Intimidate vs Bravery

[brannanjp]

Elsewhere in rules discussion it has been stated that Paladins who are immune to fear are immune to intimidation attempts.

Should the bonus that Fighters receive from the Bravery class ability increase the DC for intimidate checks against them?

[Claxon]

brannanjp wrote:

Elsewhere in rules discussion it has been stated that Paladins who are immune to fear are immune to intimidation attempts.

Should the bonus that Fighters receive from the Bravery class ability increase the DC for intimidate checks against them?

Can you please cite this?

A paladin would be immune to the shaken condition, and therefore the demoralize option of intimidate wouldn't function, but he would not receive a blanket immunity to intimidation including attempting to change one's attitude from my interpretation. But I would be interested in any official statement.

[blackbloodtroll]

I was under the impression, that the effects of intimidation, were a morale effect.

Not a fear effect.

[brannanjp]

First, I should clarify: I'm specifically concerned with the effects of the "demoralize" use of the Intimidate skill.

That said, my citation is to elsewhere in the rules forum, which should be findable by searching the message board for things like "demoralize", "paladin", and "fear".

You are correct (as far as I can tell) that Paladins would not receive blanket immunity to the effects of the Intimidate skill. I should properly have said that they were immune to the demoralize usage, which normally creates the Shaken condition.

Given the above, plus the fact that Intimidate as a skill effect is mundane, as is Bravery (as an Ex ability), my inquiry should properly be whether the Bravery (Ex) ability should increase the DC for the relevant Intimidate check.

(In some ways, I wonder if the DC for the demoralize usage of Intimidate meant to state that the DC was based on HD plus Wis bonus meant to say HD plus Will save bonus. However, I realize that Will save bonus is not the same as specific bonuses vs fear effects, or for that matter vs mundane effects that induce fear. In the greater story sense, Bravery implies that fighters with Bravery possess the steely nerves of hardened warriors who are not easily…. intimidated. But the Intimidate skill does not give a Saving Throw, rather it is simply vs a DC. But in spirit they seem the same.

[Rynjin]

No. An Intimidate check to Demoralize is not an effect that allows a save. It is merely a skill check vs a set DC.

Bravery doesn't interact with it in any way. While it is a Fear effect, since it doesn't allow a save, and all Bravery does is add to Will saves vs Fear, it has no effect on your ability to Intimidate a person with Bravery.

[brannanjp]

I see your logic, except for the "vs a set DC." The DC varies based on the "Wisdom bonus" and "Hit Dice" of the target. This leaves open the argument (from a certain perspective) that bonuses meant to increase willpower and related Will saves implies that the difficulty of influencing said individual should increase by a corresponding amount.

[blackbloodtroll]

Is the use of Intimidate to Demoralize considered a fear effect?

I haven't actually seen anything to support that.

Did I miss it?

[Rynjin]

brannanjp wrote:

I see your logic, except for the "vs a set DC." The DC varies based on the "Wisdom bonus" and "Hit Dice" of the target. This leaves open the argument (from a certain perspective) that bonuses meant to increase willpower and related Will saves implies that the difficulty of influencing said individual should increase by a corresponding amount.

No, it really doesn't leave any argument. The DC is "set" in that the variables never change. The specific values may, but the variables do not.

The DC is ALWAYS set on two variables, Hit Dice and Wisdom modifier. Nothing else (unless it explicitly says so).

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Is the use of Intimidate to Demoralize considered a fear effect?

I haven't actually seen anything to support that.

Did I miss it?

It causes you to become Shaken, which is a Fear condition. Which makes it a Fear effect.

The only rules for what defines a fear effect is that the different kinds of fear (Shaken, Frightened, and Panicked) are listed under a blanket Fear heading.

[Thomas Long 175]

Last ruling I saw, intimidate was not a fear effect. It was a morale effect and all uses of it bypassed any kind of fear immunity.

[Rynjin]

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Last ruling I saw, intimidate was not a fear effect. It was a morale effect and all uses of it bypassed any kind of fear immunity.

Quote or link?

Because that's quite silly if so.

It means, essentially, that a Paladin can shrug off supernaturally induced panic but can still be sent quaking in his boots when someone goes "Ooga booga".

[Thomas Long 175]

We're gonna fight on everything tonight aren't we Ryn? Well its been 3 years so i'm going to have to look up the relevant rules. You wanna go answer my post in the other one while i throw up and go to sleep? :P

[blackbloodtroll]

There are a number of things that can give the Shaken condition, but are not a Fear effect.

Example: The Infernal Bloodline's Corrupting Touch power is not a fear effect, but gives the Shaken condition.

You will note many other abilities, will have the statement "This is a mind-affecting fear effect".

Also, spell with the Fear descriptor, are fear effects.

Nothing denotes the use of Intimidate to Demoralize as a Fear effect.

[Haladir]

This looks like an RAW vs. RAI argument. Even if it's not official, I think a good houserule would be to grant a fighter's bravery bonus to the DC to demoralize an opponent via an Intimidate check. That's how I'm going to rule at my table.

It's not a magical effect, but when you intimidate someone, you're making them afraid of you. Resistance to fear should apply.