized pieces, and to help avoid the full barrage that would come if characters could mitigate their fear.
Fear is an autonomic response by the mind to something terrifying. It's something that should be completely out of the character's (and player's) control, insofar as being able to consciously make a decision to try and resist the fear. If a mechanic is needed to determine if and when a character gets over their initial shock (which I think is needed, lest they run and keep on running until the DM says they can stop), it should be done through a character stat imo, such as wisdom, on a round by round basis. The more terrifying the creature or effect, the greater the penalty to their checks. That's how I run fear.
To piggyback on what Kirth replied to this post, earlier in the thread, it was established that how the fear mechanics currently work isn't fun and it's also a pain to administer at the table.
The penalty proposals are ideas that are meant to impose a feeling of "fear" in the players themselves, which may prompt them to play their PCs accordingly (in other words, they run!). So far I like the approach, as I said earlier, I tend to rely more on actual play striking fear into the players rather than the fear mechanic itself. It's certainly more fun that way.
Just an idea...
Shaken: -2 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -1
Frightened: -4 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -2
Panicked: -6 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -3
Cowering -8 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC's -4I think that cowering, by definition, means you can no longer attack at all. Apply the -8 penalty to saves, ability or skill checks (like perception), and other defensive stuff.
But I wouldn't allow a cowering individual to attack.
Once they initiate an attack, they are, by definition, no longer cowering - so if the cowering is imposed on them magically, for a duration, they are, by definition, unable to stop cowering long enough to attack until that duration expires.
I would allow a cowering individual to choose to run away. Sure, he's not cowering anymore, but running is just cowering in motion, really...
Further, I would not apply any penalties to save DCs. If a frightened mage gets off a fireball, it will be just as big and just as hot as a fireball from the same mage when he isn't frightened.
Instead, I would impose a mandatory caster check. Maybe the same as if he takes damage during casting, with the -2/-4/-6/-8 penalty applied to the roll. Obviously, a cowering caster won't be casting anything offensively for the same reason he won't hit the source of his fear with his dagger. But since I allow cowering people to run away, maybe some "getaway" spells might be situationally appropriate when cowering, such as Expeditious Retreat or maybe even Teleport.
Of course failing the caster check means the spell is miscast due to fear, and like all miscast spells, it is lost.
My understanding under the cowering is that you must use all means you have available to get away from the source of your fear... including spells and spell like abilities...
Beyond that having a penalty to caster level, and a chance to miscast the spell seems a bit much to me. After all the fighter doesn't have a penalty to hit and a miss chance on his swing.
AS, Fortitude has a relation to one's body and mentality. In fact, I'd hazard to say that the word "Fortitude" represents one's courage better than one's stamina. It certainly supports both.
I'm taking my queue from the very definition of the words Fortitude and Will. While I admit there is validity to your claim that Will is appropriate, Fortitude carries yet more validity by definition:
Warning… definitions gleaned from various sources exist beyond the spoiler. Some readers may find it exceedingly boring.
Fortitude
1. mental or emotional strength in facing difficulty, adversity, danger, or temptation courageously (etc.)Will:
1. the mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action (etc.)So yes, you can definitely make a case for a Will save vs. Fear. But you can make a far better case for Fortitude vs. fear.
Mr. Valente is both right and wrong.
In the English language, "fortitude" means exactly what he found in the dictionary: courage, guts, etc. It is synonymous with bravery, courage.
So he is exactly right about the English definition of "fortitude".
He is also exactly right in the definition he found for "will": the ability to choose your own actions, to focus your mind on doing what you want to do without distraction or diversion.
However, he is quite wrong in the game definition of "fortitude".
In the d20 game, someone decided, quite erroneously, to use a very archaic and obsolete definition of "fortitude" to mean strength of body rather than what it should mean. In days of old, "fortitude" did mean toughness, and the ability to endure physical hardhsip, but you have to look pretty deep into the etymology to find this obsolete usage.
But, because that is the game definition we are using, then in a d20 system, we should be accepting of that definition.
Within the game mechanics, "fortitude" means your toughness of body and your ability to resist physical impairment such as poison and disease and other illness or ailments of a physical nature, and "will" means the ability to focus your mind and resist outside attempts to force your mind to behave in ways out of your control, and to choose your own course of actions when outside influences are acting to choose your actinos for you.
As you can see, "will" stuck pretty close to the definition you would find in the dictionary, but "fortitude" did not.
Still, the game mechanics provide us our own definition and these mechanics have drawn a clear line in the sand.
Fear is a mental effect. Under the influence of fear, your choice of actions is dictated for you, or at the very least, you are penalized for taking any actions except cowering or running. This makes it a "will" effect. And because fear does not cause any physical impairment, it makes it not a "fortitude" effect.
According to RAW.
Moving fear effects to use physical saving throws against what is otherwise a mental effect would violate RAW, and would blur the lines (game lines, not English lines) as to what the two different kinds of saves mean.
Personally, I fully accept the game definition of "fortitude", even though it is difinitively wrong by English definition, because it is mechanically simplistic, and because I believe that a physical save and a mental save, no matter what we call them, make good sense as game mechanics.
Perhaps if the original game designers had realized their mistake, they might have called it "tolerance" or "vigor" or "resilience" or "stamina" or "toughness" or "constitution" - although some of those are taken for other game terminology. I think I like "vigor" best - we could all make VIG saves against poison and disease...
But even though the designers named it poorly, their intent was clear. One save for physical effects, one for mental. And fear is clearly mental.
So, within the game, despite the incorrect nomenclature, it's pretty clear that WILL is the save of choice for shrugging off fear effects.
My gamers just mock each other mercilessly if someone fails a save against a fear effect.
"I had to run away and I don't like it!"
Meh. Cry me a river and get yourself a cloak of resistance.
To DM Blake:
I provided definitions simply to give validity to my proposal
We know how the game defines the terms. So what? Why adhere to those defintions if the game can be made better? The change of fear causing effects to a Fort save benefits the game on a few levels:
1) The Necromancy school as well as Necromantic abilities have a more streamlined direction (as do the Enchantment and Illusion schools by default). Necromancy attacks one's Fortitude. Plain and simple. And while I'm on the subject, why does Bleed and Death Knell require a Will save? They aren't mind affecting spells, it doesn't say they are mind affecting spells in their descriptions, you are unconscious, bleeding is certainly physical, and you can't Will yourself not to bleed.
