"mmmGo onnn...mmmew can mew it! Purrrforate them!
Can we make the cats talk too? They should have cute little voices
The awaken spell gives them the ability to pick one language that the caster could. Cats speaking Infernal or Abyssal...
*shivers*Now I want to play one of the cats! I shall be Shadow Pelt, the house cat warlock!
Intimidate does not provide for more than a +/- 4 size difference bonus or penalty.
Dazzling Display is the "AoE" Intimidate medium.
Yes, Intimidate can "own" ... right up until the frightened/panicked creatures flee in directions over which said sorcerer has no control over. Such flight can unleash Giant Rot Grubs of Doom, the BBEG 3 levels higher than the group and "trigger" or "chain" an entire dungeon complex in a few short rounds' time. Within a minute or so one can go from a handful of peons/mooks/warriors/peasants/skeered kittehs to Ogre Magi, a half-fiend dragon, a couple dozen ogres and an unstoppable undead killing machine wearing a hockey mask with Greater Weapon Focus (machete).
Use with caution...
|
Since cats came up i figure I´d make this question here. I just made a intimidate focused paladin with a tiger mount. Since i get to pick the cat´s feats i gave it intimidating prowess and want to give it dazzling display, however it requires weapon focus on a weapon it wields. So the question is would weapon focus bite qualify for dazzling display (and make the display be roaring showing it´s teeth)?
If it works then it takes the strain from having to waste 2 actions on dazzling display (which the paladin has also), in one round it takes them to frightened and next round either paladin or cat do it again and the other one attacks.
Except for those few, strange house cats that happen to like water.
Use the awaken spell! Then you can make the players paranoid because they think(and are correct in doing so) the cats are planning and cleverly trying to kill them.
It would be kind of cool to have an evil druid with a massive spy network of awakened housecats.
Hehe... hate to beat everyone to the punch, but one of my players (who is also a local GM) is running a wizard with a cat familiar. This led to an aside about a game he ran a while back, where the party (I think he said 2nd level) was in a druid's residence crawling with about a dozen housecats. One of them made some kind of bonehead move, and... yeah, TPK (the druid was not involved).
So the question is would weapon focus bite qualify for dazzling display (and make the display be roaring showing it´s teeth)?
Seems OK to me.
Since cats came up i figure I´d make this question here. I just made a intimidate focused paladin with a tiger mount. Since i get to pick the cat´s feats i gave it intimidating prowess and want to give it dazzling display, however it requires weapon focus on a weapon it wields. So the question is would weapon focus bite qualify for dazzling display (and make the display be roaring showing it´s teeth)?
Absolutely. Dazzling Display isn't on the Animal Companion feat list, but I believe you're still covered by the fact that Paladin special mounts get actual intelligence scores and thus can take any feats they qualify for. That's assuming it's your special mount, though; if it's just a bought-and-paid-for tiger, it can't take Dazzling Display.
|
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
Actually, in the PFRPG, there are no pre-req's listed for Weapon Finesse anymore so it is feasable that a fractional HD creature can select it with their only feat.
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...
I think the existence of dazzling display is the best argument against your interpretation. It doesnt supply an alternative path to intimidate opponents - it allows you (under certain conditions) to make an intimidate check against all foes who can see you within thirty feet. Absolutely nothing is gained if intimidate is already deemed to be able to affect many foes.
With regard to WoTC publishing prestige classes or class features, worthless in the face of basic PHB fundamentals. Remember firstly that dazzling display is a "basic PHB fundamental" (or the Pathfinder equivalent anyhow). Secondly, under your interpretation of intimidate, the feat is explicitly allowing you to do something you can do without taking the feat - can you cite any example of a feat which is that worthless?
(A minor point within the skill description is that it takes a standard action to demoralise an opponent (singular). The wording of the skill does imply you can target more than one opponent and indeed you can - each such use takes a standard action.) Ultimately though, semantic arguments over the wording of rules will never persuade anyone. You can point to opponents while I point to opponent...
