Tha_Dreaz's page

Well, if you're doing an Intimidate check as a move action, you can start your turn off with your standard action.

Use your SA to take a Total Defensive and give yourself a +4 dodge bonus to AC until the beginning of the next round. Then do your move equivalent action.

Okay, I really don't understand how an Intimidate attempt provokes attacks of opportunity... unless it somehow involves putting away your weapon or moving out of a threatened square, how can anyone reasonably believe that Intimidation leaves you open to AoO? Hilarious.

Anyway, if you can intimidate someone from 30' feet away (or all people within 30') then you don't HAVE to provoke AoO even if you DO put your sword away. Only people who threaten you within melee distance can take an AoO against you... they can't MOVE and attack as an AoO... they can't load and fire a ranged weapon...

Basically, the common sense rule of "don't do things that provoke AoO when you're in melee range" applies as always.

Guess that's what the 30' is for, huh?

You know... while you're Demoralizing all foes within 30' of you as a standard action :D And then doing it again until they ALL run away.

That's right, I said it

THANK YOU, Grasshopper.

That's my sentiments exactly.

Peace

LoreKeeper:

You got some wild notions about what I'm trying to say :)

Yes, in Pathfinder, Intimidate is a skill check that causes conditions of fearfulness. No, you cannot make a saving throw against it or a modified opposed roll. In Pathfinder, someone makes a check against a DC and the DC is 10+hit dice of subject+subject's wisdom modifier. Can also be modified by size (+4) if the creature is larger than you.

If a saving throw or a modified opposed roll were involved, a player (or any other target creature) could add in bonuses against the fear-provoking effect of Intimidate (like 3.5).

It's not part of the group of "things" in Pathfinder which allow saving throws or bonuses against fearfulness. So far, in Pathfinder, that group of things is limited to spells or a monster's abilities.

That's what I'm trying to say... that, in Pathfinder, of the set of all things that cause fearfulness, Intimidate is disproportionately effective as a means to cause fearfulness in a target creature when compared with anything else.

And I'm also saying that conditions of fearfulness are NOT penalties :D Shaken, a condition of fearfulness, does penalize the subject. Most conditions do penalize the subject. Frightened and Panicked don't levy penalties of their own but they modify a creature's behavior / play actions via CONDITION.

It says in the Pathfinder book that a creature who is Frightened IS Shaken... that means they have two conditions ongoing: Shaken and Frightened.

It further says if a Frightened creature succumbs to something that would make him A) Shaken or B) Frightened again, his statuses would then be: Shaken and Panicked

See, Panicked replaces Frightened as a condition, but it is a seperate condition from Shaken, so a Panicked creature is also Shaken... see, it says that in the book

Conditions are a separate animal from bonuses and penalties.

Just saying

To be fair, DigitalMage, the theme is kind of Pathfinder rules vs. older rules/DM rules RE: the Intimidate skill and related issues.

A lot of us are conveniently comparing Pathfinder source book rules to 3rd ed or 3.5 Wizards of the Coast rules for DND just because it's the most comparable rule set and most of us have played that game before.

There is a pretty big difference in the way Pathfinder and 3.5 interpret "fear effects." For the most part, Pathfinder doesn't put Intimidation under the umbrella of "fear effects." The main difference is that if a bonus or condition is meant to improve your saving throw against a fear effect in Pathfinder, that same bonus or condition will NOT improve your standing against someone's Intimidation attempt. This is clearly different from 3.5 DND rules.

In 3.5, spells, skill checks, auras or ANYTHING which provoked fearfulness was met with either a saving throw or a modified opposed roll

In Pathfinder, only magical effects or creature abilities like spells and auras allow saving throws and thus bonuses.

Pathfinder stands apart from 3.5 DND in this respect because the rate of efficacy for Intimidate skill checks has increased by leaps and bounds. In my opinion, it's been made TOO effective.

My main issue is not the wording of the skill descriptor but the fact that Intimidation has been removed from the umbrella of fear effects.

I'm guessing other people are taking issue with that too.

or maybe pour the oil from the flask right into the square and light it with a torch... even if commoner takes an AoO, this could be worthwhile :))

Well, I know the DND 3.5 Dungeon Master Guide had an entry and a sidebar about bonuses and their stackability, since the subject is still up. Not sure how close Pathfinder comes, but last I remember, the 3 main kinds of bonuses which will stack or accrue with their own "type" are:

*unnamed bonuses (example: +2 bonus... +3 bonus)
*dodge bonuses
*circumstantial bonuses (but not if coming from the same circumstance)
*size bonuses (every size increase or decrease compounds the bonuses and/or penalties)

Also, is there a dedicated thread on Paizo's boards for Cat vs Commoner yet?

