| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SO I have seen a few people talk about Dazling display and how (I think it was a barbarian) you can make this just amazing.
I have never really thought much of intimidate as the debuff seemed a bit lackluster.
I am looking to make a barbarian however and would likr to be able to do more then just hit people with a stick.
Thanks for any help.
Think about some of the Barb rage/intim abilities as well as Cornugon Smash. It may not be the superest debuff, but it lands consistently! Don't forget Intimidating Prowess to add STR mod to Intim. =)
Half-orc Inquisitors can use it quite weel too.
Inquisitors also get access to Blistering Invective which removes the feat tax for an enhanced effect at the cost of a 2nd level spell.
I'd actually say Inquisitors make better use of Intimidate than Barbarians, because they have access to spells like the Castigate line and Fear. Use Dazzling Display or Blistering Invective one round to shake them, then Castigate, Mass or Fear to frighten them for one round even on a successful save. Fun stuff.
The best use of intimidate ever? A halfling sandman bard with the taunt feat and blistering invective.
|
Except that Intimidate specifically doesn't stack with any other fear effects. Still, though, I agree Intimidate Inquisitors really do make good use of it.
Yes it does, as long as it goes first. It doesn't stack with itself, and can't be used to make creatures Frightened or Panicked, but nothing prevents spells from frightening or panicking those already effected by Intimidate.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Except that Intimidate specifically doesn't stack with any other fear effects. Still, though, I agree Intimidate Inquisitors really do make good use of it.Yes it does, as long as it goes first. It doesn't stack with itself, and can't be used to make creatures Frightened or Panicked, but nothing prevents spells from frightening or panicking those already effected by Intimidate.
Except the rules on intimidate, which explicitly state that it doesn't stack with ANYTHING.
Not with itself. Not with other sources of fear either. Intimidate can never result in fear, unless you're playing the thug archetypes, or some other similar archetype.|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Except the rules on intimidate, which explicitly state that it doesn't stack with ANYTHING.
Not with itself. Not with other sources of fear either. Intimidate can never result in fear, unless you're playing the thug archetypes, or some other similar archetype.
Here are the rules on Intimidate.
Where does it say that?
All it says is Demoralize can't ever make a condition worse than shaken on it's own. Nothing about someone casting Fear on a demoralized target.
Well this thread has changed my views on DD
I use to think it was useless but now I know better!
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Except the rules on intimidate, which explicitly state that it doesn't stack with ANYTHING.
Not with itself. Not with other sources of fear either. Intimidate can never result in fear, unless you're playing the thug archetypes, or some other similar archetype.Here are the rules on Intimidate.
Where does it say that?
All it says is Demoralize can't ever make a condition worse than shaken on it's own. Nothing about someone casting Fear on a demoralized target.
"This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened."
"Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition."
Latest rulebook errata.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Except the rules on intimidate, which explicitly state that it doesn't stack with ANYTHING.
Not with itself. Not with other sources of fear either. Intimidate can never result in fear, unless you're playing the thug archetypes, or some other similar archetype.Here are the rules on Intimidate.
Where does it say that?
All it says is Demoralize can't ever make a condition worse than shaken on it's own. Nothing about someone casting Fear on a demoralized target.
"This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened."
"Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition."
Latest rulebook errata.
Just to make it even clearer:
"This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened."
Gods forbid martials have something nice.
You can still fear stack with different spells, at least. (Coincidentally, does that errata kill off any possible usage a Barb could get w/ Terrifying Howl? The save DC was already too low to matter, but it also explicitly only works on stuff already shaken. With this nerf to intimidate, sounds like it does not work...)
Wasting your whole turn to give a group of bad guys a -2 on some rolls isn't worth the feats. Using Enforcer (if you planned to do nonlethal anyway), Cornugon Smash, or Dreadful Carnage to just add it as a minor debuff done w/o an action cost as you attack things is worthwhile, though.
A 2 level dip into Order of the Cockatrice Cavalier gets you Dazzling Display as a standard action.
Still not worth it, IMO, though mostly because it's not worth the 2 level dip.
It seems a perfect match for a Bard, who's primary mission is usually to buff/de-buff. They'll barely miss the Full-Round Action.
Bard can't get Dazzling Display till 5th level; it requires Weapon Focus, which he cannot obtain at 1st level.
Doesn't seem like such a perfect match to me...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
"This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened."
"Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition."
Latest rulebook errata.
