I am still not sure about the caster not losing the spell on a failed check. I am really opposed to not losing the spell AND not losing the action. That would be equivalent to the Fighter attacking, missing due to the penalty, and then deciding instead to use an item or double move or anything else they could have done instead.
Whoops!
Where did we take a left turn.
Someone zigged when someone else zagged...
I never suggested, nor would I support, havig the caster try to cast his spell and then be eligible for "not losing the spell AND not losing the action".
No no.
As I see it, if the caster is under a Fear effect and wants to cast a spell, it's not like he casts the spell and then finds out at the end whether it works or not, and if it failed, he's still free to do something else.
I see it more like this:
His hands are shaky (somatic components would be problematic) and his mouth is parched (verbal components would be problematic) and his brain is screaming "Run! Run! Run! Run!" so even thinking about the spell is problematic.
But he's enough of a professional to know he's messed up and he's enough of a professional to try to control it.
Roll the die.
If he fails, well, then he knows he's too whacked out by the Fear to succesfully cast anything. Think of it like knowing in advance that if he tried to cast, he absolutely would be guaranteed to lose the spell.
So instead, he doesn't even try to cast a spell.
I see this as happening instantly.
If a caster is silenced, he knows he cannot cast any spell with a verbal component. If he is tied up, he knows he cannot cast any spell with a somatic component. It's not like he has to try to cast them to find out.
So if he is Feared, he knows he might not be able to cast any spell at all.
The question is how afraid is he? Can he control himself enough to cast?
I think a professional spellcaster should be able to determine this at the speed of thought, at the start of his round, without having to attempt to cast anything to find out the hard way.
That's all I'm saying here.
So, lose the action or not lose the action.
Well, I can argue it either way, and frankly the rule is just as appealing to me either way.
Arguing for not losing the action:
If a fighter is feared by this new mechanic, he cannot lose his action. No matter what, he's entitled to take his best shot at the bad guy, though he gets penalties because of the Fear.
If a caster is feared by this new mechanic, he should not lose an action. No matter what, he should be entitled to take some shot at the bad guy. If he fails his concentration check, then he's too whacked out to cast, so he fires a crossbow bolt with the penalties for the fear.
That seems very balanced to me.
Sure, the fighter could miss all his swings, effectively losing an action. But he might not. But a caster will probably miss all his crossbow shot (deliberately not plural). But he might not.
Still balanced.
**********************************************************************
The alternative is this:
If a fighter is feared by this new mechanic, he cannot lose his action. No matter what, he's entitled to take his best shot at the bad guy, though he gets penalties because of the Fear.
If a caster is feared by this new mechanic, he must make a concentration roll in which case he can cast a spell, though some will be affected by the fear (touch attacks for example). But if he fails the concentration check he is temporarily Feebleminded and must stand there drooling like a cowardly idiot.
I know, I used provocative wording to exaggerate my viewpoint. Sorry. But the point is valid.
Why should a feared caster have to stand around and pick his nose, drool, or whatever, doing nothing, while the feared non-casters carry on with the fight (albeit at penalties)?
That doesn't seem balanced to me.
Why not just base it off of the existing concentration mechanic, or the existing spellcraft mechanic? Applying the Fear penalties, of course.As long as the % fail is still more likely than not when panicked (especially for highest-level spells), I'm OK with that. Assuming that on a failure, (a) you do NOT lose the spell (I hate 15-min. days as much as anyone), and (b) you DO lose the action (there should be some penalty for failure).
Dude, if Kirth likes, and DM_Blake likes, it and I like it you've got gold here, don't throw it away looking for platinum.
I have heard Kirth refered to as the "King of the fighter lovers" (which isn't a bad thing... "It's good to be King!") and it's well earned. He has argued long and hard for more stuff for fighters (I agree with for the most part) and nerfing the spell casters (some of which I agree with much I didn't) but if even he thinks losing the spell is too much it probably is.
I'm torn over whether a caster should get a check each round to know whether or not they can cast...
Blake makes good points, and so do you. Honestly it doesn't feel right to me, I'm a bit concerned it would be too advantageous to the caster. I guess testing would reveal whether or not this is the case.
Even assuming that the caster loses their action altogether, as if they had started casting and stumbled, losing the spell is a terrible idea. After all, if they don't actually cast the spell; there's no good reason for it to be lost.
Counterspelling, SR, even attack damage that disrupts a casting; these are things that I see as happening as or right after a spell is cast. A fear check? That's a test of whether the caster gets distracted and screws up before he even gets started on summoning the necessary power.