The dazzling display argument is very strong. Either one skill from the core rules is badly worded (and in fact you can only demoralise one foe at a time) or one feat from the core rules grants you the power to do what you can without the feat. Which do you think is more likely?
I think Dazzling Display is designed to let people do things like what that guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark did with his scimitars right before Indiana Jones shot him.
The difference between Dazzling Display and regular Intimidate is that with regular Intimidate, the Wizard character can say "I ignore the idiot with the sword and whatever he's blathering on about" and goes on with his spell, whereas with Dazzling Display, anyone who can see you goes "OMGWTFBBQ!" when they see whatever it is you're doing with those highly impressive weapons of yours. Unless you fail to Intimidate them, that is.
...but they can't be further demoralized, because they are already demoralized and can't become "more demoralized," much like someone can't become "more asleep" or "more dehydrated," etc.
It is possible to become MORE of all those things,(though not in-game) they just don't use the same adjective anymore.
Such as: Depressed, Comatose, Deceased
----------------------------
whereas with Dazzling Display, anyone who can see you goes "OMGWTFBBQ!"
"PORKCHOP SANDWICHES!" (If you don't know, go to youtube and search it.)
In reference to the great housecat debate, I feel compelled to point out that it would take the housecat twice as long to kill a character, as specified on Page 179 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. "If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point on nonlethal damage."
...
You are not arguing.. it's not an argument against... it's conjecture and opinion :))
...No one should be expected to know what a skill does by reading a feat's description. Are you understanding this?
Allow me to repeat myself:
Action: Using Intimidate to change an opponent’s attitude requires 1 minute of conversation. Demoralizing an opponent is a standard action.
Please note the distinct lack of "Demoralizing opponent*s* is a standard action".
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?
Yes Paizo made an "error" of some description, I get it. The question is which error did they make?
You have to make a choice - is the feat useless or is the skill poorly worded? My whole position is based on the fact that Paizo made an error - they either created a useless feat (which does absolutely nothing other than allow you to do what you already could even if you dont meet the feat's pre-requisites) or they described a skill poorly. I think the latter is most probable. Which do you think is more likely? That they intended to create a worthless feat and to include a skill as potentially powerful as you outlined in your OP?
And please stop suggesting that inference is not logic. An inferential argument is not a deductive argument - true. Yet it is still an argument. In this case it is an especially spurious distinction since your putative 'deductive argument' involves interpretation of the english language (namely dissecting a paragraph or two which inconsistently uses singular and plural forms) - this is hardly an enterprise free of subjective determination.
I think Dazzling Display is designed to let people do things like what that guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark did with his scimitars right before Indiana Jones shot him.
The difference between Dazzling Display and regular Intimidate is that with regular Intimidate, the Wizard character can say "I ignore the idiot with the sword and whatever he's blathering on about" and goes on with his spell, whereas with Dazzling Display, anyone who can see you goes "OMGWTFBBQ!" when they see whatever it is you're doing with those highly impressive weapons of yours. Unless you fail to Intimidate them, that is.
The point being that (if intimidate works as suggested by the OP) then you have no need to use dazzling display ever - since all it enables you to do is to...perform an intimidate check that you could always do anyway.
My whole position is based on the fact that Paizo made an error
I don't think I agree. My reading of the intimidate skill is quite clear (considered in isolation, not in context of Dazzling Display), the only problem might be that a non-native English speaker or an overly zealous English speaker could stumble between the uses of plural and singular and their inflection towards the skill.
The "Action" description of the Intimidate skill is perfectly clear and wipes away any multiple target notions that a reader may have harbored to that point.
My whole position is based on the fact that Paizo made an errorI don't think I agree. My reading of the intimidate skill is quite clear (considered in isolation, not in context of Dazzling Display), the only problem might be that a non-native English speaker or an overly zealous English speaker could stumble between the uses of plural and singular and their inflection towards the skill.
