Worried I may have accidentally nerfed a Dread

[Perturbulent]

So, long story short, the party was attacked by intelligent undead. The dread is level 3, and has it's aura of fear ability that makes critters within 10' who are normally immune to fear, no longer immune to fear. I read this as that one specific immunity, rather than automatically making opponents subject to any fear effect. If a critter has immunity to mind-affecting, is it subject to mind-affecting fear affects in the Dread's Aura?
At 3rd level, a dread radiates a palpably daunting aura that causes all enemies within 10 feet to take a –4 penalty on saving throws against fear effects. Creatures that are normally immune to fear lose that immunity while within 10 feet of a dread with this ability. This ability functions only while the dread remains conscious, not if she is unconscious or dead.

Edit: also, this question has arisen. Are there any places a "fear immunity" that is not immunity to mind-affecting occurs besides paladins and knights?

Any ideas?

[Twilightwyrm]

While that is indeed one interpretation, I would tend to read it as both giving the -4 penalty and removing any immunity, as I would normally look for the word "instead" to be present in that sentence to denote removing the immunity rather than imposing the penalty. Think of it like this: if the dread did not remove the immunity, the immune character would still technically have a -4 verses fear effects, then would just be immune to said effects. Same as with a creature with Fire Immunity still being immune even if given fire vulnerability from some other source. So in this instance, the aura applies two effects: -4 verses fear and removes immunity to fear.

[Crake]

While that is indeed one interpretation, I would tend to read it as both giving the -4 penalty and removing any immunity, as I would normally look for the word "instead" to be present in that sentence to denote removing the immunity rather than imposing the penalty. Think of it like this: if the dread did not remove the immunity, the immune character would still technically have a -4 verses fear effects, then would just be immune to said effects. Same as with a creature with Fire Immunity still being immune even if given fire vulnerability from some other source. So in this instance, the aura applies two effects: -4 verses fear and removes immunity to fear.

the problem here is that it says it removes their immunity to fear, which undead do not have. They have immunity to mind-affecting, which all fear effects are, but it is a different ability, and thus not removed.

[Feint's End]

I'm not sure on RAW here but RAI it seems to work on undead. At least from my understanding.

Even if you disagree then you probably should allow it anyways. Dreads are already the worst designed class by DSP and they could use something nice and smooth that works every fight (I'm not saying dreads are a bad concept .. In fact I rather enjoy them. I just think they are cumbersome and clunky in the way they work).

[Amphetryon]

the problem here is that it says it removes their immunity to fear, which undead do not have. They have immunity to mind-affecting, which all fear effects are, but it is a different ability, and thus not removed.

For what it's worth, this is how I read the crux of the issue as well. It would not be an unbalancing house-rule to change the Dread's 'immunity to fear' verbiage to instead read 'immunity to mind-affecting,' but a house-rule it would be.

Also, as I know the game you're running is supposed to be in the Survival Horror genre, it's possibly a house-rule that makes things less horrific than the tone you're after. If the party is instilling fear in the enemy much more than the enemy is instilling fear in the party (or the players), the general tenor of a Survival Horror campaign may be harder to capture.

[Perturbulent]

Alright, pretty clear cut RAW. It's likely in this campaign that'd be how I rule it, as Amphetryon mentioned, it is horror themed, and I'm personally less inclined to change rulings after they've taken effect in this campaign as a result.

I've heard one claim that the RAI is that the aura makes a creature vulnerable to fear effects, as opposed to removing any such immunity. Anyone else want to way in on that? As it is, the fear aura (besides the -4 on fear effects) only removes the immunity to fear granted to paladin (and alternates) and the knight? Is that all that has immunity to fear or am I missing something?

[Segev]

Note that the ability does not name a specific power that creatures lose. It references "immunity to fear," which is a broad and blanket term covering any power which makes them immune to fear.

