So my party last night faced off against a low level lich (odd, I know) It was a CR 12 all together, and my players were all level 9 (it was intended to be a tough fight). When the Lichs fear aura kicked in, half of my players had to take off running and decided, in the midst of things, it would be best to just sit it out and watch TV upstairs.
After a few turns, it became apparent that the remaining players weren't having as much fun because they were struggling, and the players upstairs were equally sad that they couldn't be a part of it. So, with the fight still in it early stages, I decided to make the fear a 60 foot barrier that, should a feared character enter, must leave on his turn. Otherwise, they could still attack at a distance, just as long as it was outside of the 60 foot radius. This for one character, but the other one didn't have his ranged weapon on him at the time, and was still rendered useless (being a barbarian and all). So then, in an effort to bring back the fun, I had them continuously make the fear will save each round on their turn until they saved (they did fairly quick).
I don't think I want to get into the habit of doing roundly saves for fear, and I'm still not sure about the fear aura thingy (I've heard a few people use it before, but I can't remember the details of their variants). I took the decision to bring the fun back into the game despite what the rules say, but should I have two problems:
Should I have allowed a roundly save against the fear, simply because a character was unprepared? Also...
What are your opinions on fear effects? We only have one spellcaster (with a great will save) and everyone else got by on rolls primarily. In their defense, I didn't think the fear would calculate this much into the equation of things, so this is partly my fault. Has anyone here tried anything besides the traditional "run away" effect it gives?
So my party last night faced off against a low level lich (odd, I know) It was a CR 12 all together, and my players were all level 9 (it was intended to be a tough fight). When the Lichs fear aura kicked in, half of my players had to take off running and decided, in the midst of things, it would be best to just sit it out and watch TV upstairs.
....
You can try alternative solutions, but I think this one is on the players. If half the party flees in terror, the others are asking for trouble if they remain. I would have hinted that everyone should scram, come back and try again. And my lich would have prepared a special welcome for them.
I have two problems:
Should I have allowed a roundly save against the fear, simply because a character was unprepared? Also...
Are you going to extend this rule to every spell the PC's aren't ready for? Disintegrate? Finger of Death? etc.
What are your opinions on fear effects? We only have one spellcaster (with a great will save) and everyone else got by on rolls primarily. In their defense, I didn't think the fear would calculate this much into the equation of things, so this is partly my fault. Has anyone here tried anything besides the traditional "run away" effect it gives?
If you don't like the "turn and run" effect [I don't like it much either, especially in Channelling Energy against Undead], your best option is to apply a "condition" instead. Shaken for example, would be a good start, or make your own one up.
However there are many ways to protect against Fear. Maybe the PC's should look at their Will saves and invest in scrolls/potions/magic items that will improve them.
Furthermore, maybe the remaining PC’s should have retreated and prepared themselves properly before returning to the encounter?
I ran into this problem (in reverse) when my players sorcerer got fear happy. I knew something was wrong when an entire encounter quickly devolved into chasing a group of bandits off the prepared map (thankfully, story-wise, into town where I could quickly bring the un-fun to a logical end).
The barbarian('s player), always a kind and gentle soul, was afraid of using that Fear rage power from the Beta because he'd seen first hand how fear could devolve an encounter away from our preferred playstyle (and was basically 'Save or Suck'), I decided to house-rule a more ablative system.
Since Shaken / Cowering / Panicked are already supposed to 'stack' (i.e. if a character is shaken and they're subject to another affect that would make them shaken, they start cowering), and I was reading a lot of GURPS material at the time, I decided to use the idea of margin-of-failure. I can't remember the specifics, but it would be something like a successful save does nothing, a failed save causes them to be Shaken, a save failed by 5 or more causes them to Cower, and a really botched save (by 10 or more) causes them to run panicking.
