Fascination

[Zapp]

Anyone noticed how Fascination says:

"This condition ends if a creature uses hostile actions against
you or any of your allies."

Meaning the quickest way to break a Fascination effect is simply to attack an ally.

Imagine three friends walking along a path when A gets fascinated by a hostile monster. Quickly, you (B) make an unarmed attack against your buddy C.

You B are a creature. You use hostile action against A's ally C. Ergo, this breaks the Fascination on A.

[Zapp]

This (or something like it) was also a bug in PF1. For example, here's a harpy tactic from a PF1 adventure path:

"A favorite tactic of the harpies is to stalk
a victim from the air before beginning their captivating
song, after which they perch high in a tree and allow their
prey to come to them. One maintains the song while the
other ravages the humanoid. For the victims that follow,
they take turns switching their roles."

The way the text is written you'd assume once captivated, you're helpless against attacks of OTHER monsters (including other Harpies), barring intervention from your allies of course. One Harpy maintains the fascination while the other eats you alive.

This doesn't work (in PF1 or PF2) since even if it isn't the captivating Harpy attacking the captivated target, the captivation still breaks.

[Ascalaphus]

Harpies in PF1 didn't use Fascinate, they used a special-for-them effect that was notoriously poorly defined and problematic.

Fascination being not so hard to break isn't a bug. It can still eat up multiple actions if the enemies aren't adjacent. Also, if the non-fascinated enemies are later in initiative than the fascinated ones, those are still missing their turns.

Finally, it's okay for the system to have some lesser conditions that require some swift action (because losing turns is really bad), but aren't too hard to deal with (counteract checks are generally an uphill thing). That allows you to design monsters that require special tactics to cope with without making them deadly against parties that don't have the exact right tool.

[Zapp]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Fascination being not so hard to break isn't a bug. It can still eat up multiple actions if the enemies aren't adjacent. Also, if the non-fascinated enemies are later in initiative than the fascinated ones, those are still missing their turns.

Finally, it's okay for the system to have some lesser conditions that require some swift action (because losing turns is really bad), but aren't too hard to deal with (counteract checks are generally an uphill thing). That allows you to design monsters that require special tactics to cope with without making them deadly against parties that don't have the exact right tool.

You are entirely sidestepping the fact you can break the condition by an action that is entirely unintuitive - baffling even.

I'm not suggesting Fascination should be unbreakable.

But there's a lot of good possibilities between "unbreakable" and "vaporises instantly as soon as an ally gets to act, no preparation or special tools necessary".

Please don't relativize this into "not so hard to break isn't a bug" or "okay for the system to have some lesser conditions".

You can't use Fascination in any interesting context, including out-fo-combat roleplaying, if 2 seconds later it's autobroken by another player character.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

Anyone noticed how Fascination says:

"This condition ends if a creature uses hostile actions against
you or any of your allies."

Meaning the quickest way to break a Fascination effect is simply to attack an ally.

Imagine three friends walking along a path when A gets fascinated by a hostile monster. Quickly, you (B) make an unarmed attack against your buddy C.

You B are a creature. You use hostile action against A's ally C. Ergo, this breaks the Fascination on A.

Acting in this manner would mean that Creature B has memorized the conditions in the CRB, heard the GM tell person A’s player “you now have the Fascinated condition” and immediately chose to use his turn to act to end said condition.

There is a word for that...

[Castilliano]

If I see an ally get all googly-eyed over a woman (especially one that I think wants to consume him), it's not metagaming to raise my fist and threaten violence if he doesn't get his head on straight.
That's a real-world phenomenon!
It's the classic "snap out of it!" trope. Maybe one uses a yell or shake instead, but yes, it usually doesn't take much effort to end if the person still has their faculties.

Which is to say, Fascination is a weak condition to apply, though w/ Fascinating Performance it can be quite effective for only one action w/ no resource cost. And if facing a squad, you'll likely inflict Fascinate upon them all if you succeed against one so they can hardly help each other.

Also compare to Sleep which is about the same strength (weak) until 4th, and the target might wake up on their own.

