| Captain Zimri |
My character in a campaign is without a weapon at the moment (it was taken from him) and I have the Enforcer feat:
Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.
In a battle against unarmed humans, I used just my fists, and the GM questioned my ability to use Enforcer in the fight, claiming that my fists aren't considered melee weapons. He allowed me to Intimidate when I did non-lethal damage, but we wondered about the validity of my using Enforcer.
So I come to the boards with this question:
Can I apply the Enforcer feat to unarmed strikes if I do not have Improved Unarmed Strike?
| MC Templar |
I would agree that the spirit of the feat is that your skill with weapons and the way you are using them is what is intimidating your enemies for "free"
Your untrained unarmed strikes, not so much, you would use them to intimidate the 'old fashioned way'... punching someone then using an action next round to intimidate. Think of it as a matter of efficiency that you can manage with a sword that a pimp slap is just failing to match.
| StreamOfTheSky |
RAW, I'm pretty sure it still works. Your unarmed strike may not count as an "armed attack" and thus provokes AoOs. But it's still a weapon. Enforcer doesn't require much at all, really. You don't even need to be proficient in the weapon you're using. You're intimidating because you just punched that guy in the face and growled like a damned bear. Not because of weapon skill necessarily.