I just thought of an interesting tactic for the commoner to use. Flasks of oil aren't that expensive, so he should have a few molotov cocktails. He can just take a five foot step away from the cat and throw a molotov cocktail.

I wouldn't even bother trying to hit the cat, I'd just target the square he's standing in... it's a 10 AC with a ranged touch attack... even if I have to take a -4 penalty, I think the worst that could happen (barring a critical miss) is that the commoner misses the target square but hits an adjacent square. Either outcome results in 1 points of splash damage to the cat.

I think the cat has to make a save against catching fire at that point... who knows, he might make it... but cats only have like a couple hit points... sooo.... it's looking better for the commoner now :)

Steve Geddes:

I think you said it, bro, you said it "to the bone" as we used to say.

What I think is the most likely case is that whoever wrote the feat Dazzling Display intended for Intimidate's demoralize function to work like this:

demoralizing is supposed take a standard action and supposed to TARGET all creatures who can see and/or hear you within 30' and I think it's intended to EFFECT one creature within that area. Similar to spells that have a larger target area than target creature(s)... something like Sleep or Deep Slumber, etc.

Of course, if someone else wrote the Intimidate skill's descriptor, there could have been a communication break-down between the two parties. I wouldn't rule that out.

It's also likely that both descriptors were written by a single party. In which case, I think the skill's description could be a little more clear.

Of course we're overlooking another possibility here:

What if Dazzling Display simply had a typo and "full-round action" should read "move action" :D heh heh

I can't really make up my mind :)

Dazzling Display has been brought up many times. I agree that you can infer things from it if you choose, but it's at your own discreation

You are not arguing.. it's not an argument against... it's conjecture and opinion :))

No one can tell me that the Paizo writers are innocent of errors; they put out an errata to Pathfinder already. That means they are mortal and fallible.

No one should be expected to know what a skill does by reading a feat's description. Are you understanding this?

Once we got on the subject of "housecat vs. commoner," DND 3.5 crept back into the situation... since the "housecat vs. commoner" problem/situation was posed before Pathfinder was published... during an earlier edition of DND.

Sorry if the lines got blurred there. Will try to keep on Pathfinder context because this is a Paizo messageboard.

Peace

While it's true that in Pathfinder you only get a +4 for being "larger" and a -4 for being "smaller," in DND 3.5, the rule was "+4 bonus for each size category you are larger than your opponent."

The context of the discussion keeps jumping from 3.5 to Pathfinder... originally the thread was about themes relevant to both games.

Give awakened cat the monstrous beast template from savage species so they can telepathically communicate with each other and their prey.

They can stare someone in the eyes with that LOLcat face and the big round eyes and they'd hear in their mind, "I'm gonna open you up... climb inside your body... and wear you like a cheap, warm suit!"

"mmmGo onnn...mmmew can mew it! Purrrforate them!

Can we make the cats talk too? They should have cute little voices

Then all you have to do is worry about whether or not someone is going to use their 0 level Create Water spell on the cats. That spell has the instantaneous affect of demoralizing all house cats. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Perhaps you could prevent the players from scaring the cats away by putting a Paw-ladin into the cat party

I once used toads whose bodies secreted a contact-based venom. The venom was made so that it would barely do any CON damage (just a D3 primary and secondary) but it caused hallucinations giving anything you tried to attack a miss chance from concealment.

Toads... in 3.5... have a really uncanny hide modifier... it's like +21

They can't do any sort of damage whatsoever, but with the venom, it made for a pretty fun encounter :))

I'm not jumping through any hoops or messing up any rules...

I have 3 pathfinder players in 3 different games right now

Not a single one of them even has 1 rank in Intimidate... they're not designed to Intimidate anyone.

I posted that half-orc sorcerer as an example of what could potentially be.

It's just a situation that could come up at your table top and, as such, something worth of our consideration. Call it foresight?

You might find it logical to infer things, but deduction is proper logic. Inference is a form of reasoning that gives rise to more fallacies so it's not used as a format in Logic.

