|
Is it just me or is the demoralize option of the Intimidates skill still too easy to pull off? DC 10 +HD +Wis mod is not very hard to beat. The 1st level bard in our campaign could reasonably demoralize a 10th level character with ease.
Easy example Bard 1 vs. Cleric 10 with equal starting Chr and Wis of 20 respectively. Assume all stat boosts are to Wis and target has +4 periapt.
Bard Intimidate mod is +9
Cleric DC is 23.
12 or above for a 1st level character to spook a 10th level character.
Would you add in any Bonuses to saves vs. Fear from spells, feats, or class abilities? Could you replace the HD and Wis mod with Ranks of Intimidate?
I have a 5th level fighter, a Hellknight NPC who has the heroic NPC array and +9 Intimidate score which is only equal to the Bard's (who rolled using the Heroic method of 2d6+6).
--Vrock and Awe
I'm dealing with this as a DM myself. In the case you mentioned even with the shaken penalties the 10th level cleric would still handle a 1st level party, especially if he's got backup (incidentally, the way I read the rule it'd be DC 25: 10 + 10 HD + 5 Wis Mod). The PC would need to roll a 16.
Personally I'd house rule situations that seemed out of place, however if the bard in this case had the cojones to try to intimidate a 10th level whatever and potentially waste a standard action (that could be used to RUN AWAY!!!) then kudos to him/her.
What strikes me, reading your post, is that Demoralize has a far more drastic effect on low level baddies. Goblins will suffer far more from -2 to hit/saves/etc than a 10th level whatever. The wording "opponents" leads me to believe it affects all opponents within 30', not just one. Then again the action 'graph says "Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action." So the wording is a bit hinky.
Potential house rules: Any NPC with 3+ HD more than the PC is immune; Only one opponent can be demoralized per standard action; Opponents can add their Intimidate skill to the DC; More than one opponent can be demoralized, but DC for all opponents is equal to the highest DC +1 per extra opponent.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, I could be missing/misunderstanding something.
Zo
EDIT: I'd certainly allow bonuses to save vs Fear to apply.
The worse part is when you demoralize a couple of times in a row (which is not that hard to do if you stack a number of Intimidate bonuses) and cause your foe to run away.
Easy example Bard 1 vs. Cleric 10 with equal starting Chr and Wis of 20 respectively. Assume all stat boosts are to Wis and target has +4 periapt.
Bard Intimidate mod is +9
Cleric DC is 23.12 or above for a 1st level character to spook a 10th level character.
Cleric DC is 28 (10 + 10 for HD + 8 for 26 Wis). 1st level bard has 10% chance to spook a 10th level character. That's about the same chance as a 1st level bard hitting a 10th level fighter in combat.
Easy example Bard 1 vs. Cleric 10 with equal starting Chr and Wis of 20 respectively. Assume all stat boosts are to Wis and target has +4 periapt.
Bard Intimidate mod is +9
Cleric DC is 23.12 or above for a 1st level character to spook a 10th level character.
Gotta be careful with those easy examples - the math can sneak up on you wipe you out in the surprise round.
First, 23 - 9 = 14, so your example would give the bard a success on a 14 or higher.
Second, your DC is way off. it should be 28, using your example: 10 Base + 10 HD + 8 WIS (20 base, +2 for levels 4 and 8, +4 for periapt - you gave him these bonuses, right?).
So, now the bard needs a 19 or higher, as Derek noted in the post right before mine.
If he succeeds, he has spent his entire standard action imposing a paltry -2 penalty to a cleric who can wipe him out in one round, even with that penalty. Strangely enough, Flamestrike won't care if the cleric is shaken or not, it will still fry the bard into a crispy corpse, and we know the bard is within 60', well within range...
Would you add in any Bonuses to saves vs. Fear from spells, feats, or class abilities?
While it isn't implicitly stated in the skill, there is this little bit from the core book:
Shaken is a less severe state of fear than frightened or panicked.
Ergo I would certainly apply and and all modifiers to fear saves to the DC to avoid being shaken. Anyone who has any kind of resistance to magical fear should also have the same resistance to non-magical intimidation.
Could you replace the HD and Wis mod with Ranks of Intimidate?
Nope.
Real life, I have found that bullies are often the easiest to intimidate. They are used to throwing around their size and their bad attitude and intimidating anyone around them, and maybe even "beating up" anyone dumb enough not to intimidate too easily. They know what they can do, and what they will do, to someone they don't like, and they're all too ready to make an example of anyone who stands up to them, if only to protect their status as a bully.
Consequently, when they meet someone who intimidates them, they're already pre-wired to expect that kind of treatment from this inimidating new threat. Their knees shart to shake as they think of all the things they would do to themeselves, and they attribute the same kind of behavior on whoever intimidates them, whether it's true or not.