A simpler way to do it may be just to rule that all fear effects induce Shaken (on a failed save of course) and further failed saves against other fear effects take them down the list. One could also pad it with other conditions, if they wanted.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Since Shaken / Cowering / Panicked are already supposed to 'stack' (i.e. if a character is shaken and they're subject to another affect that would make them shaken, they start cowering), and I was reading a lot of GURPS material at the time, I decided to use the idea of margin-of-failure. I can't remember the specifics, but it would be something like a successful save does nothing, a failed save causes them to be Shaken, a save failed by 5 or more causes them to Cower, and a really botched save (by 10 or more) causes them to run panicking.
A simpler way to do it may be just to rule that all fear effects induce Shaken (on a failed save of course) and further failed saves against other fear effects take them down the list. One could also pad it with other conditions, if they wanted.
I think the margin-of-failure is the better option. hen you get into some seriously wicked fear-inducing creatures (draaaaaagons), then you could raise the DC of the saves to bring characters into a panic.
If you do that, though, drop the level caps on dragons' fear auras. High-level characters already blunt that effect, by dint of their better saves.
|
The radius, or aura, seems to be a good way to handle this. The 'PCs run in fear and exit the adventure thingy, always rubbed me the wrong way too. I think you handled it on-the-fly with good sense. Reading your post, I was reminded of the Drowned that recently claimed the life of the party's most developed character... yet the "drowning aura" or whatever did have a radius. And, to that extent seemed both potent and fair, while not forcing PCs for example to exit the adventure e.g. jump off the ship ...
The radius, or aura, seems to be a good way to handle this. The 'PCs run in fear and exit the adventure thingy, always rubbed me the wrong way too. I think you handled it on-the-fly with good sense. Reading your post, I was reminded of the Drowned that recently claimed the life of the party's most developed character... yet the "drowning aura" or whatever did have a radius. And, to that extent seemed both potent and fair, while not forcing PCs for example to exit the adventure e.g. jump off the ship ...
Using an area effect [radius] would make it work like Repulsion, and would favour "ranged" builds. Not sure that's a good thing.
I've never been a fan of the fear mechanic myself. I've usually just ignored fear auras (or impose a "shaken" condition, depending on the monster), and rely on the monster's perceived danger by the PCs being the determining factor on whether anyone runs away. For the magical fear spells, I allow a saving throw each round to overcome the fear (similar to how Hold Person works).
Case in point, recently, my low-level group of players (2nd level) wanted nothing to do with a random encounter brown bear in the woods and they turned tail and ran from it (abandoning a donkey belonging to one of the players to a grizzly fate). Brown bears have no fear aura, but the players were still scared of it nonetheless.
Another case in point, I've had another group a long time ago encounter a beholder (which doesn't have a fear aura). Half of the players refused to fight against it and wouldn't go anywhere near it, while the others gleefully attacked… that is until the first PC was turned to stone. Then they were all running! Ahh… was that a fun one.
So to the OP, I think what you did on the spur of the moment was a good solution, just to keep the session going. But it sounds like you're not sure about your ruling in retrospect, so it may be a good idea to have it worked out beforehand, in case it crops up again. I think all the suggestions presented so far are good ones. Still sticking with my own though :)
Actually, the Heroes of Horror book bring a variant rule to escalating fear. A character become shaken anda panicked as normal, but a frightened one is not forced to flee from the source of her fear. Instead, the condition imposes a -4 penalty (non stackable with shaken penalty) on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checks. This allows fear to escalate more slowly, helping players that fail their saves not become useless in combat and allows a better differentiation betwen the panicked and frightened conditions.
I would add that if a frightened character choose to flee from the source of fear, the penalty drops to -2. Or, by GM discretion, not. Or the penalty stacks with shaken. Whatever...
In 3.5, I liked that Hold Person also allows roundly saves, so I applied it to all fear affects as well. I find this works best since fear is too powerful otherwise. Fleeing for 3 rounds effectively removes you from the entire combat.
Regarding tactics, I have the target flee on THEIR turn (not when the spell is cast), so often there is still plenty of time for a cleric to cast "remove fear" if they have it prepared.
