Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drammattex 11-08-04, 04:26 PM	I began playing Atari's TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL last night, which I realize is full of bugs, however the game raised a question: The party bursts through the door and encounters an ogre. The ogre goes LAST in initiative. The bard goes SECOND TO LAST. The party attacks the ogre. The ogre takes some damage. Now it's the bard's turn. The bard uses bardic music to FASCINATE the ogre. It's the ogre's turn. The ogre is fascinated. That's it's turn. Next round, the party attacks again. The fascinate is BROKEN and cannot be used again. Play resumes as normal. My question is... is this how it works with the pen & paper RPG? In this instance, the party has essentially gained a round of attacks. One one hand, the thing is being attacked and then is suddenly transfixed by the bard (not attacking it) until it snaps out of the trance by another attack hitting it. I like this because it gives the bard a little bit of power (another party boost kind of power) in an ability that otherwise finds little use in many campaigns. On the other hand, can the ogre be fascinated while it's being pelted with attacks? Or is the bard's charisma just that magical that it ensnares the creature's mind for a moment? Thoughts?
BlaineTog 11-08-04, 07:02 PM	I like this because it gives the bard a little bit of power (another party boost kind of power) in an ability that otherwise finds little use in many campaigns.:rofl: :heehee Fascinate + Suggestion is amazingly power. Unless, of course, the party always attacks / is always attacked the moment they see the enemies / the enemies see them. Give the bard a round to sing and everyone will do what he says.
HighlandsTraveller 11-08-04, 08:37 PM	In the pnp version of D&D you cannot use fascinate on a creature who views you as a danger. So, whether you win initiative or not your bard cannot fascinate hostiles. Crpgs based on this game have traditionally done things like this. Everything boils down to combat in a crpg so the "fluffy" social and utility abilities are either dropped or turned into something else.
BlaineTog 11-08-04, 08:46 PM	In the pnp version of D&D you cannot use fascinate on a creature who views you as a danger.That's not true. You can use it on someone who views you as a danger just so long as there is no "obvious threat." The PHB defines "obvious threat" as "someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the target."
Cacevius 11-09-04, 03:01 AM	HighlandsTraveller: //In the pnp version of D&D you cannot use fascinate on a creature who views you as a danger. So, whether you win initiative or not your bard cannot fascinate hostiles.// Nearly true, but not quite. Not every creature hostile to you sees you as a danger. SRD 3.5: //... Each creature to be fascinated must be within 90 feet, able to see and hear the bard, and able to pay attention to him. The bard must also be able to see the creature. The distraction of a nearby combat or other dangers prevents the ability from working. ... Any potential threat requires the bard to make another Perform check and allows the creature a new saving throw against a DC equal to the new Perform check result. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the target, automatically breaks the effect. Fascinate is an enchantment (compulsion), mind-affecting ability.// So, yes, if the bard's companions attack or threaten a creature the bard wishes to charm, they ruin his attempts. Fascinate can - and usually will - work, however, if the creature is just hostile or cautious about the bard, as long as it is not distracted by danger. Basically the bard has to coordinate attempts to fascinate with his companions and approach potential targets in a non-threatening manner. And - given his usually high charisma - a bard who cannot convince his companions to give him a try at this is probably not played properly. Have fun, Cacevius
Hurin 11-09-04, 03:36 AM	I'm playing a bard in the group I game with (11th level) and recently masterminded a plan to defeat the defenses of the outer fane in the Temple of Elemental Evil. Suitably disguised as a drow cleric of the wicked cult I lead the party into the fane bound and gagged as prisoners with a few members of the party cloaked and hooded as lesser acolytes attending the prisoners. After a quick pull on my potion of glibness I go to work and convince the big bad (14th level cleric!) that I am a follower of the dark god and that I have brought prisoners to him in an effort to prove my interest in joining. Bluff check. Opposed. Glibness. He buys it (though with some apprehension) and leads us off to the prison. Just as he starts to order the few guards present to start loading the prisoners into some creepy contraption I start singing in an effort to fascinate him, the guards and the annis hag. Rather than succeeding my DM rules that the effect auto-fails due to the cleric's suspicions and asks us to roll for initiative! :eek: Well I've done my homework and unless their is a visable, presentable threat or unless his NPC attitude is hostile to me there is no reason why it shouldn't work. :weep: So we ended up instead with a surprise round and soundly defeated the head cleric. But I'm still irked that the fascinate went sideways on me ... some of the guys suggested that I should have led up to the use of the ability with some kind of statement like "Allow me to inspire your dread faith with an incantation in honour of [insert evil god.]" I just feel as though I had the carpet pulled out from under my character's class ability after having taken much risk to put his self and the well-being of the party in a position to use it. In the end a silly semantic defeated my plan that took a few days to devise, several hours to execute in game, and character resources to achieve (potions of glibness, hat of disguise, etc.) Take my advice: discuss the mechanic with your DM prior to using it.
HighlandsTraveller 11-09-04, 08:11 AM	That part is in the paragraph about breaking the fascinate effect. Earlier it states that a creature must be able to pay attention and not be in a dangerous situation for anything to happenin the first place. I'm quite certain a PC would argue that he was in danger and wasn't going to stand still listening if he were suddenly facing an ogre whether he had been able to attack yet or not, and so I'd give the ogre the same benefit of the doubt when facing the party. The two sides are clearly hostile to each other from the get go. It could work for an ambush when one side isn't expecting to fight and will stand still and listen to the bard but, that would only work for an evil party really. You can argue on the rule wording but it is obviously meant as a noncombat ability as it says this twice. Because the rules don't directly stop a bard from trying if he is first in initiative and his party has been wandering around with all of their weapons sheathed (and how likely is all this?) doesn't mean a DM should allow it. I'd just use the more vague danger clause above and nix it right there. In several campaigns and all of the living rpga games I've played never once has it been interpreted that way - only here on the internet.