I understand that role playing game books, unlike law books, are not written by any standardized format of Logic; there is no reason to; DND wasn't created as a game for lawyers, linguists, engineers, or programmers. I like to think it was created for "nerds" LOL

Point is, I shouldn't hold Pathfinder's writers to anal-retentive demands. I think you're "more" correct than I am in this case by merit of your inference. More correct, yes, more logical, no

Oh, no... only 1 feat... Weapon Finesse.

Course they gave em back Weapon Finesse :)) they took away the prerequisite for it in Pathfinder.

Still don't understand how the 1 hit die cat is listed with 3 feats... Scent, Stealthy, and Weapon Finesse

I dunno, Forged, I suspect they'll get their Weapon Finesse back... I don't have the bestiary yet... think maybe David or TriOmeg might? If they'd be so kind :)

Well, really, I'm neither debating nor trolling... I didn't think either condition was fair LOL

I think I have largely succeeded at culling the opinions of various people other than myself

Thanks!

PS, Matthew, why is it okay for Gary Gygax to say that Hitler had an 18 CHA and it's trolling if I say Hitler was sexy?

You know sexy is as sexy does... charisma captures the popular imagination... popular imagination produces notion of what is and isn't attractive... if someone perceives attractive qualities about you, then you are attractive relative to the observer.

What am I saying? I'm saying that ugly people can be sexy. Sexy isn't a synonym for physical symmetry of proportion :)) it's in your imagination

You do realize that looking up a feat does not define a skill. That is not the order of precedence. It's a handy way to infer what a person's meaning was/is but inference is not deductive reasoning and thereby not logical.

Can't really deny the ambiguous wording in the Intimidate skill descriptive text.

I'm completely willing to go along with the fact that Pathfinder's writers didn't intend for people who use an Intimidate check to demoralize multiple foes as a standard action, but as a person pointed out on this forum, he was running a game and players apparently attempted to use Intimidate checks in just that specific way. No doubt this was caused by an easy to construe paragraph or two within the rulebook text.

I'm sorry that this kind of situation provokes free, critical, and independent thought :)) I'll try not to let it happen again, Zurai

Ah, I see, in Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, there is no prerequisite for Weapon Finesse.

That beats the DND 3.5 precedent by 2 levels then. Hurrah

I believe Pathfinder rogues get the option to take something in the way of a talent that gives them Weapon Finesse at 2nd level... that beats the 3.5 precedent by a whole level.

I had this come up recently because I wanted to know if multiclassing my pathfinder rogue with fighter would be worthy as opposed to doing a straight-on rogue.

If you know something I don't, Zurai, please share, I'd love a rogue with weapon finesse at 1st level

Hitler looked like a toad? Well, literally, that IS true... but I think it would be more accurate to say he looked like an ANGRY toad LOL

How is it that a rogue can take Weapon Finesse at first level? It requires a BAB of +1... rogues start with a BAB of 0

Haha, Hogarth, that's amazing

You know, if I didn't misread your quote there, it seems your cleric could still take Skill Focus: Intimidate and Persuasive... both of those rendering +5 more to Intimidate... not to mention the skill ranks accrued in the meantime.

RE: a cat's Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.

Yeah, but the problem here is that a cat is still essentially a 1 HD animal... and animals don't get a bonus first level feat.

I think if the cat advances hit dice... like say, your druid or ranger had a cat as a companion and his hit dice advanced thus giving him feats at every 3rd level... ability point up at 4th level... skill points, blah blah... eventually, like by his 3rd hit die, the cat can take Weapon Finesse which is cool for cats because ordinarily, I don't think Weapon Finesse appears on the lists of monstrous feats.

I had this issue with Weapon Finesse and rogues time and time again... I think it sucks that a rogue can't take Weapon Finesse until 3rd level simply because of the BAB requisite. Yet, you had little piddly monsters all over the place with BAB 0 and Weapon Finesse. Not fair

Are you saying Hitler wasn't sexy?

Let's look at why Hitler was sexy (still a completely hate-filled buffoon, but sexy nonetheless)

Power is sexy... that is why Donald Trump is orange and he still gets laid

He had classically rugged Semitic good looks thanks mainly to his Jewish mother's heritage.

He had a very unique mustache indicative of a sense of style... Style is sexy.

Okay, lol....

Commoner makes an untrained charisma roll in place of an Intimidate check...

