|
The real power is with Intimidating Glare Rage Power.
Reasonable Point buy Half orc Bar 5th Level
STR 18 (22) rage
CHA 14
Trait Bully
1st Power attack
3rd Intimidating Prowess
5th Skill Focus Intimidate
Ranks 5 class 3 str raging 6 cha 2 racial 2 trait 1 skill focus 3
total bonus +24
The duration on the shaken condition applied by Intimidating Glare is
1d4 rds +1 per 5 over DC. The action is a move action against an adjacent foe. Nothing is mentioned in the power about AoO so in this case even if you decide demoralizing provokes normally I would rule that it doesn't in this case.
Two move actions shaken with ease bring on the AoO.
The point was that the character that is built for this can do this all of the time. The feat does not limit the character to using dazzling display a finite number of times per day or once per encounter.
That's kind of the usual distinction between casters and non-casters. Caster's break the laws of physics and win D&D with limited use incredible abilities, non-casters get constant use stuff that can be effective if they use it right but is pretty much every day stuff.
I'm not going to say the DC method is perfect, because nothing like that usually is. But I will say any person who's expended three of their feats towards a goal should be pretty damn good at it, and it should be something worth doing.
That is the usual distinction between casters and non-casters. However, having something like an "at will" fear effect is not something that existed in the 3.5 ruleset, and thus is a bit outside of the standard division of such things, if the intent was to allow one character to continually apply a stacking fear effect on the same opponent.
|
I have to agree that a ruling at least for PFS needs to be given. There may be counters toward fear effects later, but at low level tables it turns an encounter meant to be a moderate challenge into a joke. Why even run the encounter? If the thugs only have +2 to hit they effectively go to zero before any other modifiers go into effect. Which means that if anyone in the group is wearing decent to really good armor you're rolling for Natural 20's just to hit them. Then if the player rolls super high which is easy to do with the DCs set up as they are it can last the whole encounter. Intimidate works better than Diplomacy by a long shot given it's current setup.
As mentioned if the player has spent the feats then that's fine, but to say otherwise would make that kind of build useless as well as make most low level combats in PFS pointless. It's no fun trying to roll for a Nat 20 every round whether you're the player or the DM.
|
|
Hence the +5 DC on subsequent attempts, even successful ones.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."
Yeah, it has to stack for the rules as they are written to make sense (but as you say, there's the +5 to DC). I don't really have a problem with it, either or, at least, it's no worse than the ability to get really pretty high DCs for some Save or Suck spells early on.
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.
I'm not sure how making a group of opponents run away for a few rounds is "defeating an encounter". Intimidate really doesn't last that long.
I'm not sure how making a group of opponents run away for a few rounds is "defeating an encounter". Intimidate really doesn't last that long.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.
Also, "mass demoralize" (Dazzling Display) is a particularly effective way to alert an entire 'lair' to the characters' presence, if the sound of combat has not already done the trick.
That is the usual distinction between casters and non-casters. However, having something like an "at will" fear effect is not something that existed in the 3.5 ruleset, and thus is a bit outside of the standard division of such things, if the intent was to allow one character to continually apply a stacking fear effect on the same opponent.That's kind of the usual distinction between casters and non-casters. Caster's break the laws of physics and win D&D with limited use incredible abilities, non-casters get constant use stuff that can be effective if they use it right but is pretty much every day stuff.
I'm not going to say the DC method is perfect, because nothing like that usually is. But I will say any person who's expended three of their feats towards a goal should be pretty damn good at it, and it should be something worth doing.
They can't continually apply it on the same opponent, because the DC goes up by 5 each time. You can't "nat 20" on a skill check (intimidate) so eventually it becomes impossible to intimidate the opponent this way. One character doing this isn't too bad because the DC goes up thus the duration goes down. The real combo is 2 PC's doing this on round one(second DC would not be +5 I don't believe) then mopping up the runners or BBEG.
