|
Just looking for a straight answer (preferably not just a guess) on this: how should the Intimidation efforts of two different PCs (or NPCs or foes for that matter) interact in terms of duration and DC?
Party now has two PCs in it, both of whom want to utilize the Intimidate skill an awful lot: an Inquisitor who likes to use the Blistering Invective spell (curse at your foes, make an Intimidate check and they can become shaken, take 1d10 fire damage and make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire), and a high-Charisma performance combat Fighter with a couple levels of Bard.
The Fighter has Dazzling Display (Intimidate vs. all foes in a 30' radius as a full-round action), and has just taken the necessary feats (Performing Combatant and Hero's Display) to be able to use Dazzling Display as a swift action in any combat (not just performance combats) whenever he makes a Performance Combat check. Given that they can be prompted by hitting on a charge attack, getting a critical hit with an energy burst weapon, rolling maximum weapon damage or scoring multiple hits against the same foe in a single round, he's likely to make more than a few.
Bottom line: both of them can try to demoralize a whole bunch of enemies multiple times during a typical combat.
My question - what should happen with the DC and duration of their effects? Demoralize can't stack with itself to make a foe frightened or panicked, all it can ever do is make the foes shaken. By the rules, same character using Intimidate's "demoralize" effect multiple times just extends the duration of the effect (though they're not explicit as to whether the new duration is added to the old one, or just replaces it). However:
1) Does the "try again" aspect of Intimidate apply to successive successful uses of demoralize, or just failures? In other words, does each successive attempt to demoralize have it's DC increase by 5?
2) How do their efforts interact? Are the DCs and durations independent, or do their durations and DCs stack with each other? For example:
a) Separate Minds option - Ogres with an Intimidate DC of 14 - Inquisitor casts Blistering Invective, rolls an Intimidate check of 27, demoralizing them for 3 rounds. Fighter charges in and hits, succeeds on his Performance Combat check, and makes an Intimidate check of 29, demoralizing them for 4 rounds. His effect is longer than the Intimidator's and completely subsumes it, so the end result is that the ogres are shaken for 4 rounds (plus the fire damage from the spell).
b) Team Players option - Ogres with an Intimidate DC of 14 - Inquisitor casts Blistering Invective, with an Intimidate check of 27, demoralizing them for 3 rounds. Fighter charges in and hits, succeeds on his Performance Combat check, and makes an Intimidate check of 29 (but the ogres now have an Intimidate DC of 19, assuming the +5 to DC modifier applies to successes as well as failures), demoralizing them for 3 rounds. The durations stack, so the ogres are shaken for 6 rounds.
c) Nerf Bat option - the durations don't stack, but the DCs do - DC for the fighter to use Intimidate still goes up to 19 after the Inquisitor casts Blistering Invective, and they both wind up demoralizing the ogres for 3 rounds, but the effects are concurrent, meaning the Fighter would have been better off waiting until the Inquisitor's effect expired.
1) I've always thought the "try again" is only if you fail, but as the rules don't state it, then by RAW it is literally whenever you try again regardless of whether you were successful or not on previous attempts. Looking at older forum posts, the thought that "try again" is only for failed attempts is pervasive, but I can't find the rule on it.
2) The durations would be added. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration. It doesn't matter where that demoralize came from. The DC wouldn't change (unless one PC has an ability to lower the DC, then it would change for that PC only). If the DC is increasing by 5 each time, then the increase would be tracked by the individual, not the group:
Inquisitor demoralizes. DC is 14. Next time Inquisitor demoralizes, DC will be 19. Ogre is demoralized for 3 rounds.
Fighter demoralizes. DC is 14. Next time Fighter demoralizes, DC will be 19. Ogre is demoralized for 4 additional rounds (total 7).
The DC part is questionable, but the duration stacking is very clear right there in the rules you posted:
By the rules, same character using Intimidate's "demoralize" effect multiple times just extends the duration of the effect
If something extends the duration, why would it replace it? There is no definition of extend that means replace.
