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.
Thanks for setting me straight on your interpretation. I withdraw my assumption that we're arguing for argument's sake.
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.
Nope, you misread it.
The "Simulus" stage is where the assessment exists. You hear the door, you see it bump. You asses that it could be a burglar or could be the wind.
The article specifically states that these assumptions are being made and the low-road solution is to be safe instead of sorry.
That's the assessment right there. The thalamus, the first step, tries to interpret the sensory data and starts the whole process.
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.
Nope, but it's still silly, at least to me, to think of someone running away from a lich, with his mind still being rational and calm, totally unafraid, knowing it was just a magical trick, little more than the illusion of fear, but he's running anyway. Maybe he's planning his revenge as he trots down the dungeon hallway...
I can't see a FORT based fear effect working any other way.
Darn post monster…
Opinions aside, the bottom line is this: Will the change make the game better overall and does it work?
Again, here's what I say:
1. Fortitude Represents ones resistance to physical pain and one's courage
2. Will Represents one's resistance to be mentally influenced
3. Necromancy as a school focuses on attacking Fortitude
4. Fear type spells state: School necromancy [fear, mind-affecting]. Take out the part that says "mind-affecting".
So, will it make the game better overall and does it work?
I'll have to elaborate later on why I think it's better and how it works… got to go to work myself.
Nope, you misread it.
Respectfully, I believe it's you who are misreading it.
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.
"Your brain" is a physical organ; it's not synonymous, medically-speaking, with "your mind." Part of the problem is that the article is written in lay-speak, using anthropomorphic terms -- "assumes," "tells," etc. -- to describe electrochemical functions. People unfortunately do the same thing when they say things like "species want to reproduce" when they really mean "reproduction tends to favor species survival."
|
Much the same with turning/rebuking effects, I find the fleeing aspect of fear effects to be difficult to apply in combat, mainly because it splits up either the party or the enemy, making the encounter drawn out and more difficult to track.
I'd rather apply the frightened and panicked (also turned) condition to be simply "as shaken, and cannot approach within x feet the source of the fear effect (must move to that minimum distance on next turn before taking any other actions). Also cannot direct attacks at the source of the fear effect or the square (or squares) it occupies."
I see no problems with Matt's proposal -- providing there is some penalty to spellcasting as well, as discussed above. The nice thing is that this sort of mechanic works equally well whether or not we also go with anthony's saving throw proposal.
Much the same with turning/rebuking effects, I find the fleeing aspect of fear effects to be difficult to apply in combat, mainly because it splits up either the party or the enemy, making the encounter drawn out and more difficult to track.
I'd rather apply the frightened and panicked (also turned) condition to be simply "as shaken, and cannot approach within x feet the source of the fear effect (must move to that minimum distance on next turn before taking any other actions). Also cannot direct attacks at the source of the fear effect or the square (or squares) it occupies."
Ok, I'm at work :)
Yeah, as much as I'm an advocate of Fort over Will, the application of effects in actual play is the greater matter to resolve. I think several solutions, including this one are good ideas to start with.
Upon reflection and a rereading of the rules I would like to cast a vote in favor of removing the flee requirement and replacing it with escalating penalties.
Shaken = -2 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
Frightened = -4 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
Panicked = -6 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
This accomplishes two goals:
1) Players can play their characters and choose not to flee while still being encouraged to do so because those are stiff penalties.
2) It gives players a scaling debuff that they can use against opponents - which D&D is sorely lacking; buffs scale but debuffs don't.
Do you recommend a spellcraft check to cast also? Say 20/25/30 (+SL)?
It would be grossly unfair for spell slingers to get a by on this mind effecting condition.
Darn post monster…
Opinions aside, the bottom line is this: Will the change make the game better overall and does it work?
Again, here's what I say:
1. Fortitude Represents ones resistance to physical pain and one's courage
2. Will Represents one's resistance to be mentally influenced
3. Necromancy as a school focuses on attacking Fortitude
4. Fear type spells state: School necromancy [fear, mind-affecting]. Take out the part that says "mind-affecting".
So, will it make the game better overall and does it work?