Immunity to mind-effecting includes an immunity to fear; the Dread's power would strip that immunity (but leave the rest alone). For it to fail to do so would require it to use specific terminology that refers only to a specific ability by name. In programming terms, it's not looking for a function called "immune to fear" and, failing to find it on the mind-effecting-immune undead, failing to remove it. It's looking at a list of flags of binary vulnarabilities and, if it finds the "fear" flag set to immune (which immunity to mind-effecting happens to set), it unsets it.

[Perturbulent]

Note that the ability does not name a specific power that creatures lose. It references "immunity to fear," which is a broad and blanket term covering any power which makes them immune to fear.

Immunity to mind-effecting includes an immunity to fear; the Dread's power would strip that immunity (but leave the rest alone). For it to fail to do so would require it to use specific terminology that refers only to a specific ability by name. In programming terms, it's not looking for a function called "immune to fear" and, failing to find it on the mind-effecting-immune undead, failing to remove it. It's looking at a list of flags of binary vulnarabilities and, if it finds the "fear" flag set to immune (which immunity to mind-effecting happens to set), it unsets it.

Just to clarify, you're claiming this as RAW answer? I'm certainly not inclined to disagree, as making 2 specific classes possible to be scared by you seems funny. Just want to be sure that you mean by RAW

[Psyren]

No, it only removes fear immunity - it does nothing to mind-affecting immunity. (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=37882.html#37882) No skeletons or oozes running scared.

[Segev]

Just to clarify, you're claiming this as RAW answer? I'm certainly not inclined to disagree, as making 2 specific classes possible to be scared by you seems funny. Just want to be sure that you mean by RAWIt would seem to be what the RAW would require. Unless you think that the text of the Dread specifically refers to abilities explicitly named "immunity to fear," it would seem the only possible interpretation. If "immunity to fear" is the precise name of the only effect this aura strips, then it would only affect things with that precisely-named ability.

Otherwise, "immunity to fear" must be a broader term, in which case anything that is immune to fear by any means is not immune while in the Dread's aura.


No, it only removes fear immunity - it does nothing to mind-affecting immunity. (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=37882.html#37882) No skeletons or oozes running scared.Er, reading that, it says, "It removes the immunity to fear, not the immunity to mind-effecting." That doesn't mean that it doesn't make the undead afraid. It just means that it doesn't make them also vulnerable to, say, an Illithid's Mind Blast. They remain immune to mind-effecting, but are vulnerable to fear (despite it being mind-effecting). It removed the "fear" clause from "immune to mind-effecting."

[Perturbulent]

No, it only removes fear immunity - it does nothing to mind-affecting immunity. (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/p=37882.html#37882) No skeletons or oozes running scared.

I see. As a side note, the idea wasn't that oozes or skeletons would be running scared, but various undead with int scores (attic whisperers, vampires, allips, fear guards, etc).

[Psyren]

Er, reading that, it says, "It removes the immunity to fear, not the immunity to mind-effecting." That doesn't mean that it doesn't make the undead afraid. It just means that it doesn't make them also vulnerable to, say, an Illithid's Mind Blast. They remain immune to mind-effecting, but are vulnerable to fear (despite it being mind-effecting). It removed the "fear" clause from "immune to mind-effecting."

You didn't read the question he was answering. Here is the full exchange:

OP: "Aura of Fear allows me to ignore fear immunity, does this also work on things that are immune to mind-affecting? undead/vermin/ooze/etc."
Andreas: "No, and that is by RAW. It takes away the specific immunity to fear, not the immunity to mind-affecting. "

[Segev]

You didn't read the question he was answering. Here is the full exchange:

OP: "Aura of Fear allows me to ignore fear immunity, does this also work on things that are immune to mind-affecting? undead/vermin/ooze/etc."
Andreas: "No, and that is by RAW. It takes away the specific immunity to fear, not the immunity to mind-affecting. "

Perhaps that's his intent, but...the second sentence doesn't actually back up the first. Removing immunity to fear but not immunity to mind-effecting doesn't conflict; you can do both. You remove the specific immunity to fear that immunity to mind-effecting gives you; the rest of immunity to mind-effecting's protections remain in place. It has not removed immunity to mind-effecting. But it has removed immunity to fear.

