(3.5) Please Break Down For Me: Fear

[momothefiddler]

I have a Cleric who I want to be terrifying. Now, that's all well and good, but I also want that to be useful in combat. Problem is, while building her I looked up ways to be scary and... yeesh. It's a pile of extending and orders and exacerbating and stacking and rules from different places and I couldn't find anything that spelled out the fundamentals of how to approach Fear so much as they started out with "as we all know, throwing frightened on a character that can't be panicked is only useful when it's Wednesday in-game and after 9PM GMT out-of-game, so here are all the powers that include cowering!"

What I'm saying is I'm really daunted. It can't be that theoretically complex, can it? Is it really impossible to grasp the Fear mechanics without way more background than I have? Or am I just missing something?

(Currently I'm level 1, planning to go into Ordained Champion, I have Cause Fear with DC 12 and Intimidate at +5 because I sorta spread chargen resources out, but past that I just get swamped and confused. I'm not really asking for build advice, but if you want to use the above info in examples for explaining how fear works, that could be nice.)

[Flickerdart]

It's really pretty simple.

A fear effect that affects a creature that's already affected by a different fear effect escalates the condition to a higher level. So if you cause someone to be shaken by cause fear and also Demoralize them using Intimidate, shaken + shaken = frightened. Another instance of shaken (perhaps from doom) makes the target panicked.

Shaken + frightened or frightened + frightened makes the target panicked.

That's all there is.

[jiriku]

Fear comes in levels. If you are a little bit scary, your foe is shaken -- he stands his ground, but suffers penalties. Growl a little more fiercely at him and he may become frightened -- he'll run from you. However, if he can't get a away, he''ll stand and fight if he must. If you are truly terrifying, he becomes panicked -- he drops everything he's holding as he runs, and will be found some time later curled up under a piece of furniture sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth. If he can't get away, he's cowering -- brain shuts down, drops in a heap, and basically just waits to die.

Escalating fear: multiple fear effects stack, unless the details of your effect say otherwise. Shaken --> frightened --> panicked. Even if an effect says it doesn't stack, often you can follow it with one that does, and then it stacks anyway. Thus nonstacking shaken + stackable shaken = frightened. Note that cowering is not a fear level -- it's what happens when you're panicked and forced to stand and fight. Occasionally you'll run across an effect that makes someone cower without even attempting to run away.

Fear effects have a duration. When the duration wears off, you're usually fine. However, if you get hit by escalating fear effects, it's usually only the duration of the most recent effect that you need to worry about. Sometimes it can be hard to adjucate how long things last when you're suffering fear from multiple sources, each with a different duration. It gets worse when some of them stack and some don't, because then the order in which they were applied becomes important.

[momothefiddler]

Okay, so we have the progression: shaken -> frightened -> panicked -> cowering(maybe? don't remember where that comes in)

Things don't stack if they're from the same source; okay. This includes different instances of the same source, I assume? (two casts of cause fear doesn't do anything extra - makes sense.)

Adding a shaken to a shaken gives you a frightened, got that, but stacking a frightened on a shaken gives panicked? So it doesn't just move it along the progression. Is it since (more precisely, would it be valid to remember it as) : frightened is already two steps, so when stacking it gives another two steps? That doesn't work if cowering is on there, but I might just be wrong about that part. Of course, if panicked is the end of the progression, then there doesn't really need to be a formula since you've already given me a complete enumeration of combinations. Okay.

How does duration work?

(Thanks for your answer - this is looking far more intelligible than I'd gotten previously)

EDIT: the above was to Flickerdart. Then there was more thread.

@jiriku: Aha! So cowering is panicked plus trapped, not panicked plus shaken. That clears up a lot. Very good. Thanks.

Stacking/Nonstacking applies to previous sources, then, correct? So in a chain, I'm limited to one nonstacking and it has to go first?

