The Intimidate skill is not a good measurement of the threat displays that animals make.
Keep in mind that the forecd to act friendly version of intimidate takes one minute of conversation. This is the Michael Westin from Burn Notice version of intimidation, and obviously, normal animals can't do this to people. But if you've ever watched that show, I think it's easy to see where the Charisma feeds the fear of the target.
I can see where you would look at animal threat displays and think that they should use demoralize side of intimidate. If there's a size difference, the +4 partially makes up for the low stat. And hit dice feeds the DC, so low hit die critters are easier to intimidate.
But really, so what if various critters have trouble actually applying the shaken condition to their foes? In the end, shaken or not by the threat display, each critter has to size up their chances in a fight and decide whether to attack, run away, steal the food, whatever.
Also, mountain lions don't just attack 4'11" PETA members. They will also stalk armed sheriff deputies that are hunting them after they maul a mountain biker (which is a big package when you consider bike+dude). This happened in the LA area a few years back. The mountain lion was shot by a game warden with a night vision scope as it was creeping up on another deputy in the dark. Mountain lions favorite natural prey is deer, but when desperate for various reasons will expand the menu to pets and people. Success probably breeds more targeting of non-deer vittles.
Apparently (according to what I've read) the taste of human flesh is intoxicating and addictive, like meat-drugs. So once an animal has tasted humans they have to be destroyed or they become a man hunter. That is the 'reasoning' behind shooting a dog if it has bit a person (which is stupid, biting is different than eating)
Once the mountain lion had gotten a hold of the biker, he probably got a good ole mouthful of "intoxication", that's not 'normal' animal behavior.Some crack-whacked lady taking on 9 cops in a fist fight isn't normal behavior for her either, addiction will change behavior and usually negates 'self preservation' in order to get the fix.
On a hunting expedition in alaska in the late 50s my dad was being stalked by a polar bear he thought he was stalking. Those are apex predators however, they can stalk whatever they like. He was toting a .450 nitro express rifle.
As soon as he figured out the bear had circled around and was somewhere behind him. The whole party up and left. He probably 'could' have killed the bear, but when it's comming after him, that's not a position a hunter wants to be in, go find something else that doesn't know you are comming yet. Like some buffalo eating grass. Like wise the hunting cat is the same way, if it knows you are ready for it (like carry a shield and a spear and screaming bloody murder) there is no real 'pay off' for it to tangle with you and it is probably going to slink off and disappear. There is risk with no reward, it might be able to kill you but it could get a wound it has no way of healing easily and could get infected and would make it unable to effectively hunt until it was healed... not a good gamble. Hence the whole point behind certain animals 'defense mechanisms' as mentioned above "look bigger and meaner" and maybe it will just go away.
The Problem comes:
If a wild animal loses it's fear of humans (usually through some dumb arse feeding it) they become very dangerous. I watched a show of exterminator once, they found a bobcat with a freakin collar on it like it was a 'kitty'. That's a "small" cat but it would muss you up.
With all the lunatics residing in california , they probably had some people feeding the darn thing before it decided to say 'hello' to the biker. That is taking away the cat's natural behavior and replacing it with stuff it doesn't know exactly what to do with. Thus changing it's predictable behavior.
Around here we have Tons of foxes. Tourists are always feeding them, someones gonna loose a finger or a puppy or something someday soon. They'll learn, like all the dooffus's feeding bears out in yosemite all those years ago, they learned.
You've never seen a cat arch its back and try to scare something?Lived around animals most of my life. Animals attempt to be scary as a defense mechanism to warn off threats or competitors. They don't decide to use Intimidate to demoralize a foe or force a subject to act friendly toward them.
This is exactly my thoughts on this.
Intimidate (the skill) is written from a sentient creature's perspective (from a PC perspective actually), and not written in the sense of the way an animal would use it.
The game is lacking any real "morale" stat, and only has a couple factors that touch on it (fear effects and demoralize effects).
