| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
For example, an assassin's death attack.
Ability Focus
Prerequisite: Special attack.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's special attacks. Add +2 to the DC for all saving throws against the special attack on which the creature focuses.
Special: A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time the creature takes the feat, it applies to a different special attack.
Yes, they can. Death Attack is a good example of an ability that would benefit from the feat.
Edit: It would, however, not be legal for a PFS character, since the "Additional Resources" page doesn't allow any of the Bestiary feats.
PCs need GM permission to take Bestiary feats, but other than that, no problema.
PCs need GM permission to take Bestiary feats, but other than that, no problema.
Yep, that's the rules for bestiary feats, DM approval only. All I would add to that is it is between you and your DM to figure out which abilities would qualify and which would not.
Edit: example, I know many DMs who will allow ability focus in their games but not for Witch's hexes.
Actually, the rules for Bestiary feats are simply:
"Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)."
I know that many GMs do require players to ask permission to take them (some presumably do so due to wording in early 3.0), but that's not the general baseline.
|
PCs need GM permission to take Bestiary feats, but other than that, no problema.
RAW there's actually no requirement as Are notes, if you meet the prerequisites for a feat you can take it, be it Core book, Bestiary or whatever. That said, obviously PFS has a limited selection and in general it's simply both good gaming and polite to mention it to the GM and check they're okay with it if you're taking anything unusual such as a Bestiary feat or something which is going to have a drastic effect in game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no GM requirement to take bestiary feats unless the GM has a houserule that says so. It is however a common misconception.
PCs need GM permission to take Bestiary feats, but other than that, no problema.RAW there's actually no requirement as Are notes, if you meet the prerequisites for a feat you can take it, be it Core book, Bestiary or whatever. That said, obviously PFS has a limited selection and in general it's simply both good gaming and polite to mention it to the GM and check they're okay with it if you're taking anything unusual such as a Bestiary feat or something which is going to have a drastic effect in game.
I'm not sure I would consider a feat from the Bestiary unusual enough to be worth a specific mention anymore then anything in core. Core is core and all.
Ability Focus is too useful for NPC-building not to include, but is sometimes deemed to be exploitable in PC hands because it can be applied to just about anything. I think sometimes this caution is warranted. It's very general. I would not assume any given use of Ability Focus was okay without checking with the GM. I think death attack would be considered kosher by most GMs.
|
|
PCs need GM permission to take Bestiary feats, but other than that, no problema.RAW there's actually no requirement as Are notes, if you meet the prerequisites for a feat you can take it, be it Core book, Bestiary or whatever. That said, obviously PFS has a limited selection and in general it's simply both good gaming and polite to mention it to the GM and check they're okay with it if you're taking anything unusual such as a Bestiary feat or something which is going to have a drastic effect in game.I'm not sure I would consider a feat from the Bestiary unusual enough to be worth a specific mention anymore then anything in core. Core is core and all.
There are definitely a few more esoteric ones that stand out, Noxious Bite springs to mind as potentially encounter ending one if used with a character built around it for example.
Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.
Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
|
Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
That turns out not to be the case, milord. If you reinterpret any character sheet as a stat block, say as an NPC stat block, things like sneak attack, channel energy, fire bolt, etc. are special attacks, and thus qualify. Any other tags for type are irrelevant.
That turns out not to be the case, milord. If you reinterpret any character sheet as a stat block, say as an NPC stat block, things like sneak attack, channel energy, fire bolt, etc. are special attacks, and thus qualify. Any other tags for type are irrelevant.Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
Do you have a source that lists which PC abilities are special attacks? Otherwise, it GM discretion.
|
|
Do you have a source that lists which PC abilities are special attacks? Otherwise, it GM discretion.That turns out not to be the case, milord. If you reinterpret any character sheet as a stat block, say as an NPC stat block, things like sneak attack, channel energy, fire bolt, etc. are special attacks, and thus qualify. Any other tags for type are irrelevant.Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
Only if you include things like the NPC Codex. I would think that anything that appears in that section in an NPC stat block would qualify.
Only if you include things like the NPC Codex. I would think that anything that appears in that section in an NPC stat block would qualify.Do you have a source that lists which PC abilities are special attacks? Otherwise, it GM discretion.That turns out not to be the case, milord. If you reinterpret any character sheet as a stat block, say as an NPC stat block, things like sneak attack, channel energy, fire bolt, etc. are special attacks, and thus qualify. Any other tags for type are irrelevant.Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
Sure would... because it is an npc that has a distinct category of abilities (many of which, I know, are derived from class features) called special attacks.