If the duration is the last in the chain... well, does panicked+shaken=panicked? If so, can you give someone a 1-round panicked (relatively tame under some circumstances) and then a 1-minute shaken (not a huge deal probably) and end up with a 1-minute panicked (fight-ending)? Is that where all the guides are taking me with careful ordering and escalation?

[Venger]

fear handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3809) goes through most of your basic options.

a personal favorite of mine is dreadful wrath, since it lets you scare everyone every time you basically do anything.

take dread tyranny if you want to nab intimidate during your cleric levels since you have to start at 1 (I am truly sorry for your lots)


Fear effects have a duration. When the duration wears off, you're usually fine. However, if you get hit by escalating fear effects, it's usually only the duration of the most recent effect that you need to worry about. Sometimes it can be hard to adjucate how long things last when you're suffering fear from multiple sources, each with a different duration. It gets worse when some of them stack and some don't, because then the order in which they were applied becomes important.

this is not entirely accurate.

when you are hit with multiple fear effects, your highest level of fear persists for the longest duration of fear effect currently on you, even once the shorter one has expired, as detailed on p61 of HoH.

e.g. in flickerdart's example:


A fear effect that affects a creature that's already affected by a different fear effect escalates the condition to a higher level. So if you cause someone to be shaken by cause fear and also Demoralize them using Intimidate, shaken + shaken = frightened. Another instance of shaken (perhaps from doom) makes the target panicked.
1) target is normal, chilling out having an ice cream cone
2) target is shaken for 1 round from cause fear (since we're assuming he made his save)
3) target is frightened from demoralize
4) target is panicked from doom

he would be panicked (highest condition) for 1 min/lvl (longest duration from doom) even after cause fear and demoralize run out.

this makes fear stacking a lot more worthwhile, since even low-lvl effect still have worth in the mid-low game.

EDIT: response to your post momothefiddler


Okay, so we have the progression: shaken -> frightened -> panicked -> cowering(maybe? don't remember where that comes in)
no.


Note that cowering is not a fear level -- it's what happens when you're panicked and forced to stand and fight. Occasionally you'll run across an effect that makes someone cower without even attempting to run away.
an example of this would be the imperious command feat, which your guy's probably gonna end up taking.


Things don't stack if they're from the same source; okay. This includes different instances of the same source, I assume? (two casts of cause fear doesn't do anything extra - makes sense.)

that is what "the same source" means. if you cast cause fear twice, it doesn't stack. this is the general rule for spells, ones that break it will tell you so.


Adding a shaken to a shaken gives you a frightened, got that, but stacking a frightened on a shaken gives panicked? So it doesn't just move it along the progression. no, it does.

think of it like this:
shaken = 1
frightened = 2
panicked = 3

and the number line caps at 3. shaken+frightened = panicked. frightened+frightened= panicked. the "extra" level of fear is wasted since there are only 3.


Is it since (more precisely, would it be valid to remember it as) : frightened is already two steps, so when stacking it gives another two steps?
yes.


That doesn't work if cowering is on there, but I might just be wrong about that part.
wrong. cowering has no bearing on your susceptibility to fear effects. you may be cowering from some other source, like nybor's gentle reminder.


Of course, if panicked is the end of the progression, then there doesn't really need to be a formula since you've already given me a complete enumeration of combinations. [quote]
there is a formula as laid out above.

[quote]How does duration work?
I think you didn't see my post. if that made sense great, if not please tell me and I can explain further.


Stacking/Nonstacking applies to previous sources, then, correct? So in a chain, I'm limited to one nonstacking and it has to go first?
you are not necessarily limited to one nonstacking (you might choose to implement another nonstacking to boost the duration) but you're correct in that it wouldn't change status.

obviously, impose a nonstacking first, then a stacking (so it stacks) the inverse will not work.


If the duration is the last in the chain... well, does panicked+shaken=panicked? If so, can you give someone a 1-round panicked (relatively tame under some circumstances) and then a 1-minute shaken (not a huge deal probably) and end up with a 1-minute panicked (fight-ending)? Is that where all the guides are taking me with careful ordering and escalation?
duration's longest, not last in the chain. you'd have a 1 minute panicked even if you cast those spells in the other order.

as far as order goes, you want longest first and nonstacking first.