In a more elaborate system, some creatures (especially creatures larger than their enemies) would likely have an automatic morale hit on their opponents, at least from the start. This is something animals would probably get.
But since a charging Ogre running into the middle of town doesn't create an "in-game" fear/demoralize effect, the same applies to animals being scary.
For any non-PC reaction, the GM is there to handle it appropriately (commoner wets himself and runs, etc).
PCs regularly face charging Ogres. So a crocodile is going to be pretty old hat, really. *shrug*
You've never seen a cat arch its back and try to scare something?Lived around animals most of my life. Animals attempt to be scary as a defense mechanism to warn off threats or competitors. They don't decide to use Intimidate to demoralize a foe or force a subject to act friendly toward them.This is exactly my thoughts on this.
Intimidate (the skill) is written from a sentient creature's perspective (from a PC perspective actually), and not written in the sense of the way an animal would use it.
The game is lacking any real "morale" stat, and only has a couple factors that touch on it (fear effects and demoralize effects).
In a more elaborate system, some creatures (especially creatures larger than their enemies) would likely have an automatic morale hit on their opponents, at least from the start. This is something animals would probably get.But since a charging Ogre running into the middle of town doesn't create an "in-game" fear/demoralize effect, the same applies to animals being scary.
For any non-PC reaction, the GM is there to handle it appropriately (commoner wets himself and runs, etc).PCs regularly face charging Ogres. So a crocodile is going to be pretty old hat, really. *shrug*
That's pretty much been my point, as the cultural 'norm' for what these stats apply to is an armed and armored PC and not a mountain biker or photographer.
With all the lunatics residing in california , they probably had some people feeding the darn thing before it decided to say 'hello' to the biker.
Why the hate, dude? There are crazy people all over. I doubt anyone was leaving steaks on the mountain bike trail for it. It just got out-competed for space and deer by other mountain lions and took a chance.
Really, animals don't use the intimidate skill so much as announce that they aren't flat-footed and are ready to attack.
Big cats may be scary to us (and most things) but they don't really have presence. They sneak up on things and pounce. Cats of all sizes prefer to beat feet under most circumstances that aren't either "cubs in danger" or "prey is helpless."
All this discussion of cougars reminds me of a sign I saw while hiking in WA:
"If you are approached by a cougar, don't run and hide. Make yourself look as big as possible. If it growls, growl back."
Big cats may be scary to us (and most things) but they don't really have presence. They sneak up on things and pounce. Cats of all sizes prefer to beat feet under most circumstances that aren't either "cubs in danger" or "prey is helpless."
All this discussion of cougars reminds me of a sign I saw while hiking in WA:
"If you are approached by a cougar, don't run and hide. Make yourself look as big as possible. If it growls, growl back."
I saw that same sign. But it was in a bar....
I saw that same sign. But it was in a bar....Big cats may be scary to us (and most things) but they don't really have presence. They sneak up on things and pounce. Cats of all sizes prefer to beat feet under most circumstances that aren't either "cubs in danger" or "prey is helpless."
All this discussion of cougars reminds me of a sign I saw while hiking in WA:
"If you are approached by a cougar, don't run and hide. Make yourself look as big as possible. If it growls, growl back."
Heh
You might run away from a big scary animal, but you're never going to hand it your car keys.
Cheetas and even Cougars and Leopards are not really on the list of very dangerous creatures.
While Cheetas are certainly less dangerous than any large dog due to the fact that they have a frail body build for speeed and thus no sharp claws, Cougars and Leopoards are not big enough to really threaten a fully grown human who knows what he is doing (eg not turning your back and fleeing like prey). Consequently these animals are not the killers like the great Bears, Lions, Tigers or the most dangerous animal of all: the dreaded hippopotamus!
With all the lunatics residing in california , they probably had some people feeding the darn thing before it decided to say 'hello' to the biker.Why the hate, dude? There are crazy people all over. I doubt anyone was leaving steaks on the mountain bike trail for it. It just got out-competed for space and deer by other mountain lions and took a chance.
Really, animals don't use the intimidate skill so much as announce that they aren't flat-footed and are ready to attack.