I...just read the latest errata (found here) and it doesn't say this. It says what I linked in the PRD. Please link the reference you are referring to.
Dazzing Display is good for a Fighter/Rogue (Thug archetype) because Shatter Defense will let you add your sneak attack damage against shaken opponents that were struck by you until the end of your next round (they become flat-footed). Rogue talents that complements well the Dazzling Display/Shatter Defense line are Beffundling Strike and Offensive Defense. A sword'n'board Fighter/Rogue can become nearly unhittable with this combo, and your caster friends will thank you for lowering the opponents saving throws.
Bard can't get Dazzling Display till 5th level; it requires Weapon Focus, which he cannot obtain at 1st level.
Doesn't seem like such a perfect match to me...
And having a Barbarian waste a feat and a full attack per combat on a minor debuff simply because they can get it 4 levels sooner seems like a horrible idea to me. To each their own I suppose.
I had always thought that Dazzling Display in conjunction with Terrifying Howl makes for a nice combo. It looks like this can no longer be done, however, which would be a shame.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
In my experience, Dazzling Display is much better at low levels than at mid-to-high levels. After a certain point, your round is better spent doing other things. At high levels, it's useful mainly to make easy encounters trivial--if a bunch of mooks needs an 18 to hit you already, DD makes them hit only on a nat 20, but such an encounter's probably already a cakewalk.
Why would you take this on a bard when you can do it with spells or a performance right when you need it? It's way too many feats wasted. I use demoralize on my bard before I cast SOS spells with the harmonic spell feat like so:
1) Begin Dirge of Doom to lower saves
2) Cast SOS spell (Slow, Crushing Despair)
3) Swap back to inspire courage as a free action with harmonic spell.
I just can't see blowing all those feats on that line. Blistering Invictive is out there anyway.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I...just read the latest errata (found here) and it doesn't say this. It says what I linked in the PRD. Please link the reference you are referring to."This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened."
"Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition."
Latest rulebook errata.
You're right! I was stunned to see that it's not in the PRD, or in the latest set of errata. Further digging reveals that it was an erratum to the first printing that appeared only in the 2nd printing, but was (mistakenly?) left out of the 3rd printing and all subsequent printings without explanation or subsequent errata.
This thread explains it. See the last post.
The text from the second printing is preserved on d20pfsrd.com, although I realize that's not an official source.
Note that back when the second printing came out, this point was clarified ad nauseum in the forums. There are plenty of threads on it if you dig deep enough.
I guess the question is: was the errata left out in subsequent printings intentionally (i.e. re-erata'd) or by accident?
My hunch is the latter, but you're certainly welcome to come to another conclusion if that's what you prefer at your table.
EDIT: To further bolster the idea that this was merely a mistake and not an intentional re-errata, check out the 2nd printing to 5th printing errata pdf. Nothing in that pdf explicitly overrides or removes the text at issue.
Why would you take this on a bard when you can do it with spells or a performance right when you need it? It's way too many feats wasted. I use demoralize on my bard before I cast SOS spells with the harmonic spell feat like so:
1) Begin Dirge of Doom to lower saves
2) Cast SOS spell (Slow, Crushing Despair)
3) Swap back to inspire courage as a free action with harmonic spell.I just can't see blowing all those feats on that line. Blistering Invictive is out there anyway.
Well just to be clear, I wouldn't take it at all. Also, don't be so melodramatic: "Feat line", "Way too many wasted feats". We're really talking about 1 feat. Most people take Weapon Focus anyway, and even if you weren't going to, it's still a far cry from a complete waste of a feat.
Now, imagine doing your SOS spell, swapping back to Inspire Courage, and THEN stacking a Shaken condition on top of Staggered, to everyone in that 30' radius, for the low, low price of 1 full round action.
Intimidate doesn't have to worry about Spell Resistance, just HD and WIS, and if they have a high WIS your SOS spell is taking a hit too.
Another issue, is that you're relying on spell slots, and high level spell slots for a bard (3rd level spell is a 7th level Bard). You're not going to out-spell a Wizard or a Sorcerer, so being able to give someone a condition without using a spell, seems like a good idea for a bard that doesn't have a lot of spells to give up.
If we're talking about PFS, it becomes even more attractive because Intimidate is a very handy socialization skill that you probably got for "free" as a bard with Versatile Performance. Which means every time you bump your Perform Skill, you bump your Intimidate, and 1 other skill from Versatile Performance, plus you get extra money from your occupation roll (and in PFS, every GP counts).