I'll have to elaborate later on why I think it's better and how it works… got to go to work myself.
Oh so your argument is gamist only (I'm joking here don't really mean it)? I still disagree that it will make the game better. I still say fear is mind affecting (it can't be anything else really).
Necromancy doesn't just affect fortitude saves. In total it affects both saves about evenly.
Upon reflection and a rereading of the rules I would like to cast a vote in favor of removing the flee requirement and replacing it with escalating penalties.
Shaken = -2 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
Frightened = -4 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
Panicked = -6 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
This accomplishes two goals:
1) Players can play their characters and choose not to flee while still being encouraged to do so because those are stiff penalties.
2) It gives players a scaling debuff that they can use against opponents - which D&D is sorely lacking; buffs scale but debuffs don't.
How would you handle cowering?
Upon reflection and a rereading of the rules I would like to cast a vote in favor of removing the flee requirement and replacing it with escalating penalties.
Shaken = -2 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
Frightened = -4 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
Panicked = -6 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
This accomplishes two goals:
1) Players can play their characters and choose not to flee while still being encouraged to do so because those are stiff penalties.
2) It gives players a scaling debuff that they can use against opponents - which D&D is sorely lacking; buffs scale but debuffs don't.
Do you recommend a spellcraft check to cast also? Say 20/25/30 (+SL)?
It would be grossly unfair for spell slingers to get a by on this mind effecting condition.
I would go with the penalty affecting their caster level. They don't completely get a "by" on this, skills and attack rolls are still affected.
I wouldn't allow this to affect Save throws though.
I think the spell check or something similar is mechanically "cleaner" with fewer variables to adjudicate.
I still like:
-2 to all rolls + AC, 20% SF
-4 to all rolls + AC, 40% SF
-6 to all rolls + AC, 60% SF
It's simple and easy to rule and affects everyone more or less equally.
Upon reflection and a rereading of the rules I would like to cast a vote in favor of removing the flee requirement and replacing it with escalating penalties.
Shaken = -2 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
Frightened = -4 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
Panicked = -6 to attack rolls, saving throws, skill and ability checks.
This accomplishes two goals:
1) Players can play their characters and choose not to flee while still being encouraged to do so because those are stiff penalties.
2) It gives players a scaling debuff that they can use against opponents - which D&D is sorely lacking; buffs scale but debuffs don't.
Do you recommend a spellcraft check to cast also? Say 20/25/30 (+SL)?
It would be grossly unfair for spell slingers to get a by on this mind effecting condition.
Now that gets into tricky resource management issues.
If a fighter is frightened, and tries to swing his sword at -4 to hit, he will probably miss more often than he would miss if he were not frightened. Regardless, later today, when we are fighting other encounters, he can still swing his sword.
But if a spellcaster is frightened, and fails that spellcraft check, then the spell is lost.
If you are casting a spell, and you succeed at the check, you may continue casting the spell as normal. If the check fails, the spell is wasted.
So per spellcraft rules, a failed check wastes the spell.
Casters don't have an unlimited supply of spells.
If a 5th level mage is frightened and wants to cast fireball, and he needs to roll a 28 spellcraft check (per the example given), even if he's a genius he has consierably less than a 50/50 chance to succeed. The spell will probably be wasted. Multiple spells may be wasted during that encounter.
Which will leave that mage, or that cleric (say bye bye to a bunch of fizzled healing spells) that much more depleted, and will shorten the adventuring day as one encounter with Fear might be enough for the party to retreat and camp for the night.
Possibly better might just be a caster check, though I'm not a fan of how those are implemented in d20.
Maybe the best solution, since we're houseruling anyway, would be to houserule that, for this spellcraft check, the caster is too afraid/shaken/whatever to actually even begin the spell so while he cannot cast it, and he wastes his standard action thinking about it and trying to be brave enough (but failing), nevertheless, he also doesn't lose the spell since he never actually starts to cast it.