I dunno, lunatics like to move to california, don't ask me, ask them, they come from all over , but for whatever reason they GO to cali.
I really doubt there are so many mountain lions that this one got pushed out of space and into humans area. More likely there are so many humans they got pushed into the mountain lions area.I don't think you can say cheetahs are less dangerous than any large dog. 1) There are certainly some dangerous canines, but really most of the "heavy dogs" aren't even the "dangerous ones". 2) the majority of dogs are domesticated and thus dont have to tear stuff up for survival.
IF put in the same environment, your dog would be the cheetahs prey. People who have dogs out there keep them in packs/teams for that very reason. Lone dog, not bloody likely.
People forget a well fed cheetah, that isn't living along the civilization border where prey is scarce can get up to 140 lbs. People get used to seeing those 80 pounders that are on TV or hang out in the zoo. They are like gold fish, give them enough territory and food and they can get BIG.
Cougars and Wolves are responsible for ALOT of Dog deaths every year, now to put that in perspective, ALOT of those dogs getting killed is some lady's "fifi" and not "nanuk", but you still have that whole bark is worse than bite addage. I think alot fo the bigger dogs that DO get taken out, have a higher opinion of themselves than the wild animal that killed them did.
That being said, there are still way more dig bites/attacks on humans than big cat attacks, Largely due tot he fact that there are more dogs to do the biting and they are more familiar with people.
I had a sergeant in the Army who was a naturalized american, he originally was a Bengali ranger. He had an exotic animal handlers license and kept two trained tigers at his house as 'guard dogs'
One sat at the bottom of the stairs just off to the side of the front door, the other at the top of the stairs watching the front door.
If you came to his house, and looked right you though he had a big ole tiger rug...until it blinked!
He had some word for attack in his native language. If you came in and were not wanted and these tigers heard this word, the one down stairs tackled you low and the one upstairs leaped down and hit you high.
Kinda crazy.
Guy said they literally cost him a fortune in meat, trying to feed them and the darn things were skinny as heck. These tigers, as skinny as they were had to be 350-400 lbs each, the two of them would have broken a sumo wrestler in two, without even having to bite or scratch.
now take into consideration that an elk is around the weight of a tiger (at least a skinny one) and think, is a cougar going to attack a tiger? No. But it will try and take an elk if it can.
That means the cougar knows what food looks like, or maybe smells like.
Attacking something like a human could mean a bunch of things, including there are no more deer but I keep seeing this dumb person jog by every morning, but it's not "normal" behavior anymore than trying to pounce on a 400 lb tiger would be.
Yappy "fifi" probably IS food, and alot of attacks reported by humans from wolves and cougars are them, trying to fend off said wild animal from the house pet they let wander too far in the woods.
If you try to get int he way of alot of dogs eating (like take away their food bowl int he middle of chow time) they will bite you. Likely the cat.wolf is doing the same thing.
People make alot of odd decisions when cofronted by wild animals but they never report the part where "I did something stupid" or " I enticed it". The cougar never gets interviewed for it's side of the story.
Personally, I think it's prejudice.
|
Personally, I think it's prejudice.
Pride, I'd say. We are raised to believe that we are the dominant species, the ones who 'own' the planet, and after being run off or mauled by something that we think of as a 'dumb animal' or 'Int 2' or 'non-sentient,' people struggle to come up with excuses for why the 'dumb animal' so badly shamed them.
Few people want to admit that a 'mindless eating machine' or 'biological robot' or 'instrict-driven non-sentient' outwitted them.
Personally, I think it's prejudice.Pride, I'd say. We are raised to believe that we are the dominant species, the ones who 'own' the planet, and after being run off or mauled by something that we think of as a 'dumb animal' or 'Int 2' or 'non-sentient,' people struggle to come up with excuses for why the 'dumb animal' so badly shamed them.
Few people want to admit that a 'mindless eating machine' or 'biological robot' or 'instrict-driven non-sentient' outwitted them.