Even if he has a 6 CHA and thus a -2 ability modifier to the check, he still is Medium and the cat is Tiny... that is 2 size categories difference and thus the Commoner gets a +8 bonus from size categories.

That's the commoner rolling a twenty-sided die, adding +8, subtracting 2 (because we hate commoners and they should all have 6 CHA, right?)

And his resultant modifier is D20 +6

What's a cat got, like one hit die (that renders fractional HP per HD due to tiny size category) and maybe a 12 WIS at best?

Cat rolls a twenty-sided die +2

It's like I keep telling my friends who say housecats can beat up on commoners... it would never happen that way in real life because your cat is deathly afraid of your wrath, am I right?

Lol

By the by, I think the whole problem of "low CHA score means you are ugly" is something that hearkens back to earlier, more light-hearted editions of Gygaxian whimsy :))

Obviously, charisma is a quality of leadership whereby one influences others by manipulation of the popular imagination... why should this have anything to do with your looks?

Timur the Lame? Napoleon Bonaparte, Joan of Arc? Jesus of Nazareth?

None of these people were famously beautiful, but charismatic, yes

Yes, I was right about cats and Finesse...

page 1 of MM3.5 Errata.... Cats had their Weapon Finesse changed to Stealthy

W00t COMMONER BABY!

You know even a 1HD animal can't have a BAB of +1 and thereby can't take Weapon Finesse... it's only right that a fractional hit die animal can't take it either

Speaking of Housecat vs Commoner...

Have you read the 3.5 Monster Manual errata? Most monsters had their Weapon Finesse racial feat taken away or changed.

I'm pretty sure house cats had their Weapon Finesse taken away... so now they attack using STR, I think, though you may want to look that errata file up

Commoner wins

Archmagi:

it lasts longer than one round if you succeed the check by 5 or more... I had a post on this thread earlier that examines the numerical success rate of beating the check by 5 or more... it's not that hard to make the Shaken status last into a second round... and by that second round, you can make them Frightened.

That being said, the SECOND time you demoralize the opponent, it should not be hard to beat the check by 5 or more.

I'm pretty sure there is no limit on how many times you can demoralize an individual target.... influencing their attitude and behavior, yes... that is specifically capped... but demoralize? Doesn't say in the Intimidate descriptor that it's capped.

What this means is... yeah, your sorcerer might only be able to make everything shaken for 1 round... and flee for 2 rounds thereafter... at which point, they would probably return to the fight? Maybe?

But every time the enemy runs from a threatened square, they are exposed to attack of opportunity.

This sets up the instance where a cycle happens:

Combat begins... enemies attack, sorcerer takes turn to demoralize opponents...

Next round, opponents are shaken and take a -2 to every roll... sorcerer takes turn to demoralize opponents...

Third round, opponents flee, players take attacks of opportunity.

Fourth round, opponents flee... players make ranged attacks.

Fifth round, opponents recover their senses and either A) return to fight even though they handily took 2 rounds worth of unanswered aggression... a poor decision. or B) continue to run away because they're at too far a disadvantage of HP to win and they're not stupid!

Let's say they return to the fight, what are they going to do, Charge action so they can get back into melee range within one round? Okay, so they hustle move / charge back into melee and attack. Players answer back immediately with readied attack actions... possibly killing the enemies preemptively. But let's say the enemies fight on... Sorcerer takes his turn....

You can see how the cycle continues at this point.

Paul:

You are right, for the Half-Orc to get the 20, he has to spend 17 points of his point buy and get an 18, then add the +2 to the 18. You might consider this a bad sacrifice, but a lot of min/maxers would not :))

Anyways, you could always roll 3 6's... I'm just saying it is POSSIBLE for a Half-Orc to have a 20 CHA and it's no harder for him to do so than for a human.

My point isn't that it's easy, my point is that it's possible AND improbable. What happened to Half-Orcs being ugly and stupid? Why are they now like uber-humans? Lol They ARE better than humans in Pathfinder...

They lack an extra first level feat, but they get Darkvision, favored class(es), and they speak an extra bonus language... plus there's that whole +2 to intimidate thing.

Human multiclassers have to balance their different classes, but Half-Orcs don't if they use their favored.

Maybe that doesn't make them "better" than humans, but certainly, within a certain pigeon hole of roles, the orc is going to do better than the human, IMO.

