CRB FAQ request - fascinated condition

[WRoy]

Fascinated:

A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature's ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.

Do attacks and threats such as brandishing weapons need to be directed against a fascinated target to count as an obvious threat, or do threats/attacks against the fascinated creature's allies count as obvious (rendering the condition useless in a combat situation)?

I figured this was an oldie-but-goodie that deserved a new post since Paizo's FAQ team has shifted into awesome question-answering gear.

[Xaratherus]

Strict RAW, since 'threat' isn't really defined in this situation, any creature drawing a weapon or casting a spell would break the effect. That would include one of the fascinated creature's allies drawing a weapon, or technically even casting a heal spell.

That said, it makes the spell pretty useless unless you can somehow make the target oblivious to its surroundings (including its allies), so FAQ it goes!

[WRoy]

Xaratherus wrote:

Strict RAW, since 'threat' isn't really defined in this situation, any creature drawing a weapon or casting a spell would break the effect. That would include one of the fascinated creature's allies drawing a weapon, or technically even casting a heal spell.

That said, it makes the spell pretty useless unless you can somehow make the target oblivious to its surroundings (including its allies), so FAQ it goes!

Yep, that's one interpretation. Strict RAW, what defines a threat as "obvious" isn't clear and it's been discussed ad nauseum in the past but never clearly answered. Search up "fascinated" on the messageboards and you'll pull up a ton of discussion. That's why I figured it's FAQ-worthy.

[WRoy]

Bumping for FAQ recommendations.

[Avatar-1]

This is still a pretty important topic.

Also discussed:
- What counts as a threat to break the fascinated condition? (late 2013)
- The fascinated condition (late 2011)
- Some discussion about hypnotic pattern/fascinated (late 2011)

The key question is that, while being attacked automatically breaks the fascinated condition, at what point during combat (after weapons are drawn) does a "potential threat" allow a save?

[blahpers]

For one thing, they have to actually notice the threat. I'd call that a Perception check with the distracted modifier (as well as all the usual ones) since a fascinated creature by definition isn't watching its surroundings the way a normal combatant is.

[Jiggy]

Er, exactly what actions/events are we wondering about here? What things' interactions with the fascinated condition are we trying to figure out? The condition seems to list all the biggies.

[Avatar-1]

Here's the scene: everyone is aware of each other, and you're in combat.

Are they constantly considered "potential threats" while combat is ongoing?

Are they considered "potential threats" while they are attacking your ally but not you?

Are they considered "potential threats" only once they start moving towards your square, even if they don't intend to attack you?

Are they considered "potential threats" only once they start moving towards your square if they're about to strike you on their turn?

[blahpers]

If you're fascinated, you aren't aware of everything else in combat--you're literally doing nothing but paying attention to the object of your fascination. That's why I'd require a distracted Perception check to notice anything except total occlusion, threat or otherwise.

Regarding what is or is not a potential/actual threat, that's far too abstract to codify in rules. If you're a player, ask your GM. If you're a GM, judge as the situation warrants.

[Avatar-1]

I don't think the examples I listed are really that specific to very niche situations. Looking for some general clarity here.

[MattR1986]

Is this really something that you can't let your DM handle? You need an official ruling on it? This has so much variability I don't know why it needs clarification. Well what if I have a pointy stick is that considered threatening? What if it has pink pok-a-dots on it to make it seem less threatening?

Rely on your DMs and your group's common sense. Imagine you are affected Person A in la-la-land. What would stand out to you as a threat? Someone walking up to you with a sword likely would. Having the weapon at their side in a passive way and walking by you? Probably not. If someone comes in your direction and lifts a sword and hacked a person right next to you you'd probably notice that and it would appear as a threat. A few feet away toward someone else? You could probably ignore that if in happy-land.

[Avatar-1]

If I were GMing in the same circumstances, I wouldn't be especially comfortable in knowing which of these is correct.

I can just pick one, but that's not ideal. If we did that, we'd never need any FAQs/erratas. Better to find out what the intention was.

[MattR1986]

If you are GMing you are supposed to have the confidence to make decisions on things not defined in the rules. You make gut decisions then after the game look the situation up and if there's nothing, come to a reasonable decision on how this situation will be handled going forward. You are there to decide what would be balanced and what was intended.

That's part of your job description. You aren't just there to read off a module or AP like a set of cooking instructions, and then when there isn't a definitive rule in the book for everything, go pray to the FAQ Gods and ask "What Would James Jacobs Do?"

[WRoy]

MattR1986 wrote:

Is this really something that you can't let your DM handle? You need an official ruling on it? Etc.