2) It puts courage back in the front-liners' court (where I think it should be) and helps them fulfill their role better.
3) I'm sure my numbers are off, but I did a quick check of all the spells in the Beta. I took all the spells that are detrimental in nature and checked to see which save they attacked (this is debatable to some extent); here's the lowdown:
a) 27 spells attack Fortitude
b) 21 spells attack Reflex
c) 66 spells attack Will
Isn't Will a little overdone? Can't we throw front-liners a bone (and a little one in this case)? I encourage others to take a look, especially at monsters and their abilities in the MM. I may do so myself tomorrow.
If nothing else, reason #3 alone should warrant such a change.
I've always hated fear effects (all mental effects really) on my heroic warrior types, so my builds reflect this. I like feats like blooded, bull headed, battle hardened, and I'm not bashful about looking for PrCs and core class dips that help will saves. Having my bad to the bone dragon slayer blow his save against dragon fear blows (a lot!) so I invest resources to counter that likelihood.
I do like the fighters bravery ability.
I guess for me having to invest in will bonuses for my combat and rogue types doesn't seem like any more of an imposition than arcanists having to compensate for their fort saves and hit points.
Failing SoS against fear effects is a big fun killer for me, but so is being disintegrated for the wizard.
Aren't undead immune to crits, or are you using a fortification type house rule?We use PF beta. No more blanket crit immunity.Is that just for undead or everything? I was thinking this was just sneak attacks.
Can you point me in the right direction in the PDF please?
It was later clarified by Jason (I think) that it was meant to be crits as well as sneak attacks, and that's how it will be in the final game.
I've always hated fear effects (all mental effects really) on my heroic warrior types, so my builds reflect this. I like feats like blooded, bull headed, battle hardened, and I'm not bashful about looking for PrCs and core class dips that help will saves. Having my bad to the bone dragon slayer blow his save against dragon fear blows (a lot!) so I invest resources to counter that likelihood.
I do like the fighters bravery ability.
I guess for me having to invest in will bonuses for my combat and rogue types doesn't seem like any more of an imposition than arcanists having to compensate for their fort saves and hit points.
Failing SoS against fear effects is a big fun killer for me, but so is being disintegrated for the wizard.
Word.
It was later clarified by Jason (I think) that it was meant to be crits as well as sneak attacks, and that's how it will be in the final game.Aren't undead immune to crits, or are you using a fortification type house rule?We use PF beta. No more blanket crit immunity.Is that just for undead or everything? I was thinking this was just sneak attacks.
Can you point me in the right direction in the PDF please?
Sweet for crit driven fighters too. I like it.
It was later clarified by Jason (I think) that it was meant to be crits as well as sneak attacks, and that's how it will be in the final game.Aren't undead immune to crits, or are you using a fortification type house rule?We use PF beta. No more blanket crit immunity.Is that just for undead or everything? I was thinking this was just sneak attacks.
Can you point me in the right direction in the PDF please?
The original post is here.
Not easy to find, I admit it...
It was later clarified by Jason (I think) that it was meant to be crits as well as sneak attacks, and that's how it will be in the final game.Aren't undead immune to crits, or are you using a fortification type house rule?We use PF beta. No more blanket crit immunity.Is that just for undead or everything? I was thinking this was just sneak attacks.
Can you point me in the right direction in the PDF please?
The original post is here.
Not easy to find, I admit it...
Thank you!
Why adhere to those defintions if the game can be made better?
Amen! The game is good, but it's not the best possible game -- that's the whole spirit behind the Pathfinder rules. If simple changes can improve playability without sacrificing flavor, I'm all in favor.
The change of fear causing effects to a Fort save benefits the game on a few levels.
I love your examples. I'd already been in agreement with #2-3, but #1 raises a cogent point as well. Consider me completely convinced.
Just an idea...
Shaken: -2 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -1
Frightened: -4 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -2
Panicked: -6 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -3
Cowering -8 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC's -4Instead, I would impose a mandatory caster check. Maybe the same as if he takes damage during casting, with the -2/-4/-6/-8 penalty applied to the roll. Obviously, a cowering caster won't be casting anything offensively for the same reason he won't hit the source of his fear with his dagger. But since I allow cowering people to run away, maybe some "getaway" spells might be situationally appropriate when cowering, such as Expeditious Retreat or maybe even Teleport.
Of course failing the caster check means the spell is miscast due to fear, and like all miscast spells, it is lost.
Interesting, I agree the spell's save DC's should remain unchanged as you and others have suggested.
How would you set the DC for the caster check?
And, what about an effect on the caster level instead of the spell's DC?
Some spells will not be effected by a lower caster level, for example, if shaken, my Bestow Curse is uneffected but my Fireball does 2d6 less damage?
I use action points so I might call for spending one to stay and take the -2,20%/-4,40%/-6,60% penalty after failing a save vs fear.
So NPCs should be expected to just runaway if they fail.
Why adhere to those defintions if the game can be made better?Amen! The game is good, but it's not the best possible game -- that's the whole spirit behind the Pathfinder rules. If simple changes can improve playability without sacrificing flavor, I'm all in favor.
The change of fear causing effects to a Fort save benefits the game on a few levels.I love your examples. I'd already been in agreement with #2-3, but #1 raises a cogent point as well. Consider me completely convinced.
Yeah, but you're an easy sell. Anyone posts anything that lets fighters shrug off more spells and you're a prepaid customer...
Yeah, but you're an easy sell. Anyone posts anything that lets fighters shrug off more spells and you're a prepaid customer...
Heh. That's maybe true when we consider anthony's points #2-3, but point #1 still stands... why not bring some sense of logic/order/niche usefulness to the school of Necromancy? (As it is, nearly every PC and NPC wizard in our games is either a universalist or an enchanter with necromancy as a barred school...)
1) The Necromancy school as well as Necromantic abilities have a more streamlined direction (as do the Enchantment and Illusion schools by default). Necromancy attacks one's Fortitude. Plain and simple.
You're the one who likes dictionary definitions, so go look up "necromancy" - you may be surprised at what you find.