In your scenario, if you're going to send a massive foe against the PCs, it's often best to foreshadow it a bit so they can prepare. If they know what's coming and they don't prepare, that's their problem.
There are some other goods ideas here, like the escalation of fear.
I found one of the good things that 4E did was allow for "game changing" abilities (like a medusa's gaze) to occur over several rounds with increasing penalties. For example, if you fail your first save you're immobilized and if you fail your second save (on another round), you're turned to stone.
You could work the aura the same way here. If you fail your first save you're shaken, if you fail your second save you're frightened.
I've always hated fear, and so do my players.
I'd like to share with you my fear house rule, which has allowed us to keep the mechanics in place without the heartbreaking unfairness:
This has worked great for us because it turns fear into a tactical decision instead of "roll to see if you can keep playing".
Are you going to extend this rule to every spell the PC's aren't ready for? Disintegrate? Finger of Death? etc.I have two problems:
Should I have allowed a roundly save against the fear, simply because a character was unprepared? Also...
The way I saw it at the time was that the player was really bummed out that his "cool character" he spent so much time on couldn't participate. There was a palpable level of displeasure, even amongst the other players, who would prefer him there. At that point, the fun level (which was very high moments before) dropped like a rock, and in my games, fun is what is most important. Thus was my on-the-fly ruling.
And yes, I know, this means I could end up having some crazy super-powerful or imbalanced whatevers, but so long as everyone is having a good time, then I'm game :]
I've always hated fear, and so do my players.
I'd like to share with you my fear house rule, which has allowed us to keep the mechanics in place without the heartbreaking unfairness:
This has worked great for us because it turns fear into a tactical decision instead of "roll to see if you can keep playing".
This I like. I might give it a try. Thanks!
This I like. I might give it a try. Thanks!I've always hated fear, and so do my players.
I'd like to share with you my fear house rule, which has allowed us to keep the mechanics in place without the heartbreaking unfairness:
This has worked great for us because it turns fear into a tactical decision instead of "roll to see if you can keep playing".
Also, I forgot, I count it against AC as well.
The way I see it, a good fear rule must scare the player. The current rule simply annoys the player.
I like that houserule Toyrobot, I think I'll try it out.
What do you mean by "Each stage of fear" ?
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
|
Actually, the Heroes of Horror book bring a variant rule to escalating fear. A character become shaken anda panicked as normal, but a frightened one is not forced to flee from the source of her fear. Instead, the condition imposes a -4 penalty (non stackable with shaken penalty) on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checks. This allows fear to escalate more slowly, helping players that fail their saves not become useless in combat and allows a better differentiation betwen the panicked and frightened conditions.
I would add that if a frightened character choose to flee from the source of fear, the penalty drops to -2. Or, by GM discretion, not. Or the penalty stacks with shaken. Whatever...
Hey That's good. I'll check that again.
Oh, by each stage of fear I thought you meant each round they stay instead of running. So when they got hit by a spell that causes fright, they get -2 to all rolls and AC, then on their turn they get a total of -4 to all rolls/AC. If they stay another round, -6, etc. If they ran it would make them run for 2 rounds. If they stay the penalties would keep stacking.
I don't know, I'm going to have to give this some more thought. -4 on all rolls isn't much compared to the frightened condition. If it includes damage rolls and it affects spell DC, maybe that would be bad.
Yeah, the fear mechanics are awful. Let's review the current setup using the SRD. It's actually pretty complex already.
Fear SRD Entry
Shaken - A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks.
Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.
Frightened - A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
Panicked - A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. It can’t take any other actions. In addition, the creature takes a -2 penalty on all saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. If cornered, a panicked creature cowers. A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
Panicked is a more extreme state of fear than shaken or frightened.
Cowering - The character is frozen in fear and can take no actions. A cowering character takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class and loses her Dexterity bonus (if any).
The fear spell, fear auras, and fear cones/rays work the same - panicked on a failed save, shaken even on a success.