The "Action" description of the Intimidate skill is perfectly clear and wipes away any multiple target notions that a reader may have harbored to that point.
I would call it a trivial/minor editting error or an instance where the rules are not clear - purely based on the fact that people are misconstruing what was intended. I agree with you that it reads as a single target effect. Nonetheless, others dont which suggests it could (should?) have been made more explicit.
I guess I can agree with you, though in my opinion it is sufficiently clear. What if the text read:
Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent 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 that opponent in this way if it is within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you.
The same people that argue the multiple-target interpretation could now argue that you could only ever demoralize a single target in the entire game-span of a character. Not multiple characters over time, just one ever.
Naturally most would ignore this as patently absurd; but some die-hard trolls would stick to this interpretation regardless.
I prefer the slightly more prosaic style that is used in the core rules as it makes for more enjoyable and evocative reading than if the text was formulated in the manner of a typical scientific article.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My reading of the intimidate skill is quite clear
The "Action" description of the Intimidate skill is perfectly clear
While you believe it is clear, so do I. I just disagree with you on what it is clear it says. I appreciate that rules are interesting discussions and there are two possible RAW interpretations.
You hold that it effects multiple targets, and can stack with itself.
I hold that it effects single targets per standard action, and can not stack with itself.
My reading of the intimidate skill is quite clear
The "Action" description of the Intimidate skill is perfectly clear
While you believe it is clear, so do I. I just disagree with you on what it is clear it says. I appreciate that rules are interesting discussions and there are two possible RAW interpretations.
You hold that it effects multiple targets, and can stack with itself.
I hold that it effects single targets per standard action, and can not stack with itself.
I'd say we're at odds here.
We agree that only one target is affected, as a standard action (and I've consistently said so, I'm not sure why you think I am with the multi-target crowd).
I do however think that the effect does stack with itself. Firstly, because the text for stacking notably excludes non-spell penalties in its general discussion. (It states that "in general all bonuses do not stack with each other" and additionally that spell-based bonuses and penalties don't stack with each other.)
That aside, intimidation(demoralize) does impose a penalty on the target, it inflicts a condition. Additionally the core rules explicitly state that these (fear) conditions do stack cumulatively.
This is not something I'd brush aside as an accidental mistake on Paizo's part - as the net effect (as I read it) is both well balanced and allows for interesting and varied new character builds that other more restrictive interpretations of RAW do not.
I'm rather certain that the design philosophy behind the Feint and Intimidate rules/feats are there to encourage and enable Charisma-based characters to be viable in combat even if they aren't Bards or Sorcerors (or Paladins).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I do however think that the effect does stack with itself. Firstly, because the text for stacking notably excludes non-spell penalties in its general discussion.
p208 says "Spells or magical effects" and is not limited to just spells.
That text is nearly verbatim from 3.5 and the official FAQ stance in 3.5 is that it isn't limited to spells and was a general rule.
p13 says "most bonuses of the same type don't stack" The official 3.5 stance on "bonus" was that it wasn't limited to the glossary definition of "a numerical bonus to something" and was anything that might match the dictionary definition of bonus (namely something I have now I didn't before.)
The general rules enforce that stacking things of the same type don't result in a benefit. You are splitting hairs, intentionally going against the "intent" of the rules because you can't find an explicit "intimidate doesn't stack with itself" rule.
Doesn't change what the rules "mean", and they mean you can't stack anything from the same source.
|
p208 says "Spells or magical effects" and is not limited to just spells.
the Initimidate skill is neither a spell, nor a magical effect, so I think you're on dodgy ground using that section as a precedent.
That text is nearly verbatim from 3.5 and the official FAQ stance in 3.5 is that it isn't limited to spells and was a general rule.
The 3.5 FAQ may have stated that, but aren't we talking the RAW of Pathfinder here, not 3.5?
p13 says "most bonuses of the same type don't stack" The official 3.5 stance on "bonus" was that it wasn't limited to the glossary definition of "a numerical bonus to something" and was anything that might match the dictionary definition of bonus (namely something I have now I didn't before.)