I still like:
-2 to all rolls + AC, 20% SF
-4 to all rolls + AC, 40% SF
-6 to all rolls + AC, 60% SFIt's simple and easy to rule and affects everyone more or less equally.
Does SF = Spell Failure?
If so, then I have to disagree.
I don't think a skill check is fair either. I would prefer spell failure chance equivalent to the failure chance the other penalties cause to attack rolls etc - ie -2 on a d20 is 10%, -4 is 20%, -6 is 30%.
Missing a sword stroke extends the battle, gives the monster one extra round to stay alive and do damage, and generally puts you at risk.
But losing a spell does all of that AND loses a valuable and irreplaceable resource.
I have a hard time condoning any rule that shortens the adventuring day.
I'm already extremely tired of my players trying to camp for 23 hours in a dungeon, only to hit 4 more rooms then camp for another 23 hours. No better if they leave the dungeon and camp outside for 23 hours.
And I hate having to do it as a player, too.
We should strongly encourage a variation on this that puts the victims at risk (lost actions due to misses, failures, etc., extending the fight, taking more damage from the extended fight) - the risk validates the spell's usefulness.
But at the same time, we should strongly discourage any variation that depletes irreplaceable resources.
It's bad enough that those longer fights will require more healing spells - let's not make it worse by causing some additional percentage of spells cast to fail during the fight too.
I don't think a skill check is fair either. I would prefer spell failure chance equivalent to the failure chance the other penalties cause to attack rolls etc - ie -2 on a d20 is 10%, -4 is 20%, -6 is 30%.Do you recommend a spellcraft check to cast also? Say 20/25/30 (+SL)?
It would be grossly unfair for spell slingers to get a by on this mind effecting condition.
I think SF isn't fair (fighters don't have an equal penalty) and a simple skill check isn't fair either (again fighters don't have an equal way to negate it)
Either a Caster Level penalty (which is directly equal to the attack roll penalty, even if it technically stacks with it in the case of spells with an attack roll)
Or possibly a Caster Level check with the spell not being lost if the caster doesn't succeed (after all the fighter doesn't lose an action, and it would be doubly unfair if the wizard loses an action and loses the spell).
Either a Caster Level penalty (which is directly equal to the attack roll penalty, even if it technically stacks with it in the case of spells with an attack roll) Or possibly a Caster Level check with the spell not being lost if the caster doesn't succeed.
Either of those options seems reasonable to me -- with the caveat that maybe if your caster level penalty drops you to below the minimum level needed to cast a spell, you can't cast that spell -- e.g., no CL 5th mass hold monster spells allowed. I say this because, with the exception of evocation damage (which needs a boost anyway), most people's highest level or two of spells won't be too greatly affected by, say, a -40 ft. penalty to a normal spell range of 260 ft., and it won't really matter if their hold monster lasts 5 rounds instead of 9.
Either a Caster Level penalty (which is directly equal to the attack roll penalty, even if it technically stacks with it in the case of spells with an attack roll) Or possibly a Caster Level check with the spell not being lost if the caster doesn't succeed.Either of those options seems reasonable to me -- with the caveat that maybe if your caster level penalty drops you to below the minimum level needed to cast a spell, you can't cast that spell -- e.g., no CL 5th mass hold monster spells allowed. I say this because, with the exception of evocation (which needs a boost anyway), most people's highest level or two of spells won't be too greatly affected by, say, -40 ft. to range.
40 ft to range, and a duration drop... however there are several other effects from caster level that will be affected: Dispel magic is less effective, Scorching ray produces less rays, Mirror Image has less images, Resist Energy prevents less damage, So on and so forth. Generally losing caster level is a big thing no matter the school of magic used, so I'm not too troubled by letting them still cast their higher level spells with "lower caster level" as this is a penalty and not an actual lowering of their caster level.