[momothefiddler]

think of it like this:
shaken = 1
frightened = 2
panicked = 3

and the number line caps at 3. shaken+frightened = panicked. frightened+frightened= panicked. the "extra" level of fear is wasted since there are only 3.
Right. Once I grasped that cowering was a separate thing, that's how I understood it. Thanks for the confirmation.


I think you didn't see my post. if that made sense great, if not please tell me and I can explain further.
You posted it after I edited, by timestamps, so... no, I hadn't. :smalltongue: But yes, it makes sense.


you are not necessarily limited to one nonstacking (you might choose to implement another nonstacking to boost the duration) but you're correct in that it wouldn't change status.
Wait, so "nonstacking" only means for the progression, and it still affects duration? Huh.

duration's longest, not last in the chain. you'd have a 1 minute panicked even if you cast those spells in the other order.
Does this mean that you could have someone under a 1-min panicked, however you do it, and then after 9 rounds drop a 1-min shaken on them and extend the full-intensity panicked for another minute? Interesting.


as far as order goes, you want longest first and nonstacking first.
Longest first? Just so you have more time to add onto it? Because if that's gonna be your final duration, you might as well not waste some of it on lower-level stuff. That is, assuming each effect takes a round to apply, if you have a 2-round shaken -> 2-round shaken -> 1-min shaken, you get 10 rounds of panicked, but if you go 1-min shaken -> 2-round shaken -> 2-round shaken, you only get 8 rounds of panicked...right?

[Venger]

You posted it after I edited, by timestamps, so... no, I hadn't. :smalltongue: But yes, it makes sense.
derp. I phrased it weird.

what I meant to express was "my post was really long and involved. when I started writing it, you hadn't posted again yet. after I posted, I saw a whole bunch more stuff I needed to explain, so thought it'd be easier to go back and edit my post rather than say it twice"



Wait, so "nonstacking" only means for the progression, and it still affects duration? Huh.
that is correct. by "stacking" we refer only to the duration. if you drop a 1 minute nonstacking effect on a target to shake him, and then next turn demoralize him to shake him for 1 round, he becomes frightened for the remaining 9 rounds.


Does this mean that you could have someone under a 1-min panicked, however you do it, and then after 9 rounds drop a 1-min shaken on them and extend the full-intensity panicked for another minute? Interesting.
that is correct, since shaken+panicked=panicked. this is the key component of fearstacking when you pick on one target (not something you'll do often, fear is more useful for gaggles of mooks than individual boss characters, since many fear effects are based off relative or absolute HD, and bosses often have too many to meaningfully effect)



Longest first? Just so you have more time to add onto it?
Yes, that's the basic rationale. You don't have to do longest first, but it's obviously best so that shorter ones don't run out, especially for 1 round things.


Because if that's gonna be your final duration, you might as well not waste some of it on lower-level stuff. That is, assuming each effect takes a round to apply, if you have a 2-round shaken -> 2-round shaken -> 1-min shaken, you get 10 rounds of panicked, but if you go 1-min shaken -> 2-round shaken -> 2-round shaken, you only get 8 rounds of panicked...right?

that's true for 2 round effects (none spring to mind aside from cause fear, but I'm sure there are some.) I mentioned "do longest first" as a general suggestion because many fear effects such as demoralize or never outnumbered only last a single round, so if you do them first and then lay down a long duration effect like doom, they will not overlap with each other, so won't stack. if all your stuff lasts multiple rounds, then do whatever lasts longest, that's your goal here.

but honestly, no combat should ever last 10 rounds, so it's not like it really matters that much.

[momothefiddler]

that's true for 2 round effects (none spring to mind aside from cause fear, but I'm sure there are some.)
Yeah to be honest that was just because I started the example with 1-round effects and then realized that the remaining duration calculations got funky if the different sources didn't take a round to lay down each, so I changed it to 2. But...

but honestly, no combat should ever last 10 rounds, so it's not like it really matters that much.
Valid.