95% of the spells in the d20 necromancy school don't belong there, by strict literal definition of necromancy.
Physical stuff, like Contagion, that sickens your body and inflicts a disease. Or like Enervation that suppresses life itself, robbing your flesh of living energy. Those should be Fort saves. And they are.
Fear affects the mind, not the body. There is no physical component to Fear - it's all mental. Which means it must be resisted by the mind, not by the body. Which makes it a WILL save per the game definitions in place.
Arguing that Necromancy makes more sense if it only affects Fort will actually weaken all necromancers. It will turn necromancers into mage killers, but they will be very hard pressed to hurt a fighter.
It would seem to me that the right way to balance a magical school, in fact, each magical school, would be to give them stuff that affects all three saves. That way, they can prepare a diverse list of spells and choose spells that are best in any given encounter.
Limiting necromancers, or any other school, to only affecting one single save category (Fortitude) would be like limiting fighters to only being able to use piercing weapons.
Why impose such an artifical limit, especially when it flies against everything our game mechanic teaches us about WILL and FORT saves?
2) It puts courage back in the front-liners' court (where I think it should be) and helps them fulfill their role better.
Who says that frontliners should be more courageous? That's just silly and prejudiced.
DM: A creepy undead thing rises out of a tomb, issuing a horrible wail that seems to emit from the underworld itself. It points a bony finger at your party and hisses in the voice of Death itself, "Leave my toooomb or ssssufffer endlessss tooorment!" Suddenly you are all stricken with unimaginable fear that terrifies you right to the root of your soul. Everyone roll a save. (note: this is a lich with fear aura).
Now, who is more likely to be affected:
The fighter, who fears for his mortal soul but doesn't really understand what that means. He wonders if his sword will even hurt this diabolic undead or will it bounce off harmlessly? The thing before him is utterly unknown to him, though he has heard countless horror stories of how deadly liches can be. He is terrified (fear aura) and doesn't know why, but every fiber in his being is clammoring for him to run away.
The barbarian, who now knows that all his nightmares can be true, all his savage superstitions have been leading him to this place, facing an unknown horror that no doubt will suck the soul (whatever that is) right out of him and feast on his bones. He also wonders if he has a weapon that can even hurt this horror. He is terrified (fear aura) and doesn't know why, but every fiber in his being is clammoring for him to run away.
The wizard, who has at least +20 on the appropriate knowledge check and knows everything there is to know about liches. Their strengths, their weakness. He knows he is armed with magic that can destroy this fiend, with a little help from his friends, and he knows about the fear aura. He is terried too, but he knows why and his logical mind tells him it's just a magical fear, not based in reality, and all he has to do is ignore it and destroy this lich.
The cleric, who is a master of religious study and worships a god that cherishes all of his faithful priests who run off and smite undead. He knows about liches too, through his religious studies, and he has incredible willpower thanks to his devotion to his god. He knows he has the power, with a little help from his friends and a lot of help from his god, to destroy this foul undead. He has enormous common sense which tells him this magical fear is just a trick to make some of his companions run away and split the attackers up into smaller groups, easier to kill, but he is too wise to fall for such tricks.
Now, which of those 4 characters should shrug off the Fear, and which are more likely to be more susceptible to it?
I think the argument that courage belongs in the frontliners' court is not based on flawed reasoning.
Sure, it takes courage to face an orc. To risk getting an axe in the face while you fight your enemy. Frontliners have that kind of courage in spades. Arguably, archers, mages, and maybe many clerics lack that kind of courage.
But that is courage vs. ordinary fear.
Magical fear is an entirely different ballgame. Nobody has the kind of courage it takes to ignore magical fear. The most courageous fighter in the world, one who would single-handedly charge in and attack me, the tarrasque, will still run away if he fails his save vs. magical fear.
Resisting magical fear takes a focused mind and s strong will exerting a tremendous act of willpower. In other words, making a Will save.
3) I'm sure my numbers are off, but I did a quick check of all the spells in the Beta. I took all the spells that are detrimental in nature and checked to see which save they attacked (this is debatable to some extent); here's the lowdown:
a) 27 spells attack Fortitude
b) 21 spells attack Reflex
c) 66 spells attack WillIsn't Will a little overdone? Can't we throw front-liners a bone (and a little one in this case)? I encourage others to take a look, especially at monsters and their abilities in the MM. I may do so myself tomorrow.
If nothing else, reason #3 alone should warrant such a change.
Now, this reason is a good argument for balacing the spells.
But the balance is not to make spells that are obviously mind-affecting spells require a Fort save.
What next?
Shall we do Fort saves to resist illusions? Fort to resist Charm Person, Dominate, Suggestion?
Heck, given your reasoning on point #3 alone, we should make some of these into Reflex saves - REF has only 21, the lowest of the three.
So why not make Fear a REF save instead of Will - if you jump out of the fear aura, you are unaffected...
If point #3 is our only concern, and the flawed logic of turning mental spells into something non-mental is the flawed answer we want, then you've just argued against changing Fear into a FORT save and changed it into a REF save instead.
No, this logic (point #3) is unsound.
If balancing the three categories of saves is what you want, and we only want to consider spells in this balance, then what you need to do is examine all those spells with WILL saves and ask if we need them all.
Fact is, many of them are redundant. Many could be combined into one spell with multiple uses.
Also, we could add more spells that require REF or FORT saves, expand the list, balance the numbers.
But turning mental spells into non-mental is just silly.
But realistically, when we consider balance among the three saves, we need to consider other sources. Many many monsters have poison, disease, level drains, breath weapons, etc., that cause FORT and REF saves. Only a few have WILL saves, and most of those simply have a SU or EX ability that mimics a spell.
Traps often require FORT or REF saves, but rarely require any WILL saves - if they do, it's because they simply fire off a spell that requires a WILL save.
So ultimately, when you consider all the stuff that adventurers see in their careers, they likely roll about the same number of FORT, REF, and WILL saves throughout their career. It's hard to state those numbers exactly, but obviously, these other factors must be considered when we discuss balance.
So no, none of your reasons even comes close to convincing me that Fear should require a FORT save.