[dirtypool]

Castilliano wrote:

If I see an ally get all googly-eyed over a woman (especially one that I think wants to consume him), it's not metagaming to raise my fist and threaten violence if he doesn't get his head on straight.

That's a real-world phenomenon!.

It’s a real world phenomenon that if your friend focuses on something other than your objective for six seconds you will attack said friend?

The instance where friend A is inflicted with the condition and without an attempt to recognize the cause Friend B decides instantly to attack friend C because it will nullify the condition as it is an attack on an ally (the hypothetical Zapp included) is definitively metagaming.

[Squiggit]

I have to agree with Castilliano, it's pretty reasonable, especially in the context of a group of adventurers, to try to snap one of your friends out of it if they're suddenly and mysteriously enthralled by someone else. Again, a little bit context dependent but still.

[Rysky]

Fascinated p. 619 wrote:

You are compelled to focus your attention on something, distracting you from whatever else is going on around you. You take a –2 status penalty to Perception and skill checks, and you can’t use actions with the concentrate trait unless they or their intended consequences are related to the subject of your fascination (as determined by the GM). For instance, you might be able to Seek and Recall Knowledge about the subject, but you likely couldn’t cast a spell targeting a different creature. This condition ends if a creature uses hostile actions against you or any of your allies.

Fascinated just makes you focus on the target, it doesn’t turn you into a slooping drooling mess chanting ”Yes Mistress...”

So I’d raise a brow if other players instantly knew one character was fascinated as soon as it happened with no prior knowledge.

[Rysky]

Squiggit wrote:

I have to agree with Castilliano, it's pretty reasonable, especially in the context of a group of adventurers, to try to snap one of your friends out of it if they're suddenly and mysteriously enthralled by someone else. Again, a little bit context dependent but still.

If your response to me seeing a beautiful woman is stab me before I can say or do anything or act on anything then we’re not gonna be a group for long.

[dirtypool]

Squiggit wrote:

I have to agree with Castilliano, it's pretty reasonable, especially in the context of a group of adventurers, to try to snap one of your friends out of it if they're suddenly and mysteriously enthralled by someone else. Again, a little bit context dependent but still.

I’d question how, in a combat round, the player who decided to snap his friend out of it noticed his friend become fascinated while still performing their own actions in that round.

We can debate Castilliano’s example till we’re blue in the face, my statement calling it metagaming was about Zapp’s example which called for attacking the fascinated person’s ally to end the condition.

[Castilliano]

dirtypool wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

If I see an ally get all googly-eyed over a woman (especially one that I think wants to consume him), it's not metagaming to raise my fist and threaten violence if he doesn't get his head on straight.

That's a real-world phenomenon!.

It’s a real world phenomenon that if your friend focuses on something other than your objective for six seconds you will attack said friend?

The instance where friend A is inflicted with the condition and without an attempt to recognize the cause Friend B decides instantly to attack friend C because it will nullify the condition as it is an attack on an ally (the hypothetical Zapp included) is definitively metagaming.

In combat, yes. Not that I fight outside of sport or face monsters at all, but yes. If an ally appears distracted, you get their attention, often via physical means which mechanically count as attacks (although hopefully aren't intended to harm).

Maybe even if a friend gets entranced while the rest of us are leaving a restaurant. Do you not notice when your buddy's fascinated by something? Wouldn't an elite combatant notice their buddy's state of mind and very likely the cause of the shift?
Note that an attack doesn't have to damage them. Grabbing their shoulder works.

There are instances where Fascination might be applied subtly and the target's Fascination is masked or indiscernible, in which I'd agree it's metagaming for the PC to have a solution for a problem they're unaware of. Yet I think in the majority of cases the source and condition of the Fascination will both be obvious. And the layman's solution to ending that is to nudge your ally (a.k.a. attack for zero damage or grapple-release).

[kaid]

Zapp wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Fascination being not so hard to break isn't a bug. It can still eat up multiple actions if the enemies aren't adjacent. Also, if the non-fascinated enemies are later in initiative than the fascinated ones, those are still missing their turns.

Finally, it's okay for the system to have some lesser conditions that require some swift action (because losing turns is really bad), but aren't too hard to deal with (counteract checks are generally an uphill thing). That allows you to design monsters that require special tactics to cope with without making them deadly against parties that don't have the exact right tool.