Moral: you take one REALLY stupid, REALLY ugly monster... an orc... mate it with a human... and you get something that's better than either parent. Lol

Also, some people have advanced... why there are certain feats or abilities that let you do things like... demoralize multiple foes... why would this be if the Intimidate skill check could demoralize multiple foes?

I don't know, is the Frightening Display, or whatever it's called... is that a charisma-based check? If it's not based on CHA, I could see how it's there as an alternative to Intimidate. Maybe your barbarian just didn't have enough INT and CHA to make it worth his while to take Intimidate ranks... okay, so there's an option, maybe?

I mean, it wouldn't be the only time that a company (Wizards, ahem) published prestige classes or class features that are pretty much worthless in the face of basic PHB fundamentals...

Continuing along the theme of Intimidation... you know there are at least 2 different Gnome prestige classes I can think of... the Giant-Slayer and the Blade Bravo... which create a gnome who is an efficient killer of larger-sized creatures.... A Giant is 2 size categories larger than a gnome and gets +8 bonus to Intimidate said gnome.

Now our gnome giant-slayer is running in mortal fear of his life.... from a giant... how pitiful is that?

Blade Bravo... same thing.

Why would they even MAKE those prestige classes if they're worthless against larger-sized creature by merit of Intimidation?

I don't know :)

As a DM, I never use Intimidation in my games; I think it's bunk to make players act afraid of something when they'd rather role play bravery. I think bravery should be as much a quality of your character as it is a condition of your morale.

Regardless of what we decide on how Intimidate may or may not be used to demoralize enemies, one thing we probably all realize is how Pathfinder pretty much abandoned things like morale bonuses and racial bonuses where fear effects are concerned....

Bard's Inspire Courage still says it provides a +1 morale bonus against Fear, etc... but if I can't use that to resist Intimidation, it kind of sucks.

Same with Halfling Fearlessness... in 3.5, it was fine to add that into your opposed roll against Intimidation... since there is no opposed roll now, Pathfinder excluded the possibility of adding in bonuses like these.

I'm back to my original assertion that the rule could mainly be fixed by re-introducing the opposed modified hit die roll so that BONUSES can be applied as they were intended.

Peace

You guys, fearfulness is not a penalty

If you are Shaken, being Shaken penalizes you

If you go from Shaken to Frightened, you aren't "penalized"

And if you go to Panicked, you aren't penalized...

There are no penalties to "stack".... or even penalties to "accumulate"

The whole thing with whether or not penalties and bonuses "stack" is moot because we're talking about status conditions here...

Some status conditions do accumulate especially those that have to do with morale or attitude. People have brought up the example of how fatigue accumulates to exhaustion... In 3.5 DND, you can change someone's attitude from unfriendly, to neutral, to friendly just by using progressive Diplomacy checks.

I realize, you guys, that Pathfinder probably didn't intend for Imtimidate to be used to demoralize mass foes... who knows if they intended for demoralization to create multiple, accumulating Shaken conditions which progress into Fright or Panic.

My point is, who cares what it's intended for? Until the writers or publishers explain what their original intention was, all we have to go on is some wording which, evidently, most of us cannot agree on because of how ambiguous it is.

High five!

Ha, TriOmeg, you're right, it does say Ray of Enfeeblement creates a penalty to STR. That's nuts.

And it's nuts because of this:

p. 311 Penalty: A negative modifier to a die roll.

Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't create a negative modifier to a die roll, it reduces a ray score by a certain amount. Arguably, it's not a penalty.

scratch that "ray score"... should read "raw" score

Quandary:

Demoralize
You can use this skill to cause your opponents to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for one round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten opponents in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you.

Yeah, you bolded the word "target" in a sentence talking about the difficulty class.... but you'll notice it's surrounded by two plural words.... "opponents"... and "opponents.".... and finally "they"... that's three plural words.

The reason why the word "target" is used is because each target will have a specific DC.

Every creature has their specific hit dice and specific wisdom modifier. Each creature is a different hypothetical. Therefore, the "target DC"... not the "target DC's"....

There can be no "target DC's" that "IS" such-and-such... that is like saying all the creatures in the group are going to have an equivalent DC... which they do not.

Obviously, each creature has its own DC to compare your result with and must be taken in individual cases, that is why that particular language is used with respects to difficulty class.

Ray of Enfeeblement isn't a penalty, it's ability damage... you can take ability damage numerous times from Ray of Enfeeblement. Ability damage, like all damage, accrues.