Drammattex 11-09-04, 11:39 AM	Thanks for all the great responses. I agree that it should be a noncombat ability, and that's how I've always interpereted it. When my bard was able to do that in the computer TOEE, I was really surprised. Bluff check. Opposed. Glibness. He buys it (though with some apprehension) and leads us off to the prison. Just as he starts to order the few guards present to start loading the prisoners into some creepy contraption I start singing in an effort to fascinate him, the guards and the annis hag. No offense to your DM, but it sounds like he arbitrarily pulled out the guns because he got nervous that the cool fight scene he'd hoped for wouldn't happen. I think that 3rd edition is based around a lot of stuff your character can physically DO (hence the introduction of feats and a workable grid-based combat system), and it doesn't really hammer in the role-playing aspect like 2nd Ed did (in the rulebooks, I mean). For this reason, I think Strength, Con, and Dex hold a greater weight in the system even though, when you're really role-playing and you have a high Charisma score, you should be able to get away with murder, especially if you've created a charisma-based character. It's harder to judge charisma stuff though, because sometimes a character with an amazing charisma will say something really dumb, and no matter how likeable, the NPCs aren't going to buy it. On the other hand, sometimes even the most disliked character can offer up the most logical truths and if intelligent NPCs argue against the obviously stronger points, they look stupid or ignorant. These are the extremes, but Charmisma's a tricky one and can be exceptionally powerful. One of my fondest memories is of a murderous rogue PC with an amazing charisma. The rest of his scores were low. He killed some people and turned a lot of things inside out, and the town eventually conspired to bring him to the gallows. They dragged him to court and tried him. When he spoke in his own defense, he browbeat the town about how much of a service he had done them over the past few months and how he had "half a mind to walk right back to the baron and tell him just what kind of folk lived in his realm." By the end of his speech (and a hopelessly amazing bluff), the people of the town were apologizing to him for the inconvenience and showing him the way out of the courtroom.
Cacevius 11-09-04, 12:47 PM	HighlandsTraveller: //... so I'd give the ogre the same benefit of the doubt when facing the party. The two sides are clearly hostile to each other from the get go. ... I'd just use the more vague danger clause above and nix it right there. ... // Well, hostility doesn't enter into the argument: a hungry ogre might well listen to his soon-to-be-elven-sashimi, and bingo ... there's a fascinating last supper. Also we should not argue about nixing rules here, since house rules were so far not requested. Still, making sure your potential victim does not feel distracted by danger or threatened is - of course - a role playing issue, and depends on that victim's capability to discern and reason. A bard-player should be equipped to handle such and not need to resort to rules lawyering around "obvious threats" or not so obvious ones. Hurin shared with us an exemplary job here, IMO completely sufficient to get even a verrry suspicious evil cleric fascinated. Basically the RAW to me appear to say, that something which would listen to the talk of bard also can be fascinated by his oratory/song/storytelling/etc.. Have fun, Cacevius
Drammattex 11-09-04, 01:50 PM	Hurin shared with us an exemplary job here, IMO completely sufficient to get even a verrry suspicious evil cleric fascinated. Cacevius I agree. In fact, I think if he HAD said "Allow me to inspire your dread faith with an incantation in honour of [insert evil god]," that would have aroused far more suspicion. My NPCs wouldn't have bought that for a second. But that's just me.
fractal 11-09-04, 05:59 PM	HighlandsTraveller: //... so I'd give the ogre the same benefit of the doubt when facing the party. The two sides are clearly hostile to each other from the get go. ... I'd just use the more vague danger clause above and nix it right there. ... // Well, hostility doesn't enter into the argument: a hungry ogre might well listen to his soon-to-be-elven-sashimi, and bingo ... there's a fascinating last supper. Given that, in the computer game, allies had already attacked the Ogre, I don't think there's really any way that it could have been fascinated. It was, presumably, quite literally "threatened", in the threatened squares of some of the armed party members.
HighlandsTraveller 11-09-04, 09:39 PM	It doesn't require house rules or rules lawyering. It is clear from the rules as written that a party would have to walk around with all weapons sheathed in hopes that the bard goes first in the initiative in order for fascinate to work in combat. And I was further arguing that the intent of the rules, which isn't a house rule but something you simply have to do in this game, would suggest this is not an ability that was ever intended to be used in battle. I posted in reponse to a computer gamer's question if it worked the same in pnp D&D. Clearly the combat described above does not work with the pnp rules but thats just what they have to do when converting to a more combat oriented crpg. Also, I'm amazed at the number of posts on these boards that assume you can use fascinate as a combat ability, and so I'm doing my best to squash that misconception.
Cacevius 11-10-04, 02:54 AM	It appears we all agree that it is not possible to fascinate something which feels threatened or in danger. This clearly and patently includes the oger of the computer game, which was already attacked by the bard's companions, or situations where a bard in a group with visibly drawn weapons tries to fascinate a 'monster'. I see the - once possibly contentious - point of whether sheer hostility towards the bard by a being not threatened or distracted by danger would save it from fascination is now settled too: it does not. Similarly there appears to be a consensus that there is no need to remove/nix/houserule the following lines of the SRD 3.5: //Any potential threat requires the bard to make another Perform check and allows the creature a new saving throw against a DC equal to the new Perform check result. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the target, automatically breaks the effect.// These lines describe how an established fascination - with its victims' perceptions already blunted - can be affected by subsequently appearing distractions. These lines do not condition or weaken the preceding rule: //The distraction of a nearby combat or other dangers prevents the ability from working.//. OK? Have fun, Cacevius