So no, being good at intimidate doesn't make you any good at resisting intimidation at all. Might be, in many cases, that's it's really a liability, though I wouldn't advocate that as a houserule.
Potential house rules: Any NPC with 3+ HD more than the PC is immune;
Don't like it.
It's very hard to tell how many HD you have compared to how many HD your opponent has.
Really, unless we're seriously metagaming, we have to assume our characters have never even heard of HD, and they certainly don't know how many HD they have, or anything else has.
Two guys meet on the street, one tries to intimidate the other, and things that matter will be bulging muscles, scars, a nasty look in his eye, whether or not his sword is glowing and dripping acid on the ground, whether or not his armor is glowing too, whether or not he's surrounded in a numbus of flames, how many nasty looking buddies he has, whether he has a pet dragon, etc.
Some of that could be used to assess how many "HD" he might have, in character terms. Anyone in glowing armor with an acid-dripping sword and a dragon for a pet is probably not a wimpy mook...
Only one opponent can be demoralized per standard action;
This would break the skill into near-uselessness.
Nobody in their right mind would give up their only attack (or choose to make just one attack instead of a full-attack) to impose a puny little penalty on their enemy.
In fact, it's a good way to die.
Fighter: I intimidate the ogre.
Ogre: I smash the fighter.
Realistically, it's just as easy to flourish your sword impressively and shout "I will kill you all!" as it is to flourish your sword and shout "I will kill one of you!". And probably more intimidating, too.
Opponents can add their Intimidate skill to the DC;
Probably making it too hard here.
Intimidate is "Untrained" so everyone can use it, even with no ranks. Anyone with a CHA mod instantly becomes harder to intimidate that people with no CHA mod, which doesn't always make sense.
More than one opponent can be demoralized, but DC for all opponents is equal to the highest DC +1 per extra opponent.
Now this I like.
We travel in groups, fight wars in units/squads/armies, etc., to give each other support. Our enemies are less frightening when we have allies at our backs.
I like this one.
The worse part is when you demoralize a couple of times in a row (which is not that hard to do if you stack a number of Intimidate bonuses) and cause your foe to run away.
Interesting idea.
But I can't back this one up with any official rules. Can you point out the rule that allows multiple demoralizations to force someone to run away?
I read it as being one opponent only, otherwise why does the feat "dazzling display" (which allows you to demoralise everyone within 30 feet who can see you) even exist??
I don't think Intimidate/Demoralize is meant to only affect one foe at a time. It does clearly say "opponents" and realistically, the stuff you would do and say on a battlefield to intimidate one guy would intimidate them all anyway.
Note that Demoralize requires the targets to be able to see and hear you, while Dazzling Display only requires them to see you.
Still, Dazzling Display takes a full-round while demoralize only takes a standard action, and how often are you in a situation where foes within 30' cannot hear you?
It sure seems like a wasted feat.
The worse part is when you demoralize a couple of times in a row (which is not that hard to do if you stack a number of Intimidate bonuses) and cause your foe to run away.Interesting idea.
But I can't back this one up with any official rules. Can you point out the rule that allows multiple demoralizations to force someone to run away?
Multiple fear conditions stack:
"Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead."And in the description of the Intimidate skill, it says you can try Intimidate multiple times (with a +5 to the DC every additional time).
The worse part is when you demoralize a couple of times in a row (which is not that hard to do if you stack a number of Intimidate bonuses) and cause your foe to run away.Interesting idea.
But I can't back this one up with any official rules. Can you point out the rule that allows multiple demoralizations to force someone to run away?
Multiple fear conditions stack:
"Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead."And in the description of the Intimidate skill, it says you can try Intimidate multiple times (with a +5 to the DC every additional time).
Excellent.
I had missed that, but I was already doing something like that anyway.
Still, I have a hard time justifying applying this rule to non-magical effects.
If a dragon panics you with his fearful presence, or a necromancer panics you with a Cause Fear spell, that's one thing. But becoming panicked because the enemy orc swings his battle axe around in circles and threatens to kill you is a totally different thing.
I don't think I could ever win an argument with a player if I tried to force them to run away from a Demoralize check. And as a player, I would argue vehemently if my DM tried to force me to run away.
It's the player's decision whether to stand and fight against all odds, or to run away and live to fight another day. It's always the players decision. The only time it isn't is when magic or the supernatural forces the character to behave, well, out of character.
Demoralize is not magical or supernatural. No PC should be forced to run away from an orc shouting threats at them - that's what orcs do.
And, in return, if I can't apply it to PCs as a "forced" effect, then I can't apply it to the NPCs or monsters either. Each opponent I run wants to live, but they also want to fight (or they wouldn't be fighting). Greed, hunger, survival, self-defense, whatever it is, my NPCs and monsters are fighting for a reason. If they run, it's my decision based on their needs and motivations. If the players whirl their swords around and shout thrats at them, I may decide that they will run away, or I may decide they'll fight on (shaken).