You are entirely sidestepping the fact you can break the condition by an action that is entirely unintuitive - baffling even.

I'm not suggesting Fascination should be unbreakable.

But there's a lot of good possibilities between "unbreakable" and "vaporises instantly as soon as an ally gets to act, no preparation or special tools necessary".

Please don't relativize this into "not so hard to break isn't a bug" or "okay for the system to have some lesser conditions".

You can't use Fascination in any interesting context, including out-fo-combat roleplaying, if 2 seconds later it's autobroken by another player character.

I am not sure how baffling it is. Slapping sense into somebody who is being fascinated seems a pretty legit tactic to snap them out of it.

[Rysky]

The majority of cases it wouldn’t be obvious, since it’s likely to be combat where you’re already focusing on a target. Again there isn’t any tells or signs you’re fascinated, so how do you do tell if the character is focusing on the target or “focusing” on the target?

[Garretmander]

Castilliano wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

If I see an ally get all googly-eyed over a woman (especially one that I think wants to consume him), it's not metagaming to raise my fist and threaten violence if he doesn't get his head on straight.

That's a real-world phenomenon!.

It’s a real world phenomenon that if your friend focuses on something other than your objective for six seconds you will attack said friend?

The instance where friend A is inflicted with the condition and without an attempt to recognize the cause Friend B decides instantly to attack friend C because it will nullify the condition as it is an attack on an ally (the hypothetical Zapp included) is definitively metagaming.

In combat, yes. Not that I fight outside of sport or face monsters at all, but yes. If an ally appears distracted, you get their attention, often via physical means which mechanically count as attacks (although hopefully aren't intended to harm).

Maybe even if a friend gets entranced while the rest of us are leaving a restaurant. Do you not notice when your buddy's fascinated by something? Wouldn't an elite combatant notice their buddy's state of mind and very likely the cause of the shift?
Note that an attack doesn't have to damage them. Grabbing their shoulder works.

There are instances where Fascination might be applied subtly and the target's Fascination is masked or indiscernible, in which I'd agree it's metagaming for the PC to have a solution for a problem they're unaware of. Yet I think in the majority of cases the source and condition of the Fascination will both be obvious. And the layman's solution to ending that is to nudge your ally (a.k.a. attack for zero damage or grapple-release).

Which sounds like an action at least, and contributing to MAP as well, so fascinated is a condition that's good to avoid

[Squiggit]

Rysky wrote:

If your response to me seeing a beautiful woman is stab me before I can say or do anything or act on anything then we’re not gonna be a group for long.

If you become supernaturally fascinated every time you see a beautiful woman there might be some other stuff going on.

Maybe we should get you checked for curses or something.

[Artificial 20]

It depends what the character knows.

If it's generally agreed at the table that the fascination is obvious, they react with their own knowledge.

If the fascination is judged subtle, they use a Sense Motive action (or some other suitable detective action), and if they succeed act knowingly.

So possibly 1 action to perceive, possibly 1 action to move closer, and 1 action for the attack.

That's 1 to 3 actions expended to deal with the Fascination condition, a respectable tax on the party.

[dirtypool]

Castilliano wrote:

In combat, yes. Not that I fight outside of sport or face monsters at all, but yes. If an ally appears distracted, you get their attention, often via physical means which mechanically count as attacks

Sports, great example. You’re on a basketball team playing zone defense. You are guarding your man when your teammate on the other side of the key is fascinated by someone on the sideline. How do you notice it happening? How do you instantly conclude it is the result of the Fascinated condition rather than that he has noticed something that requires attention? Why would you leave your place on the line to get his attention back on the game after a mere six seconds?

[Rysky]

Squiggit wrote:

Rysky wrote:

If your response to me seeing a beautiful woman is stab me before I can say or do anything or act on anything then we’re not gonna be a group for long.

If you become supernaturally fascinated every time you see a beautiful woman there might be some other stuff going on.

Maybe we should get you checked for curses or something.

Oooor I’m attracted to women?

Again, how do you tell the difference between fascinated and “fascinated”?