But what is the official PF stance? Also, I would like to read theat 3.5 stance to see if I agree with it or not (I run a 3.5 game). Do you have a reference?
The general rules enforce that stacking things of the same type don't result in a benefit. You are splitting hairs, intentionally going against the "intent" of the rules because you can't find an explicit "intimidate doesn't stack with itself" rule.
So by your interpretation, is there ever a situation where a Shaken Condition on an already Shaken opponent result in a Frightened condition? Because I can't think of any off hand, and thus it would seem that your interpretation seems to invalidate completely the explicit statement that Shaken + Shaken = Frightened.
Doesn't change what the rules "mean", and they mean you can't stack anything from the same source.
I actually think the term "stack" is a bit of a misnomer here anyway - you don't get "Double Shaken", the original Shaken condition is replaced by Frightened when another Shaken condition would have been applied.
@Tha_Dreaz
If your reading of stacking rules apply (as laid out in 3.5 stance on the issue) then the same stance applies to:
p.563: 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.
Don't argue that intimidate is not a fear effect - because by the same token I'd argue that p.208 Stacking Effects only refers to magical effects and spells (for bonuses and penalties) and general effects never allow bonuses stacking.
You seem to suggest that p.208 says that in general penalties don't stack. This is something explicitly excluded. Discussion on whether p.208 allows bonuses to stack is mute - because it clearly states when bonuses do stack and when not. And it is very particular to say that in general boni don't stack (which we agree with) and it is just as particular about excluding penalties in the list of general things that don't stack; and I think we also agree that "shaken" is not a bonus but a penalty. Inflicted by Intimidate (not a spell or magical effect) this means that shaken follows the normal rules for cumulative fear effects when the target becomes more shaken.
This is not a willful interpretation or bending of the rules. This is verbatim.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So by your interpretation, is there ever a situation where a Shaken Condition on an already Shaken opponent result in a Frightened condition?
Yes, every single way that hands out Shaken with the exception of a way already used.
So if you have 3 different ways to hand out shaken, A, B, and C then you have this:
A+A = Shaken
A+B = Frightened
A+C = Frightened
B+B = Shaken
...
|
|
So by your interpretation, is there ever a situation where a Shaken Condition on an already Shaken opponent result in a Frightened condition?Yes, every single way that hands out Shaken with the exception of a way already used.
So if you have 3 different ways to hand out shaken, A, B, and C then you have this:
A+A = Shaken
A+B = Frightened
A+C = Frightened
B+B = Shaken
...
So you are suggesting that a different Source for a Shaken effect stacks? Would that include a Demoralise by a different person? Or would it require a completely different source, e.g. a Cause Fear spell?
But if you are using p208 to base your argument on then what about "More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above)" applying this to Fear effects would imply that they should never stack, even if from different spells (or effects).
I think I will have to accept that we will disagree, to me it seems pretty clear that Fear Conditions upgrade one another as I see Conditions completely seperate entities from Bonuses and Penalties. However, you obviously feel different.
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
I think the demoralize is a cool idea that just didn't get worded clearly or fully thought through. Yes it should probably stack. Yes, the DC should probably increase. Fear effects typically stack unless they say otherwise (example corrupting touch). I would definately add in any bonuses to fear saves which I realize is a houserule, but I think it's pretty stupid to deny a fighter's bravery class ability because he's scared of a skill instead of a spell. Example: I'm not afraid of that dragon's claws and breath weapon, but I'm afraid of that half-orc's idle words.
This came up in our Beta game but not until higher level. In that case we had a fighter with Dazzling display, persuasive, skill focus intimidate, and intimidating prowess.
With that player he has +32 intimidate (12 ranks, 3 class, 3 focus, 4 persuasive, 7 str, 3 chr). It's not that bad. sure he can intimidate well but it opens him to Attacks opportunity. As well since the effects don't last that long it hasn't really been an issue.