Without a magical or supernatural compulsion aspect, I don't think it's right at all for a skill check to force anyone to take any actions they don't want to take.
|
Without a magical or supernatural compulsion aspect, I don't think it's right at all for a skill check to force anyone to take any actions they don't want to take.
I disagree, it is a game mechanic, just like any other. IMHO if a Warrior NPC can affect a PC by making an attack check, then so should a highly skilled Diplomat get to affect a PC by Diplomacy, or a Rabid barbarian get to demoralise a PC by an Intimidate check.
If you really think it overpowered, perhaps revert back to the 3.5 version which lasts only one round at most (meaning two PCs would need to demoralise one after the other to make a character Frightened) and that you need to be in a threatening position (so effectively the PC gives up a melee attack).
My current fighter is focused on using Demoralise (especially as it can be used at Range in Pathfinder with the effects lasting for more than one round potentially). If my DM didn't allow me to make foes run away with that skill then I would just end up investing in yet another sword swinging feat or something.
If a player invests skill points in Intimidate over several levels, perhaps even investing in Skill Focus (Intimidate) as I have, why should his investment be given any less merit than a Cleric's transitory choice to prepare Cause Fear? Using Intimidate is already underpowered compared to Cause Fear so let the PC make use of it I say.
If someone has mentioned this, then I apologize for repeating it. Back in 3.5 any effects or modifiers that applied to fear affected Intimidate checks.
While Pathfinder does not state that in the RAW, I think it would be appropriate to follow that practice. This would mean that a 3rd level paladin could not be intimidated (immune to fear effects) and that an ally with the aura of courage would have the DC of the check increased by +4. A fighter's bravery ability would increase the DC as well (and would stack with the paladin's aura bonus).
While not specificly targeting fear, I would apply the Barbarian's bonus to Will saves from rage to the DC. It seems appropriate. Of course the fearless rage power completely negates the effect of Intimidate all ready, but you have to be 12th level to get it.
Uff this tactic can ruin PC characters. It it not that difficult to make a defensive monster with high intimidate that just spends round after round to make one PC run away. What 3 rounds only to practically defeat one PC while his buddies attack others.
But look the bad logic of this: 4 baddies attack 4 PCs. One of them stays a little in the back and intimidates the PC fighter. Each round PCs kill on the baddies and fighter get closer to fleeing. In the third round only that one baddie is alive but the fighter get scared of him and runs away only because this guy said stuff to him. Come on?! Really?
My own house rule will be that this skill can only ever bring you to shaken condition during combat, for anything more then that you need magic or other special abilities.
Also the +5 to DC for more check to me reads if you fail and try again the DC goes by +5.
|
|
As Digital Mages G.M. in question i am happy to allow enemies to be affected by demoralize/intimidate even to the point making an enemy run away within reason. He has already used this tactic on the Goblins of Thistletop in my Rise of the Runelords campaign to great effect but it won't be so easy on targets his own size. An earlier poster made some good points about a first level Bard being able to scare a 10th level Cleric. I will be introducing a cap i think on the amount of HD/CR that a character can effect above his own level just to make it a little more realistic. I will discuss this with my players first to see what they think. I don't intend to make the skill useless however as i see it as a valid tactic and i like to encourage my group to think outside the box in my campaign.
I don't think Intimidate/Demoralize is meant to only affect one foe at a time. It does clearly say "opponents" and realistically, the stuff you would do and say on a battlefield to intimidate one guy would intimidate them all anyway.
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 1 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.
I see where the confusion comes in here, but using the skill is for one opponent only. Basically using the skill allows you demoralize any one opponent within 30' as a standard action versus using Dazzling Display to demoralize all opponents within 30' as a full round action. When the skill says you "cause your opponents to become shaken" it doesn't mean it affects more than one opponent at a time.
Uff this tactic can ruin PC characters. It it not that difficult to make a defensive monster with high intimidate that just spends round after round to make one PC run away. What 3 rounds only to practically defeat one PC while his buddies attack others.
But look the bad logic of this: 4 baddies attack 4 PCs. One of them stays a little in the back and intimidates the PC fighter. Each round PCs kill on the baddies and fighter get closer to fleeing. In the third round only that one baddie is alive but the fighter get scared of him and runs away only because this guy said stuff to him. Come on?! Really?
My own house rule will be that this skill can only ever bring you to shaken condition during combat, for anything more then that you need magic or other special abilities.
Also the +5 to DC for more check to me reads if you fail and try again the DC goes by +5.
It's not really that bad actually. In the case you describe one of the bad guys is effectively out of the combat trying round after round to cause fear. Since the test is not automatic and I'd say the fighter's bravery bonus would apply to the DC it could take much more than 3 rounds to get the fighter to flee. Then this all assumes that the another party member doesn't bolster the fighter and remove the fear effects.