[Gorbacz]

The former requires you to wear a fascinator?

*zing*

*looks at Rysky*

*ZING ZING*

*regrets nothing*

Also, we're in a Zapp thread, what the heck are you all people disagreeing with the core premise of the OP doing here? :P

[dirtypool]

Gorbacz wrote:

Also, we're in a Zapp thread, what the heck are you all people disagreeing with the core premise of the OP doing here? :P

We’ve got easily another 10 replies in the thread before he comes back to do his thing. Let’s use it while we’ve got it.

[pad300]

Yeah, I think people are arguing different versions of fascinate here...

The RAW effect in PF2 : "You are compelled to focus your attention on something, distracting you from whatever else is going on around you. You take a –2 status penalty to Perception and skill checks, and you can’t use actions with the concentrate trait unless they or their intended consequences are related to the subject of your fascination (as determined by the GM). For instance, you might be able to Seek and Recall Knowledge about the subject, but you likely couldn’t cast a spell targeting a different creature. This condition ends if a creature uses hostile actions against you or any of your allies."

This vs the PF1 RAW effect : "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."

So to "real-world" an example, you're having an argument with some guy about you "stealing" "his" parking space. You're not sure if you're going to throw the first punch, if he's gonna throw it, or maybe the lid's going to stay on... You become "Fascinated" for reasons unknown (the girl in Yoga pants wandering by is actually an evil bard!).

In PF1, you will sit there staring at the notional pretty girl or whatever, while he kicks half a dozen dents in your car as payback, and then leaves... (provided he doesn't threaten you). Not sure if he can get away with that in PF2.

But either way, I've never met a girl anywhere near pretty enough to have that effect... And I doubt anybody else has either. I think Fascinated as a supernaturally imposed condition is a lot stronger and more noticeable behavior-changer than Rysky and dirtypool are suggesting.

[dirtypool]

pad300 wrote:

Yeah, I think people are arguing different versions of fascinate here...

Nope, no one is confusing the PF1 Fascinate for the PF2 Fascinate

pad300 wrote:

I think Fascinated as a supernaturally imposed condition is a lot stronger and more noticeable behavior-changer than Rysky and dirtypool are suggesting.

We’re not suggesting it isn’t noticeable. We’re suggesting it isn’t noticeable in the same round without a roll. I’m personally arguing that then hitting the guy next to the person who is fascinated because you know that attacking an ally of the person afflicted with the condition breaks the condition (as the OP argued) is definitely metagaming.

[GM OfAnything]

If a character made a save against the same effect, I’d allow an action to Sense Motive and determine if any allies were affected.

[Luke Styer]

dirtypool wrote:

Acting in this manner would mean that Creature B has memorized the conditions in the CRB, heard the GM tell person A’s player “you now have the Fascinated condition” and immediately chose to use his turn to act to end said condition.

There is a word for that...

Yeah, similarly a player character in my game took a bunch of damage and the Cleric player immediately chose to cast Heal targeting the damaged PC. Darn my metagaming players!

[dirtypool]

Luke Styer wrote:

Yeah, similarly a player character in my game took a bunch of damage and the Cleric player immediately chose to cast Heal targeting the damaged PC. Darn my metagaming players!

Yeah here’s the difference: your cleric PC knows about the damage because in character saw his compatriot take damage and knows the magic to heal the damaged player because he learned it and added it to his known spells. The hypothetical PC punching his compatriot to end a condition didn’t witness the condition happen, he heard the DM say “you now have the Fascinated condition” and knew exactly how to end the condition because he read page 619 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

[Mark Thomas 66]

pad300 wrote:

Yeah, I think people are arguing different versions of fascinate here...

The RAW effect in PF2 : "You are compelled to focus your attention on something, distracting you from whatever else is going on around you. You take a –2 status penalty to Perception and skill checks, and you can’t use actions with the concentrate trait unless they or their intended consequences are related to the subject of your fascination (as determined by the GM). For instance, you might be able to Seek and Recall Knowledge about the subject, but you likely couldn’t cast a spell targeting a different creature. This condition ends if a creature uses hostile actions against you or any of your allies."

This vs the PF1 RAW effect : "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."