Frightful presence works differently - in fact, differently per creature. Sometimes it's fail and be shaken, sometimes fail and be frightened, sometimes be shaken even on a success... Here's the dragon entry, it has all kinds of little wonky bits:
Frightful Presence (Ex)
A young adult or older dragon can unsettle foes with its mere presence. The ability takes effect automatically whenever the dragon attacks, charges, or flies overhead. Creatures within a radius of 30 feet × the dragon’s age category are subject to the effect if they have fewer HD than the dragon. A potentially affected creature that succeeds on a Will save (DC 10 + ½ dragon’s HD + dragon’s Cha modifier) remains immune to that dragon’s frightful presence for 24 hours. On a failure, creatures with 4 or less HD become panicked for 4d6 rounds and those with 5 or more HD become shaken for 4d6 rounds. Dragons ignore the frightful presence of other dragons.
Note that there's some precedent for a graduated effect based on on margin of failure of the save; here's the entry for "Worm that Walks":
Frightful Presence (Su)
When a worm that walks engulfs a victim, witnesses must make a Will save (DC 10 + ½ the worm’s HD + the worm’s Cha modifier). Those who make the save are shaken. Those who fail by 5 or fewer points are frightened. Those who fail by 6 to 10 points are panicked. Those who fail by 11 or more points are cowering. All these conditions last for 1d4 rounds. Those who have seen a worm use this attack before gain a +5 bonus on their saving throws. The victim of the worm’s engulf attack has a -5 penalty on his or her saving throw.
You can use the Intimidate skill to shake someone - only for one round in 3.5 but PF Beta added a +1 round for every 5 you beat the DC. Technically the shaken can be "built on" by another shaking effect for full frightened, but usually not by PCs.
In general, this is a big mess. It also hits up against the system wonkiness where some things (Intimidate) rely on a weird special level+WIS check, and others rely on either normal Will saves or the weird bastard child, the HD-modified Will save. Note how even the two frightful presence abilities differ - one's Ex, one's Su, etc. And the conditions are gratuitous in the first place; the only difference between shaken and sickened is that the -2 applies to damage on the latter but not the former. Sigh. And fear is one of the places Will saves are sad; thus the fighter's new Bravery feature, but "mind easily clouded" should be a fightery kind of class problem, not "easily scared." And all the various "fixed" HD limits for cause fear, dragonfear, etc. suck; those should always be relative.
In the perfect world, I'd like the fear system to be simple, universal, and avoid the "running" problem.
Now, here's a potential fix that doesn't change things too much. If we were redesigning 4e here I might argue that opposed HD should be a normal component of *all* saves, there should be fundamental changes to the DC system, intimidate should be part of a larger morale system, etc. But with a little conservatism thrown in:
1. There are two kinds of fear - magical (supernatural/spell) and normal (intimidate/big scary monster/Ex). Magical uses Will saves as usual for any magic. Normal uses Will save (and size mods or whatever) and BAB as an active check DC.
The biggest change here is that Frightful Presence would be replaced as an active attempt by the frightener, as if it were an Intimidate attempt really. (Add some monster-feat that lets it be done as part of an attack to simulate the current "oh God he ate him run" kind of frightful presence uses). Anyway, DC of 10+Will save+BAB works out nicely. Why BAB? It's the equivalent of fight-studliness. A 10th level fighter, then, provides a 23 target DC, as opposed to a 15 in the previous system. When you consider a 10th level character can have a +15 effective skill check in Intimidate quite easily, you can see how that is probably even a conservative change. You could use HD if you don't like BAB, in which case you're really just saying "this is modified by the difference between the scarer and scare-ee's HD". Currently e.g. dragon presence is
10 + 1/2 HD + CHA vs d20 + Will
(CR20 dragon vs L20 fighter is 29 vs d20 + maybe 10 - nearly irresistable)
this makes it
d20 + HD + CHA vs 10 + Will + BAB
(CR20 red dragon vs L20 fighter is d20 + 25 vs maybe 40 - unlikely)
At this point you're a racial bonus away from it being balanced. Call it +1 per age category for a dragon. So any big ass scary 28 HD critter could try to intimidate a PC with about a 25% chance of success, but one with a racial Frightful Presence bonus would do it more reliably.