I think we agree for the most part, although
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.
I think I need to agree. Intimidate isn't as effective as you seem to think. Most spells worth their salt (and a save) instill frightened or panicked conditions which are quite meaningful of course.
Now let us assume that Intimidate demoralize does stack fear effects as is under consideration in this thread.
Now Intimidate as a skill takes a standard action, affects one target, and shakes the target for 1 round. +1 round for every 5 by which the DC is beaten by. No surprises here and around level 1 you'd need to get a total of 20 to reliably shake a typical target for 2 rounds. A total of 25 if you expect to shake it for 3 rounds.
You need to keep up the 25 checks (due to repeated use of intimidate on target) for the next 2 rounds as well if you want to have a chance at panicking the target.
Assuming you spend the last 3 rounds intimidating one target *very* successfully, you manage to make that one target run away in panic. In what way does this seem overly efficient or overpowered?
...yes - a theoretical character build could be really good at intimidation and would be able to handle a lot of combat situations that way, but there are plenty of situations where the character will be completely out of his depth due to over-specialization (any number of creatures aren't affected by demoralize). And most situations don't really call for the use either (even at level 1, do you really want to spend 3 rounds scaring away a member of a horde of 5 goblins)?
Useful, sure. Powerful, sure. Too powerful? Certainly not.
His bonus would be a +38 (skill focus improves to +6 at 10 ranks, Persuasive to +4 at 10 ranks). Also, Intimidate attempts do not provoke AoO according to the skill write up. Assuming he rolls a mere 2 on the d20, that is a total check of 40. With Dazzling Display, that means as a full round action he rendered shaken for 1+ rounds any foes within 30 feet subject to fear effects with a combined HD and Wisdom modifier total as high as 40. Examples of subject creatures includeThis came up in our Beta game but not until higher level. In that case we had a fighter with Dazzling display, persuasive, skill focus intimidate, and intimidating prowess.
With that player he has +32 intimidate (12 ranks, 3 class, 3 focus, 4 persuasive, 7 str, 3 chr). It's not that bad. sure he can intimidate well but it opens him to Attacks opportunity. As well since the effects don't last that long it hasn't really been an issue.
- Mature Adult Red Dragon (DC 39 without buff spells - which at its CL of 9 has a decent chance of having access to Owl's Wisdom, it seems uncommon as a known spell for dragons); CR 18
- Pit Fiend (DC 38 with Iron Will feat, DC 42 with Unholy Aura's resistance bonus) - if the character at 12th level rolls a natural 4 or better, he just affected a CR 20 foe with a fear effect
- Balor (DC 37, DC 41 with the resistance bonus from Unholy Aura)- if the character at 12th level rolls a natural 3 or better, he just affected a CR 20 foe with a fear effect as noted for the Pit Fiend
- Solar Angel (DC 39, 43 with the morale bonus from remove fear, 47 with a resistance bonus from holy aura) - worst case, the 12th level character only needs to roll a natural 9 to have dropped a fear effect on a CR 23 foe.
- Tarrasque (DC 50) - a natural 12 is all that he needs to "scare" the legendary Tarrasque at 12th level, a CR 20 foe.
It is less of a matter of how long the effect lasts - it more matters that (a)they can be stacked atop each other; (b) that they can affect foes well out of proportion to what the character should otherwise even be able to affect with such generally low natural d20 die rolls; and (c) that it can be achieved comparatively easily, with a relatively minimum amount of magical gear.
Of course, making any of these CR 18+ foes even briefly afraid of you is probably not the wisest course of action ...