So to "real-world" an example, you're having an argument with some guy about you "stealing" "his" parking space. You're not sure if you're going to throw the first punch, if he's gonna throw it, or maybe the lid's going to stay on... You become "Fascinated" for reasons unknown (the girl in Yoga pants wandering by is actually an evil bard!).

In PF1, you will sit there staring at the notional pretty girl or whatever, while he kicks half a dozen dents in your car as payback, and then leaves... (provided he doesn't threaten you). Not sure if he can get away with that in PF2.

But either way, I've never met a girl anywhere...

Fascinate

[Luke Styer]

dirtypool wrote:

Yeah here’s the difference: your cleric PC knows about the damage because in character saw his compatriot take damage

The Cleric PC also saw his compatriot become fascinated. There is no facing in Pathfinder, so unless something is blocking line of sight or a game mechanic intervening like stealth or invisibility combatants see basically everything that happens on the battlefield. Most sources of fascination, by their very nature, can be seen or heard — they’re sensory in nature. I suppose there might be a situation in which an enemy is invisible, the Fighter alone has See Invisibility going, and the enemy fascinates the Fighter in a way that doesn’t have any visual or auditory manifestation, so none of the other PCs know what’s going on. But that’s a pretty specific set of circumstances.

Quote:

and knows the magic to heal the damaged player because he learned it and added it to his known spells.

There is nothing in the mechanics or fascination that marks it as some sort of “mystery” condition. Is there some sort of general rule that characters don’t know how common conditions work? We’re not talking about a special ability of a particular monster, we’re talking about a common condition, so there is no more or less reason to assume PCs understand it than there is any other common condition.

Quote:

The hypothetical PC punching his compatriot to end a condition didn’t witness the condition happen, he heard the DM say “you now have the Fascinated condition” and knew exactly how to end the condition because he read page 619 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

Huh? The hypothetical was “ If I see an ally get all googly-eyed over a woman (especially one that I think wants to consume him), it's not metagaming to raise my fist and threaten violence if he doesn't get his head on straight.“ How do you take “if I see” to mean “I didn’t witness”?

[Garretmander]

I'd have to agree, if fascinate is a 'stealth' condition that's not immediately noticeable in encounter mode, why are other conditions immediately noticeable?

Stunned, sickened, shaken, damaged, flat footed, all these conditions have ways for allied characters to attempt to mitigate them, are you saying the cleric has to roll a perception check to know he needs to cast remove paralysis or remove fear, or it's metagaming?

[Zapp]

Why is it that these threads always focus on useless bickering, with one preposterous defense after another? (Congrats: now you're arguing over whether allies know conditions!)

It would have been much more constructive if we could simply agree we deserve a better Fascinated condition, and discuss better ways to implement it. Make a reasonable suggestion and have Paizo adopt it as official errata?

Fascinate should obviously be capable of serving story purposes. That does not mean it needs to shaft players. Only that the rule needs to be well thought out.

First off, why can't we just agree you shouldn't be able to autobreak the condition by something every character can do 100% of the time, like "making an attack against you or your allies". To me that's an obvious truth you wouldn't argue against in good faith.

Why? Because any monster would be stupid to waste its time on something like that unless the prey is alone. And we know adventurers never travel alone - they're always found in groups of four (three, five...). Why waste space and energy defining an ability useless in actual game? If we're talking about something only useful against level 1 Commoners, no rules are needed - just narrate how The Count fascinates the bathing farm girl, so she wouldn't scream.

The example I shared earlier sounds very reasonable to me. It basically means combat must be possible without nullifying Fascinate.

Which in turn means there must be something you can do as an ally to snap your friend out of it, that isn't... the things you would do normally when under attack, since that's neither narratively nor tactically interesting.

[Zapp]

Just to pick a basic example. Let's say light or fire gives the fascinated creature a new save. Meaning that when it's your turn as an ally, you get to choose between bashing the monster normally, or waving your torch (directing your Light spell etc) in your fascinated ally's face. Perhaps persistent damage auto-dispels the condition, giving a last recourse if everything else fails.

The point of this is to enable lots of story power, that is allow the ability to Fascinate to tell the stories you would think it allows.