No matter how you slice it, PCs don't have this. Or in otherwords, there is no way to determine specifically which class features would apply.For example, a dragon's frightful presence aura has a DC but isn't a special attack so it doesn't qualify. Nor would any of its SLAs.
This would be the same as providing a CR requirement for a feat. One could try to apply a CR to a PC but PCs do not actually have CRs. Even though NPCs from the gallery do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
That is not correct. A "special attack" would count for something like channel energy or a witch's hex, and there is NO rule saying permission is needed to used a monster feat as long as the PC qualifies.
Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
That is not correct. A "special attack" would count for something like channel energy or a witch's hex, and there is NO rule saying permission is needed to used a monster feat as long as the PC qualifies.
Okay... show me in the RAW where those are classified as "special attacks". Then I will agree.
This is pretty straightforward stuff. The feat does not say "pick a class feature or ability that has a DC". Its very clear.
Okay... show me where channel energy is classified as a special attack for a PC cleric in the RAW.
Only if you include things like the NPC Codex. I would think that anything that appears in that section in an NPC stat block would qualify.Do you have a source that lists which PC abilities are special attacks? Otherwise, it GM discretion.That turns out not to be the case, milord. If you reinterpret any character sheet as a stat block, say as an NPC stat block, things like sneak attack, channel energy, fire bolt, etc. are special attacks, and thus qualify. Any other tags for type are irrelevant.Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
Sure would... because it is an npc that has a distinct category of abilities (many of which, I know, are derived from class features) called special attacks.
No matter how you slice it, PCs don't have this. Or in otherwords, there is no way to determine specifically which class features would apply.For example, a dragon's frightful presence aura has a DC but isn't a special attack so it doesn't qualify. Nor would any of its SLAs.
This would be the same as providing a CR requirement for a feat. One could try to apply a CR to a PC but PCs do not actually have CRs. Even though NPCs from the gallery do.
That is incorrect. There is a way to determine what is a special attack.
Generally speaking if it is an offensive abilty that forces a saving throw it is a special attack. If you in question then use an NPC statblock. Now if you are saying the GM may have to guess if he does not have access to an NPC stat block that is entirely different than saying PC's dont have special attacks or there is no way to tell.PS:A cleric's channel is a special attack as in my previous post.
Thanks, everyone. I'm building an NPC assassin to go on a mission against a band of PCs who have offended a large number of important people by kicking in doors and taking their stuff. The PCs, while not munchkins or power players, are pretty savvy and can often be hard to beat in a fight because they cooperate well and know the rules. I thought a sneaky edge might put the fear of Me back into them.
Thanks again!
Only if you include things like the NPC Codex. I would think that anything that appears in that section in an NPC stat block would qualify.Do you have a source that lists which PC abilities are special attacks? Otherwise, it GM discretion.That turns out not to be the case, milord. If you reinterpret any character sheet as a stat block, say as an NPC stat block, things like sneak attack, channel energy, fire bolt, etc. are special attacks, and thus qualify. Any other tags for type are irrelevant.Actually you DO need GM permission because no PC has the requirement of a "special attack"
Special attacks are a specific section of a monster stat block and not something a PC class has.Instead, PCs have abilities that are Sp Su or Ex.
So ask the GM.
Sure would... because it is an npc that has a distinct category of abilities (many of which, I know, are derived from class features) called special attacks.
No matter how you slice it, PCs don't have this. Or in otherwords, there is no way to determine specifically which class features would apply.For example, a dragon's frightful presence aura has a DC but isn't a special attack so it doesn't qualify. Nor would any of its SLAs.
This would be the same as providing a CR requirement for a feat. One could try to apply a CR to a PC but PCs do not actually have CRs. Even though NPCs from the gallery do.
That is incorrect. There is a way to determine what is a special attack.
Generally speaking if it is an offensive abilty that forces a saving throw it is a special attack. If you in question then use an NPC statblock. Now if you are saying the GM may have to guess if he does not have access to an NPC stat block that is entirely different than saying PC's dont have special attacks or there is no way to tell.PS:A cleric's channel is a special attack as in my previous post.
1. Sooo frightful presence isn't an offensive ability that requires a saving throw then?
Because that very clearly is NOT a special attack.2. Furthermore, each UMR entry for a special attack actually DOES note that such an attack is a special attack quite explcitly. (Under "format")
3. Sorcerer bloodline powers are all SLAs, some are offensive abilities that force saving throws. But no monster has apply ability focus to an SLA because they are not special attacks.
There is still nothing that can be cited in the RAW that says that players qualify for this feat. Interesting then that PFS doesn't allow it either. Making a general statement that maybe some thing should generally count doesn't cut it for me. Npcs do not follow the same rules as PCs, or maybe my fighter should be increasing in size everytime his HD increase by 50%.