This was initially posted to clear up a condition that sees heavy table variation depending on the GM, in order to have something more concise for PFS and similar structured games. Having a character who uses a lot of fascination-causing events get his character treated very differently every time he plays isn't the best situation. Making the condition clearer in no way removes the ability for any GM in a home game to have fascinated work according to their opinion.

It's also posted in the rules forum where rules are discussed, as opposed to the RPG discussion forum. Trolling the post to disparage anyone who asks for a rules clarification isn't really necessary (or appropriate).

[MattR1986]

If you had put this in the pfs section I would get that because they want a rule for everything and it wouldn't have phased me. There will always be heavy table variation and that's a good thing. You customize a game to your preference because with a game that reflects real life you can't Have a rule for everything. There isn't a 10 page section on how diplomacy works for a reason. They create guidelines and they leave it to the dm to fill the rest.

I don't disparage FAQing especially if a section is unclear how it works or if the wording is unclear clunky or ambiguous. When they leave something obviously vague it is for a reason: to have it be up to the dm.

Trying to get an official ruling on this is alnost getting into legal territory like "well the state of california defines hostile intent as.."

[Jiggy]

If you don't want to see rules questions asked and answered, then why are you here in the Rules forum, MattR1986? That's what this section of the forums is for.

To quote Pathfinder designer Stephen Radney-MacFarland: "That's what we do in this forum...answer rules questions."

[Jiggy]

Back to the topic at hand, here's how the fascinated condition defines potential and obvious threats:

Fascinated wrote:

Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect.

So we have one example of a "potential threat", granting a new save:

• Hostile creature approaching.

We have three examples of an "obvious threat", auto-breaking the effect:
• Someone draws a weapon
• Someone casts a spell
• Someone aims (not fires, but merely aims) a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature

Now, let's look at Avatar-1's individual questions:

Quote:

Here's the scene: everyone is aware of each other, and you're in combat.

Are they constantly considered "potential threats" while combat is ongoing?

If so, why would the condition have to specify the "approach" of a hostile creature?

Quote:

Are they considered "potential threats" while they are attacking your ally but not you?

Would you say attacking your ally is more, less, or equally threatening than drawing a weapon? Would you say attacking your ally is more, less, or equally threatening than approaching you?

Quote:

Are they considered "potential threats" only once they start moving towards your square, even if they don't intend to attack you?

Depends; are they a hostile creature?

Quote:

Are they considered "potential threats" only once they start moving towards your square if they're about to strike you on their turn?

Given that drawing a weapon would auto-break the effect, do you think they need to be ready to hit you before you even get a new save?

[Rogue Eidolon]

I agree with Jiggy on Avatar1's questions. Also I think Cheapy told me he has a clarification from Stephen that you can't use litany of eloquence to initiative-scam, aka the following:

Initiative Scamming with LoE: delay to right before the enemy, then cast litany of eloquence, which has no save. They are now Fascinated but their turn is next, so they lose the turn before any of your allies actually attack them or cast.

If you can't do that, then I think it must mean that you essentially can't use fascinate once a fight has started without doing something exceptional.

[MattR1986]

Yes I don't want any rules questions answered ever. That's exactly what I said. That or you're being dramatic.

[Balacertar]

Jiggy approach is interesting. And yet, consider the following comparison:
Sleep vs. Hypnotism

I follow up with an in-depth comparison to defend my opinion. What I think is there cannot be such a difference between the sleep and the fascinated effect, this is, being sleep helpless and your life at your enemy's mercy, and fascinated basically not playing a role in combat because you can still fully defense yourself if attacked. Because if an enemy is slept you can continue fighting its allies without problems, while under some interpretations presented in this post, fascinated creatures "wake up" if you even simply try to defend yourself against the allies of the fascinated creatures.

Thus, I think when they say "someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature", they really mean that you swing, cast or fire at the fascinated creature and not other one, and I cannot stress more the fascinated creature part of the rule, because if just placing your sword in your hand breaks the condition it makes for a totally useless condition during combat, arriving to the point of ridicule if you literally read that drawing breaks fascination but nothing happens if you already have it in your hand as nothing is said about that, or if the fascinated creature ally draws it breaks (which is a move action at most in comparison with the the standard action the condition says is required to save a fascinated ally from the condition).

In my opinion, what they wanted to stress with the so soft actions as "drawing" or "aiming" is that the mere intention to attack the creature breaks the fascinated condition in a way they can fully defense from the attack; this is, the condition does not break when they are attacked, but just the intention breaks it so they are not helpless against it. And thus, the condition needs for clarification and I would love for every one to FAQ this thread as I have already done.