"Most" people spend the vast majority of their time reacting, rather than acting. Therefor, they never really 'think' anyway.
Cheetas and even Cougars and Leopards are not really on the list of very dangerous creatures.
While Cheetas are certainly less dangerous than any large dog due to the fact that they have a frail body build for speeed and thus no sharp claws, Cougars and Leopoards are not big enough to really threaten a fully grown human who knows what he is doing (eg not turning your back and fleeing like prey). Consequently these animals are not the killers like the great Bears, Lions, Tigers or the most dangerous animal of all: the dreaded hippopotamus!
Cougars and leopards weigh an average of 150lbs (for a cougar) or 125lbs (for a leopard) which is all sinew and claws and sharp, pointy teeth.
I used to live in alaska, I currently live in the Rocky mountains where arguably the highest concentration of cougars are on this Continent and I have spend a considerable amount of time in Africa and have witnessed Tribesmen hunt and kill cheetah with spears, not guns, not bows and arrows, spears. They aren't very scared of cheetahs.
They wear them as clothes.The 'status quo' in the rule books are going to be PCs. Not commoners. The local baker is going to be terrified of something like a leopard (and thus you could add a circumstance bonus) but to a fighter in chain mail with a shield and a sword who is trained to kill.... yea -3 might be about right.
+1
I don't want to meet a hungry wolf or cougar or bear or whatever in nature as I don't want to meet a boar with newborn piglets or a raccoon with rabies but I am no mystic warrior like the characters I play. You're not that afraid of some common animals when you are the only hope for the kingdom to get rid of the evil lich wizard and his undead hordealso +1 to the rest of your post, even the most feared animals like wolves or sharks only attack humans when they are very hungry and there is no easier prey. Most attack on humans by animals are either passive (jellyfish) or territorial motivated (hippos and africanized bees)
...
Dogs bark and growl. Wolves Growl. (noise is for intimidation. Food gets the silent treatment) The deadlands had a trait that gave you bonuses to overawe (intimidate checks) called "the voice". The suppliment for animals had the same trait called "the growl"
Bears rear up on their hind legs and try to look bigger
Cats arch their backs and try to look bigger
Raccoons arch their backs and DO look bigger
Watching two cockerel pheasants facing each other down in a territorial display's amusing
I removed a post and a reply to it that contained sexist language.
Flag it and move on, folks.
Back in the day, there was a creature in the Shadowrun books, and it was a gigantic (house-sized and aggressive) armadillo, basically. One of its powers was causing fear (like a PF dragon).
In the comment posts underneath on the page (it was set up like a message board) was the amusing comment that I think is appropriate to the current topic:
"Does this thing actually CAUSE fear, or is it simply the only logical reaction?"
Monsters can cause fear without needing combat statistics or intimidate, though in some cases, the effect is there to simulate what characters SHOULD be feeling (dragons, Tarrasque, etc.). Animals can do the same thing. If the players aren't afraid, they either think they're too tough to be threatened by it, or they're not thinking at all.
Animals do put on threat displays, but honestly, as a supposedly logical person, are the threat displays what frightens you, or the fact that the rattlesnake is reared back and ready to strike (and the logic of its presence and the imminent danger it represents)?
In game, those can be different things.
elephants are afraid of mice how does that intimidate check work?
Animals do put on threat displays, but honestly, as a supposedly logical person, are the threat displays what frightens you, or the fact that the rattlesnake is reared back and ready to strike (and the logic of its presence and the imminent danger it represents)?
It is definitely the sound. I've come across rattlesnakes while hiking a few times , and the second i hear that sound i get a shot of ice water down the spine. After I see the snake my reaction is "Awwww... hello"
I don't think the problem is as bad as people think. The mechanic works fine. Remember that adventurers are pretty confident. They are the least likely to be intimidated by animals. Non-adventurers on the other hand, are easily intimidated. Most of the time animals are trying to intimidate is when they are protecting territory, young, or impressing mates by being the biggest and baddest in the land compared to others of their kind.