His bonus would be a +38 (skill focus improves to +6 at 10 ranks, Persuasive to +4 at 10 ranks). Also, Intimidate attempts do not provoke AoO according to the skill write up. Assuming he rolls a mere 2 on the d20, that is a total check of 40. With Dazzling Display, that means as a full round action he rendered shaken for 1+ rounds any foes within 30 feet subject to fear effects with a combined HD and Wisdom modifier total as high as 40. Examples of subject creatures includeThis came up in our Beta game but not until higher level. In that case we had a fighter with Dazzling display, persuasive, skill focus intimidate, and intimidating prowess.
With that player he has +32 intimidate (12 ranks, 3 class, 3 focus, 4 persuasive, 7 str, 3 chr). It's not that bad. sure he can intimidate well but it opens him to Attacks opportunity. As well since the effects don't last that long it hasn't really been an issue.
- Mature Adult Red Dragon (DC 39 without buff spells - which at its CL of 9 has a decent chance of having access to Owl's Wisdom, it seems uncommon as a known spell for dragons); CR 18
- Pit Fiend (DC 38 with Iron Will feat, DC 42 with Unholy Aura's resistance bonus) - if the character at 12th level rolls a natural 4 or better, he just affected a CR 20 foe with a fear effect
- Balor (DC 37, DC 41 with the resistance bonus from Unholy Aura)- if the character at 12th level rolls a natural 3 or better, he just affected a CR 20 foe with a fear effect as noted for the Pit Fiend
- Solar Angel (DC 39, 43 with the morale bonus from remove fear, 47 with a resistance bonus from holy aura) - worst case, the 12th level character only needs to roll a natural 9 to have dropped a fear effect on a CR 23 foe.
- Tarrasque (DC 50) - a natural 12 is all that he needs to "scare" the legendary Tarrasque at 12th level, a CR 20 foe.
It is less of a matter of how long the effect lasts - it more matters that (a)they can be stacked atop each other; (b) that they can affect...
Not sure what this proves. So you can make some big creatures shaken (or maybe even frightened, if you get lucky and have the time). In exchange you paid all or most of your feat/skill progression into this one ability.
Additionally your math is slightly off, he already did compensate for higher Persuasion (so no additional +2), and all the enemies you list are larger than the hero in question, so he suffers an additional -4 to his checks. So the effective bonus to intimidate in the above examples is +31 (thus requiring a natural 19 to shake the Tarrasque and no chance to frighten it with the fighter).
Around a 10ish for the other enemies you listed, thus giving a 25% chance to frighten or a 12% chance to panic these enemies with the fighter. This sounds like a good idea until you try it, and they slaughter you while you stand around going "boo!" at them.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Also, Intimidate attempts do not provoke AoO according to the skill write up.
Turin, where do you see that it does not provoke? Page 99 is mute on the topic, so we default to page 183, table 8-2 'Actions in Combat'
Use skill that takes 1 action: Usually
Now Dazzling display (pg 120) doesn't say that it doesn't provoke either. Can you please point me to the citation where it says it doesn't?
FWIW, there's a video of a MMA bout where the guy's flipping and kicking the air and stuff, and when the fight starts he tries some funky move and gets punched once and drops. So much for using intimidate on *that* guy. ;-)
Good counterpoints on the size difference penalty and catching my math on Persuasive, many thanks! Getting corrected on my math is an ongoing learning experience for me as a GM. Ironically, when I put together my own stat blocks, I usually catch this kind of thing... :facepalm:
Only the first five feats for a fighter is a pretty small price to pay for being able to Intimidate anything you can *expect* to encounter (that is not immune for other reasons). I did point out that one would be rather foolish to Intimidate the aforementioned foes, with a CR 6+ higher than the example Fighter. The fighter retains Weapon Focus as one of those five feats though, so only the first four are "wasted" on being able to penalize the vast majority of foes one encounters.
The "use skill that takes 1 action" and "use skill that takes 1 round" lines in Actions in Combat, with the demarcation "usually" (as pointed out, 'usually' provoking an attack of opportunity) is an interesting point that my group had not caught in play with either the Beta or PRPG rules thus far. Dazzling Display, since it requires that you are using a weapon with which one has the Weapon Focus feat, is arguably performed while armed and would not provoke an attack of opportunity. I would probably rule - barring errata clarifying this - that the regular use of Intimidate to demoralize would provoke while Dazzling Display does not.
