If creature #1 is fascinated and creature #2 is behind them and I draw and point a crossbow at creature #2, is creature #1 then automatically freed from the fascinated condition because a weapon was drawn near them or does the weapon have to be drawn directly at the fascinated creature #1
I see the ambiguity. If I were GMing this game I would rule that if creature #1 is aware that creature #2 is standing behind her, she should get a Sense Motive check (DC10) to realize the weapon is not being aimed at her. Whereas, if creature #1 is NOT aware that theres someone behind her, she would probably still get a Sense Motive check but with a much higher DC (20+). If in either case she fails the save, she would think the weapon is being drawn at her and break free from the fascinating effect.
Anyway, that's my two cents, any thoughts?
If being shaken breaks the fascinated effect, the act of seeing someone draw a weapon, aimed at you or not, does seem like it would instanly draw your attention from the fascinate source:
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.
From what i understand, in any situation the fascinated creature is in danger of immediate combat, the creature should snap out of it.
And if you happened to draw a weapon, you are at least on the surprise round already.
If being shaken breaks the fascinated effect, the act of seeing someone draw a weapon, aimed at you or not, does seem like it would instanly draw your attention from the fascinate source:
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.
From what i understand, in any situation the fascinated creature is in danger of immediate combat, the creature should snap out of it.
And if you happened to draw a weapon, you are at least on the surprise round already.
I disagree. If this were the case there would be no need to specify that the weapon or spell needs to be aimed "...at the fascinated creature".
Drawing a weapon is an obvious threat. It's not clear who it's directed at, so fascination breaks. (The rules say drawing a weapon or casting a spell always break fascination.) If the ranged weapon is already out, then it can be pointed at somebody else without breaking automatically fascination- depending on circumstances, it may offer a new save, however. If #2 is behind #1, you are also pointing it at #1, intentionally or not, and the GM may decide fascination breaks.
If creature #1 is fascinated and creature #2 is behind them and I draw and point a crossbow at creature #2, is creature #1 then automatically freed from the fascinated condition because a weapon was drawn near them or does the weapon have to be drawn directly at the fascinated creature #1
I am a bard.
I have Creature #1 fascinated, and creature#2 Right behind him fascinated as well.I am laying some sick beats with my bongos, they are enjoying themselves.
My ally, Mr.Dwarf Fighter decides to take this opportunity to drag a large ballista 15 feet away from Creature#1. His intentions is to shoot Creature#2 right behind him.
The whole time Dwarf Fighter is talking to himself saying, "Im going to get #2, im going to get #2"
Creature#1 is relieved that the giant ballista aimed right at his face is not "Meant to be aimed at him". Creature#1 Continues dancing inspite of the couple of rounds of the ballista being loaded and aimed to the creature right behind him.
"Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect."
Well its a good thing that Mr Dwarf Fighter wasnt acting hostile! He was just Dragging a ballista in place.
"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."
What a relief! Creature#1 had thought that by dragging a ballista and loading up a ballista and aiming it directly behind him was a hostile action! Not to mention that even though it was aimed towards his direction, he knows deep down that the fighter he was once fighting moments before the Bards fascination, is going to target his friend and not him!
I know you may think my ruling sounds dumb, but you're all assuming that "creature #1" immediately feels threatened when a weapon is drawn apparently at her. And we happen to have a mechanic to figure out the true intentions of a creature, its named "Sense Motive".
Since the RAW does not fully support your argument nor mine it would be wise not to present your argument as a self evident fact. Just my humble opinion.
I know you may think my ruling sounds dumb, but you're all assuming that "creature #1" immediately feels threatened when a weapon is drawn apparently at her. And we happen to have a mechanic to figure out the true intentions of a creature, its named "Sense Motive".
Since the RAW does not fully support your argument nor mine it would be wise not to present your argument as a self evident fact. Just my humble opinion.
So you are saying that there is an ambiguity with the 3 words:
"Any Potential Threat"????
and
"Any obvious threat"
mind you that the actual phrase is:
"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."
The middle section of the sentence are Examples(such as). Without those example that were kind of enough to be included we are left with:
"Any Obvious threat automatically breaks the effect"
What is an obvious threat? Drawing out a crossbow and pointing it at someone.
What isn't obvious threat? Targeting the person behind them.
Succeeding on a skill should be beneficial to you, not detrimental, so I would never have a mechanic where succeeding on the sense motive resulted in you remaining fascinated, rather than breaking the fascination. I might would allow our ballista dragging dwarf a bluff check, opposed by creature ones sense motive to allow the dwarf to convince creature one that the ballista that is pointing at him and could indeed shoot him if the dwarf desired, wasn't a threat, but I would probably have to be in a pretty good mood and under the influence of an intoxicant or two. Typically, pointing a weapon at or even just near someone is a pretty obvious threat.