2. Use a condition track where shaken=sickened (-2 to everything), frightened, panicked=nauseated (single move action only - you can run away if that's your choice of move action). Redefine frightened as shaken plus you can't attack the target of your fear (like a sanctuary spell or the like). Maybe there is a more extreme "cowering/helpless" level too (would be helpful on other tracks; you could easily see someone so sickened they couldn't actually move even).
I like the parallelism -
shaken->frightened->panicked->cowering equals
sickened->repulsed->nauseated->helpless
3. Though I like the margin of failure concept, it can be too easily abused by optimization. Only allow one "raise" per fear event - in other words, first time you can be shaken/sickened or frightened only, then next application you can have one or two levels added onto that... And make the raises be at +10 over DC - with a d20 die and inflated DCs a +5 is too much in the province of randomness.
I appreciate that analysis, but I'll restate that I can't get behind any fear rule that plays someone's character for them. Players shouldn't be told to move or who they can or cannot attack. I would rather represent fear as a penalty, a huge scary penalty if need be.
To say a man with a sword is not going to strike something that scares him is sort of silly. It's even sillier if the Fear effect is the only thing interfering with an otherwise effective attack. Sew the seeds of doubt and danger in the player's mind and the character will act afraid.
I appreciate that analysis, but I'll restate that I can't get behind any fear rule that plays someone's character for them. Players shouldn't be told to move or who they can or cannot attack. I would rather represent fear as a penalty, a huge scary penalty if need be.
To say a man with a sword is not going to strike something that scares him is sort of silly. It's even sillier if the Fear effect is the only thing interfering with an otherwise effective attack. Sew the seeds of doubt and danger in the player's mind and the character will act afraid.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. If you state that, you'll have to rip out of the game :
Charm Person (and all charm effects)
Paralysis (you are telling the person they can't move their character)
Those are just the two I thought of off the top of my head. Supernatural fear effects are just that, supernatural. They hit you because of something beyond the pale. I do agree that normal fear effects should just be huge penalties, not force panic/terror, but supernatural fear should be something the player has no control over, just as the character they are controlling has no control over it. It's not because the character is a coward, it's because some supernatural force overwhelmed him. No more different than an anti-magic field overwhelming the sorcerer's ability to channel magic.
I appreciate that analysis, but I'll restate that I can't get behind any fear rule that plays someone's character for them. Players shouldn't be told to move or who they can or cannot attack. I would rather represent fear as a penalty, a huge scary penalty if need be.
To say a man with a sword is not going to strike something that scares him is sort of silly. It's even sillier if the Fear effect is the only thing interfering with an otherwise effective attack. Sew the seeds of doubt and danger in the player's mind and the character will act afraid.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. If you state that, you'll have to rip out of the game :
Charm Person (and all charm effects)
Paralysis (you are telling the person they can't move their character)Those are just the two I thought of off the top of my head. Supernatural fear effects are just that, supernatural. They hit you because of something beyond the pale. I do agree that normal fear effects should just be huge penalties, not force panic/terror, but supernatural fear should be something the player has no control over, just as the character they are controlling has no control over it. It's not because the character is a coward, it's because some supernatural force overwhelmed him. No more different than an anti-magic field overwhelming the sorcerer's ability to channel magic.
I see your point, and I agree that there may be a difference between magical fear and normal fear on this account. I won't make the exception in my games, mainly because that makes magical fear ignominious and not very fun for anyone.
I see the analogs in Charm and Paralysis, but at the same time I never hear quite as much grumbling about the unfairness of those powers. They are effectively similar, but fear is perhaps more embarrassing.
The solution that allows me to spook the players into choosing to run is the one that lets the players and the GM (me) have the most fun out of everything we've tried. There's little reason to expect that this would work for everyone, I'm just putting it out there in case someone enjoys the same solution.
