Okay, got a question for the assembled wisdom of the Pathfinder Boards: can a character use Intimidate to demoralize an opponent that is immune mind-affecting effects? This came up last night when one of my players attempted to demoralize a crag linnorm and was able to beat the DC 29 check (even with the -4 penalty to the roll). The fact that I found the idea of a medium size human intimidating a gargantuan dragon a tad absurd, I ruled the linnorm's immunity to mind-affecting effects would prevent the shaken status. Any thoughts?
|
Okay, got a question for the assembled wisdom of the Pathfinder Boards: can a character use Intimidate to demoralize an opponent that is immune mind-affecting effects? This came up last night when one of my players attempted to demoralize a crag linnorm and was able to beat the DC 29 check (even with the -4 penalty to the roll). The fact that I found the idea of a medium size human intimidating a gargantuan dragon a tad absurd, I ruled the linnorm's immunity to mind-affecting effects would prevent the shaken status. Any thoughts?
Given that every fear spell is a mind-affecting spell, I'd agree with this and have been doing it in my games.
|
Okay, got a question for the assembled wisdom of the Pathfinder Boards: can a character use Intimidate to demoralize an opponent that is immune mind-affecting effects? This came up last night when one of my players attempted to demoralize a crag linnorm and was able to beat the DC 29 check (even with the -4 penalty to the roll). The fact that I found the idea of a medium size human intimidating a gargantuan dragon a tad absurd, I ruled the linnorm's immunity to mind-affecting effects would prevent the shaken status. Any thoughts?
Absurd or awesome? In any case, if the creature is immune because of being mindless then i rule immunity to intimidate. Otherwise i allow it, otherwise you wouldn't be able to scare a giant spider, or other vermin. Now That's absurd.
Absurd or awesome? In any case, if the creature is immune because of being mindless then i rule immunity to intimidate. Otherwise i allow it, otherwise you wouldn't be able to scare a giant spider, or other vermin. Now That's absurd.
Vermin are mindless/immune to mind-affecting... so not sure what you mean (do you rule that they are immune or not?).
And I'm not sure why that would be absurd. Ever try and scare a spider in real life? They respond appropriately to aggressive actions.. but I've never seen a single insect do any actions that would be considered "shaken". I've never seen an insect display anything close to fear or emotion.
Running away and avoiding confrontation from something that is obviously stronger than you (a million times your size and strength) is not fear but instinctive response.
.
I could perhaps see a -20 penalty for attempting to set off an instinctive escape response against vermin and other appropriately "naturally" mindless creatures (not undead).
That, or maybe a "Spider Wrangler" feat to open up the possibility. Kind of a limited bonus for a feat though, maybe tack it on to some other benefit (gain a giant spider animal compnaion or something).
I can not fully agree with vermin being classified as mindless, they might not rationalize on the level of other creatures and ruled mostly by instinct though I'd think even response on an instinctual level would be more than mindless.
I'd say there should be magic capable to influence vermin, if anything they should be particulary vulnerable to control, though probably not through the same spells. likewise intimidation should be possible perhaps harder because they are so alien.
My ruling would be that immunity to mind-affecting effects does nothing to stop Intimidate, for the same reason that See Invisibility doesn't help against characters just using Stealth - skill use represents normal interaction. If you want a creature to be immune to non-supernatural mind-affecting things, then it has to be completely devoid of emotion and incapable of being influenced in any way. That might make sense for certain things like Golems or mindless Undead, but it certainly doesn't apply to everything that's immune to mind-affecting effects.
All of that said, the situation you described with the Crag Linnorm is ridiculous, and the demoralizing mechanics seem to be in need of some work. It needs to involve Will at some point, if for no other reason than so Bravery kicks in. I would also definitely houserule that the -4 size penalty is cumulative for each size category of difference.
With regards to the growing thread derail, I think Remco Sommeling is correct that the real problem is that Vermin shouldn't be mindless.
My ruling would be that immunity to mind-affecting effects does nothing to stop Intimidate, for the same reason that See Invisibility doesn't help against characters just using Stealth - skill use represents normal interaction. If you want a creature to be immune to non-supernatural mind-affecting things, then it has to be completely devoid of emotion and incapable of being influenced in any way. That might make sense for certain things like Golems or mindless Undead, but it certainly doesn't apply to everything that's immune to mind-affecting effects.
All of that said, the situation you described with the Crag Linnorm is ridiculous, and the demoralizing mechanics seem to be in need of some work. It needs to involve Will at some point, if for no other reason than so Bravery kicks in. I would also definitely houserule that the -4 size penalty is cumulative for each size category of difference.
With regards to the growing thread derail, I think Remco Sommeling is correct that the real problem is that Vermin shouldn't be mindless.
For Bravery, my group increases demoralize DCs for bonuses to saves to fear. As for the monster being demoralized, I think that is a judgement call, but I would consider fear effects mind affecting. Though I believe insects and vermin should not be considered mindless.