How do you handle Fear vs Courage

[lestodante]

Earlier someone used the BODMAS example, and I think this usefully illustrates the dilemma but I’m not sure that it is the solution
2+3x4
Is an example of an apparent dilemma, do you read it as;
2+3=5 5x4=20
OR
3x4=12 12+2=14
As 20=14 is not true, then we have an apparent dilemma.

High Adventure in a World of Math...

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Hey it wasn’t me who started with the BODMAS

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Uh that is not what Plate Mail or Chain Mail does in ANY version of the game. What version did YOU have?

I think the point that was being made was as follows:

Fear reduces your AD to 1, Courage boosts your AD by adding 2.

This is potentially a contradiction as a Hero with 4AD as standard who is under the effect of both spells, should use:

3AD - because Fear reduces his AD to 1, but Courage adds 2, making 3AD
OR
1AD - because Courage adds 2 giving him 6AD but Fear reduces it to 1AD

One solution offered was that because Fear effects are an absolute value (i.e. 1 rather than +/-1) then you apply the logic in the order that the spells were cast on the Hero.

This solution was criticised because if you adopt this principle of 'sequence of application' when faced with an "absolute" value (1) combined with a "relative" value (+/-1) in general then a Hero wearing Chainmail Armour (3DD an "absolute" value) and a Shield (+1DD a "relative" value) would either get 4DD or 3DD depending on the sequence in which they got dressed that morning (did I put my chainmail on first, before picking up my shield or the other way around), which isn't how anyone ever plays it.

Personally I also disliked the "absolute" and "relative" values and the "sequence of application" solution because an "absolute" value (1) is simply another way of writing 0+1 so is just as relative as +1.

My proposed solution is to amend the effects of Fear to -2AD

And welcome to the forum and enjoy "High Adventure in a World of Math"

[wallydubbs]

I can envision Zargon going either way with this one: you choose to let them cancel eachother out, after all Courage and Fear are opposites, but like Ned Stark said "When a man is afraid it is the only time he can be brave." (Or something along those lines).

But in terms of game play, I personally go with the "sequence of application":
A hero with Courage gets +2 on attack, but if Fear is cast on top of that the hero drops back down to 1AD. So long as the hero can still see monsters he will still have Courage once the Fear spell is broken.
In like manner
A hero can drop to 1AD if the Fear spell takes hold.But if the Wizard (or Elf) adds Courage on after, he's brought up to 3AD.

But some Zargon's may not look at this as one over the other. It's the Hero afflicted with fear, not the Courage spell itself. But by looking at it this way the interpretation becomes ever so convoluted because the hero would not only be effected by Fear, but by Courage as well. You can look at it paradoxically and just end up with a headache.

But if you wish to externalize spell casting, Wizard's of Morcar offers a solution: if the evil spell caster casts an Earthquake and it collides with the Wizard's Wall of Stone the two spells cancel eachother out. It's not exactly the same thing, but a hero is being effected by two different spells when there's only room for 1.
Then again objections would ring out if I suggested the same thing about Courage meet Sleep...

So play this the way you will, but remember Zargon gets the final say.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Whilst I agree that in game "Zargon gets the final say" but I'm not sure that rule carries much weight in a rules discussion between Zargons.

Let me give a couple of other applications of the "sequence of application" rule to mirror the examples that you have given.

A hero with 3AD gets Courage so gets +2 on attack (5AD)
Next turn if Fear is cast on top of that the hero drops back down to 1AD.

A hero with 3AD can drop to 1AD if the Fear spell takes hold.
But if the Wizard (or Elf) adds Courage on after, he's brought up to 3AD.

A hero with 2DD finds and dons Chainmail (3DD)
Next turn he finds and dons helmet and shield +2DD, he's brought up to 5DD

A hero with 2DD gets a shield and helmet so +2 on defence (4DD)
Next turn he finds and dons Chainmail (3DD) so that the hero drops back down to 3DD.

[lestodante]

Going off-topic but your 4th example is wrong in my opinion. Chainmail changes the hero basic defense (body), so it's 3DD.
Shield and Helmet will instead add EXTRA dice do the hero's basic defense. They are add-ons to the body armour (even if it is not specifically written in the rules) so whenever they are equipped before or after a chainmail (or another body armour) they always add one extra defense die.