Now if you have bad guy with wickedly high intimidate there would be reason for it. Probably that bad guy is the big bad end guy. If intimidate is his mojo then it should be work as described. It's no different that say dragon fear except that intimidate is less effective since you have to use an action to do it and do it 3 times.
Now you could make Human Fighter or Half Elf Fighter at 1st level like this.
Feats
Intimidating prowess (Bounus combat feat)
Skill Focus Intimidate (level on feat)
persuasive (human Feat)
Using 20 Point build +2 to Strength
S:16
D:16
C:14
I:10
W:8
C:12
Skills: Intimidate 13 (rank 1, Class skill 3, Chr 1, str 3, Skill focus 3, Persuasive 2)
If you wanted to make the fighter a one trick pony then drop dex to 10, con to 10, int to 8 and boost the Str to 20 and Chr 15 giving you a 16 intimate skill bonus and you first +1 stat gets you 16 Charisma. Only you'd be pure strength and intimidate and you'd be wasting your armor training but if you planed to Multiclass into say a Paladin it might work better. If a player wanted to do this I'd have no problem with it as it is a legal build.
On side note I would add situational modifiers to the Intimidate DC.
|
|
OK to be honest I posted this at 3:30 am so my eyes were bleary and math skills were those of a 6 year old... However the logic still stands. Most NPC's will not have a 20 wisdom to start. In fact, unless they're a Divine caster it'll likely be around 8-12.
In my specific case my Hellknight has an 8 wisdom, though I have beefed him up with Iron Will and Imp. Iron Will and he has the Bravery class feature. But a 5th level fighter could made to run by the 1st level Bard using Intimidate (DC 14 RAW) and followed up by the spell Cause Fear, even if the Fighter makes the save because fear conditions stack.
I however continue to use the 3.5 addition of bonuses vs. fear in the DC
--Between a Vrock and hard place!
Potential house rules: Any NPC with 3+ HD more than the PC is immune;Don't like it.
It's very hard to tell how many HD you have compared to how many HD your opponent has.
Really, unless we're seriously metagaming, we have to assume our characters have never even heard of HD,
Who said characters have heard of HD? Merkin the gnome barbarian goes to demoralize the ettin, rolls a natural 20, and the DM says "Well, good roll, but he doesn't look phased. Splat."
Glad you liked _one_ of my off-the-cuff rules :) I was just spitballing, don't really like to house rule stuff myself. To me it seems clear that demoralize is meant to be used against one opponent, despite the use of the plural. Otherwise it's a feat disguised as a skill.
Zo
"Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead."
And in the description of the Intimidate skill, it says you can try Intimidate multiple times (with a +5 to the DC every additional time).
You can try to intimidate multiple times but if you succeed more than once would the effects stack? Considering like effects don't generally stack isn't it reasonable to assume that like fear effects don't stack either? Otherwise any minor fear effect is suddenly much more powerful.
This is pretty much the way I read it. The phrase "fear effects" to me implies multiple effects, not the same effect repeatedly.
I'm not going to bust out the rules fu, because your rules-fu is way stronger than mine, but as a general rule if you can read the rules 2 ways and one way makes a lot more sense then that's likely the way you should run it.
Edit: I know that as a general rule penalties stack with like penalties, so I guess the first paragraph isn't really much help.
|
Only one opponent can be demoralized per standard action;This would break the skill into near-uselessness.
Nobody in their right mind would give up their only attack (or choose to make just one attack instead of a full-attack) to impose a puny little penalty on their enemy.
In fact, it's a good way to die.
Fighter: I intimidate the ogre.
Ogre: I smash the fighter.Realistically, it's just as easy to flourish your sword impressively and shout "I will kill you all!" as it is to flourish your sword and shout "I will kill one of you!". And probably more intimidating, too.
I have to disagree and side with DigMarx in that Demoralize only affects one target. It’s meant to be the ‘in your face” intimidation during a battle when facing someone you want to offset long enough to give yourself or another a breather from the beating you’re taking. Basically a good example would be when Rick screams back at the mummy before grabbing Eve and running, which provoked but enabled him to get away without getting hit.
More than one opponent can be demoralized, but DC for all opponents is equal to the highest DC +1 per extra opponent.Now this I like.
We travel in groups, fight wars in units/squads/armies, etc., to give each other support. Our enemies are less frightening when we have allies at our backs.
I like this one.
I agree on this. If Jason and Paizo decide that demoralizing does affect multiple targets then I’d like them to include a fix that would allow for something like this. If all your targets are of the same group type then they should get some bonus for supporting each other. I also think that Morale should also have a direct affect upon the check as well so any morale bonuses would add in to the DC. In the players’ favor it would boost the usefulness of spells such as Aid and class abilities that grant morale bonuses.
"Actually, I'm a small Ogre Mage."