What bookrat said. The try-again adds to the DC (whether or not pass/fail), while additional successes adds to the duration.
Oh, and be thankful that one of them isn't a Barbarian with the Terrifying Howl rage power :)
I think there's also a trait or feat that allows intimidation of animals too.
Intimidate can be an encounter end-er if used correctly.
|
|
Right, I've always taken the "Try Again" rules to apply to both successes and failures where you're trying to do the same thing multiple times. If you unlock a lock, then it closes again, you can try to unlock it again (although in that case I might say that you get a +2 bonus on the check, since you're already figured out this particular lock once). I've looked for a rule saying that Try Again applies only to failures, but I haven't found one either.
Point 2 is where I'm not quite sold however - it feels like it should be both or neither. Demoralize basically means a foe (or PC) is becoming shaken in response to the Intimidating actions of a specific PC (or foe). If the rule is +5 to the DC for multiple tries, it feels like it should either be that multiple actors on the same side work together, or they don't. If you're saying that the shaken condition is a single effect, even though they're being intimidated by two different people, it should either be that their durations and DCs both stack (PC #2 increases the duration with their first attempt, but also has to take the -5 penalty since the foe's already been intimidated once), or neither stacks (both PCs track their own Intimidate DCs and don't consider their partner's previous attempts, either in duration or DC).
I feel like it makes more sense if you treat them as a team, where they collectively stack both the length and DC of their demoralize efforts. I can think of situations where you wouldn't use it like teamwork - say a battle between the PCs and two competing sets of antagonists all fighting over the same McGuffin. If someone from the first group of antagonists tries to intimidate everybody, and then somebody from the second group tries the same thing, they're working at cross purposes, and their durations (and DCs) shouldn't stack.
Point 2 is where I'm not quite sold however - it feels like it should be both or neither. Demoralize basically means a foe (or PC) is becoming shaken in response to the Intimidating actions of a specific PC (or foe). If the rule is +5 to the DC for multiple tries, it feels like it should either be that multiple actors on the same side work together, or they don't. If you're saying that the shaken condition is a single effect, even though they're being intimidated by two different people, it should either be that their durations and DCs both stack (PC #2 increases the duration with their first attempt, but also has to take the -5 penalty since the foe's already been intimidated once), or neither stacks (both PCs track their own Intimidate DCs and don't consider their partner's previous attempts, either in duration or DC).
I think there are two different aspects here. The DC is from the perspective of the intimidator, and the duration is from the perspective of the intimidated.
Looking at poisons for an analogy, if the same character gets hit with two different poisons, clearly each poison has a separate DC and saving throw. Now, what happens if those two different poisons have the same result? Say that Poison A makes the character fall asleep for 3 rounds and Poison B makes the character fall asleep for 2 rounds. There are three options for how this would affect the character:
1) The effects poisons somehow stack, and the character is "more asleep" for the first 2 rounds until Poison B wears off. This is really hard to adjudicate: what does "more asleep" or "doubly asleep" actually mean? For this kind of effect, we would need a complete condition-plus-enhanced-condition table (e.g., frightened enhanced = panicked), and we don't have that for each and every possible condition.
2) Both poisons track separately, and the 2-round effect of Poison B essentially has no effect on the character at all (since it's overshadowed by the 3-round effect of Poison A). That hardly seems fair for the poison user, but it's certainly possible.
3) Poison B's 2 rounds of effect are added to the duration of Poison A's 3 rounds. This is probably how I would rule it, barring a clarification or FAQ.
|
|
I think there are two different aspects here. The DC is from the perspective of the intimidator, and the duration is from the perspective of the intimidated.Looking at poisons for an analogy, if the same character gets hit with two different poisons, clearly each poison has a separate DC and saving throw. Now, what happens if those two different poisons have the same result? Say that Poison A makes the character fall asleep for 3 rounds and Poison B makes the character fall asleep for 2 rounds. There are three options for how this would affect the character:
1) The effects poisons somehow stack, and the character is "more asleep" for the first 2 rounds until Poison B wears off. This is really hard to adjudicate: what does "more asleep" or "doubly asleep" actually mean? For this kind of effect, we would need a complete condition-plus-enhanced-condition table (e.g., frightened enhanced = panicked), and we don't have that for each and every possible condition.