Spells are a very finite resource, like most people have been saying. I can't stand playing casters unless I'm in a pretty weird mood; but I don't see the point in robbing them.
I'm toying with an idea that I got off this thread. There are actually 3 "immediate" reactions to a scary stimulus for humans: fight, flight, or freeze. Now that I think about it, I would like the player to choose how his character reacts to fear. I know that we (as real humans) don't get much choice, but I have been very, very scared before and I recall acting with more precision than at just about any other time in my life. It's like you zone out on everything that is not important and get amazing focus. So I would hate if my fighter under extreme fear couldn't even outclass me. I think a wizard could react with the same clarity to cast a spell, even though the blood supposedly rushes to the muscles when the adrenaline starts pumping.
So, let the player choose the reaction (fight, flight, freeze) and apply the level of fear (shaken, frightened, panicked) to the choice, I say. Still a work in progress, but...
Shaken/Fight: You must attack the source of your fear with an attack you feel is most effective to destroy the source. This may require that you charge or advance, but you can stop advancing if further advancement would trigger AoO. You are free to use offensive spells, but not defensive or other. If you wish to switch to flight or freeze, you must make another save.
Shaken/Flight: You cannot attack and must withdraw. You can stop withdrawing if it would trigger AoO, but you cannot attack in any case. If you are Lawful or Good, you can spend a round commanding those who would be put in harm's way if you ran away to fall back. If they do not fall back, you will become angry with them. If you wish to switch to fight or freeze, you must make another save.
Shaken/Freeze: You can attempt to hide using Stealth. You can move as fast as is possible for you without taking a penalty to stealth. Once you are under cover, you stay there and can act normally, but with a -2 to checks (as per the RAW Shaken condition). If you wish to switch to fight or flight, you must make another save. However, if you are located by the source of your fear, you can switch to fight or flight automatically.
Panicked/Fight: You enter a rage like a barbarian, but must move at maximum speed toward the source of your fear, even if it triggers AoOs, and melee attack until it is destroyed. If you are a barbarian, you do not have to use one of your rages for the day, but cannot use any special rage powers unless you do. If you wish to switch to flight or freeze, you must make another save.
Panicked/Flight: You cannot attack and must retreat as fast as you can, even if it would trigger AoO. If you are trapped, you cower in fear. If you wish to switch to fight or freeze, you must make another save.
Panicked/Freeze: You can move as fast as is possible for you without taking a penalty to stealth until you are under cover. Once there, you just tremble in fear. If you wish to switch to fight or flight, you must make another save.
Still thinking about the frightened level...
...some nifty stuff...
This brings us back to the intention behind the spell. Regardless of the fluff or description of the spell, should the fear-series spells be...
A) spells that give impairments (against Will rather than Fortitude)
B) spells that force compulsory moves (not necessarily random flight)
C) spells that remove those who fail their save from combat.
D) spells that prohibit certain moves or actions
E) something else...
There seems to be a consensus (or the closest thing to a consensus that I've seen on these boards) about option A). Although it seems mechanically sound, it seems very close the despair, bane, bestow curse spells and the like. The fear-series spells had a unique niche (although a mechanically unsound one, I admit) that will be lost if the compulsory movement part of the spell is removed.
I find that both as a DM and a player, it is OK for a character to be imposed certain reactions, or to have some options temporarily prohibited. This forces ingenuousness and problem solving, which can be rewarding and fun. The problem with the 3.5 fear is that being imposed to "flee along unknown corridors away from your teammates" is everything but rewarding and fun.
But between "you take a -2 penalty for shaking in your boots" and "you flee until you fall to your death into a monster-infested trap", there is a LOT of leeway...
'findel
...some nifty stuff...This brings us back to the intention behind the spell. Regardless of the fluff or description of the spell, should the fear-series spells be...
A) spells that give impairments (against Will rather than Fortitude)
B) spells that force compulsory moves (not necessarily random flight)
C) spells that remove those who fail their save from combat.
D) spells that prohibit certain moves or actions
E) something else...There seems to be a consensus (or the closest thing to a consensus that I've seen on these boards) about option A). Although it seems mechanically sound, it seems very close the despair, bane, bestow curse spells and the like. The fear-series spells had a unique niche (although a mechanically unsound one, I admit) that will be lost if the compulsory movement part of the spell is removed.