I will say that your point about Bleed and Death Knell are well-founded. Both of those spells affect someone who is below 0 HP and cause them to resume dying, slowly or instantly. Both seem like death effects, and both seem like physical issues, so both seem to me that they should be FORT saves.
Yeah, but you're an easy sell. Anyone posts anything that lets fighters shrug off more spells and you're a prepaid customer...Heh. That's maybe true when we consider anthony's points #2-3, but point #1 still stands... why not bring some sense of logic/order/niche usefulness to the school of Necromancy? (As it is, nearly every PC and NPC wizard in our games is either a universalist or an enchanter with necromancy as a barred school...)
Because if everything in the necromancy school requires a FORT save, then necromancers become immensely vulnerable to any attacks by enemies with strong FORT saves.
As it is, a necromancer has a few spells he can keep up his sleeve, and when he sees the fighter or barbarian running down the corridor to attack him, he has something that will probably protect him from the attack.
Take that away, and the poor necromancer might as well just lay down and play dead and hope those mean old fighters and barbarians go away and leave him alone.
Because if everything in the necromancy school requires a FORT save, then necromancers become immensely vulnerable to any attacks by enemies with strong FORT saves.
He's still got unfettered access to 5 other schools, remember? (7 others if he doesn't mind missing his 1st level power for a day.) It's not as if all his spells would be necromancy.
Fear affects the mind, not the body. There is no physical component to Fear - it's all mental.
How do you figure? Adrenaline rushes, heart rate soars, muscles tense, shaking possible -- these are autonomous physical effects. Mentally, a person who is afraid can still choose to act, within the physical limitations of his fight/flight mechanism. Or is your stance that magical fear, unlike physical fear, somehow has no physical components?
Because if everything in the necromancy school requires a FORT save, then necromancers become immensely vulnerable to any attacks by enemies with strong FORT saves.He's still got unfettered access to 5 other schools, remember? (7 others if he doesn't mind missing his 1st level power for a day.) It's not as if all his spells would be necromancy.
No, but he's probably taken Spell Focus and other feats focused on necromancy (if he's a necromancer). He may also have reserve feats, etc.
All of which gives him a strong preference for necromancy spells because that is how he is most efficient. Necromancy spells give him his best chance for survival.
Sure, you're right, he could grab some non-necromancy stuff for the emergencies, but doing so takes him out of his element and makes him weaker.
Much better, IMO, to let the guy have options within his school of preference.
Because if everything in the necromancy school requires a FORT save, then necromancers become immensely vulnerable to any attacks by enemies with strong FORT saves.He's still got unfettered access to 5 other schools, remember? (7 others if he doesn't mind missing his 1st level power for a day.) It's not as if all his spells would be necromancy.
Note also:
-Every wizard enchantment spell requires a Will save (if any).-Every wizard evocation spell requires a Ref save (if any)*.
Shocking, isn't it!
*...except for bits of Prismatic Spray and Shatter
[No, but he's probably taken Spell Focus and other feats focused on necromancy (if he's a necromancer). He may also have reserve feats, etc. All of which gives him a strong preference for necromancy spells because that is how he is most efficient. Necromancy spells give him his best chance for survival. Sure, you're right, he could grab some non-necromancy stuff for the emergencies, but doing so takes him out of his element and makes him weaker.
Wait... aren't you one of the people telling me that if a fighter specializes in melee, and doesn't spread out his resources into ranged combat and bolstering Will saves, then he deserves what he gets? Seems like the same argument should apply to our hypothetical necromancer as well -- especially because the necromancer gets a lot more spells than the fighter gets feats, even, and can swap them out from day to day.
Fear affects the mind, not the body. There is no physical component to Fear - it's all mental.How do you figure? Adrenaline rushes, heart rate soars, muscles tense, shaking possible -- these are autonomous physical effects.
Those are mere side effects of the fear you are mentally suffering.
Your mind feels the fear, and then, because of that fear, your mind sends out the impulses that rush the adrenaline, soar the heart rate, tense the muscles, etc.
It's not the other way around.
Fear does not rush the adrenaline, soar the heart rate, tense the muscles, etc., and then after all that happens, your brain steps in and says "Wow, look at all this! I must be afraid!"
Cause before effect, my friend, not the other way around.
Mentally, a person who is afraid can still choose to act, within the physical limitations of his fight/flight mechanism.
You are right, if we're talking about normal fear.
Fear of an orc, or an ogre, or a lion. Fear of falling, fear of crowds, fear of germs.
Although, ask a psychiatrist (hey, aren't psychiatrists doctors of the mind?) how paralyzing life can be for someone suffering a true phobia.
Despite that, yes, normal fear can be conquered by simply (depending on the depth of the fear or phobia, it may not be very simple at all) choosing to fight the fear and choose your own course of action.
However, magical Fear, by the definitions given in the game, chooses your actions for you. It can force you to cower or to flee, even if you don't want to. The rules for Panicked and Cowering say so, right there in the book.
Just like magical Domination can force you to do stuff you don't want to do, too.
This means that those magical effects rob you of free will, rob you of the choice to choose how you act. Because they say so in the book.
If you want to argue that in-game characters who have been given the Panicked condiditon can somehow choose his own actions, then you are arguing a house rule, not RAW.
Other, weaker forms of fear, like Shaken for example, still let you choose your course of actions, but with penalties imposed by the condition - even if the cause is magical.
Or is your stance that magical fear, unlike physical fear, somehow has no physical components?
Nope, as I've just said, all those physical components of fear are side effects of the fear, caused by your own mind sending out signals to your body to produce these effects - after your mind begins suffering from the fear.
The fear comes first.
It might be internal (your own phobia, for example) or external (a ghost says "Boo!" or a dragon flies overhead or a necromancer casts Cause Fear), but either way, the fear affects your brain (if you fail your WILL save) and then your brain affects your body.
This is true of natural and supernatural and magical fears.
Your mind feels the fear, and then, because of that fear, your mind sends out the impulses that rush the adrenaline, soar the heart rate, tense the muscles, etc.
Cause before effect, my friend, not the other way around.
I'm not a neurobiologist, but I've been scared a lot: not phobia stuff, but, "wow, I'm about to die" stuff. The adrenaline, etc. are instantaneous, involuntary physical reactions -- you don't say "ooh, I'm scared," and then your body reacts, or maybe you decide to be brave, and your body doesn't react. The fight/flight mechanism kicks in immediately, in most cases before the threat consciously registers, and it happens regardless of what's going on in your mind.