"Bob doesn't like sandwiches. Sheila makes a sandwich that is so good, it removes your ability to dislike it. Does Bob like Sheila's sandwiches?"

"No. Sheila's sandwich removes the ability to dislike only that specific sandwich, it doesn't remove dislike of sandwiches in general."

See how that doesn't actually support the "no?" Bob disliking sandwiches as a whole doesn't preclude Sheila's sandwich removing that dislike wrt it.

[Psyren]

I know what you're getting at - you see fear immunity as a flag that "immunity to mind-affecting" is capable of setting. But that is not what the dread ability is actually saying. It is specifically looking for an ability that says "immunity to fear," like a Paladin's Aura of Courage, and only disabling that.

If there is no such ability, the aura does nothing, even if the immunity comes by proxy from a broader source like being mindless. Basically an ability has to convey fear immunity specifically, actually saying the word "fear," for the dread to affect it.

[stack]

To help clarify the intent (though the quote covers that), there is a feat to let terrors break immunity mind affecting, so the distinction was apparently on the devs mind.

[Segev]

I know what you're getting at - you see fear immunity as a flag that "immunity to mind-affecting" is capable of setting. But that is not what the dread ability is actually saying. It is specifically looking for an ability that says "immunity to fear," like a Paladin's Aura of Courage, and only disabling that.

If there is no such ability, the aura does nothing, even if the immunity comes by proxy from a broader source like being mindless. Basically an ability has to convey fear immunity specifically, actually saying the word "fear," for the dread to affect it.Okay, so there are specific "immunity to fear"-named powers that it can target, and that's all it impacts?

Valid way to read the RAW, and if that's the intent, I'd go with that reading, then. (I suspect it's still a sloppy bit of wording, as I suspect that any ability would be called "immune to fear" rather than "immunity to fear." But....you never know. Interestingly, if you had an ability called "Fearless: you are immune to fear effects," it would still not apply, because it only removes "immunity to fear," not "Fearless."


To help clarify the intent (though the quote covers that), there is a feat to let terrors break immunity mind affecting, so the distinction was apparently on the devs mind.

Okay. Well, at least intent is clear; obviously, for any real game, go with what the DM thinks is most sensible. Certainly, the intent is clear enough here that you can use it to infer a spirit-of-the-rules reading, which is in line with Psyren's description. So I'd probably go with that as a DM, myself.

[Psyren]

I suspect that any ability would be called "immune to fear" rather than "immunity to fear."

The fact that you see a distinction here makes me wonder why designers bother clarifying anything :smalltongue:

[Tulya]

Strict RAW may enable a Dread to function with Intimidation checks to demoralize opponents, which aren't classed as a mind-affecting effects.

[Perturbulent]

Strict RAW may enable a Dread to function with Intimidation checks to demoralize opponents, which aren't classed as a mind-affecting effects.

Gah! How did I not notice that? The big issue had been with intimidate, too. How is demoralizing not mind-affecting?! (the player had been using dazzling display.) So by RAW this works against undead?

[Segev]

The fact that you see a distinction here makes me wonder why designers bother clarifying anything :smalltongue:

There's a distinction between "what is the pure, RAW-based outcome?" and "what is the most likely way to rule this at a table?"

Pure, RAW-based determinism requires either that we treat the phrase "immunity to fear" as covering pretty much anything that renders one unable to be affected by fear effects, or that it be treated as a specific thing called "immunity to fear" which is specifically and solely negated.

A more human-language-based reading, using all the context available and divining the intent through other things designers have said and added to the system will allow a DM to easily rule that what was meant is truly that those immune to mind-affecting effects remain immune to fear even in this aura, absent the feat which expressly improves the aura to negate this. With that context, it also makes sense to assume that "immunity to fear" refers to any feature or ability which grants said immunity, but anything which grants said immunity as part of a larger package still grants said immunity as part of said larger package.