I find that both as a DM and a player, it is OK for a character to be imposed certain reactions, or to have some options temporarily prohibited. This forces ingenuousness and problem solving, which can be rewarding and fun. The problem with the 3.5 fear is that being imposed to "flee along unknown corridors away from your teammates" is everything but rewarding and fun.
But between "you take a -2 penalty for shaking in your boots" and "you flee until you fall to your death into a monster-infested trap", there is a LOT of leeway...
'findel
Here, here!
Bravo!
I agree with everything you say, which is why I use a combo of B & C in my houserule for fear.
I concur, getting a dumpy little penalty feels much more like your enemy just cast Bane on you rather than filling your heart and soul with fear.
|
Fearless is a Regional Feat in the Player's Guide to Faerun (I think it's that one). It makes you immune to fear (supernatural or otherwise) but can only be taken at level 1. We've ported this over to Pathfinder though haven't decided on where yet.
Also, as I have seen the annoyance of fear, my favorite character picked up the Fey Touched template which is a +1 level adjustment but you get immunity to charms and mind effects (which unless I'm mistaken counts against all those pesky fear effects from dragons and liches along with mind control which is annoying).
I have heard Kirth refered to as the "King of the fighter lovers"
And I positively hate fighters compared to most of the Gaming Den people that came here for a brief stay during the Alpha (before being variously banned and/or getting really fed up and leaving in disgust). The thing is, many of them were so obnoxious that it was assumed their points (many about casters totally dominating high-level 3e play) must have no basis in reality. Unfortunately, I think they were actually right in some respects, but just failed to present their points in a manner that would garner much serious thought.
I have heard Kirth refered to as the "King of the fighter lovers"And I positively hate fighters compared to most of the Gaming Den people that came here for a brief stay during the Alpha (before being variously banned and/or getting really fed up and leaving in disgust). The thing is, many of them were so obnoxious that it was assumed their points (many about casters totally dominating high-level 3e play) must have no basis in reality. Unfortunately, I think they were actually right in some respects, but just failed to present their points in a manner that would garner much serious thought.
Ok then, How about the fighter guy that took more than an 8 in CHA and put some ranks in Diplomacy?
Better? ;D
I think these rules meet some of the requirements I've seen on this thread. Front-line fighters can choose Fight and not get outrageous penalties to do so, but are still rather restricted in that they find it difficult to withdraw, and they can cause allies to behave in a manner that might not be in the best interests of the party. Ranged fighters and spellcasters can choose Flight and not get outrageous penalties to do so, but are only compelled to fall back to a position of relative safety, and can then make attacks largely without penalties as long as someone else is engaging the source of their fear (e.g., the melee types). Stealthy types can try to hide, rather than go berserk with fear, and try to strike from a place of relative safety. So the penalty of fear is mostly that it messes with your tactics and doesn't let you dynamically adjust them.
---
Fear (House Rules)
Creatures effected by a fear effect, can choose a general reaction: Fight, Flight, or Freeze/Hide. The power of the fear will impact how desperately the reaction is pursued: Shaken, Frightened, Panicked. When Shaken, unless an ally makes an appropriate Spellcraft check to figure out that a fear effect was used, the fear effect on you is largely undetectable as a magical compulsion; it looks just like “normal” fear. So there is no reason for anyone to doubt your judgment if your judgment is usually sound. If anyone refuses to act in accordance with your instructions, you might become angry, and may even remain angry even if the compulsion is explained to you (e.g., an Evil creature might kill inferiors who refused to act as instructed). When Frightened, you are at the extreme end of what might be considered “normal” fear. If you are normally brave, a sense motive check is sufficient to determine that the effects are magically-induced.
Fight: Your first reaction to the source of fear (SoF) is to try to destroy it. You recognize the SoF as the most dangerous thing on the battlefield; it must be destroyed ASAP or all is lost. If the SoF is within melee striking distance, you use a full-round attack (or standard action attack if equivalent). If the SoF is not within melee striking distance, you use a move action, or full-round action if necessary, to get closer to the SoF. If you make a save against the fear effect, you can change your reaction.
--Shaken: You are coherent and instruct all of your companions and allies that they must destroy the SoF, as well. You need not provoke AoO’s with your movement, and can move tactically, as long as you attempt to get closer to the SoF. If you are Lawful, Good, or True Neutral, you can move to protect someone you feel compelled to protect if they are incapacitated or likely to become incapacitated very soon. Then you automatically change your reaction to Flight or Freeze/Hide and attempt to escape with your companion.