I'm not sure if I like the concept of high courage = good will. True, every character should have a weakness. Yet, you want that weakness to "match" the character. Fighters, rangers and (non-raging) barbarian running away out of fear isn't matching the heroic stereotype.
"Being easily seduced" is a flaw that I can conceive for a fighter-type character.
"being a coward" isn't, unless the concept behind the character revolves around that...
I've seen games where the save mechanics was based around character level rather than will save.
[No, but he's probably taken Spell Focus and other feats focused on necromancy (if he's a necromancer). He may also have reserve feats, etc. All of which gives him a strong preference for necromancy spells because that is how he is most efficient. Necromancy spells give him his best chance for survival. Sure, you're right, he could grab some non-necromancy stuff for the emergencies, but doing so takes him out of his element and makes him weaker.Wait... aren't you one of the people telling me that if a fighter specializes in melee, and doesn't spread out his resources into ranged combat and bolstering Will saves, then he deserves what he gets? Seems like the same argument should apply to our hypothetical necromancer as well -- especially because the necromancer gets a lot more spells than the fighter gets feats, even, and can swap them out from day to day.
Not quite the same.
Most combat feats are not focused on just one thing. A few are, like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. But most are more general.
Your example is like a fighter choosing Weapon Focus Greatsword, Weapon Sepcialization Greatsword, and Improved Critical Greatsword, and whatever other feats may require a specific weapon all for greatswords.
Then he realizes that some monsters have DR that can only be overcome by certain weapon qualities. Against those monsters, he is weak.
Now the smart fighter will get an adamantine greatsword, a cold-iron greatsword, a holy greatsword, a magical greatsword, etc., so he can deal with any encounter he faces.
A stupid fighter would get an adamantine battle axe, a cold-iron dagger, a holy mace, a magical spiked chain, and plan to deal with those encounters with his spare weaponry.
(this assumes the fighter can chose his items easily, such as buying them in town - but since we're comparing to a necromancer who can easily choose spells, I think it's a fair comparison)
The corrollary here to the Necromancer is whether he can choose to face different encounters using the school he focused in, just like the fighter chooses to face different encounters using the weapon he focuesed in.
Proposing to make all Necromancy spells require FORT saves is, by comparison, similar to saying all adamantine weapons must be battle axes.
In both cases, you're forcing the necromancer to use a weaker school to handle a problem, and forcing the fighter to use a weaker weapon to handle a problem.
To me, it's equally silly.
Worse, I don't think anyone would be crazy enough to seriously propose a rule, or houserule, that says all adamantine weapons must be battle axes. It doesn't make sense. If you can make a battle axe out of adamantine, why can't you make a halberd out of it, or a hand axe, or a different blade like a sword?
But yet people on this thread are proposing a rule that all necromancy spells must be FORT spells. That doesn't make sense either. Spells either affect the body or affect the mind. Saying that all necromancy spells should affect only the body, even when they truly do affect the mind, is nonsense.
I fear (no pun intended) that your all-consuming drive to elevate fighters to the pinnacle of character class excellence is clouding your judgment, urging you to leap at any ill-conceived notion that suits your ultimate goal and motivating you to defend the notion with spurious logic.
Think about it for a minute.
How can fear, magical or otherwise, even possibly be considered physical?
Are we going to say that love is purely physical too? There's the beating heart. There's the other obvious physical response to lust. So is love purely physical.
What about hate? If you hate someone, you tend to glare at them. Your heart beats, adrenaline surges. You might even hit them. That's all physical, so is hate therefore purely physical?
What about any other emotion?
No, they're all, including fear, purely mental - every physical reaction, physical impulse, physical drive, that results from these emotions is a side effect of the purely mental emotion.
Any argument that says otherwise is baseless and silly.
Now, the argument for streamlining necromancy from a game mechanical viewpoint is a valid argument.
Me, I think that weakens necromancers. Yes, they can choose spells from other schools, just like a greatsword-focused fighter can choose to fight with a mace - but in both cases, they are weakened by doing so.
I don't advocate weakening either of them.
Still, for those who want to weaken necromancers by making all their spells affect only Fortitude, there is a good and rational argument for doing so. It does "tidy up" the spell schools a bit.
To those people who want this, I suggest two things:
1. Do it to all schools. Every evocation should affect REF, every enchantment must affect WILL, etc. Balance is balance, after all.
2. Do not do it by changing spells withint he schools to require the wrong, even silly, saves. Fireball should not require a WILL save, even if we call it an enchantment. Contagion should not require a REF save, even if we call it an evocation. And Fear should not require a FORT save, even if we call it necromancy.
Pursuant to point #2, if "tidying up" the spell schools is what you want to do, the right way is move fear out of necromancy (it doesn't really belong there anyway) and put it in enchantment where it belongs.
Plenty of other spells need to be shifted around too, but I won't go into that here.
Me, it sounds like too much work and it weakens the spellcasters too much, so I won't do this myself.
But for those who want the "tidy" spell schools, that is the right way to go.
However, magical Fear, by the definitions given in the game, chooses your actions for you. It can force you to cower or to flee, even if you don't want to. The rules for Panicked and Cowering say so, right there in the book.
Like I said, the game is good, but it's not the best possible game, or there would be no need for Pathfinder rules iterations. It can be improved. Therefore, what the existing rules say is totally beside the point, as far as I'm concerned.
The corrollary here to the Necromancer is whether he can choose to face different encounters using the school he focused in, just like the fighter chooses to face different encounters using the weapon he focuesed in. Proposing to make all Necromancy spells require FORT saves is, by comparison, similar to saying all adamantine weapons must be battle axes.
If a fighter could choose every day what material each of his weapons would be made of, I'd agree with that point. As it is, though, your analogy is lacking that element.