James:

To improve someone's attitude using Intimidate requires one full minute

To demoralize is a standard action

Except that the example uses a Half Orc Sorcerer :))

Don't forget how ridiculous this is... it's not a big, scary, Barbarian... it's a shrimpy, skinny, UGLY Half-Orc... with a CHA of 20.... and he can make himself larger with a first level spell... large and shrimpy, yes, but large nonetheless. LOL large and scary.

Yeah, it says on the page number I specified earlier that fear effects are cumulative... doesn't say anything about "not-stackable" since it's from the same source... it says it "IS cumulative"... which means it IS stackable... although "stack" is usually a term used for bonuses... not penalty or status... we use the term "cumulative" for that.

Things that are cumulative ALWAYS "stack" with the same source... like when a golem enters combat... every round, the chance that he will go nuts and flip out increases by one percent... those 100 different percentile points aren't coming from 100 different sources.

Yes, the shaken status will last for longer than 1 round; if you have a +17 modifier added to a twenty-sided die roll, you're pretty much going to beat the DC by way more than 5. If your modifier is +17, and your foes don't have a WIS score greater than 19, then you can demoralize any of them who have up to 3 hit dice 95% of the time (barring the roll of a 1). How many 3 hit die monsters have a 19 Wisdom? Not many...

To put that in perspective, just the +17... without the die roll... is enough to make any 2 hit die creature with 10 WIS shaken for 2 rounds.

Minimum non-failure success means rolling a 2. That's a result of 19... now that same 2 hit die enemy can have a WIS of up to 15 and you still have him shaken for 2 rounds. That means on the second round, if you roll another 2, he is now fleeing. So were all his buddies within 30' of you.

It says usually fear effects involve a Will save... notice that... "usually." Intimidate, in Pathfinder, involves absolutely no opposed roll... unlike 3.5.... not even a saving throw

It also says that demoralizing your opponents affects all your foes who can see or hear you within 30'

If I'm a bard and I use my Inspire Courage to affect everyone who can see or hear me in the radius of effect... does it only affect one person or does it affect ALL my allies? It affects all my allies who can see or hear me and who can be affected by morale conditions.

Fear and similar demoralizing affects are only useless against mindless foes, paladins who are immune to fear (at least in 3.5 paladins were immune to fear, haven't checked Pathfinder yet), and I think the oddball intelligent undead creatures who, for some strange merit of being undead, are still immune to all mind-affecting compulsions even though they are not mindless. Like Vampires, Ghosts, and stuff like that.

I don't think there is any way we can try to take what the book says differently... I don't think you can actually interpret your way around this... you simply HAVE to make a DM ruling about this rule...

So, Intimidate is going to be one of those things that works in various ways in various DM's games.

In my opinion, we needs to get this fixed!

A lot of you have posted your interpretations of the Intimidate rule and I think that's pretty much what it's going to require to work: an original interpretation.

I still like Pathfinder, I'm not hating on it! Just want to get her streamlined :)

A 1st level Half-Orc sorcerer, in Pathfinder, is really really powerful.

He can take one rank in Intimidate... get a +3 bonus for taking that rank... get a +2 bonus for being a Half-Orc... take a +2 feat bonus from Persuasive... have up to a 20 CHA since Pathfinder Half-Orcs can have a 20 CHA at first level and thus a +5 ability modifier to Intimidate.... then he can use his 1st level arcane magic to cast Enlarge Person on himself an thus get a +4 size bonus...

What does that add up to?

1D20 +17...

As you can see from the newly designed Pathfinder Intimidate rules... this pretty much makes everything in a 30' radius of the Sorcerer Shaken...

According to page 563 of the Pathfinder Core Book... "Fear effects are cumulative"... a shaken creature who is again made shaken becomes Frightened... a Frightened creature made shaken becomes Panicked...

basically this means a Half Orc sorcerer only needs 2 standard actions to make everything in the dungeon run away... 3 standard actions and you might get some of their dropped equipment too.

I dislike the Intimidate rules in Pathfinder as opposed to the 3.5 rules... the 3.5 rule involved an opposed roll which incorporated such things as a halfling's racial bonus against Fear effects.

I think what you're going to see if Pathfinder ever gets put out there in big tournament events like DND is that people are going to find a way to exploit the new Intimidate rules and pretty much ruin the dungeon.

Should either bring back the opposed modified hit die check or allow a Will save against demoralization... something needs to be done because automatic success is rampant