The rule says that if a PC qualifies for a bestiary feat he can take it. Ability Focus is NEVER called out as an exception to that general rule.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
You have no quote to say they can not take it if they qualify for it. If you do then post it.
PFS is full of houserules for balance reasons so that has nothing to with how rules work. As an example they ban crafting rules and certain archetypes.
I also said the offensive ability requiring a saving throw was a general guideline. I never said they all apply. You are the one saying they can't take it at all, as if it is rule.
My rule quote says they can take it if they qualify for it. Where is yours?
Another thing is that NPC's and PC's do follow the same rules because they have to qualify for the ability in the same manner and your lack of knowledge by trying to say a fighter increases size by HD shows that. No NPC has ever increased size based on class levels. Those are reserved for racial HD increases. With that aside an ability is either a special attack or it is not for the bolded reason in this post.
If Bob the NPC fighter and Ted the PC fighter have the exact same stats the they are both allowed access to the same things if they meet the prereqs.
Now he will try to say that fighter size increase was him being snarky as a copout.
Wraith, I think the contention is the prerequisite "special ability" and that while some recognizable things may show up as SA's in stat blocks, no class features are specifically called out as SA's. without a good way of determining what counts as an SA other than observation in stat blocks it is pretty hard to determine what qualifies for that feat. Given that level of ambiguity most curtious players will say to their DM, "hey, I want to take ability focus for my channel energy." To which the DM could either say "cool" or "no, you need to take improved channel instead. That's what it is for."
The rule says that if a PC qualifies for a bestiary feat he can take it. Ability Focus is NEVER called out as an exception to that general rule.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).You have no quote to say they can not take it if they qualify for it. If you do then post it.
PFS is full of houserules for balance reasons so that has nothing to with how rules work. As an example they ban crafting rules and certain archetypes.
I also said the offensive ability requiring a saving throw was a general guideline. I never said they all apply. You are the one saying they can't take it at all, as if it is rule.
My rule quote says they can take it if they qualify for it. Where is yours?
Of course they can take it if they qualify for it. I never said otherwise. The question is, do they qualify for it.
The feat has a prerequisite of a special attack, and I am saying that class features do not qualify unless they are specifically called out as special attacks.
The reason I brought up frightful presence is that it is an offensive ability (definable as an attack under the magic rules) that has a DC and isn't a SLA. AND YET it does not qualify as a special attack. So, trying to figure out which class features might count is not a cut and dry process. I can see a GM allowing the feat, but by the RAW does a PC qualify? I can't say that they do until there is something that declares explicitly what is a special attack and what isn't.I cant tell you with any authority what does or doesn't qualify because I don't have any actual rules to point to.
Do you?
Sure, there is a ton of anecdotal evidence that could be used to piece together a picture, and if a GM is considering allowing this feat I say that they should use it... but again, its not there in the RAW.
|
|
The rule says that if a PC qualifies for a bestiary feat he can take it. Ability Focus is NEVER called out as an exception to that general rule.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).You have no quote to say they can not take it if they qualify for it. If you do then post it.
PFS is full of houserules for balance reasons so that has nothing to with how rules work. As an example they ban crafting rules and certain archetypes.
I also said the offensive ability requiring a saving throw was a general guideline. I never said they all apply. You are the one saying they can't take it at all, as if it is rule.
My rule quote says they can take it if they qualify for it. Where is yours?
Of course they can take it if they qualify for it. I never said otherwise. The question is, do they qualify for it.
The feat has a prerequisite of a special attack, and I am saying that class features do not qualify unless they are specifically called out as special attacks.
The reason I brought up frightful presence is that it is an offensive ability (definable as an attack under the magic rules) that has a DC and isn't a SLA. AND YET it does not qualify as a special attack. So, trying to figure out which class features might count is not a cut and dry process. I can see a GM allowing the feat, but by the RAW does a PC qualify? I can't say that they do until there is something that declares explicitly what is a special attack and what isn't.I cant tell you with any authority what does or doesn't qualify because I don't have any actual rules to point to.
Do you?
Sure, there is a ton of anecdotal evidence that could be used to piece together a picture, and if a GM is considering allowing this feat I say that they should use it... but again, its not there in the RAW.
Sure it is in many cases, simply look at the bestiary entries.
Aasimar: Channel positive energy listed under special attack, Dire Ape: Rend listed under special attacks, Assassin Vine: Constrict listed under special attacks. All these are abilities that are possible for players to get without issue and just pulled from the first few pages of Bestiary 1, they are clearly listed as special attacks thus qualifying players who take them (and the countless more listed) for Ability Focus.