Otherwise the fighter should lose access to feats if his penalty would drop his BAB to the point of not meeting prerequisites for the feat.
And since that would be hard core trouble to keep straight I'm going to stick with let them cast what they can cast.
I would suggest that the SF should match the percent penalty of the d20 penalties, so 10/20/30 not 20/40/60. 20/40/60 seems too harsh.
Yikes.
Please stop making spellcasters toss away irreplaceable resources.
I also don't think the penalty to AC makes sense, it just doesn't work with the AC mechanics. How does being afraid make my armor less effective?
It doesn't make your chainmail less effective. Or your DEX mod, or your ring of protection.
Remember your AC formula starts with a base of 10. You lose this base of 10 when you are totally helpless, so obviously, it doesn't represent thick skin or strong bones.
Instead, it represents your raw basic urge to avoid harm to your body. And everyone is the same. Elf, dwarf, gnome, human, high DEX, low DEX, fighter, mage, everyone. All the same. We all get that base of 10.
So, any AC penalty caused by fear would be subtracted from this base.
This would represent the fear causing you to behave irrationally, slowing down your reflexes while you mentally resist your flight reflex. The panic actually interferes with your basic desire to protect yourself (except, of course, when you decide to run away).
So think of deducting this AC penalty from the base of 10 and it makes sense.
A system more closely aligned with the way AC currently works would be denying dex bonus to AC at one of the levels. It might be even more interesting to do a max dex bonus cap instead, something like:
Shaken = Max Dex +4
Frightened = Max Dex +2
Panicked = Denied Dex BonusScared people aren't weaker but they are less coordinated.
Which serves to keep that dwarven fighter with a 10 DEX and full plate at his normal AC, while the ranger, rogue, and monk are totally screwed.
Not balanced.
Not a fair mechanic.
I am also unsure making the penalty to all rolls makes sense. That is too big of hit to damage. It should only apply to things that require a d20 to be rolled and I think the existing rules cover all of those - attacks, saves, skills and abilities.
I totally agree.
It shouldn't apply to damage rolls.
If you can work up the courage to attack, and hit despite your quivering, shaking, fear-riddled jitters, then chances are, you do your normal damage. Heck, fear often motivates us to overcompensate - you might hit extra hard when you're terrifed of whatever you're hitting, you might even do bonus damage (no, I'm not endorsing that as a houserule suggestion).
To consolidate, what about something like:
Fixed:
Shaken: Your confidence has been shattered and you are beginning to doubt your own abilities. Take a -2 penalty to all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checks and to your AC. You must attempt a caster level check of 15 + spell level (you roll a d20 and add your level, then apply the -2 penalty for being shaken) in order to cast a spell this round.
Frightened: You begin to seriously doubt that you will survive this encounter; perhaps you should withdraw. Take a -4 penalty to all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checks and to your AC. You must attempt a caster level check of 15 + spell level (you roll a d20 and add your level, then apply the -4 penalty for being frightened) in order to cast a spell this round.
Panicked: You feel doomed. The only reasonable course is to flee in terror. Take a -6 penalty to all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checksand to your AC. You must attempt a caster level check of 15 + spell level (you roll a d20 and add your level, then apply the -6 penalty for being panicked) in order to cast a spell this round.
I would like to see the math regarding Spell Failure vs Spellcraft Checks, but otherwise I am onboard with this.
I am not a proponent of either idea, Spell Failure or Spellcraft (in previous posts, I suggested maybe a Spellcraft check if we houserule that this application of Spellcraft does not cause the spell to be wasted on a failed roll - in that case Spellcraft might be OK, but it's still unfair to WIS and CHA casters since INT casters are naturally better at Spellcraft).
Hence the change I made in my most recent post.
All 3 conditions require a simple caster level check to be able to cast. DC is 15 + spell level. The caster rolls d20 + caster level and then applies the -2/-4/-6 penalty from the type of fear.