At the same time retain it's combat potential instead of making it a joke Condition.

And still give the rest of the party a reasonable shot at saving their friend.

[Luke Styer]

Zapp wrote:

First off, why can't we just agree you shouldn't be able to autobreak the condition by something every character can do 100% of the time, like "making an attack against you or your allies". To me that's an obvious truth you wouldn't argue against in good faith.

I honestly don’t see a problem with how fascinated works. It seems like a situationally useful condition that you want to be tactical about when you use. I’m not arguing against you, because I don’t feel strongly enough about it to argue against you, but in good faith I disagree with you.

As far as why can’t just agree, you didn’t frame the thread as “If you accept my premise that the fascinated condition needs to be rewritten . . .” you asked whether people agree with you. The former invites the agreement you seem to have expected. The latter all but solicits disagreement.

[Timeshadow]

Honestly "Fascinate" is a very common condition. Having it cancelled by a simple slap is fine as has been previously said it will take at least one action for a savvy ally to snap the target out of it but that's action economy for you. Now depending on the player he might be more interested in the creature trying to rip off his face than smacking his allies. Who knows? Again this also assumes some character experience with the condition. I would not look sideways as a GM at a player not helping fascinated allies as he is roleplaying his lack of knowledge. I also wouldn't be surprised that any "Adventurer" might recognise that this isn't normal behavior and give an ally a shake to snap them out of it. No harm no foul just have fun with it.

[dirtypool]

Luke Styer wrote:

Huh? The hypothetical was “ If I see an ally get all googly-eyed over a woman (especially one that I think wants to consume him), it's not metagaming to raise my fist and threaten violence if he doesn't get his head on straight.“ How do you take “if I see” to mean “I didn’t witness”?

To begin with my reference to “didn’t witness” was to your bad faith comparison of damage and healing and not to the terrible comparison to seeing a woman across the way. But sure we can go back to that.

If your friend stops moving with you and your group and stares at a woman for six seconds. Before you behave like a complete toolbox and hit him, do you know WHY he stopped and stared? You witnessed the imposition of a condition and witnessed him stopping - but you did not at any point hear an announcement: “Dave is now fascinated for three rounds”

He doesn’t have a stamp on his head that says “fascinated.” There are a number of conditions that could cause the same effect, many of which are imposed on the same ways fascinated would be imposed. All the other players would see is the trigger. We’re discussing acting specifically to end someone else’s fascinated condition for no other reason than because you know the rules in the book.

[dirtypool]

Zapp wrote:

Why is it that these threads always focus on useless bickering, with one preposterous defense after another? (Congrats: now you're arguing over whether allies know conditions!)

To be fair Zapp we’re arguing over whether allies know conditions because in your original post you used the hypothetical of three people, with person B attacking person C to end the condition afflicting person A.

[Artificial 20]

Zapp wrote:

Why is it that these threads always focus on useless bickering, with one preposterous defense after another? (Congrats: now you're arguing over whether allies know conditions!)

It would have been much more constructive if we could simply agree we deserve a better Fascinated condition, and discuss better ways to implement it. Make a reasonable suggestion and have Paizo adopt it as official errata?

To be fairer, you didn't frame the topic as a constructive push to examine and improve the Fascinated condition's mechanics. You said "Anybody notice this part of Fascinated allows a common action to reliably defeat it? Here is a simple scenario highlighting this". Then you spoke about a comparison to P1E mechanics with similar disapproval, presumably because you had been Fascinated by the Submit Post button and did not perceive the Edit option.

If you wanted to refine implementation, I might have led that with "Hey everyone, I feel there's a poorly-represented region between the fragile distraction of Fascinated and the utter puppetry of Controlled. Could the former be developed to cover a helpless trance that would endure through a brisk shake to the shoulder?". That might garner replies like "Well sir, I suggest any creature critical failing its save against Fascinated is also Stunned for the duration. An interact action could grant them new saves, but they must critically succeed on the save to break both conditions".

[Rysky]

Luke Styer wrote:

The Cleric PC also saw his compatriot become fascinated.

How do they know they’re “fascinated” and not fascinated?