[Fax Celestis]

Just a side note: undead aren't immune to fear except as a subset of mind-affecting effects (morale effects).


Undead

Undead are once-living creatures animated by spiritual or supernatural forces.

An undead creature has the following features.


d8 Hit Die.
Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
Good Will Saves.
Skill points equal to 4 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. Many undead, however, are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. The following are class skills for undead: Climb, Disguise, Fly, Intimidate, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion), Perception, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, and Stealth.


Traits: An undead creature possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).


No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution(such as when calculating a breath weapon’s DC).
Darkvision 60 feet.
Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms).
Immunity to bleed, death effects, disease, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
Not subject to nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength), as well as to exhaustion and fatigue effects.
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature's Intelligence score.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless).
Not at risk of death from massive damage, but is immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points.
Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead.
Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Undead not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Undead are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
Per the spell magic jar: "Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls." This is an important sentence when considering any spells or effects which reference "souls."



...so if for some inexplicable reason you have an ability that can render an undead creature shaken without it being a mind-affecting effect, it works.

Also note that fear itself is not classified as mind-affecting: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Fear

EDIT: Also note that 'morale effects' are very loosely defined. The best definition I can cobble together is any effect that provides a morale bonus or penalty, per this (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Morale-Bonus), which would indicate that while fear effects can inflict morale penalties, they are not intrinsically morale effects. Vision of hell (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/v/vision-of-hell), for instance, would work on undead, as would black mark (http://www.dxcontent.com/SDB_SpellBlock.asp?SDBID=1487) and haunting mists (http://www.dxcontent.com/SDB_SpellBlock.asp?SDBID=1047).

[Lo77o]

Quick question to the people who think that this will allow you to use fear effects on anything normally immune to fear by virtue of other things then "Fear Immunity" such as paladins.

Would it then allow him to escalate fear effects on an inanimate object such as a carriage, until it drove away. Would be fun to see some carriage rider without any horses screaming bloody murder at his carriage to make it drive.

[Segev]

Quick question to the people who think that this will allow you to use fear effects on anything normally immune to fear by virtue of other things then "Fear Immunity" such as paladins.

Would it then allow him to escalate fear effects on an inanimate object such as a carriage, until it drove away. Would be fun to see some carriage rider without any horses screaming bloody murder at his carriage to make it drive.

It's an amusing mental image, but helpless objects (which anything inanimate is) cannot suffer penalties to anything based on (in)ability to act, nor can they take actions normally impossible unless the thing mandating the actions also grants the ability to do so.

You can't Dominate a human with no magic or other help to fly, nor can you Dominate a victim of Hold Monster to do a jig. No matter how much you terrify an NPC paralyzed by some poison, he can't flee in a panic because he can't move. Similarly, even if you think that that carriage is metaphorically yellowing the snow beneath it, it is unable to do anything of its own volition to act on that fear.

[Psyren]

There's a distinction between "what is the pure, RAW-based outcome?" and "what is the most likely way to rule this at a table?"

Pure, RAW-based determinism requires either that we treat the phrase "immunity to fear" as covering pretty much anything that renders one unable to be affected by fear effects, or that it be treated as a specific thing called "immunity to fear" which is specifically and solely negated.

If the RAW faces you with two equally parseable scenarios based on how you choose to read a thing, you go with the one that makes the most sense. Doubly so if the designer chimes in with their intent. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Any other approach is meaningless pedantry.



...so if for some inexplicable reason you have an ability that can render an undead creature shaken without it being a mind-affecting effect, it works.


Turn Undead (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/turn-undead--final) does this - though it does not actually afflict them with fear, rather it makes them act as though they are.

[Lo77o]

It's an amusing mental image, but helpless objects (which anything inanimate is) cannot suffer penalties to anything based on (in)ability to act, nor can they take actions normally impossible unless the thing mandating the actions also grants the ability to do so.