So, to clarify, would I do it? No probably not, but if someone were going to, I can see a strong argument for it being a Bard.
I had always thought that Dazzling Display in conjunction with Terrifying Howl makes for a nice combo. It looks like this can no longer be done, however, which would be a shame.
If the intimidate rules were changed as it seems they were, to not stack with ANYTHING, then Terrifying Howl is basically useless. Yeah, you can combine it with a spellcaster's fear effect spell, but I'm pretty dang sure when it requires Intimidating Glare, that isn't how the designers forsaw it being triggered... -_-
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You're right! I was stunned to see that it's not in the PRD, or in the latest set of errata. Further digging reveals that it was an erratum to the first printing that appeared only in the 2nd printing, but was (mistakenly?) left out of the 3rd printing and all subsequent printings without explanation or subsequent errata.
This thread explains it. See the last post.
Interesting. You certainly appear to be correct. Seems a deeply silly rule, from the perspective of logic, but I suppose that matters little in terms of RAW.
The text from the second printing is preserved on d20pfsrd.com, although I realize that's not an official source.
Note that back when the second printing came out, this point was clarified ad nauseum in the forums. There are plenty of threads on it if you dig deep enough.
I guess the question is: was the errata left out in subsequent printings intentionally (i.e. re-erata'd) or by accident?
My hunch is the latter, but you're certainly welcome to come to another conclusion if that's what you prefer at your table.
EDIT: To further bolster the idea that this was merely a mistake and not an intentional re-errata, check out the 2nd printing to 5th printing errata pdf. Nothing in that pdf explicitly overrides or removes the text at issue.
Well, I have a multi-page House Rules Document and every intention of continuing to run it the way I suggested it...but knowing which it actually is seems a worthwhile question to examine and entertain. Especially since my personal House Rules make little difference to the people who seek advice here, for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had always thought that Dazzling Display in conjunction with Terrifying Howl makes for a nice combo. It looks like this can no longer be done, however, which would be a shame.If the intimidate rules were changed as it seems they were, to not stack with ANYTHING, then Terrifying Howl is basically useless. Yeah, you can combine it with a spellcaster's fear effect spell, but I'm pretty dang sure when it requires Intimidating Glare, that isn't how the designers forsaw it being triggered... -_-
Benefit: The barbarian unleashes a terrifying howl as a standard action. All shaken enemies within 30 feet must make a Will save (DC equal to 10 + 1/2 the barbarian's level + the barbarian's Strength modifier) or be panicked for 1d4+1 rounds.
I think terrifying howl still works. It doesn't depend on fear stacking. It merely requires that the target already be shaken to function at all. If the target is shaken, terrifying howl generates the panicked condition entirely by itself without relying on fear stacking mechanics.
Fear stacking works by simple addition like this:
Shaken + Shaken = Frightened*
(*unless one of the shaken conditions was from a source that doesn't permit stacking.)
WHEREAS
Terrifying howl is more of an if statement thing, like this:
Is the target shaken?
If yes: target must make will save or be panicked
If no: terrifying howl fizzles.
They are similar, but different mechanics.
I'm going to try the Bludgeoner + Enforcer combo soon with a half-elf paladin with Skill Focus Intimidate and the Bully trait.
I think the Bludgeoner + Enforcer combo would work even better for a half-orc inquisitor using the half-orc inquisitor favored class bonus.
+2 racial + 1/2 stern gaze + 1/2 favored class + 1 rank/level = approx 4 ranks per 2 levels + 2 + 3 for class skill + Charisma mod to demoralize checks.
Assume Cha 12.
4 ranks + 3 class + 2 race + 2 stern + 2 favored + 1 Cha
At 4th level: +14.
|
Sorry to partially necro...
Let's say I have used Dazzling Display to shaken the mooks, and succeeded in having them shaken for 2 rounds.
The next round I cast Blistering Invective and manage to intimidate them successfully again.
Do they then move from Shaken to Frightened because it's a spell effect and not a repeated use of Dazzling Display?
|
I would say no because you are still using the intimidate skill. This is just the spell version of dazzling display. The damage and the range of the intimidate effect are the spell effects.
The only way around the non-stack I've found is in the Hellknight prestige class. The discipline Fearsomeness specifically states that your use of intimidate inflicts the fear condition. Really, you are still not stacking, just increasing the severity of the effect.
The drawback there is it's several levels into a PrC.