Quote:

There is nothing in the mechanics or fascination that marks it as some sort of “mystery” condition.

There is absolutely nothing that states the condition has easy visual tells either, other than the target focusing on the object of fascination. Which isn’t a tell at all. Other than the GM announcing the PC is fascinated how do you know they are?

Quote:

Huh? The hypothetical was “ If I see an ally get all googly-eyed over a woman (especially one that I think wants to consume him), it's not metagaming to raise my fist and threaten violence if he doesn't get his head on straight.“ How do you take “if I see” to mean “I didn’t witness”?

That’s not what Fascinate does though, and why are you threatening an ally for paying attention to a possible threat?

[Henro]

I don't quite understand Zapp's problem with Fascinate - it's a minor condition that costs an action to remove even when you slap your friend out of it. This isn't very different from other minor conditions in the game, sickened lets you spend actions to get additional saves and frightened automatically goes down every turn.

As for if allies should be able to act on the information - this is arguably metagaming but it's incredibly minor and in my opinion not remotely harmful to the game. I would compare it to a scene in a movie where one character stares wide-eyed at the fleet of aliens and their more seasoned friend slaps them with a "snap out of it, let's go!". It may be slightly unrealistic, but I think that's a completely worthwhile concession in this case.

[Garretmander]

dirtypool wrote:

If your friend stops moving with you and your group and stares at a woman for six seconds. Before you behave like a complete toolbox and hit him, do you know WHY he stopped and stared? You witnessed the imposition of a condition and witnessed him stopping - but you did not at any point hear an announcement: “Dave is now fascinated for three rounds”

He doesn’t have a stamp on his head that says “fascinated.” There are a number of conditions that could cause the same effect, many of which are imposed on the same ways fascinated would be imposed. All the other players would see is the trigger. We’re discussing acting specifically to end someone else’s fascinated condition for no other reason than because you know the rules in the book.

That makes sense in town, or otherwise outside combat.

If one of your allies is fascinated in encounter mode/a fight, I'd say it's as easy to notice as shaken/sickened/stunned/paralyzed/etc. I would never say a caster using a spell to end an effect on an ally in combat is metagaming, so I'd also apply the same to anybody shaking them out of it with an action in combat.

[Rysky]

Garretmander wrote:

dirtypool wrote:

If your friend stops moving with you and your group and stares at a woman for six seconds. Before you behave like a complete toolbox and hit him, do you know WHY he stopped and stared? You witnessed the imposition of a condition and witnessed him stopping - but you did not at any point hear an announcement: “Dave is now fascinated for three rounds”

He doesn’t have a stamp on his head that says “fascinated.” There are a number of conditions that could cause the same effect, many of which are imposed on the same ways fascinated would be imposed. All the other players would see is the trigger. We’re discussing acting specifically to end someone else’s fascinated condition for no other reason than because you know the rules in the book.

That makes sense in town, or otherwise outside combat.

If one of your allies is fascinated in encounter mode/a fight, I'd say it's as easy to notice as shaken/sickened/stunned/paralyzed/etc. I would never say a caster using a spell to end an effect on an ally in combat is metagaming, so I'd also apply the same to anybody shaking them out of it with an action in combat.

How?

Stunned/Paralyzed they’ve stopped moving.

Afraid/sick you might be able to notice, depending on the severity?

But how can you tell your ally is focusing on an opponent due to supernatural reasons and not because they’re their opponent?

[dirtypool]

Garretmander wrote:

That makes sense in town, or otherwise outside combat.

If one of your allies is fascinated in encounter mode/a fight, I'd say it's as easy to notice as shaken/sickened/stunned/paralyzed/etc. I would never say a caster using a spell to end an effect on an ally in combat is metagaming, so I'd also apply the same to anybody shaking them out of it with an action in combat.

Your contention is that in the heat of combat it becomes easier to notice details about third parties with whom you are not currently engaged?

[Luke Styer]

dirtypool wrote:

If your friend stops moving with you and your group and stares at a woman for six seconds. Before you behave like a complete toolbox and hit him, do you know WHY he stopped and stared?

No, but I don’t exist in a universe whose laws of physics somehow allow me to see in all directions simultaneously, so I’m probably not the best basis of comparison.

