I haven't fully decided yet, but I'm partially of a mind that the Fear & Terror rules seem a bit weak. What with the one check upon first encountering the monster/situation in a given act/encounter/what have you, I've yet to see them generate much of an effect.

What if, in addition to the rules as written, a character had to make a fear/terror test on any round engaged with a fear/terror causing monster, location, etc? Would this be horribly unbalancing and unfair, or does it sound reasonable?

Any thoughts are welcome. Right now I'm inclined to keep the rule as written, but I thought I'd bounce the idea off the wall and see what folks thought.

I haven't had the same problem with Fear and Terror not making an impact. It may depend by what is considered "impact", I don't need to see PC's stressed or strained lots of times for it to matter - I need to see them "worrying about it" for it to matter. In 16 sessions perhaps twice has the Frightened condition been gained, but stress and then stress/fatigue have been accrued to menacing levels and the "impact" of the tests felt.

The one thing I have found is if there aren't stress/fatigue threats otherwise in the encounter then it's not such a deal (just as any encounter that only threatens a bit of any of wounds, fatigue or stress isn't really a threat).

Rob

My idea is looks like this - whne my players fail the Fear/Terror test they lose the free manouver. If they fail the test the second time they gain the misfortune (Fear) or Challenge (Terror) dice to all the tests. The 3rd time they fail the test they gain the Frightened condition. That gives them the feeling of Fear/Terror in the game.

I think you could get more out of Fear and Terror if you just up the value by 1. Fear 1 becomes Fear 2, etc.

1 challenge die harder and 1 more stress/fatigue if they fail. I think that may make a bigger difference than you think without adding any extra rules.

Thanks for the comments, definitely some things to consider.

Val: I think you've hit upon exactly what my problem is (not that it's much of one), in the layering on sources of stress. It's funny as fatigue tends to pile up in our games, but stress much less so. I'll remember that for the next session and see if I can bring that more in balance.

ffgfan: Interesting thought, but I'm not sure if I want to bother with a three stage mechanic. I think I'd rather just keep the rule as written. Still, something to consider though. There's definitely some ideas there I could use for certain situations.

Doc: This is a bit in line with what I've been trying lately. Not so much upping the values across the board, but adding a level when it seems the the situation or the the scene would warrant it. And yes, I've seen a bit more of a result by doing this.

At the moment (and I'm still not sure I'm actually going to employ a house rule) I thinking of modifying my initial idea so that a check would be required if a player wished to engage (or became engaged with) a Fear/Terror causing opponent. I think that would give enough extra bite without requiring constant checks throughout an engagement or making the effect overpowered.

What is the point of having Fear or Terror causing PCs? Like the Priest of Morr? I cannot see what benefit those powers would be for a PC.

My apologies, perhaps my wording wasn't clear. I'm not talking about giving PCs fear or terror ratings, I'm talking about modifying the existing rules fear/terror rules for NPCs and monsters.

The idea at present is that in addition to the rules as written, if a PC wants to close to engaged with a big scary, or if a big scary closes on the PC, said PC has to make an additional check. If they fail they can still act as they wish but they suffer the fatigue/stress for the test and may gain the Frightened condition.

No need to apologize. I was intrigued by the subject, but from my perspective, it is PCs that have fear or terror ratings (for instance via a spell or some such) that to me seem like they don't have much bite as I understand the rules.