I agree with Wally's explanation, you can decide to use one solution or the other. Both are good. You just have to decide with your group which one to apply.
I have custom spell cards which influence defense and attack stats too. To avoid confusion or BODMAS and headache, as well as discussion beetween players, I prefer to apply the simplest rule. If a spell modifies a stats and then a secon spell is cast (or potion) modifing again that same stats, only the last one counts. It is like having Rock Skin in the Spell Ring: you could cast it once normally (+1DD) and then cast it again from the ring (+ another 1 DD). I don't allow such "smart way" to power up a hero.
For example my custom spell Crocodile Skin modifies defence, doubling some shield rolled. This can't be combined with Rock Skin. But both of them can instead be combined with Courage or other spells or potions that modify different stats.
I consider this as the easiest rule to avoid any problems or doubts.
But of course, everyone feel free to overcomplicate things as they wish.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

My proposed solution was to modify the effects of the fear spell so that instead of reducing AD to 1 it reduces AD by 2.

I appreciate that solution may not be for everyone, but I'm not convinced that it can be fairly described as overcomplicated.

The complications that I was pointing out are those related to the "apply the mods in order of application" rule that was proposed by others

A hero with 2DD gets a shield and helmet so +2 on defence (4DD)
Next turn he finds and dons Chainmail (3DD) so that the hero drops back down to 3DD.

I agree with you that the above is wrong. Why? because as you said the rules state that Chainmail gives you 3DD but we both apply logic to that saying that statement really means 2DD for your starting armour +1 for Chainmail, so adding a Helmet and Shield makes a total of 2+1+1+1 = 5DD irrespective to the order in which they are put on.

Equally if a Hero armed with a shortsword, drank a potion of strength, then switched to a broadsword and attacked, he would roll 5AD. Why? because even though the rules state that a broadsword gives you 3AD we both apply the same logic to that, saying that the Broadsword really gives you +2AD on top of your unarmed 1AD, +2 for the potion makes 5AD irrespective to the order in which they are applied.

If we invoked a made up "apply the mods in order of application" rule here then the Hero would only get 3AD in attack as he drew his Broadsword (3AD) AFTER he drank the +2AD potion which is clearly nonsense.

All I am inviting you to do in the case of the Fear vs Courage is to apply the same logic rather than make up a "apply the mods in order of application" rule

[Markus Darwath]

The armor/weapon/accessories argument is kind of silly, because those are not temporary effects but innate qualities of the items, they all apply all the time when in use. The effects of spells and potions are temporary, and -magical-, and thus superseding.

Personally, I could agree with cancellation regardless of order, because Fear and Courage are opposite in concept even though not exact opposites in effect.
But I also would have no problem with a 'last in - first out' approach. Hero under the effect of Courage gets hit with Fear, then he's at 1AD, but, it doesn't cancel the Courage spell as the durations are not in conflict. So if he breaks the Fear while monsters are still in sight, then he reverts back to normal+2 AD. Going the other way around, Fear followed by Courage results in 3 AD until one or the other effect is broken.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

The armor/weapon/accessories argument is kind of silly, because those are not temporary effects but innate qualities of the items, they all apply all the time when in use. The effects of spells and potions are temporary, and -magical-, and thus superseding.

I don't really agree with that statement for several reasons.

Yes weapon and armour mods apply all the time when they are in use, but they are not necessarily in use all the time, Heroes can switch weapons, so a weapon bonus could be effect for less time than either the fear or Courage spell effects

The second example I gave used both a weapon and potion effect (the latter being both "temporary" and magical)

I would say that spells and potion don't necessarily supersede other effects, in that sense, a Hero under the effects of a Courage spell still rolls 3 more dice if equipped with a Battle Axe than with a Dagger

And I don't understand why the effects being permanent or temporary would make any difference, the point under discussion is how best to handle the situation, in the moment or turn (s) when a Hero is under the effects of both whether that is a single turn or multiple turns.

I'm not saying that the 'order in which they are applied' logic doesn't work in this situation, my concern with it is more around unintended consequences. Once you establish that 'rule' then for consistency players will look to try and apply it elsewhere and that is where we have to consider whether things could become unstuck...

[Markus Darwath]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that magic and mundane physics are fundamentally different. If we apply 'order of application' logic to magic effects, the resulting 'rule' applies only to magic effects. There's no need for it to be consistent with donning armor and the like because those are entirely different systems. Similarly, we don't look at the fact that a skull is a 'success' on an attack roll and then try to say that the Barbarian should succeed at disarming a trap by rolling a skull... it's just not the same mechanic.
I just see this as one of those cases where we should simply use common sense to resolve the issue and not worry about how someone may or may not try to rules-lawyer it at a later time. It's just the nature of games based in imagination that no rule set will ever be air tight. There will always be a need to occasionally figure something out on the fly.