In either case, one of the best uses of the demoralize/Dazzling Display is as foes get to within the outer half of the ability's range of 30 feet - if they're in melee range, the Fighter is best served disemboweling / bashing the brains out / stabbing in the face rather than pulling the booga-booga routine.
One player in my CoT group hasn't bothered spending feats on Skill Focus and Persuasive, and that character's Intimidate bonus at 3rd level is a respectable +10. The only feat she spent was on Dazzling Display (since she wants Weapon Focus for other things besides Dazzling Display), and she loves it.
Again, many thanks!
FWIW, there's a video of a MMA bout where the guy's flipping and kicking the air and stuff, and when the fight starts he tries some funky move and gets punched once and drops. So much for using intimidate on *that* guy. ;-)
For the record, that's actually from a movie. I forget the name, though.
I think we are reaching a consensus here, which is good :)
Sure, a fighter has plenty feats and doesn't suffer that heavily - but try to do that with a different class and you have your feats set until level 9 or so for an ability that is not guaranteed to help me all the time. And even a fighter pays hard by committing 5 or so feats to one ability - after paying that much I would hope the results are worth it. They deserve to be.
But in terms of overall powerlevel... - do I rather want to face down a level 15 fighter with intimidate focus or a level 15 wizard? I'll take my chances with the scary fighter, that'll probably hurt less ;)
Of course, making any of these CR 18+ foes even briefly afraid of you is probably not the wisest course of action ...
Aye, there's the rub. :)
Intelligent or not, if something manages to scare them enough to make them Shaken, I think they'd perceive that as a threat. Soon to be paste/ash/snack. Let's face it, a Shaken condition isn't *that* much of a hinderance to any CR10+ creature. If all you're doing is intimidating, you'll likely be dead or severely wounded by the time you get from Shaken to Panicked.
Granted, this could be a viable strategy for keeping the big bad beasties away from the spellcaster creating their doom, but I don't think it's good for the Intimidator's health. :)
One of the reasons I'm concerned about fear effects stacking from a this sort of situation is that in Organized Play, a character could defeat an encounter in two rounds.
Yes, at home you could probably figure out how to have the monsters loop around and try to kill the PCs in their sleep, or you could rework some monsters from time to time to be resistant to this tactic, or you could have the fleeing monsters stir up another encounter.
But in Organized Play, you have to let the monsters run, and you can't really add anything in. You might be able to figure some way of having the monsters show up later in the adventure at a bad time, but then you might either made an encounter impossible by "doubling" it, or you are adding a lot more time to the scenario which is often under a time limit, and on top of all of that, you are multiplying what the GM for the event has to deal with.
Finally, a spellcaster that takes spells that produce spell effects are actually using a resource (spell slots), while the character built for this may have burned the feats and skill points, but they haven't lost any finite resources, and still have their hit points and weapons for the next encounter, and likely have kept everyone else from using any resources as well.
On top of off of that, to me, logically, you really couldn't do much more than "impress" your opponents.
Guy pulls out sword and spins it around.
"Wow, that guy's good. I wish we didn't have to fight him." (Shaken)
Guy keeps spinning sword around.
"Um . . . still impressive, I guess."
Guy keeps spinning sword.
"I'm starting to think he's bluffing . . . I'm betting he's actually a bard."
On top of off of that, to me, logically, you really couldn't do much more than "impress" your opponents.
Guy pulls out sword and spins it around.
"Wow, that guy's good. I wish we didn't have to fight him." (Shaken)
Guy keeps spinning sword around.
"Um . . . still impressive, I guess."
Guy keeps spinning sword.
"I'm starting to think he's bluffing . . . I'm betting he's actually a bard."
Hence the +5 DC on subsequent attempts, even successful ones.