I know you may think my ruling sounds dumb, but you're all assuming that "creature #1" immediately feels threatened when a weapon is drawn apparently at her. And we happen to have a mechanic to figure out the true intentions of a creature, its named "Sense Motive".
Since the RAW does not fully support your argument nor mine it would be wise not to present your argument as a self evident fact. Just my humble opinion.
So you are saying that there is an ambiguity with the 3 words:
"Any Potential Threat"????
and
"Any obvious threat"
mind you that the actual phrase is:
"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."
The middle section of the sentence are Examples(such as). Without those example that were kind of enough to be included we are left with:
"Any Obvious threat automatically breaks the effect"
What is an obvious threat? Drawing out a crossbow and pointing it at someone.
What isn't obvious threat? Targeting the person behind them.
I could argue that "any potential threat" "..allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect" as stated by RAW in the condition's description, it would not break the effect immediately.
About your question, the part that I find ambiguous is determining the intention of the creature drawing the weapon as this would by RAW break the effect immediately.
You don't really draw a weapon at someone, so I would assume that "at the fascinated creature" only applies to aiming a ranged weapon. Thus drawing a weapon is an example of something hostile enough to break fascination regardless of intention or perceived intention.
Succeeding on a skill should be beneficial to you, not detrimental, so I would never have a mechanic where succeeding on the sense motive resulted in you remaining fascinated, rather than breaking the fascination. I might would allow our ballista dragging dwarf a bluff check, opposed by creature ones sense motive to allow the dwarf to convince creature one that the ballista that is pointing at him and could indeed shoot him if the dwarf desired, wasn't a threat, but I would probably have to be in a pretty good mood and under the influence of an intoxicant or two. Typically, pointing a weapon at or even just near someone is a pretty obvious threat.
Thank you for answer. I don't think succeeding on a skill has to be necessarily beneficial to you in the sense that you put it.
For example, in a recent game one of my players (a Rogue) succeeded on a very difficult acrobatics check to move through several threatened squares to position herself behind one of the enemies; the square where she landed was in fact a trap.
Now, succeeding the acrobatics check allowed her to move past the enemies without causing aoo but ultimately she fell on the trap, had she chosen a different spot to end her movement she would not fallen in the trap (obviously).
My point here is that mechanics are just that, mechanics. Not beneficial nor detrimental, just plain and cold ways to determine what happens in the game.
EDIT: Yes, I'm fun at parties :P
In your example, if I was #1 and someone was aiming a ranged weapon at #2 behind me, I'd view that as a potential threat. What if the person has bad aim and misses and hits me instead? While it's obvious he isn't aiming at me, the potential for me to be harmed still exists. I'd therefore say that while aiming a ranged weapon past someone isn't an obvious threat for them, it still is a potential threat and allows them a new save.
Thank you for answer. I don't think succeeding on a skill has to be necessarily beneficial to you in the sense that you put it.For example, in a recent game one of my players (a Rogue) succeeded on a very difficult acrobatics check to move through several threatened squares to position herself behind one of the enemies; the square where she landed was in fact a trap.
Now, succeeding the acrobatics check allowed her to move past the enemies without causing aoo but ultimately she fell on the trap, had she chosen a different spot to end her movement she would not fallen in the trap (obviously).
Actually failing the acrobatics roll would have put her in exactly the same position, just having taken attacks of opportunity first. The only time you example would apply is if she tried to move through an occupied square, which would have ended her movement.
In any event, making the skill would be beneficial in that it allows the character to do what they wanted to do. Sometimes what you want to do is a bad idea, skill role or not of course but that is entirely separate.
It is bad mechanics if having skill ranks in sense motive makes you more subject to being fascinated that not being trained in it does.
Thank you for answer. I don't think succeeding on a skill has to be necessarily beneficial to you in the sense that you put it.For example, in a recent game one of my players (a Rogue) succeeded on a very difficult acrobatics check to move through several threatened squares to position herself behind one of the enemies; the square where she landed was in fact a trap.
Now, succeeding the acrobatics check allowed her to move past the enemies without causing aoo but ultimately she fell on the trap, had she chosen a different spot to end her movement she would not fallen in the trap (obviously).
Actually failing the acrobatics roll would have put her in exactly the same position, just having taken attacks of opportunity first. The only time you example would apply is if she tried to move through an occupied square, which would have ended her movement.
In any event, making the skill would be beneficial in that it allows the character to do what they wanted to do. Sometimes what you want to do is a bad idea, skill role or not of course but that is entirely separate.
It is bad mechanics if having skill ranks in sense motive makes you more subject to being fascinated that not being trained in it does.
My bad, I did mean to say 'through an occupied square'. In any case I don't think theres such a thing as bad mechanics, its just mechanics.
I do take your point though; in the example originally stated by the OP I would just have ruled that the person breaks free from the fascinated condition, for simplicity's sake. I attempted to give a different solution to this problem in my first post and afterwards to address the ambiguity of the situation.
Had fun talking to you guys, I have to run now, have a good day :)