If he makes the roll, he can cast his spell. There would be no penalties to the caster level or the save DC - the spell is what it is, he can cast it or not, but once cast, the spell works normally.
If he fails the roll, he cannot cast, but he is too shaken/frightened/panicked to even try to cast so he spends his standard action trying to overcome that fear and failing - round is lost, spell is not.
Which makes it equivalent to a fighter missing his attack - round is lost, spell is not (though iterative attacks benefit the melee types in this case, which may be OK since so many people are worried that melee types are overly penalized by their low WILL saves, so at least, at higher levels, while they fail the save more often, they still get a chance to land some of their multiple attacks).
I still like:
-2 to all rolls + AC, 20% SF
-4 to all rolls + AC, 40% SF
-6 to all rolls + AC, 60% SFIt's simple and easy to rule and affects everyone more or less equally.
Does SF = Spell Failure?
If so, then I have to disagree.
Yeah, I didn't think this through.
-2 to all rolls & AC, etc. is bad enough. And simpler still. "All rolls" includes Caster Level Checks (to cast on the defensive for instance).
But losing a spell does all of that AND loses a valuable and irreplaceable resource.
I have a hard time condoning any rule that shortens the adventuring day.
I'm already extremely tired of my players trying to camp for 23 hours in a dungeon, only to hit 4 more rooms then camp for another 23 hours. No better if they leave the dungeon and camp outside for 23 hours.
And I hate having to do it as a player, too.
We should strongly encourage a variation on this that puts the victims at risk (lost actions due to misses, failures, etc., extending the fight, taking more damage from the extended fight) - the risk validates the spell's usefulness.
But at the same time, we should strongly discourage any variation that depletes irreplaceable resources.
It's bad enough that those longer fights will require more healing spells - let's not make it worse by causing some additional percentage of spells cast to fail during the fight too.
If I'm understanding correctly, you don't have to cast your spell. But if you choose to do so, it may get wasted. So how does this shorten the day? The whole purpose of implementing these is to encourage people to RUN! rather than just say, "Ok you run and there's nothing you can do about it. Now how do we adjudicate this? Ok, you've been fleeing for 2 rounds, but you can't technically run because you can't run in a straight line. Oh, and you over there, you started fleeing 3 rounds ago…"
I would suggest that the SF should match the percent penalty of the d20 penalties, so 10/20/30 not 20/40/60. 20/40/60 seems too harsh.Yikes.
Please stop making spellcasters toss away irreplaceable resources.
Again, nothing's forcing them to toss away any of their resources. They should just run…
Again, nothing's forcing them to toss away any of their resources. They should just run…I would suggest that the SF should match the percent penalty of the d20 penalties, so 10/20/30 not 20/40/60. 20/40/60 seems too harsh.Yikes.
Please stop making spellcasters toss away irreplaceable resources.
Ok, so it's fine for the fighter to be able to just stand there and attack with penalties, but not for the wizard to just stand there and cast with penalties. The wizard must actually lose the spell if he fails a check of some sort, and then lose his action on top of it.
Question:
IF you are so dead set on the losing actions then it should just be a % chance you can't act in the round beyond running away:
Shaken = 10%
Frightened = 25%
Panicked = 50%
Cowering = 75%
And the penalties to actions after that if you can act:
Shaken = -2 attack, skills, caster level, saves
Frightened = -4 attack, skills, caster level, saves
Panicked = -6 attack, skills, caster level, saves
Cowering = -8 attack, skills, caster level, saves
What you are currently asking for is the spell caster, who is already more limited in resources than the fighter to not only lose his action (something the fighter isn't losing, he can always attack with your rules) but to also lose his spell. Which would be like saying "If the fighter doesn't make his action check failure roll he also loses d4 HP".
DM Blake,
I like the conditions concept you have going in your last post. I can see having the penalty not apply to damage. I just think it may be easier to remember, when you're afraid in game terms, it applies to all your rolls. But keeping it only on d20 rolls makes sense.