The problem with that system of connectitive logic is that it means that players are limited to the class features that appear in the beastiary, and I highly doubt that the intent here is to say that a witch can't take Ability Focus Slumber until some NPC or monster gets printed that has the ability. It could also be reasonably argued that only the special attacks that are defined assuch Iin their UMR entry qualify, and that an asimars channel energy wouldn't.
What needs to exist is a clear definition of "special attack" with regard to all class features (which are and aren't which qualify and don't).
To clarify, I am not saying that it is unreasonable for a gm to allow the feat for players. I am just saying that doing so isn't supported by RAW.
A good example of a PC that does qualify is a tetori with the constrict ability. Why? Because the ability is explicitly called out as a special attack
CONSTRICT
A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage). The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.
Format
constrict (1d8+6); Location: Special Attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What needs to exist is a clear definition of "special attack" with regard to all class features (which are and aren't which qualify and don't).
What needs to exist is people realizing that the writers aren't perfect, and some things are conventions rather than defined terms, and that's okay.
|
|
Or that it's perfectly acceptable to format a character sheet as a stat block instead. I personally prefer to do so. It's easier to navigate for me. I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of PBP character profiles also use a near-approximation of a traditional stat block. In that case, it's pretty easy to see what abilities are considered "special attacks."
You could make the argument that "attack" also needs a clearer definition. There's another thread that you and I have both posted in that talks about that issue, milord.
Wraith, I think the contention is the prerequisite "special ability" and that while some recognizable things may show up as SA's in stat blocks, no class features are specifically called out as SA's. without a good way of determining what counts as an SA other than observation in stat blocks it is pretty hard to determine what qualifies for that feat. Given that level of ambiguity most curtious players will say to their DM, "hey, I want to take ability focus for my channel energy." To which the DM could either say "cool" or "no, you need to take improved channel instead. That's what it is for."
I thought the prereq was special attack because not all special abilities are special attacks, and saying the GM may have to guess at what is a special attack, and he may deny it is something I have already stated. That is different than saying it is a rule that PC's can't use the feat, which is what someone else is saying. The two ideas are not even close.
Usually I agree with that sentiment, but now a PC wants to take a feat and I as a gm need to know if they qualify.
How in the heck can I do that reasonably. Is the actual answer to just dig through the beastiary to try to find the ability in question listed as a special attack under some random creatures stat block?
Clealry spell like abilities are separated right? So they don't count?
But then under the drow noble entry we have the Bleeding Touch domain power listed as a special attack when it is clearly marked as a SLA. for the cleric.
So maybe only some SLAs count? Should I count this domain power for ability focus for the cleric? And if this SLA counts then why not the sorcerer's?
If there was some clear-cut convention for deciding what qualified and what didn't when it came to PCs then that would at least be something.
Basically, anything that isn't a spell is either a "special attack" or "special quality." Attacks are generally offensive and/or active in use, qualities are generally defensive and/or passive in use. It's poorly defined, and dates back to 3E's terminology, but that's the gist of it. The mechanical aspects of a creature (sub)type are usually all qualities, unless it gets something like a smite evil attack. Monsters simply had them divided as such in their stat blocks; for PCs you had to make a best guess. For example, (and possibly counter-intuitive to what you might expect) a Barbarian's rage would be a "special attack" based upon the fact that wolverines (and pretty much every other monster w/ a Rage ability) lists it under "attack."
And yes, class features most certainly were considered to fall under the same special quality/attack dichotomy as monster abilities were. Otherwise lines of rules like this one from Alter Self wouldn't exist:
You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels.
Btw, special qualities and special attacks were further subdivided into Extraordinary and Supernatural, though at least on that front the class feature descriptions usually told you what they were. (And also included SLA's, see edit).
And that ends this history lesson. Since the terms used in PF today all came right from 3E, IMO it's useful to know what they at least used to mean. Hell if I know if PF snuck in some tiny change to any of it.
EDIT: My bad, spell-like abilities also were covered by the attack/quality dichotomy, and it looks like they were pretty much universally special attacks.
To clarify my previous post. There is a clear cut convention for determining if a player qualifies for ability focus. It is when they have any ability (eg grab) that is specifically called a special attack in the UMR. What I was speaking to in the last post was trying to figure out things like stunning fist, channel energy, domain powers bloodline powers hexes etc.
It would be nice if the devs from 3.x on to PF took into consideration this one feat and reworded everything in the state block...