That said, I agree it seems too powerful totally removing from combat all creatures failing the check (but see Sleep and Colour Spray spells), but remember attacking an ally can be easily considered a potential threat, and thus, the fascinated creature can easily get a new saving throw each round of combat.

In sum fascinated shall be a condition that even less powerful in combat, can be somehow useful, so the spell is comparable to Sleep or Colour Spray, which are potential party killers at low levels. The main interpretation which would benefit from a FAQ is whether attacking an ally constitutes a "potential" or "obvious" threat against the fascinated creature?

In-depth comparison
Descriptor
Both are level 1 enchantment compulsion mind-affecting spells.

Casting time
Both are 1 round

Components
Sleep requires a material component, although the kind of you will rarely have to care about.
Hypnotism wins.

Range
Sleep has intermediate vs. Hypnotism has short range.
Sleep wins.

Area
Sleep 10 feet radius, max. 12 creatures. Hypnotism 30 feet separation limit, max. 39 creatures.
Hypnotism wins.

Target
Both only affect living targets without mind-affecting immunities.
Sleep affects 4 HD, Hypnotism 2d4 HD (average 5).
Hypnotism wins, although at some point you will never be sure if it is going to work with some creatures sleep will work.

Duration
Sleep is min/level while Hypnotism 2d4 rounds.
Sleep clearly wins here.

Condition
Sleep vs Fascinated
Perception
Sleep: Creature cannot perceive world around.
Fascinated: Creature has -4 penalty to perception.

Attack bonuses
Sleep: The creature is helpless and prone, you can attack it with plenty of bonuses and even coup-de-grace it.
Fascinated: No bonuses, because if you even think of attacking the fascination is broken and the creature can fully defense itself.

Getting rid of condition
Sleep: You are hilted by an enemy or an ally spends a standard action to wake you up.
Fascinated: You draw a weapon, cast a spell or aim with a ranged weapon and you get out of the state. Or an ally spend an standard action.

Sleep clearly wins here by far far far. Hypnotism even gets a -2 to the saving throw DC if used in combat.

Other uses of the spell
Only hypnotism has. You can make a suggestion that will be taken as if 2 steps more friendlier. Considering a hostile creature, which is the worst of cases, that's like instantly succeeding in a DC 30 Diplomacy check, but only for one demand/suggestion. The benefit in front of Diplomacy check is you can use it during combat. Yet diplomacy check is a free repeatable trick during the day.

This is the only reason that makes Hypnotism a useful spell worth of being allocated in place of sleep (although people rarely does so).
It is to be noted that bards Fascinating song does not enjoy this use, neither can be used during combat.

If you do not think FAQ is required, why do you think everybody shall understand the same about obvious and potential threat when it comes to attacking an ally?

[Jiggy]

If this were a design meeting being held prior to printing the CRB, where the rules hadn't been finalized yet and so we were all deciding how those two spells should work, your post would be a fantastic resource for reaching a decision.

[Matthew Downie]

Jiggy wrote:

If this were a design meeting being held prior to printing the CRB, where the rules hadn't been finalized yet and so we were all deciding how those two spells should work, your post would be a fantastic resource for reaching a decision.

Or if there were a staff member considering answering the FAQ, or a GM making their own ruling for their home game and therefore having to decide how the spell should work, it would also be useful.

[burkoJames]

MattR1986 wrote:

Yes I don't want any rules questions answered ever. That's exactly what I said. That or you're being dramatic.

WHen you read between the lines, it is what you said. Sleeves of Many Garments was vague, and how do we know it wasn't intended to be vague? Pummling Style was vague and how do we know that wasn't intentional?

Under your reasoning any vague rule should never be posted becuase the are intended to be that way.

As for posting it in the PFS forum? Sure. Because you know, the PFS forum wont shit all over you for posting a non-pfs-specific rules question. Its not like they are constantly telling people to go ask the rules forum questions JUST LIKE THIS.

[claudekennilol]

burkoJames wrote:

MattR1986 wrote:

Yes I don't want any rules questions answered ever. That's exactly what I said. That or you're being dramatic.

WHen you read between the lines, it is what you said. Sleeves of Many Garments was vague, and how do we know it wasn't intended to be vague? Pummling Style was vague and how do we know that wasn't intentional?

Under your reasoning any vague rule should never be posted becuase the are intended to be that way.

As for posting it in the PFS forum? Sure. Because you know, the PFS forum wont s+@! all over you for posting a non-pfs-specific rules question. Its not like they are constantly telling people to go ask the rules forum questions JUST LIKE THIS.

Yes, because going off on someone 7 months later is always the best course of action...