I don't like the wording of DC = 15 + spell level -2, etc. It's too clunky. I'd rather see it DC 17 + spell level, DC 19 + spell level, and DC 21 + spell level. But that might be too hard to remember during play and a time waster to look up.
Maybe 10 + 2x spell level when shaken, 15 + 2x spell level when frightened, and 20 + 2x spell level when panicked. It has a nice scaling effect.
Still like Fort over Will though. Makes better sense, and evens out the game a touch at the same time :)
I generally agree with the increasing penalties method.
shaken > frightened > panicked
For spellcasters I would make it having any fear condition requires a DC 15 (like entangled) or 10 + spell level concentration (or spellcraft) check. Remember they are also getting a skill check penalty for each level of fear so this gets harder.
I do like the idea of things running away as an immmediate response so would also impose that the first action taken after a creature becomes frightened or panicked is to flee at top speed- just 1 round is enough of a tactical advantage for the spell/ability- then the effected creature can return.
I do believe that a frightened or panicked creature should:
a) be loathed to attack the scary creature if any other enemies are present; and
b)be loathed to return to within the scary creatures threatened area.
I am not sure how to implement this but as a player i would be fine with being told that my frightened condition means I must choose to attack any other enemies first and to stay out of the threatened area of the creature.
Ok, so it's fine for the fighter to be able to just stand there and attack with penalties, but not for the wizard to just stand there and cast with penalties. The wizard must actually lose the spell if he fails a check of some sort, and then lose his action on top of it.
Question:
IF you are so dead set on the losing actions then it should just be a % chance you can't act in the round beyond running away:
Shaken = 10%
Frightened = 25%
Panicked = 50%
Cowering = 75%And the penalties to actions after that if you can act:
Shaken = -2 attack, skills, caster level, saves
Frightened = -4 attack, skills, caster level, saves
Panicked = -6 attack, skills, caster level, saves
Cowering = -8 attack, skills, caster level, savesWhat you are currently asking for is the spell caster, who is already more limited in resources than the fighter to not only lose his action (something the fighter isn't losing, he can always attack with your rules) but to also lose his spell. Which would be like saying "If the fighter doesn't make his action check failure roll he also loses d4 HP".
Such is the life of a spell caster. Always has been, always will be. There are several other instances where a spell caster has a chance to lose a spell when cast and nobody complains about that.
And no, noone's asking the caster to lose his action or waste his limited resources. He can attack, he can use an item such as a wand or staff; or do several other things depending on the situation. Or he can run!
And besides, the caster can manipulate his chances of failure based upon the level of the spell he chooses. Without some sort of extra thing added to affect casters, a fear effect adversely affects a non-caster more than a caster.
Oh and don't forget that the spell caster, has a better Will save to begin with, and probably won't fail the save in the first place.
Without a change, a caster is up one or two strokes on most non-casters (better save & less affected upon failure) depending on the severity of the fear. Casters are already considered the cats pajamas. They are certainly more versatile (which they should be). Do they really need to have the upper hand in this area as well? Do they not have enough built-in resources to make fear a minor issue, regardless of any fear mechanic?
Maybe allow players to choose Fight or Flight. If they choose Flight, then they follow the RAW.
If they choose Fight then they get the penalties of Barbarian Rage, without benefits (Barbarians can choose to Rage). Someone who chose Fight can attempt a Will save to switch to Flight as a minor action, otherwise they keep on swinging until the source of fear is destroyed. This hurts spellcasters more than fighters because they can't cast spells when raging, but they always have good Will saves...
To add to Matt R.'s post:
6) All casters (with the exception of the sorcerer perhaps) have class resources to mitigate or even nullify the effects of fear, possibly bypassing it entirely.
Good points Matt R.
I'd say though that it's very difficult to equalize how a caster is affected vs. how a non-caster is affected by fear effects. Attacking in combat is a different mechanic than spellcasting, so it's hard to compare the two. But the point still stands: you need to have a rule for each that gives them the incentive to run.