2) Both poisons track separately, and the 2-round effect of Poison B essentially has no effect on the character at all (since it's overshadowed by the 3-round effect of Poison A). That...
Definitely an interesting way of looking at it. I certainly support the idea of extending the duration, but there's a distinction between it and poison. Multiple doses of the same poison or different poisons with the same effect don't have any impact on the Fortitude saving throw of the victim. If you stick someone with poison and they save against it, I don't think they get a bonus on their next Fort save against the poison if you stick them with it again.
On the other hand, you do build up a resistance to being intimidated (until an hour passes and the DC resets), as it gets iteratively more difficult to get inside the same person's head again and again using the same psychological tactics. Eventually the target catches on to what you're doing, they gather themselves, and they get their head back in the game. If you're counting the PCs as members of a team all trying to get in the subject's head, shouldn't the subject catch onto their tactics as a whole, rather than one at a time? If it's the former, their DCs should probably stack collectively, along with the duration.
I also thought of poisons when thinking of adding these effects. With a poison (lets go with the being the same Poison) the DC to resist goes up by 2 from each dose you are impacted by and the duration extends by half of what the dose does by itself. Perhaps a similar mechanic of extending the duration by half of the stacking same effect?
Find precedent. Is there any other skill that adds to the DC when someone else does it?
Appraise: the try again is only for you. Someone else can appraise and get a different result.
Diplomacy: try again is only for you. If you fail, you can't make the same request to that individual for 24 hours. But someone else could.
Knolwedge: You can't try again. A check represents what you know. But someone else could.
Performance: Try again after failure increases the DC by 2. But someone else can do a performance and they don't get that penalty.
Sense Motive: You can't try again, but someone else can sense motive.
Sleight of Hand: After an initial failure, a second attempt against the same target (or while you are being watched by the same observer who noticed your previous attempt) increases the DC for the task by 10. But this doesn't mean someone else gets that penalty if they want to do a sleight of hand check.
Survival: A single check applies uniformly over a set period of time. But someone else can roll theirs to see if they perform better.
Use Magic Device: If you roll a 1, you can't use that device for 24 hours. But someone else could.
All these skills have try again options for the individual to is using the skill. None of them claim that when you use the skill, someone else gets a penalty. What makes intimidate so unique?
|
|
Find precedent. Is there any other skill that adds to the DC when someone else does it?
Appraise: the try again is only for you. Someone else can appraise and get a different result.
Diplomacy: try again is only for you. If you fail, you can't make the same request to that individual for 24 hours. But someone else could.
Knolwedge: You can't try again. A check represents what you know. But someone else could.
Performance: Try again after failure increases the DC by 2. But someone else can do a performance and they don't get that penalty.
Sense Motive: You can't try again, but someone else can sense motive.
Sleight of Hand: After an initial failure, a second attempt against the same target (or while you are being watched by the same observer who noticed your previous attempt) increases the DC for the task by 10. But this doesn't mean someone else gets that penalty if they want to do a sleight of hand check.
Survival: A single check applies uniformly over a set period of time. But someone else can roll theirs to see if they perform better.
Use Magic Device: If you roll a 1, you can't use that device for 24 hours. But someone else could.
All these skills have try again options for the individual to is using the skill. None of them claim that when you use the skill, someone else gets a penalty. What makes intimidate so unique?
Also a valid point, which would suggest that the efforts are completely independent, meaning that they subsume each other. If the Inquisitor's spell makes them shaken for 3 rounds, then it's pointless for the Fighter to try and intimidate them until that 3 round period is over (assuming the Inquisitor doesn't use the spell as second time and extend the duration of the effect).