[No, but he's probably taken Spell Focus and other feats focused on necromancy (if he's a necromancer). He may also have reserve feats, etc. All of which gives him a strong preference for necromancy spells because that is how he is most efficient. Necromancy spells give him his best chance for survival. Sure, you're right, he could grab some non-necromancy stuff for the emergencies, but doing so takes him out of his element and makes him weaker.Wait... aren't you one of the people telling me that if a fighter specializes in melee, and doesn't spread out his resources into ranged combat and bolstering Will saves, then he deserves what he gets? Seems like the same argument should apply to our hypothetical necromancer as well -- especially because the necromancer gets a lot more spells than the fighter gets feats, even, and can swap them out from day to day.
That tends to line up with how I see it. Specialization is supposed to be a trade off.
That said, I don't see the logic of of making fear or other mind effecting spells fort saves in D&D.
It is interesting to note that intimidation has a non will mechanic but it's still modified by Wisdom.
No, they're all, including fear, purely mental - every physical reaction, physical impulse, physical drive, that results from these emotions is a side effect of the purely mental emotion. Any argument that says otherwise is baseless and silly.
Normally I'm willing to give you any amount of leeway, because I enjoy our discussions. But this one crosses the line: are you a neurobiologist, to make the absolute claim that fear is 100% mental? And even if you can produce these credentials, and if you're right, that still would make dissenting opinions "misinformed," not "baseless and silly."
Before I flag anything, though, I'd like to give you the option to consider the phrasing, even if you can't (or won't) consider any alternative viewpoint.
I'm not sure if I like the concept of high courage = good will. True, every character should have a weakness. Yet, you want that weakness to "match" the character. Fighters, rangers and (non-raging) barbarian running away out of fear isn't matching the heroic stereotype.
"Being easily seduced" is a flaw that I can conceive for a fighter-type character.
"being a coward" isn't, unless the concept behind the character revolves around that...
I've seen games where the save mechanics was based around character level rather than will save.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think having mages and clerics running away is heroic either.
Cowardice is about common scary things. Orcs. Bears. Falling off a cliff. A coward runs from an orc or bear. A coward may not be able to walk on a narrow ledge on a cliff.
Courageous people might stand and face an orc or bear. They might walk along that cliff ledge. Fact is, they may even still be afraid of it, but because of their courage, they face their fears and deal with it.
When you get into magical fear, it's a whole different concept.
Realistically, there is no more reason to be afraid of a lich than there is to be afraid of a beholder or an illithid (sorry, I know those are not Paizo monsters) or a storm giant (assuming all relatively equal CRs - I didn't check).
A coward will run away from all of them. A courageous man will face all of them and charge into combat, or at least he may be willing to do so if needed, despite any sensible fears he may have.
Then one of them, only one, the lich, will blast out a wave of magical fear, at which time courage goes right out the window.
Now we're in the realm of reason, common sense, and willpower.
Your reason tells you this sudden fear that is overwhelming you is not real. Your common sense tells you that if you ignore the fear, you can defeat this enemy. Your willpower struggles to fight the magical fear and throw it off so you can fight and win.
Running from magical fear is no more cowardly than succumbing to magical domination, or frying to a crisp in a magical fireball. All it means is someone cast a spell or magical effect on you and it worked. End of story.
They might all charge into the lich's lair to battle the fiend (courage), or they might all decide the lich is too big and scary and leave before the encounter (cowardice), but once that magical fear is cast, those that are make their saves do so not because they're brave, but because their reason, common sense, and willpower overcame the magical compulsion to flee.
Seems to me that reason, common sense, and willpower are more in the realm of the clerics and mages than they are in the realm of fighters.
perhaps it is the frightened condition that needs to be re-addressed.
A frightened creature will attempt to take cover or concealment from the source of its fear. Once it has found cover or concealment, it may not take any direct action against the source of its fear. If unable to take cover, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to finf the original cover; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
alteration in bold.
I'm not sure if I like the concept of high courage = good will. True, every character should have a weakness. Yet, you want that weakness to "match" the character. Fighters, rangers and (non-raging) barbarian running away out of fear isn't matching the heroic stereotype.
"Being easily seduced" is a flaw that I can conceive for a fighter-type character.
"being a coward" isn't, unless the concept behind the character revolves around that...
I've seen games where the save mechanics was based around character level rather than will save.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think having mages and clerics running away is heroic either.
Cowardice is about common scary things. Orcs. Bears. Falling off a cliff. A coward runs from an orc or bear. A coward may not be able to walk on a narrow ledge on a cliff.
Courageous people might stand and face an orc or bear. They might walk along that cliff ledge. Fact is, they may even still be afraid of it, but because of their courage, they face their fears and deal with it...
True, but since cause fear, scare etc are relatively accessible resources that happen early in the game and career of an adventurer, it creates the feeling that it is the only fear the players will be facing... While this is not caused by the game mechanics per say (I don't think it would be right to have character roll against fear from a bunch rats in the sewers...), the game mechanics do create an artificial sense of danger that after a couple times, turn into a real sense of annoyance.
If I got this Stormind fallacy thing right, counter-fears should be as equally common as fear effect since the "order of thing" must be kept. Any of you feel that this is presently the case?
EDIT: I have mixed feelings about that. There are various resources accessible a low level to give low-will character a better chance of success, but most involve planning.
Is being frightened worst than being suggested to turn around and walk for a minute or transmuted to stone? Obviously not. The effect - the player losses control of its character - is the same. But since fear effects are so accessible at low levels, they are more difficult to plan ahead since, well, they are so common that they may happen all the times.
No, they're all, including fear, purely mental - every physical reaction, physical impulse, physical drive, that results from these emotions is a side effect of the purely mental emotion. Any argument that says otherwise is baseless and silly.
Normally I'm willing to give you any amount of leeway, because I enjoy our discussions. But this one crosses the line: are you a neurobiologist, to make the absolute claim that fear is 100% mental? And even if you can produce these credentials, and if you're right, that still would make dissenting opinions "misinformed," not "baseless and silly."
Before I flag anything, though, I'd like to give you the option to consider the phrasing, even if you can't (or won't) consider any alternative viewpoint.
Note: I didn't call you, or anyone, baseless or silly. Nor did I call your opinion baseless or silly. I merely called the argument baseless and silly. I feel it drives more from a desire to argue the point than from any true belief that fear is physical.