Back a few posts you mentioned that you're not sold on the idea of the penalties applying to AC. What you say in regard to casters: that simply failing to cast a spell (as opposed to actually having a chance to lose it) is not enough incentive to encourage the caster to run.
I feel the same way about non-casters an AC. The most extreme class would be the fighter, with probably the highest AC, attack bonus, and damage. -6 applying only to attacks, saves, and checks is sort of like saying the same thing. The fighter may be near immune to a monster's attacks because of a high AC, so he may elect to suck-up the penalties and stay. (This is why I like the penalties applying to damage rolls as well, but again, I can see the wisdom of having the penalties only apply to d20 rolls)
I'm also liking some sort of movement attached to the fear effects, mainly because certain characters may be able to weather even the steep penalties of the "panicked" condition. At the same time, it would be nice to keep the mechanic as simple as possible. Some of the posters above mentioned not being able to confront the source of the fear or not being able to stay in a monster's threat range. That's not bad. What about having to flee until the source is out sight as well?
Although I don't really have a problem with fear effects or whatever, from a biological point of view I'm pretty sure that Kirth is correct.
I seem to recall that the adrenal system is the on/off switch for most of the fight or flight responses, and that it can and often does completely bypass the brain itself.
For the game, I don't have any particular problem with fear being a will save or making you run.
|
|
The -2, -4, -6 idea sounds almost like the opposite of the rage ability, "anti-rage" if you will. One cannot perform any action that requires concentration while raging, so how about making it the same thing for fear effects greater than shaken?
You can still cast spells when the scary guy intimidates you, but it's no possible when you've been terrified into a weeping, gibbering mess by the roar of a charging dragon.
The -2, -4, -6 idea sounds almost like the opposite of the rage ability, "anti-rage" if you will. One cannot perform any action that requires concentration while raging, so how about making it the same thing for fear effects greater than shaken?
You can still cast spells when the scary guy intimidates you, but it's no possible when you've been terrified into a weeping, gibbering mess by the roar of a charging dragon.
So, the whole party is panicked. They decide to stay and try to beat the lich.
The melee guys attack, multiple times per round, with penalties. Some hit, some miss. The penalties make it rough, but they get some hits.
The clerics/druids wail away with maces because they can't cast anything. They pretty much always miss with maybe a rare hit, because their BAB and attack bonuses are lower and those penalties really hurt.
The mages fire away with crossbows because they can't cast anything. They always miss because they suck with crossbows and those penalties just make them suck more.
And now the party gets a TPK.
Sure, you will immediately say "They could just run away".
But I thought the idea was to find a fear mechanic that doesn't automatically force the victims to run? Wasn't that what we were trying to find here?
If you nerf the casters so much that the only non-suicidal option is to run away, well, then you might as well not change the fear effects at all.
|
|
So, the whole party is panicked. They decide to stay and try to beat the lich.
1) The odd of the entire party being panicked are pretty low, unless they are low enough level that they should not be encountering a lich anyways.
2) Casters are gonna have a better will save so they will suffer from fear effects less often.
3) Nerfing the caster thusly is unfair, I agree. Just tossing an idea out there and it didn't pan out, so please relax.
Instead of spell failure chances, what about concentration checks? You apply the penalties from the various stages of fear to the skill check.
The -2, -4, -6 idea sounds almost like the opposite of the rage ability, "anti-rage" if you will. One cannot perform any action that requires concentration while raging, so how about making it the same thing for fear effects greater than shaken?
You can still cast spells when the scary guy intimidates you, but it's no possible when you've been terrified into a weeping, gibbering mess by the roar of a charging dragon.
But I thought the idea was to find a fear mechanic that doesn't automatically force the victims to run? Wasn't that what we were trying to find here?
If you nerf the casters so much that the only non-suicidal option is to run away, well, then you might as well not change the fear effects at all.
I agree with you here DM Blake.