--Frightened: You find it difficult to think rationally. You gain ½ the bonus and penalty of Barbarian Rage (for a 1st level Barbarian), but the bonus only applies when attacking the SoF. If you are a Barbarian, you can choose instead to Rage for full effect, though this costs one of your daily uses of Rage, and you are unable to change your reaction to fear while the Rage is in effect and the SoF is not destroyed. If you are Lawful, Good, or True Neutral, you can attempt a save against the fear effect and, if successful, move to protect someone you feel compelled to protect if they are incapacitated or likely to become incapacitated very soon. If your companion cannot get to safety due to your assistance, you automatically change your reaction to Flight or Freeze/Hide and attempt to escape with your companion. Once you are adjacent to the SoF, you lose a move action, though you can still take a full-round attack action.
--Panicked: You are out of your mind with fear. You gain the bonus and penalties of Barbarian Rage (for a 1st level Barbarian). If you are a Barbarian, you can choose to Rage for full effect, though this costs one of your daily uses of Rage, and you are unable to change your reaction to fear while the Rage is in effect and the SoF is not destroyed. You will take the fastest, most direct route to the SoF, even if it provokes AoO, and you will attack only the SoF unless you are restrained or blocked, in which case you will attack the weakest link in the restraint in an effort to break free and attack the SoF. Once you are adjacent to the SoF, you lose a move and minor action, though you can still take a full-round attack action.
Flight: Your first reaction to the SoF is to run away from it. You will use all of your actions in an effort to get as far away from the SoF as you can, or to get to a place of relative safety (e.g., in some cases, climbing a tree). You cannot attack until you reach a place of relative safety, and cannot attack if threatened by the SoF. If you make a save against the fear effect, you can change your reaction.
--Shaken: You are coherent and instruct all of your companions and allies that they must fall back. You need not provoke AoO’s with your movement, and can move tactically, as long as you attempt to get as far away from the SoF as possible or get to a place of relative safety. However, if you are not Lawful, Good, or True Neutral, you will flee if you can, rather than attempt to get to a place of relative safety. If you are Lawful, Good, or True Neutral, you can move to protect someone you feel compelled to protect if they are incapacitated or likely to become incapacitated very soon, and you will then continue your retreat with your companion in tow.
--Frightened: You find it difficult to think rationally. You can move tactically, but if you have to provoke AoOs to get away from the SoF, then you will. If you are Lawful, Good, or True Neutral, you can attempt a save against the fear effect and, if successful, move to protect someone you feel compelled to protect if they are incapacitated or likely to become incapacitated very soon. Then you attempt to escape with your companion. Once you are in a position of relative safety, you can attack the SoF only if some other ally is attacking the SoF as well, otherwise you can only take actions that do not draw the attention of the SoF. In each case, you lose a move action while you are in the place of relative safety.
--Panicked: You are out of your mind with fear. You will take the fastest, most direct route away from the SoF or to a place of relative safety, even if it provokes AoO, and you will attack only if you are restrained or blocked, in which case you will attack the weakest link in the restraint in an effort to break free and run away from the SoF. If you are cornered by the SoF, you cower in fear. Once in a position of relative safety, you can attack the SoF only if some other ally is attacking the SoF as well, but you lose your move and minor actions for the round.
Freeze/Hide: Your first reaction to the SoF is to freeze so that it will hopefully not notice you. You will use all of your actions in an effort to hide. You cannot attack and cannot run at full speed (you must move slow enough that you take no penalty to your stealth check). You can change your reaction to Fight or Flight at any time.
--Shaken: You are coherent and instruct all of your companions and allies that they must be very quiet (if that will help) or back away slowly, using stealth. You need not provoke AoO’s with your movement, and can move tactically, as long as you attempt to hide. If you are Lawful, Good, or True Neutral, you can move to protect someone you feel compelled to protect if they are incapacitated or likely to become incapacitated very soon, and you will then continue to try to hide with your companion in tow.
--Frightened: You find it difficult to think rationally. You can move tactically, but if you have to provoke AoOs to get to concealment, then you will. If you are Lawful, Good, or True Neutral, you can attempt a save against the fear effect and, if successful, move to protect someone you feel compelled to protect if they are incapacitated or likely to become incapacitated very soon. Then you attempt to hide with your companion.
--Panicked: You are out of your mind with fear. You freeze and can barely move. You will take 5 foot steps, making stealth checks, until you are hidden. If you are cornered by the SoF, you cower in fear.