Quote:

He doesn’t have a stamp on his head that says “fascinated.”

He doesn’t need a stamp on his head. His compatriots exist in a world where “fascinated” is a common condition and so It seems reasonable that they’d recognize it, just like they recognize injury without a stamp on the head reading “Has taken damage.” Unless you can point to something in the rules saying either that all conditions are non-obvious or that fascinated, in particular, is.

Quote:

There are a number of conditions that could cause the same effect, many of which are imposed on the same ways fascinated would be imposed.

I’m not so sure I agree with that. Fascinated seems a lot less limiting than similar conditions. But even if so, the action to “wake” someone who is fascinated seems reasonably intuitive as one to try. Note it doesn’t require an attack, just “hostile actions against you or any of your allies.” As the learned sage Pvt. Frost suggested, perhaps you can use “harsh language.” Even if you’re not sure that he’s fascinated and not suffering some other condition, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to burn an action to wake your buddy. In this case it just happens to work.

[The Ronyon]

No matter how it is noticed or countered , is it ever worth doing?
Seems like it just draws aggro, and not very strongly.

[Luke Styer]

Rysky wrote:

How do they know they’re “fascinated” and not fascinated?

Because I assume my player characters have a basic understanding of how their universe works. “Fascinated” is a condition that has specific, observable effects in their universe. Fascinated isn’t. But even if they’re wrong, and their buddy just stopped participating in combat of his own volition, and another PC mistakenly assumed he’s under the fascinated condition, and so burns an action to snap him out of it? Big deal.

Quote:

There is absolutely nothing that states the condition has easy visual tells either, other than the target focusing on the object of fascination.

That sounds visual to me, but I tend to err on the side of assuming my PCs have a basic level of competence and understanding of their world.

Quote:

That’s not what Fascinate does though,

Wow. You’re right. “You take a –2 status penalty to Perception and skill checks, and you can’t use actions with the concentrate trait unless they or their intended consequences are related to the subject of your fascination (as determined by the GM).” Striding and attacking don’t have the concentrate trait, so it’s way less limiting than I thought.

[Luke Styer]

The Ronyon wrote:

No matter how it is noticed or countered , is it ever worth doing?

Seems like it just draws aggro, and not very strongly.

If you can pull it off before Initiative is rolled, the -2 to Perception might matter. And since spellcasting has the concentrate trait, it’s fairly decent against a spellcaster if you can time it correctly. But since it doesn’t stop someone from attacking you, it seems super weak against martials.

[Garretmander]

dirtypool wrote:

Garretmander wrote:

That makes sense in town, or otherwise outside combat.

If one of your allies is fascinated in encounter mode/a fight, I'd say it's as easy to notice as shaken/sickened/stunned/paralyzed/etc. I would never say a caster using a spell to end an effect on an ally in combat is metagaming, so I'd also apply the same to anybody shaking them out of it with an action in combat.

Your contention is that in the heat of combat it becomes easier to notice details about third parties with whom you are not currently engaged?

My contention is that in combat, players should recognize when other players are acting strangely/are affected by something, especially in the heat of combat.

I assume a player can tell when another player has become dazzled/doomed/drained/enfeebled/frightened/stupified, and those can have far less noticeable effects than fascinated. So, therefore, I assume players can immediately tell something is wrong with their friend, no checks required and no assumptions of metagaming.

Unless you also rule most other conditions to be hard to notice in combat?

[Rysky]

Luke Styer wrote:

“Fascinated” is a condition that has specific, observable effects in their universe.

Which would be?

[Luke Styer]

Rysky wrote:

Luke Styer wrote:

“Fascinated” is a condition that has specific, observable effects in their universe.

Which would be?

A slack-jawed stare. The old hypnotized look.

https://giphy.com/explore/hypnotized

[Rysky]

Luke Styer wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Luke Styer wrote:

“Fascinated” is a condition that has specific, observable effects in their universe.

Which would be?

A slack-jawed stare. The old hypnotized look.

https://giphy.com/explore/hypnotized

Please point out in the rules where the Fascinate condition causes this and it isn’t something you just made up/assumed.