You can't Dominate a human with no magic or other help to fly, nor can you Dominate a victim of Hold Monster to do a jig. No matter how much you terrify an NPC paralyzed by some poison, he can't flee in a panic because he can't move. Similarly, even if you think that that carriage is metaphorically yellowing the snow beneath it, it is unable to do anything of its own volition to act on that fear.

So your problem with the above example, is that objects cant move.. But your alright with it being able to be afraid?

[Anlashok]

To help clarify the intent (though the quote covers that), there is a feat to let terrors break immunity mind affecting, so the distinction was apparently on the devs mind.

Gotta wonder what the devs have against the class. It's certainly an interesting trend though.

[Segev]

If the RAW faces you with two equally parseable scenarios based on how you choose to read a thing, you go with the one that makes the most sense. Doubly so if the designer chimes in with their intent. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Any other approach is meaningless pedantry.

Um, yes?

1) I don't think the RAW quite supports the designer's intent as written.

2) The designer's intent, however, is quite clear from surrounding context, hence why I said I agree with how others have suggested to rule it: that it does, in fact, not work through mind-affecting-immunity without the extra feat.

[Segev]

So your problem with the above example, is that objects cant move.. But your alright with it being able to be afraid?

From a RAW standpoint, if the rules happen to cause such a quirk? That's what happens. I'm not advocating that you play this way. I'm just analyzing the rules as written (or presented, as the case may be) to see what they technically say happens. We have the clear intent of the designers, and can trivially come to an agreed-upon conclusion as to how to run it at our tables that follows this clear intent. But that doesn't mean the RAW support it. IT just means it's probably more correct to disregard the RAW's weird consequences and go with the intended results, since they don't actually lead to any oddities, themselves.

[Quiet Wizard]

There are spells that also give the Shaken condition (the first stage in the Fearmongering Ladder) that are not Mind-Affecting.

2 of them, for example, are the very well regarded Shadow Well and Howling Chain.

Both spells can cause Undead to become Shaken.

[Psyren]

I don't think the RAW quite supports the designer's intent as written.

But it does. The issue is that English is ambiguous, so it can also be read in such a way that it does not, but the fact that it can and does if read the way I and he described is beyond refute.

You can't say "there is no possible way to read this Andreas' way." There is. And so the issue instead becomes "which of the two ways did he mean" - asked and answered.

[Otodetu]

From the pathfinder bestiary:

Fear (Su or Sp)

Fear attacks can have various effects.

Fear Aura (Su) The use of this ability is a free action. The aura can freeze an opponent (as in the case of a mummy’s despair) or function like the fear spell. Other effects are possible. A fear aura is an area effect. The descriptive text gives the size and kind of the area.

Fear Cone (Sp) and Ray (Su) These effects usually work like the fear spell.

If a fear effect allows a saving throw, it is a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 fearsome creature’s racial HD + creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.

Format: fear aura (30 ft., DC 17); Location: Aura.

Format: fear cone (50 ft., DC 19); Location: Special Attacks.



From the paizo faq;

What makes something a fear effect? What about a morale effect?

Fear effects include spells with the fear descriptor, anything explicitly called out as a fear effect, anything that causes the shaken, frightened, or panicked condition, and all uses of the Intimidate skill. Intimidate, in particular, is a mind-affecting fear effect, so fearless and mindless creatures are immune to all uses of Intimidate.

Morale effects, unlike fear effects, so far have not had a descriptor or a call-out. Anything that grants a morale bonus is a morale effect. For example, the rage spell grants a morale bonus, so a creature immune to morale effects would be immune to the entire spell, including the –2 penalty to AC.


I know it sucks for the dread, but the ruling that makes sense, and that is supported as the offical ruling is that FEAR itself never overcomes immunity to mind affecting.

[Rynjin]

One wonders why you would, if monsters being afraid of the PC is ruining the tone of your game, allow a class based entirely around manipulating fear in the things it fights at all.