The shaken condition gained in this matter cannot be stacked to create a stronger condition. If you succeed at another demoralize attempt, you just extend the shaken condition's duration. There was a sentence left out of the skill description that will be noted in a future errata update.
From the Pathfinder Society FAQ.
Director of Games
|
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
The shaken condition gained in this matter cannot be stacked to create a stronger condition. If you succeed at another demoralize attempt, you just extend the shaken condition's duration. There was a sentence left out of the skill description that will be noted in a future errata update.From the Pathfinder Society FAQ.
This is indeed the case...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
The shaken condition gained in this matter cannot be stacked to create a stronger condition. If you succeed at another demoralize attempt, you just extend the shaken condition's duration. There was a sentence left out of the skill description that will be noted in a future errata update.From the Pathfinder Society FAQ.
Crap! If that is the case, and it is errata for the PF RPG then that removes one of the aspects of PF I really liked (and built my character for my home campaign around).
So, this does then beg the question, does a Shaken condition imposed by a Demoralise attempt get upgraded to Frightened by imposing a Shaken condition from a successfully saved against Cause Fear spell? I assume the reverse isn't true (i.e. Cause Fear first, then Demoralise), but in the instance I gave above it is the Cause Feat spell that is stacking to create a stronger condition.
EDIT: Just asked this question in the FAQ thread.
|
|
The shaken condition gained in this matter cannot be stacked to create a stronger condition. If you succeed at another demoralize attempt, you just extend the shaken condition's duration. There was a sentence left out of the skill description that will be noted in a future errata update.From the Pathfinder Society FAQ.Crap! If that is the case, and it is errata for the PF RPG then that removes one of the aspects of PF I really liked (and built my character for my home campaign around).
So, this does then beg the question, does a Shaken condition imposed by a Demoralise attempt get upgraded to Frightened by imposing a Shaken condition from a successfully saved against Cause Fear spell? I assume the reverse isn't true (i.e. Cause Fear first, then Demoralise), but in the instance I gave above it is the Cause Feat spell that is stacking to create a stronger condition.
Basically Joshua stated that demoralize doesn't stack with itself, as that was not the design intent of intimidate to function as such.
So long as its demoralize + anything else, it stacks.
If you demoralize a creature already demoralized, it only extends duration, it does not upgrade the condition.
The FAQ still isn't quite clear on whether demoralizes from different sources increase the effect, or increase the duration.
|
|
The FAQ still isn't quite clear on whether demoralizes from different sources increase the effect, or increase the duration.
I suppose you could easily read it that way, I have reason to believe the first sentance indicates that shaken gained from demoralizing regardless of source does not stack. You are shaken because you're going against the party in the first place, another showing you a reason to fear them isn't exactly going to make you run off. It requires something else to push you that final step towards flight and away from fight.
|
|
Basically Joshua stated that demoralize doesn't stack with itself, as that was not the design intent of intimidate to function as such.
So long as its demoralize + anything else, it stacks.
So it would stack with Intimidating Strike from PHB2 (as it doesn't use the word Demoralise to describe imposing the Shaken status)?
Though Intimidating Strike would need to be done first and then Demoralise as Intimidating Strike can't upgrade an existing condition (but Demoralise can if the original Shaken condition is from a different source it would seem).
|
|
Basically Joshua stated that demoralize doesn't stack with itself, as that was not the design intent of intimidate to function as such.
So long as its demoralize + anything else, it stacks.
So it would stack with Intimidating Strike from PHB2 (as it doesn't use the word Demoralise to describe imposing the Shaken status)?
Though Intimidating Strike would need to be done first and then Demoralise as Intimidating Strike can't upgrade an existing condition (but Demoralise can if the original Shaken condition is from a different source it would seem).
I would argue that because you are making an intimidate check, that it is in fact demoralizing. You're just getting to attack while doing so. I understand that's not what you WANT to hear, but I would think that use of intimidate is basically tacking on demoralize with a bonus equal to the amount you knock off.
|
|
I would argue that because you are making an intimidate check, that it is in fact demoralizing. You're just getting to attack while doing so. I understand that's not what you WANT to hear, but I would think that use of intimidate is basically tacking on demoralize with a bonus equal to the amount you knock off.