Thanks for all your help! It's way simpler than it seemed - I apparently managed to get it tangled way out of proportion in my head. I think I get it now. Thanks. :smallbiggrin:

[jiriku]

when you are hit with multiple fear effects, your highest level of fear persists for the longest duration of fear effect currently on you, even once the shorter one has expired, as detailed on p61 of HoH.

This is what I meant to say. Venger phrased it better.


So momo, if this seems needlessly complex, yes it is. 3.5 has a lot of this stuff. It says something about the RPGs of the 90's that when I first got my hands on 3.5 I was impressed with how simple and elegant it was, compared to what I was used to playing. :P

[momothefiddler]

So momo, if this seems needlessly complex, yes it is. 3.5 has a lot of this stuff. It says something about the RPGs of the 90's that when I first got my hands on 3.5 I was impressed with how simple and elegant it was, compared to what I was used to playing. :P

I think what confuses me the most is that people play this game happily who will not play GURPS with me because of skill costs. :smallconfused:

(Not that I want to make a quality comparison between the two games, or imply that GURPS doesn't have a lot of complexity as a whole, or anything! Definitely not trying to get into a contest here.)

Also the fear thing is far simpler than it first appeared, so that helps.

[ryu]

I think what confuses me the most is that people play this game happily who will not play GURPS with me because of skill costs. :smallconfused:

(Not that I want to make a quality comparison between the two games, or imply that GURPS doesn't have a lot of complexity as a whole, or anything! Definitely not trying to get into a contest here.)

Also the fear thing is far simpler than it first appeared, so that helps.

Let's be fair. How many of those same people have you verified to have made use of the fear rules? For that matter how many rules do they know that aren't directly related to their standard tactics? Also if you think this is bad you should look up the unholy abomination that is FATAL. Actually... No. No you really shouldn't. In fact no one should. In even more poignant fact I sincerely regret both bringing it up and remembering it.

[jiriku]

You have named That Which Must Not Be Named. Let all reflect in silence for a moment upon your great sin.

[momothefiddler]

Let's be fair. How many of those same people have you verified to have made use of the fear rules? For that matter how many rules do they know that aren't directly related to their standard tactics?
...A crushing rebuttal.


Also if you think this is bad you should look up the unholy abomination that is FATAL. Actually... No. No you really shouldn't. In fact no one should. In even more poignant fact I sincerely regret both bringing it up and remembering it.
If I didn't already know about it, I'd be unhappy you brought it to my attention. That said,


if you think this is bad
I don't, particularly. I'm just rambling because the thread is over and I have a penalty to Will saves vs Tangent.

[prufock]

A pretty good guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=3809), though it does get a couple things wrong, if I remember correctly. Still, most of the info there is solid.

[Sian]

an interesting way to go at it with your build (Cleric) is to, via Divine Magician ACF (Complete Mage) picking up Scare, qualify for Dread Witch (Heroes of Horror), which is a decent way to boost your fear effects

[Chronos]

In any given system, there are some mechanics which are so complicated that nobody really remembers exactly how they work. The thing is, DMs don't remember them, either, so if anyone ever attempts to do one of those things at a table, the DM will usually either encourage them to do something else, or handwave the result. This results in a lot of people thinking things like "Hm, I don't remember exactly how fear effects work, but it didn't seem too complicated when it came up". It didn't seem complicated because the DM was bypassing the rules, not because he was using them.

[Sian]

Grapple rules are infinitely more complicated than the Fear rules, which is 'merely' remembering the scaling

[Chronos]

True; I was just using the example of fear because that's what this thread is about. An even better example would be 2nd edition's unarmed combat rules, which gave you something like a 1 in 20 chance to KO a dragon with a single punch, but only if you had exactly the right amount of skill, neither too much nor too little.