Seppuku's suggestion might work too - obviously there's no save against Intimidate, it's a static mechanic based on your the target's Hit Dice and Wisdom. But extending the original effect by half might work - functionally it would usually be 1 round, since fighting against appropriate foes usually results in a range of between 1 and 3 rounds (sometimes 4, or even 5 against true cannon fodder like goblins and kobolds).
But they don't subsume each other. The text plainly says that multiple uses on the same creature extend the duration (but does not alter it to a more severe condition). This is a change specifically for the demoralize effect because it is different from the normal fear rules. Normally, when you stack two shaken effects, it upgrades from shaken to frightened. Another shaken or frighten will then panic them. But demoralize doesn't get that option. Even if a character is already shaken or panicked from something else, a demoralize will not increase the fear effect. So instead, demoralize increases the duration.
The extension of the duration on the same creature and the increased DC by the same demoralizer are not linked together. They are separate.
|
|
But they don't subsume each other. The text plainly says that multiple uses on the same creature extend the duration (but does not alter it to a more severe condition). This is a change specifically for the demoralize effect because it is different from the normal fear rules. Normally, when you stack two shaken effects, it upgrades from shaken to frightened. Another shaken or frighten will then panic them. But demoralize doesn't get that option. Even if a character is already shaken or panicked from something else, a demoralize will not increase the fear effect. So instead, demoralize increases the duration.
The extension of the duration on the same creature and the increased DC by the same demoralizer are not linked together. They are separate.
Sure, that makes sense if it's the same person generating the Intimidation effect multiple times and creating the shaken condition (and that's what the rules clearly had in mind when they were written), but if it's two different people generating it at roughly the same time, something's got to give. It can't be that they both contribute to the same calculated duration of the effect, but aren't also both beholden to iterative penalties of repeating the tactic in the same way as a single person would.
If they're not iterative, then PC #1 and PC #2 intimidating the same foe at the same time should overlap, and whoever gets a higher result and causes the foe to be shaken for a longer "x" number of rounds has the only effect that really matters. The other's effect is active, but not noticeable or relevant, since it will expire before the time the longer-lasting one does. However, if the one with the shorter result uses Intimidate a second time and stacks onto their own result in a way that generates a longer running time, now theirs is the salient Demoralize/shaken effect (i.e. PC #1 demoralizes for 4 rounds to PC #2's 3, but PC #2 does uses Intimidate again the following round for an additional 2 rounds, meaning that they now have 5 rounds to PC #1's 4).
If they are iterative, then PC #2's duration would extend PC #1's duration, but they should also share the iterative increases to the DC to compensate for the shared benefit of collaborative tactics (basically allowing them to function like a single Intimidator).
|
|
I'd say, if it extends the duration, conservation of effect dictates that you simply add the new duration to the remainder of the old one. Demoralize for 3 rounds + Demoralize for 3 rounds gives Demoralize for 6 rounds. Rationale for this could be something along the lines of, "There's not just one big scary guy but two big scary guys... I think I'm just gonna quail in fear over here for that much longer." He's still shaken by each; not a greater degree of fear but a broader degree of fear, shaken for longer. It effectively yields a similar result to playing round-robin with the demoralizes, waiting for one to nearly wear off before applying the next; but it allows more dynamic in the fight and lets you take advantage of opportunities that come along without having to worry about, "should I pass up this opportunity because he still has x number of rounds left before the demoralize effect wears off?" Furthermore, from an RP perspective, the characters aren't really measuring it in "rounds of effect" like we would. One guy scared the hell out of an opponent and now the other guy is gonna be equally scary for good measure.
Sure, and I'm inclined to agree with that interpretation and treat it like that. But on the back end of that, should the 2 guys also pool the penalties that make it harder to keep using the demoralize tactic (+5 each time)? Or am I misreading the Try Again rules, and the penalty only applies if someone fails an Intimidate check and then tries again? Can't find any rules that explicitly says that the Try Again rules listed in the skill descriptions ONLY apply to failures.
About the penalties, there's a FAQ request HERE , if you're still interested in the topic you might consider clicking "FAQ" as well. Hopefully we can get an official ruling sooner rather than later ;-)