The majority of the humanoid population will set the Initimdate DC at 10 (10 + 0 hit die +0 Wisdom) or even 11 if you want to give them a level of an NPC class. Looking over the various Intimidate checks, I don't think this is all that far off. I would even consider giving a +2 circumstance bonus if the creature is guarding it's young or territory.
Most of the time though, animals just don't go around trying to demoralize opponents. Yes, they do sometimes, but it isn't all that common. They will usually just attack and call it good enough. Most animals also don't attack with the intent to kill unless they plan on eating or feel very threatened. Usually, they just want to show how dangerous they are. One swipe with a claw is often enough to tell the poor victim that they should leave while they can.
The majority of the humanoid population will set the Initimdate DC at 10 (10 + 0 hit die +0 Wisdom) or even 11 if you want to give them a level of an NPC class. Looking over the various Intimidate checks, I don't think this is all that far off. I would even consider giving a +2 circumstance bonus if the creature is guarding it's young or territory.
Most of the time though, animals just don't go around trying to demoralize opponents. Yes, they do sometimes, but it isn't all that common. They will usually just attack and call it good enough. Most animals also don't attack with the intent to kill unless they plan on eating or feel very threatened. Usually, they just want to show how dangerous they are. One swipe with a claw is often enough to tell the poor victim that they should leave while they can.
On the subject of animals vs. low level NPCs:
Order of the Stick: The Battle Everyone's Been Waiting For SMALL WARNING: Stick figure-related graphic wound (pretty tame, visually)
One swipe should be enough...
If a leopard (or a crocodile) is attempting to intimidate you, instead of tearing you limb from limb in the surprise round because you didn't see it coming, then they're doing it wrong.
If a leopard (or a crocodile) is attempting to intimidate you, instead of tearing you limb from limb in the surprise round because you didn't see it coming, then they're doing it wrong.
Yeah, ambush predators put their ranks in stealth, not intimidate. If you watch the wildlife shows, it's rare for one animal to totally demoralize another animal. Unless they eat it. I guess that would be a demoralizing experience.
Bears are bigger than wolves, but I've seen videos of wolves harrying a bear while trying to protect a kill. The wolves keep nipping and dodging, even though it's risky. The bear growls, but with the numbers advantage going to the wolves, usually wanders off.
The fact that Intimidate is a CHA skill means animals are at a slight disadvantage, because it's modeling humanoid interactions. But they're mostly going against other animals, often their own kind. So the real key is hit dice (for the DC) vs. how many ranks you think the animal should get from their hit dice.
I suppose you could train an animal companion to intimidate the villagers on command. It's a reasonable trick. If that's your thing, as you go up level and it gets more skill points and feats, focus on intimidate.
Except for Deinonychuses, because they're cool like that. Average CHA of 14, baby! Truly, raptors were the sorcerers, oracles, and intimidators of the animal kingdom, rivaled only by the personable pteranodons (average Cha 12.)
The fact that Intimidate is a CHA skill means animals are at a slight disadvantage, because it's modeling humanoid interactions
Technical question: Since when is how much you fear the big cat based on it's intimidate skill? On lvl 1 and especially with levels in NPC class you just know that when big cat comes around, you had better not been there. The cat won't exactly try to look especially intimidating either, it will simply attack and attempt to eat you. I can imagine mundane animals using intimidate if cornered or if they are just trying to scare you away from their young, but that doesn't mean that they need it to hunt their prey. Most predators use stealth to get as close as possible and then just try to seize the prey as soon as possible. The other tactic being overwhelming the prey by numbers. The animals don't need intimidate that much and seriously if you look scary enough to make a tyger want to scare you away rather than eating you, you probably won't be impressed by a roaring furball that much.
EDIT: Toward animal being not scary enough - people don't have to fear the animal, just to fear death. If they know that the animal is more than capable of killing them, they either get away or die. What the hell is death's intimidate score anyway?