In 3.5, I liked that Hold Person also allows roundly saves, so I applied it to all fear affects as well. I find this works best since fear is too powerful otherwise. Fleeing for 3 rounds effectively removes you from the entire combat.
Regarding tactics, I have the target flee on THEIR turn (not when the spell is cast), so often there is still plenty of time for a cleric to cast "remove fear" if they have it prepared.
In your scenario, if you're going to send a massive foe against the PCs, it's often best to foreshadow it a bit so they can prepare. If they know what's coming and they don't prepare, that's their problem.
This is basicly the mechanic I use, with fear reduced to shaken on a successful save.
Many good suggestions but I feel a spell failure % (or check) should be called for beyond shaken. Otherwise, casters keep blasting away as effectively even if terrified.
May I point out that 9th-level characters are immune to a lich's fear aura?
May I also recount the tale of the epic battle between our party of 15th-level characters and the mighty drow lich?
Wizard cast disintegrate. Made the SR check, lich failed the save.
Oh, and the wizard hit with a natural 20. And confirmed.
60d6 for 212 points of damage or so. That BBEG died from the first attack!
Aren't undead immune to crits, or are you using a fortification type house rule?
May I point out that 9th-level characters are immune to a lich's fear aura?
May I also recount the tale of the epic battle between our party of 15th-level characters and the mighty drow lich?
Wizard cast disintegrate. Made the SR check, lich failed the save.
Oh, and the wizard hit with a natural 20. And confirmed.
60d6 for 212 points of damage or so. That BBEG died from the first attack!
Sorry, I can't agree with that. If you state that, you'll have to rip out of the game :
Charm Person (and all charm effects)
Paralysis (you are telling the person they can't move their character)Those are just the two I thought of off the top of my head.
Note that Mass Charm is a level 8 spell and Mass Hold Person is a level 7 spell, but Fear (effectively "Mass Fear") is only a level 4 spell. So you're much more likely to have an entire party nuked by fear instead of paralysis or charm.
Many good suggestions but I feel a spell failure % (or check) should be called for beyond shaken. Otherwise, casters keep blasting away as effectively even if terrified.
Interesting! Hmmm…
shaken: -2 on all rolls, 20% spell failure
frightened: -4 on all rolls, 40% spell failure
panicked: -6 on all rolls, 60% spell failure
I wouldn't differentiate between the effects of magical and mundane fear. Keep them the same. The mechanics however make sense to be different:
Mundane fear is determined with a skill check.
Magical fear is determined with a saving throw.
Also, although it is a mind affecting ability, fear should be determined by a Fort save instead of a Will save:
Fortitude-Strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage
Will-Mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending; a disposition to act according to principles or ends.
*EDIT*
I'm under the assumption that mundane fear only causes the "shaken" condition normally.
Many good suggestions but I feel a spell failure % (or check) should be called for beyond shaken. Otherwise, casters keep blasting away as effectively even if terrified.Interesting! Hmmm…
shaken: -2 on all rolls, 20% spell failure
frightened: -4 on all rolls, 40% spell failure
panicked: -6 on all rolls, 60% spell failureI wouldn't differentiate between the effects of magical and mundane fear. Keep them the same. The mechanics however make sense to be different:
Mundane fear is determined with a skill check.
Magical fear is determined with a saving throw.Also, although it is a mind affecting ability, fear should be determined by a Fort save instead of a Will save:
Fortitude-Strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage
Will-Mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending; a disposition to act according to principles or ends.
*EDIT*
I'm under the assumption that mundane fear only causes the "shaken" condition normally.
I'm sorry "Strength of Mind" is WILL. Fortitude is endurance of body. Other than that small thing, good stuff.
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?
If he is just immune to shaken then anyone wanting to start 'fearing' him is going to have to start the next step up. Technically anything else will stack from there (even if it would normal cause shaken as it simply increases and the person is not immune to anything above shaken) but I would personally say that things that cause the shaken status wouldn't work for increasing the "fear factor". Again that is just what I would do personally and not RAW.
Aren't undead immune to crits, or are you using a fortification type house rule?