I guess I will talk it over with my GM. I guess I would like it to stack as Intimidate was my fighter's shtick, however what is more concerning is the ambiguity over this whole area now.
I am tempted to just steer clear of this whole area now because of the ambiguity and focus on the Sorcerer aspects of my character now. Its a pity because the changes to Demoralise was one of the things I liked about PF :(
That's definitely a GM call as it's a feat from the PHB2, which would need to be converted to the Pathfinder system.
I'm guessing it would be considered a Demoralize effect since it's using the Intimidate skill in the same way. However, there's no reason the feat couldn't also have the line "It also allows stacking to increase to a Frightened effect". Or even Panicked... up to the GM and how generous they are being.
|
|
That's definitely a GM call as it's a feat from the PHB2, which would need to be converted to the Pathfinder system.
I'm guessing it would be considered a Demoralize effect since it's using the Intimidate skill in the same way. However, there's no reason the feat couldn't also have the line "It also allows stacking to increase to a Frightened effect". Or even Panicked... up to the GM and how generous they are being.
Well the feat specifically says "You cannot use this feat to worsen an opponent’s fear condition beyond shaken." which is why I said Demoralise would have to be used after the feat :)
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. ;-)
It only provokes an attack of opportunity if the action in rull round action in which the skill doesn't say one way or the other if it does provoke an attack of opportunity so the default is usually.
Intimidate's ability to demoralize is a standard action and does not provoke and attack of opportunity. Using Dazzling display is full round action and does provoke an attack of opportunity. Now if the Feat Dazzling Display said it didn't provoke an attack opportunity the that "Usually" would be changed to "No".
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm glad we finally got some official answers and ones that make sense to be based on what is written in the book.
1) Can you use Intimidate to shaken everyone in 30 foot? No
2) Can you do 3 Intimidates in a row for stacked Shaken effects? No
These make sense to me, but Jacobs also said you couldn't stack Intimidate with other effects so a Shakened opponent that is successfully Intimidated is still Shaken (no beneficial effect.) I don't agree, but I will use this interpretation. So:
3) Can you Intimidate an already Shaken opponent? No
These make sense to me, but Jacobs also said you couldn't stack Intimidate with other effects so a Shakened opponent that is successfully Intimidated is still Shaken (no beneficial effect.) I don't agree, but I will use this interpretation. So:
3) Can you Intimidate an already Shaken opponent? No
I think he said that it would only extend the shaken duration. So you can technically Intimidate a Shaken opponent, however it wouldn't do anything if the duration of the effect from the other source lasted longer than what you got from the Intimidate check.
|
|
I think he said that it would only extend the shaken duration. So you can technically Intimidate a Shaken opponent, however it wouldn't do anything if the duration of the effect from the other source lasted longer than what you got from the Intimidate check.
I got the impression that it would always "do something" namely tack on an extra round of being shaken.
E.g. if a character saved against a Cause Fear spell and thus was Shaken for 1 round, and then got Demoralised, the 1 round of Shaken would occur after the Cause Fear's 1 round, so the character would be Shaken for 2 rounds.
|
|
What does it say in the PSRD?According to the SRD it is actually a penalty.
As to Intimidate, it's a great trick, right up until you meet fear-immune enemies.
The SRD sentence: "A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures." is not in the PF Intimidate description. Does that mean that in PF you can successfully utilize the normal use of Intimidate (not "Demoralize") on those that are immune to fear?
The shaken condition gained in this matter cannot be stacked to create a stronger condition. If you succeed at another demoralize attempt, you just extend the shaken condition's duration. There was a sentence left out of the skill description that will be noted in a future errata update.From the Pathfinder Society FAQ.This is indeed the case...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So focusing on intimidate, such as using Dazzling Display is pretty much kinda worthless, despite the text on page 563? Absolutely wonderful... one rebuilt paladin coming up.