Based on RAW, if an NPC has the same build rules as a player character per game design and balance, and something in RAW doesn't come out and explicitly say NO, then its not against RAW.
You could argue that its in that gray, "Golden Rule" zone that's ultimately up to the GM.
I personally build all my characters in state block format because it easier for me to build, read and post. Plus it has the added awesomeness that any GM should be able to recognize and reference it quickly.
|
|
To clarify my previous post. There is a clear cut convention for determining if a player qualifies for ability focus. It is when they have any ability (eg grab) that is specifically called a special attack in the UMR. What I was speaking to in the last post was trying to figure out things like stunning fist, channel energy, domain powers bloodline powers hexes etc.
The NPC Codex also supplies a trove of information on this, all characters, all built as per players but shown with monster stat blocks. Virtually anything you might think would be a special ability (and a lot more) IS listed as one in their stats;
Rage, Rage Powers, Dwarf Hatred, Bardic Performance, Channeling, Smite, Weapon Training, Flurry, Stunning Fist, Quivering Palm, Favoured Enemy, Sneak Attack, Master Strike, Bloodline Claws (and other some Bloodline powers, others are listed under SLA confusingly enough), Enhance Arrows (Arcane archer), Death Attack (Assassin), Breath Weapon (Dragon Disciple), Precise Strike, Wild Shape, Spell Synthesis and more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could use the 3.5 definition of what is a Special Attack (anything that is used actively against an enemy, or that an enemy has to save against), as opposed to Special Qualities (defenses, vulnerabilities, and non-attack abilities).
In that system, all monster abilities were either Special Attacks or Special Qualities. This was still the case after their statblocks started putting things like auras (frightful presence, etc) in a separate area of the statblock. So Dragons could still have "Ability Focus (frightful presence)", for instance.
The rule says that if a PC qualifies for a bestiary feat he can take it. Ability Focus is NEVER called out as an exception to that general rule.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).You have no quote to say they can not take it if they qualify for it. If you do then post it.
PFS is full of houserules for balance reasons so that has nothing to with how rules work. As an example they ban crafting rules and certain archetypes.
I also said the offensive ability requiring a saving throw was a general guideline. I never said they all apply. You are the one saying they can't take it at all, as if it is rule.
My rule quote says they can take it if they qualify for it. Where is yours?
I see what u bolded, but what is the part "particularly craft construct" mean? It seems that its giving an example of how a player character can qualify for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the simplest rule is: "If it has a DC and is not a spell, you can apply Ability Focus to it".
I think the simplest rule is: "If it has a DC and is not a spell, you can apply Ability Focus to it".
Except that according to the beastiary a dragon can't apply ability focus to Frightful Presence (not a spell, has a DC) and a cleric in the beastiary lists bleeding touch as a special attack which does qualify (even though its is an SLA)
Except that according to the bestiary a dragon can't apply ability focus to Frightful Presence (not a spell, has a DC)
You keep saying this. Do you have a specific quote for the claim?
In 3.5, all offensive abilities with a DC were listed under special attacks. Paizo's statblocks are not rules so much as they are organizing the special abilities of creatures in ways that they are easy to see and account for during play.
Bobson has the right of it. If it's not spellcasting but allows a save DC, Ability Focus should be all accounts apply.
Wraithstrike is also right that there is nothing preventing PCs from picking up feats from the Bestiary beyond house rules or merely the feats' prerequisites.
I see what u bolded, but what is the part "particularly craft construct" mean? It seems that its giving an example of how a player character can qualify for it.The rule says that if a PC qualifies for a bestiary feat he can take it. Ability Focus is NEVER called out as an exception to that general rule.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).You have no quote to say they can not take it if they qualify for it. If you do then post it.
PFS is full of houserules for balance reasons so that has nothing to with how rules work. As an example they ban crafting rules and certain archetypes.
I also said the offensive ability requiring a saving throw was a general guideline. I never said they all apply. You are the one saying they can't take it at all, as if it is rule.
My rule quote says they can take it if they qualify for it. Where is yours?
It is an example of a feat that a PC can take, but mostly used by NPC's.
Many of the feats for monsters apply to things like wings, natural attacks, and having three or more arms, which most PCs have no use for. The section doesn't specifically allow or proscribe PCs from taking these feats; such a rule may be elsewhere though.
There is no rule elsewhere.
Except that according to the bestiary a dragon can't apply ability focus to Frightful Presence (not a spell, has a DC)You keep saying this. Do you have a specific quote for the claim?
Poltergeist has "Feats Ability Focus (fear)," so I dont see why a dragon's frightful presence would not apply, and both are offensive abilities.