We use PF beta. No more blanket crit immunity.
Just an idea...
Shaken: -2 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -1
Frightened: -4 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -2
Panicked: -6 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC’s -3
Cowering -8 attacks, damage, saves & ability checks. Spell DC's -4
Aren't undead immune to crits, or are you using a fortification type house rule?We use PF beta. No more blanket crit immunity.
Is that just for undead or everything? I was thinking this was just sneak attacks.
Can you point me in the right direction in the PDF please?
I'm not sure I follow how to start the next step up.
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?If he is just immune to shaken then anyone wanting to start 'fearing' him is going to have to start the next step up. Technically anything else will stack from there (even if it would normal cause shaken as it simply increases and the person is not immune to anything above shaken) but I would personally say that things that cause the shaken status wouldn't work for increasing the "fear factor". Again that is just what I would do personally and not RAW.
I'm not sure I follow how to start the next step up.
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?If he is just immune to shaken then anyone wanting to start 'fearing' him is going to have to start the next step up. Technically anything else will stack from there (even if it would normal cause shaken as it simply increases and the person is not immune to anything above shaken) but I would personally say that things that cause the shaken status wouldn't work for increasing the "fear factor". Again that is just what I would do personally and not RAW.
Instead of making them shaken you would have to use an ability that would make them frightened instead. Once frightened then you can use shaken abilities (by RAW) to raise them up the "fear chain". Personally in my game if you are immune to shaken then shaken effects cannot take you higher in the fear chain but that's just me.
I'm sorry "Strength of Mind" is WILL. Fortitude is endurance of body. Other than that small thing, good stuff.
I agree that strength of mind is Will. Strength of courage is Fortitude.
Fear affects your courage, not your strength of mind.
One can be weak of mind, yet still be brave, foolishly so in fact.
One can make a compelling case that, in game terms, Will is an appropriate save to describe resisting one's fear. But Fortitude is far more accurate by definition and better in game terms. Hence, the reason I like the idea of changing to Fortitude for saves vs. fear.
Plus it goes well with the theme of spells from the Necromancy school attacking Fortitude saves. Leave attacking Will saves to the Enchantment and Illusion schools I say.
*Edited*
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?
I'm drawing a blank… when is a character immune to the shaken condition?
1. I like the scaling fear effects with escalating penalties idea. I really like Ernest's parallels with the "sickened" track, and I'd like to derail the "fatigued/exhausted" conditions and force them to more closely mirror the sickened/scared ones as well, penalty-wise.
2. Anthony's suggestion of Fort saves vs. fear strikes me as having the same net effect as the fighter's Bravery feature, but at the expense of wizards and sorcerers. Which makes perfect sense to me in terms of game antecedents -- in Conan stories, for example, the wizards are always cowardly, and the warriors brave, not the other way around. In terms of game mechanics, it's a much more elegant solution (requiring less awkward introduction of new rules) than is the current Bravery feature. I like it on both counts.
3. The thing is, one paladin is worth a battalion of fighters, fear-wise. And he also later on is immune to charm, etc. But that's OK, because where I really get down to killing a lot of PCs are with Will-save paralysis-type effects instead.
Gaze attacks from seemingly half the monsters in Dungeon magazine pretty much take all the non-casters out of almost every fight. I'd actually very much like to see paralysis replaced by temporary Dex loss (save for half; "paralyzed/held" would be redefined as "temporarily reduced to 0 Dex"). That way, the clerics (stereotypically low Dex) have good saves, and the rogues (stereotypically high) are less likely to be taken out of the action, and the fighters (stereotypically mid) are in less of a quandary.
Taking this in light of #1, above, slowed might be equated with "Dex-damaged," and "paralyzed" with "Dex 0," to create a spectrum of conditions there as well.
I'm not sure about core, but in FR at least 2 feats (Blooded and Bull Headed) make you immune to the shaken condition.
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?I'm drawing a blank… when is a character immune to the shaken condition?
OK. I follow the concept now.