As to your question, nope, I'm not a neurobiologist. If we want to break down every rules discussion to requiring doctorate degrees in related fields, then I'm afraid (no pun intended) that very few of us here, including all of the game designers at WotC and Paizo, are qualified to design, discuss, or create almost any of the rules that exist in the game (that allows for a few doctorates here and there, who by this definition, are the only ones qualified to discuss the tiny fractions of the rules that fall into each of their individual spcialties).
So I don't think being a neurobiologist is a requirement to rationally discuss fear.
So here's a more professional opinion, just one of many informed articles easily found on the web:
(It's long, and detailed, so it buried it in a spoiler so anyone not interested won't have to scroll past it)
Fear is a chain reaction in the brain that starts with a stressful stimulus and ends with the release of chemicals that cause a racing heart, fast breathing and energized muscles, among other things, also known as the fight-or-flight response. The stimulus could be a spider, a knife at your throat, an auditorium full of people waiting for you to speak or the sudden thud of your front door against the door frame.
Fear travels simultaneously through the brain on two paths. For example, you're home alone and you hear a suspicious sound at your front door.
The idea behind the low road is "take no chances." If the front door to your home is suddenly knocking against the frame, it could be the wind. It could also be a burglar trying to get in. It's far less dangerous to assume it's a burglar and have it turn out to be the wind than to assume it's the wind and have it turn out to be a burglar. The low road shoots first and asks questions later.
The door knocking against the door frame is the stimulus. As soon as you hear the sound and see the motion, your brain sends this sensory data to the thalamus. At this point, the thalamus doesn't know if the signals it's receiving are signs of danger or not, but since they might be, it forwards the information to the amygdala. The amygdala receives the neural impulses and takes action to protect you: It tells the hypothalamus to initiate the fight-or-flight response that could save your life if what you're seeing and hearing turns out to be an intruder.
The high road is much more thoughtful. While the low road is initiating the fear response just in case, the high road is considering all of the options. Is it a burglar, or is it the wind?
When your eyes and ears sense the sound and motion of the door, they relay this information to the thalamus. The thalamus sends this information to the sensory cortex, where it is interpreted for meaning. The sensory cortex determines that there is more than one possible interpretation of the data and passes it along to the hippocampus to establish context. The hippocampus asks questions like, "Have I seen this particular stimulus before? If so, what did it mean that time? What other things are going on that might give me clues as to whether this is a burglar or a wind storm?" The hippocampus might pick up on other data being relayed through the high road, like the tapping of branches against a window, a muffled howling sound outside and the clatter of patio furniture flying about. Taking into account this other information, the hippocampus determines that the door action is most likely the result of wind. It sends a message to the amygdala that there is no danger, and the amygdala in turn tells the hypothalamus to shut off the fight-or-flight response.
The sensory data regarding the door -- the stimulus -- is following both paths at the same time. But the high road takes longer than the low road. That's why you have a moment or two of terror before you calm down.
Regardless of which path we're talking about, all roads lead to the hypothalamus. This portion of the brain controls the ancient survival reaction called the fight-or-flight response.
To produce the fight-or-flight response, the hypothalamus activates two systems: the sympathetic nervous system and the adrenal-cortical system. The sympathetic nervous system uses nerve pathways to initiate reactions in the body, and the adrenal-cortical system uses the bloodstream. The combined effects of these two systems are the fight-or-flight response.
When the hypothalamus tells the sympathetic nervous system to kick into gear, the overall effect is that the body speeds up, tenses up and becomes generally very alert. If there's a burglar at the door, you're going to have to take action -- and fast. The sympathetic nervous system sends out impulses to glands and smooth muscles and tells the adrenal medulla to release epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) into the bloodstream. These "stress hormones" cause several changes in the body, including an increase in heart rate and blood pressure.
At the same time, the hypothalamus releases corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) into the pituitary gland, activating the adrenal-cortical system. The pituitary gland (a major endocrine gland) secretes the hormone ACTH (adrenocorticotropic hormone). ACTH moves through the bloodstream and ultimately arrives at the adrenal cortex, where it activates the release of approximately 30 different hormones that get the body prepared to deal with a threat.
The sudden flood of epinephrine, norepinephrine and dozens of other hormones causes changes in the body that include:
- heart rate and blood pressure increase
- pupils dilate to take in as much light as possible
- veins in skin constrict to send more blood to major muscle groups (responsible for the "chill" sometimes associated with fear -- less blood in the skin to keep it warm)
- blood-glucose level increases
- muscles tense up, energized by adrenaline and glucose (responsible for goose bumps -- when tiny muscles attached to each hair on surface of skin tense up, the hairs are forced upright, pulling skin with them)
- smooth muscle relaxes in order to allow more oxygen into the lungs
- nonessential systems (like digestion and immune system) shut down to allow more energy for emergency functions
- trouble focusing on small tasks (brain is directed to focus only on big picture in order to determine where threat is coming from)
Copied and pasted from this website . They seem to know what they're talking about.
This clearly shows that first the brain intellectually analyzes the stimulus (orc, bear, cliff, lich, dragon) that causes the fear, then evaluates whether or not to be afraid based on knowledge, memory, and common sense. All mental.
While this is going on, chemical reactions, fueled by the initial mental assessment of the stimulus, invoke the fight or flight response.
A coward reacts with flight, a courageous man reacts with fight.
Once the fight or flight response is invoked, all those physical changes (heart rate, sweat, etc.) begin to take place - long after the intellectual assessment of the stiumlus has concluded.
Now somewhere in there, magical fear overrides the ability to shut off the fight or flight response. Further, the stronger fears (that cause the Panicked condition) also override any chance to choose fight, forcing the victim to choose (or not choose, since there is no choice) flight.
Now this leaves us with two possibilities:
A. the magical fear intereferes at the intellectual level, inhibiting the victim's ability to apply reason, common sense, and willpower to overcome the fear. The end result is that, failing the WILL save, the intellectual assessment of the stimulus automatically results in a flight response.
B. the magical fear interferes at the physical level, after the stiumulus has been assessed. The end result is that, failing the FORT save, the brain is neurologically stimulated to induce only the flight response.
Superficially, I could argue for either, but the second argument quickly becomes silly, even if it's my own argument (there, I called my own argument silly).
In case A, the victim of the magical fear is truly afraid. He panics and runs away. His mind is consumed with the fear because it affected his higher reasoning ability.