Toward human flesh addiction. I don't think that our flesh is special. Just remember that most of these predators are mammals - intelligent and able to learn a lot. Normally they hunt their regular prey and are scared by the unknown (humans are a bit unusual in their behaviour (we don't look like we care, but the animal doesn't realise, that we're either stupid or that our senses are too poor to alert us of the danger, they assume probably that we don't have to fear them because we're powerful enough), coloration, smells and sounds (clothing, parfumes, items) simply we don't look like food). The problem starts when the nimal realizes that we are indeed edible and rather easy to catch and kill. Why the hell it should be stalking deer when humans are plentiful and easy to detect from miles away?
The same problem was encountered in Australia, where humans released rabbits as a prey for hunters. Of course that rabbits without any predators to keep them in check quickly multiplied and soon they were causing serious agricultural damage. The next thing the humans did was to introduce the fox in there to hunt rabbits and guess what? Foxes aren't that stupid and soon started to decimate local fauna because unlike rabbits local marsupials are not used to predators like this and are far easier to prey upon. Thus when a predator realises that we're such an easy prey, we had better got rid of it, as it will prefer us as a prey and even teach it's young what is the best prey around.
Thus when a predator realises that we're such an easy prey, we had better got rid of it, as it will prefer us as a prey and even teach it's young what is the best prey around.
Which just goes to show that you can be a clever predator and still learn the wrong thing. The first human is easy. Maybe even the second and the third. But soon you get attacked by packs of humans who can kill by pointing sticks with their paws and making loud cracking noises.
Notice how many surviving predators learned you live longer by staying the hell away from humans?
Thus when a predator realises that we're such an easy prey, we had better got rid of it, as it will prefer us as a prey and even teach it's young what is the best prey around.Which just goes to show that you can be a clever predator and still learn the wrong thing. The first human is easy. Maybe even the second and the third. But soon you get attacked by packs of humans who can kill by pointing sticks with their paws and making loud cracking noises.
Notice how many surviving predators learned you live longer by staying the hell away from humans?
The problem is in equipment the difference between unarmed and armed human is considerable and the fact that that there are no other animals able to change th threat level they pose like that, which must be confusing (if not outright deadly). The chance to learn from this error is much smaller and those rare predators that have this chance are probably thos that become the legendary maneating terrors made flesh. They know that they need to surprize us and to avoid armed groups looking for them. And so the stalk the dark corners of the places we thing safe... mwahahaha... eh :)
Surviving predators didn't learn to stay away. It's our time-proven policy to pogromize anything that doesn't do so that kept everything away. In time we became something alien to them, because those who lived nearby have met a swift end sooner or later (for sport, killed while we were hunting the one maneater among them, killed becuse it ate something we wanted for ourselves).
|
I know this is a bit off topic from the Leopard mentioned by the OP, but this brings up a good issue relating to Charisma in general.
It has to stop being defined as both a force of will and "a social stat".
Sure, it may take will to do well in social situations, but let's look at the Dwarf's -2 penalty to Charisma. They are written as being very stubborn (they have a strong force of will). But they are penalized for it?
There are numerous other examples, & I'm glad Paizo came a little bit away from 3.5's even looser "definition" of Charisma, but personally it misses the target. House rules fix it for me, & it's the only thing that makes me go "HMM!!" in all of it, but I thought I'd bring it up here, as I hear you OP 100%.
Although, yes, leave as much as you can to RP. But still, the scores should reflect certain things.
I know this is a bit off topic from the Leopard mentioned by the OP, but this brings up a good issue relating to Charisma in general.
It has to stop being defined as both a force of will and "a social stat".
Sure, it may take will to do well in social situations, but let's look at the Dwarf's -2 penalty to Charisma. They are written as being very stubborn (they have a strong force of will). But they are penalized for it?
There are numerous other examples, & I'm glad Paizo came a little bit away from 3.5's even looser "definition" of Charisma, but personally it misses the target. House rules fix it for me, & it's the only thing that makes me go "HMM!!" in all of it, but I thought I'd bring it up here, as I hear you OP 100%.