Instead of making them shaken you would have to use an ability that would make them frightened instead. Once frightened then you can use shaken abilities (by RAW) to raise them up the "fear chain". Personally in my game if you are immune to shaken then shaken effects cannot take you higher in the fear chain but that's just me.I'm not sure I follow how to start the next step up.
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?If he is just immune to shaken then anyone wanting to start 'fearing' him is going to have to start the next step up. Technically anything else will stack from there (even if it would normal cause shaken as it simply increases and the person is not immune to anything above shaken) but I would personally say that things that cause the shaken status wouldn't work for increasing the "fear factor". Again that is just what I would do personally and not RAW.
I'm not sure about core, but in FR at least 2 feats (Blooded and Bull Headed) make you immune to the shaken condition.
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?I'm drawing a blank… when is a character immune to the shaken condition?
Got it. Not familiar with FR :)
2. Anthony's suggestion of Fort saves vs. fear strikes me as having the same net effect as the fighter's Bravery feature, but at the expense of wizards and sorcerers. Which makes perfect sense to me in terms of game antecedents -- in Conan stories, for example, the wizards are always cowardly, and the warriors brave, not the other way around. In terms of game mechanics, it's a much more elegant solution (requiring less awkward introduction of new rules) than is the current Bravery feature. I like it on both counts.
I still like the bravery feature though. I think you would get a sensible hierarchy of "braveness" in perhaps the following order:
1. Paladin
2. Barbarian (when raged), Fighter
3. Ranger, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk
4. Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard
|
Got it. Not familiar with FR :)I'm not sure about core, but in FR at least 2 feats (Blooded and Bull Headed) make you immune to the shaken condition.
How do scaling fear systems work when a character is immune to the shaken condition?I'm drawing a blank… when is a character immune to the shaken condition?
If you ever get a chance to check out the books (well, at least Races, The FRCS, Magic, The Underdark and Faiths and Pantheons - some of the latter stuff can get somewhat wonky), a lot of the options FR introduces are cool for character diversity without being over the top. You might have to modify some of the fluff to suit your homebrew or whatever you're using, bit I've found the FR stuff better suited for play with core stuff than a lot of the splats...
If you ever get a chance to check out the books (well, at least Races, The FRCS, Magic, The Underdark and Faiths and Pantheons - some of the latter stuff can get somewhat wonky), a lot of the options FR introduces are cool for character diversity without being over the top. You might have to modify some of the fluff to suit your homebrew or whatever you're using, bit I've found the FR stuff better suited for play with core stuff than a lot of the splats...
I do check them out once in a rare occasion for ideas, but have never read them thoroughly. But I've never left the world of Greyhawk as a GM.
I may ask a friend of mine if I can look through his. He has a large collection of FR stuff.
I'm sorry "Strength of Mind" is WILL. Fortitude is endurance of body. Other than that small thing, good stuff.I agree that strength of mind is Will. Strength of courage is Fortitude.
Fear affects your courage, not your strength of mind.
One can be weak of mind, yet still be brave, foolishly so in fact.
One can make a compelling case that, in game terms, Will is an appropriate save to describe resisting one's fear. But Fortitude is far more accurate by definition and better in game terms. Hence, the reason I like the idea of changing to Fortitude for saves vs. fear.
Plus it goes well with the theme of spells from the Necromancy school attacking Fortitude saves. Leave attacking Will saves to the Enchantment and Illusion schools I say.
*Edited*
I disagree. There is nothing physical about courage. Courage is of the spirit and mind so again goes back to Will. Fear is a mind thing and again a Will save.
Now if you had to save against a chemical or poison that cause the body to react as if it was fearful, then I agree fortitude save, as it is a physical resistance at that point.
However Fortitude is body related, and physical in nature which is why I don't see it helping with most forms of fear.
I disagree about the Wizard's being cowardly thing -- it takes conjones of brass to summon a demon and expect it do to your will.
Not all of those stereotyped wizard's where cowardly either... just the heroic ones, the villains weren't cowards...