Xuttah, I think saying caster's can't cast at all would be way to harsh… on both sides of the screen.
Blake, I like your ideas for casting success provided you lose the spell if you fail, but I still like the idea of spell failure% as well. There is precedent for it other that applying to armor: being deafened. It gives you a flat 20% chance.
On the one hand a scaling DC gives the caster a choice to cast a lower level spell with greater chance of success.
On the other, Spell Failure is simpler in actual play.
Both are aimed at the same purpose. But I'm beginning to lean back toward SF. 20/40/60 seems too high upon further thinking. But at the same time Matt R's suggestion of 10/20/30 seems too low, but maybe not.
So, the whole party is panicked. They decide to stay and try to beat the lich.1) The odd of the entire party being panicked are pretty low, unless they are low enough level that they should not be encountering a lich anyways.
2) Casters are gonna have a better will save so they will suffer from fear effects less often.
3) Nerfing the caster thusly is unfair, I agree. Just tossing an idea out there and it didn't pan out, so please relax.
Instead of spell failure chances, what about concentration checks? You apply the penalties from the various stages of fear to the skill check.
You know, something struck me when reading your post. This whole idea may not work in practice, unless most, or all PCs are affected by the fear. Those affected will probably stick around as long as they know others are not and there to back them up. I can see my players seeing fear as just another affliction that must be overcome, and may not have incentive to run, unless nearly the whole party is affected. Is this a bad thing?
|
|
You know, something struck me when reading your post. This whole idea may not work in practice, unless most, or all PCs are affected by the fear. Those affected will probably stick around as long as they know others are not and there to back them up. I can see my players seeing fear as just another affliction that must be overcome, and may not have incentive to run, unless nearly the whole party is affected. Is this a bad thing?
IMO no. You don't want to have the party/enemy run away unless morale is totally broken (and having it be a player descision to flee is a *lot* different than it being mandated by the rules); that's what slows down game play.
It's better to have a limited/reduced number of options than a rule dictating your actions for you. Those members of the party under a fear effect can still help, just at reduced capacity, until the effect wears off. The question at hand is how to represent this reduced capacity to participate.
This whole idea may not work in practice, unless most, or all PCs are affected by the fear. Those affected will probably stick around as long as they know others are not and there to back them up. I can see my players seeing fear as just another affliction that must be overcome, and may not have incentive to run, unless nearly the whole party is affected. Is this a bad thing?
I see what you're worried about.
Metagaming.
Player: "Gosh, I'm feared now. But everyone else made their saves. If I run away I'll be alone and vulnerable to wandering monsters. If I stay here, we're going to win this fight. I might as well stick around and flail away despite my penalties - it's much safer."
...or...
Player: "Dangit guys, almost all of us blew our saves. Now we suck and we'll probably TPK. We should run away."
Other Player: "But I made my save, I don't want to run away."
First Player: "The rest of us are running, so you're dead if you stay."
Neither scenario reflects how a panicking mind thinks, but that is how a player will think while his character is supposed to be panicking.
I don't see any way around this.
Fear in the RAW forces you to run if you fail your save. There is no metagaming - your choice is made for you and you must run.
But it seems nobody in this thread is happy with that. We want to change it to an option to run or stay and fight with penalties.
You cannot force a player to make his character make bad decisions. If running is a bad decision, every player will choose to stay and fight with penalties. If staying is a bad decision, every player will run.
So you're right. If only one or two fail their save, there is no incentive to run.
Which means we may have failed in our attempt to make a new fear mechanic that motivates individual players to have their characters stay or run.
All we've succeded in is creating a new fear mechanic that motivates entire groups to collectively stay together or run together.
If they stay, Fear is now just a condition. If they run, Fear is relatively unchanged from the RAW (other than we seem to have removed the element of running randomly through the unexplored areas of the dungeon, since any sane player will run back to the safely cleared parts if it's at all possible).
Looks like there's still more work to be done here.