Although, yes, leave as much as you can to RP. But still, the scores should reflect certain things.
Force of will != force of personality - dwarves are stubborn and have a great force of will (they are hard to influence) - high wisdom represents that. They are, however, not particularly apt at influencing the others and forcing their way by sheer presence (a good reason to argument while armorclad and with a good axe in your hands ;) ) represented by their lower charisma.
You've never seen a cat arch its back and try to scare something?
I dog sat for a friend recently. The dogs came over to our house. The one 4 month old pup spotted the cat and started to walk toward it. Cat puffed up and hissed. Dog stopped dead and very, very slowly, walked backwards about 6 feet, and sat down.
You've never seen a cat arch its back and try to scare something?I dog sat for a friend recently. The dogs came over to our house. The one 4 month old pup spotted the cat and started to walk toward it. Cat puffed up and hissed. Dog stopped dead and very, very slowly, walked backwards about 6 feet, and sat down.
This could happen easily within the Pathfinder rules (I don't think you're arguing against it, I'm just showing how the rules support that real-life scenario).
DC to Intimidate the dog: 12
Intimidate score for the cat: -2. The cat managed to roll an 14 on his check.
Dogs bark and growl. Wolves Growl.
...
Bears rear up on their hind legs and try to look biggerCats arch their backs and try to look bigger
Raccoons arch their backs and DO look bigger
Shinmizu eats McDonald's food and gets bigger. So far, I have a +10 Intimidate bonus against miniature clones of evil scientists.
Fearing and animal or predator, for that matter isn't based of charismatic power of the animal so much as it is on the psychology of the target.
Current RAW is based on the "power" of the target (HD)
Not hard to intimidate a commoner, but not automatic either.
In RAW intimidate and fear effects are different.
But if your 1st level party decides to run from a raptor they would be smart (at least if they had a dwarf in their party).
IRL fear is often irrational (elephant afraid of a mouse, most people afraid of snakes and insects).
I was driving down the road a few years back and had a chukar (similar to a grose) jump up and start flying, landed right in my wind shield, scared the bejeezus outta me (and made a big crack in my wind shield) It was kinda funny 10 minutes later. But I'm not afraid of mountain lions. Of course I don't wander out unprepared either, as most adventurers don't either.
In some cases, fear can be RATIONAL, "im afraid if I leave my kids home alone with the door unlocked someone will take them"
I'm afraid this leopard is going to kill me? Cmon now, we've all seen die at the drop of a hat in nearly every encounter, how scary is he really??
Last night we had a nasty encounter...
Familiars galore.
A Green Hag, a Vrylokkas and a hezrou. With difficult terrain. I mean what is that? a CR14 encounter?
Ugly.
So the characters are 8th level.
Witch/druid
Gunslinger
Ranger
Magus
Ronin.
They've got animal companions and they've got feats to keep the animals up with their hit dice.
Big Wolf, Velociraptor, Two lions (figurines of wondrous power), and a BIG cat.
IF there was a rabbit to pull out of the hat they would have too.The wolf got charmed in the first round and didn't do anything until the Hezrou got around to it after killing the gunslinger...
The Lions got killed halfway through....
I mean animals as they are aren't that tough or scary, they were a distraction (like the monkey swarm last night) at best or maybe a partner to flank with.
Sure that's a bad example of a stupid tough encounter that was really lucky it wasnt a TPK (only the gunslinger died...Hezrou ridiculous, +17 to hit, auto grab (basically) on every hit, you end up pinned and nauseated with nothing to do but watch your character die)
If the PC's hadnt driven the Demon off (it was only willing to take X damage) it might very well have been a TPK.
Magus did punk damage to it (but did the best damage) by pool striking...
Gunslinger did most damage (50) before getting crushed.
Point is the animals were almost worthless.
Just like IRL, a wolf or a leopard isn't going to be that scary if your well armed.
A raptor? I dunno... well no one knowns since at this point they are fantasy animals, but I doubt the critters would have acted much different than hunting cats, and not suicidal death machines movies like to make them.