In case B, the victim is fully capable of assessing the threat, because the physical response is triggered (magically) after the threat is assessed. He realizes it's just a magical fear effect, and chooses to ignore it, but his brain neurologically forces him to flee. So he is running down the corridor, but his brain is still rational and calm. He is not panicked at all. He is simply jogging (well, running) for the sake of running.
See, I told you case B quickly becomes silly.
So, leave Cause Fear, and all other Fear affects alone - they affect reason, inhibit the victim's ability to properly assess the source of the fear, and cause him to panic (or whatever). Consider moving these spells to the enchantment school.
Instead, create a new spell. Call it something like "Neurlogical Flight" and give it to the necromancy school. This spell doesn't affect the rational mind at all - it just triggers a physical, neurological flight response, totally out of the victim's control. It allows a FORT save to resist, since it affects brain chemistry, not higher reason.
This new spell can produce a fear-like effect, even making the victims run away, but it won't affect their higher reasoning.
This new spell would be a perfect application of a FORT-based spell that makes people run away.
Cause Fear is not such a spell.
perhaps it is the frightened condition that needs to be re-addressed.
A frightened creature will attempt to take cover or concealment from the source of its fear. Once it has found cover or concealment, it may not take any direct action against the source of its fear. If unable to take cover, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to finf the original cover; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.alteration in bold.
That's a great houserule. I like it a lot.
It solves the whole problem with having different party members with different movement rates scattered all over the dungeon.
perhaps it is the frightened condition that needs to be re-addressed.
A frightened creature will attempt to take cover or concealment from the source of its fear. Once it has found cover or concealment, it may not take any direct action against the source of its fear. If unable to take cover, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to finf the original cover; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.alteration in bold.
That's a great houserule. I like it a lot.
It solves the whole problem with having different party members with different movement rates scattered all over the dungeon.
This could be abused if characters keep running behind each others to gain cover... That being said, that wouldn't be so unrealistic. Guess what my kids do when they're afraid of something...
Much as I hate to suggest house rules...
[FEAT]Courageous
You understand that true bravery lies in one's ability to master, not one's immunity, to fear.
Prerequisites: BAB +1
Benefit: Immediately following a failed saving throw versus a fear effect that causes you to flee you may attempt a second saving throw with a variable bonus of +1 up to your BAB. If this saving throw succeeds you may choose to not flee instead taking a penalty to attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checks equivalent to the bonus that was applied to your second saving throw attempt.
Normal: You flee from the source of your fear as quickly as you can.
There are anti-fear feats already in play, and they are pretty easy to add to core.
Brave +4: to save against fear or resist intimidation.
I've never understood why something as simple as this wasn't part of core.
since cause fear, scare etc are relatively accessible resources that happen early in the game and career of an adventurer, it creates the feeling that it is the only fear the players will be facing... While this is not caused by the game mechanics per say (I don't think it would be right to have character roll against fear from a bunch rats in the sewers...), the game mechanics do create an artificial sense of danger that after a couple times, turn into a real sense of annoyance.
You're quite right.
But remember, this is a heroic game. We're all supposed to be playing heroes.
Everything our heroes face scares them. Rats in a sewer can cause horrible disease. Bears in the woods can eat us. An orc can kill us with his axe. At any moment a pit might open beneath our feet or a door might explode with a deadly fire trap. We might fall off a cliff or drown in a river or fall into lava or get eaten by a tarrasque (shameless plug).
It's all scary. Adventurers live their entire lives in fear of dying at any moment.
The good news is, the game is designed to let us be heroic. It doesn't force us to make rolls, or saves, to perform our basic heroic actions.
We can torch the rats, tame the bear, slay the orc, disable the pit and door, climb the cliff, swim across the river, and fly over the lava. They still scare us, but we face our fear and overcome it heroically.
Sadly, the tarrasque eats us, no matter what we do. Or, come to think of it, maybe I should rephrase that to "gladly"... :)
A good DM will share this sense of danger with the players, remind them (in a storyish fashion) of the risks they constantly face.
A good player will be aware of it. Good players don't metagame "Well, the cliff is only 80 feet high. 8d6 is only a max of 48 HP if I fall, probably only 28 HP or so. I have 80 HP, so I'm not afraid of the cliff."
And the rules let us do what we want.
Until magic gets involved. That overrides our self-control and suddenly, when we fail our Will saves, we are forced to do what we don't want.
Magic sucks!
:)
Because if everything in the necromancy school requires a FORT save, then necromancers become immensely vulnerable to any attacks by enemies with strong FORT saves.
As it is, a necromancer has a few spells he can keep up his sleeve, and when he sees the fighter or barbarian running down the corridor to attack him, he has something that will probably protect him from the attack.
Take that away, and the poor necromancer might as well just lay down and play dead and hope those mean old fighters and barbarians go away and leave him alone.
This doesn't hold water in my eyes. You could just as easily say:
Illusionists and Enchanters are immensely vulnerable to any attacks by enemies with strong WILL saves. They may as well play dead when anyone with a good Will save comes down the corridor.
Why? Because both Schools target only Will saves. Well actually, Illusion does have two spells that target Fort: Phantasmal Killer and Weird. But even those require a Will save 1st. The Fort save is secondary. And if you fail the Fort? You die from fear. Why isn't it just 2 Will saves?
Necromancers don't get weaker in the least. The school of Necromancy gets more focus.
I merely called the argument baseless and silly. I feel it drives more from a desire to argue the point than from any true belief that fear is physical.
You would be mistaken in that assumption -- and it seems to me that your "clarification" comes close to straight-out calling me a liar to boot. Which isn't the case at all: I interpret the article as supporting my stance as much as it does yours. Look at the "low road" response chain again: stimulus, synapses fire, chemical signals are sent ... and only then does the brain actually stop and analyze what's going on. That sure looks like a physical response to me. Please note that "in the brain" does NOT mean "mental" -- the brain is a physical organ in addition to being the seat of consciousness, and medically-speaking, "in the brain" means "physically in the brain," not "in the mind."
Anyway, you don't need to be a neurobiologist to discuss fear. But you probably should be one if you're going to absolutely proclaim that any opinion but yours is totally baseless.