Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead.
Looks legit.
|
That seems to work, it also seems awfully resource-intensive on a MAD class. Two feats (unless you want to brave the AoO for the Dirty Trick), and investing ranks, and probably a trait for trained, into Intimidate. Top it off with making CHA a consideration in a class that's so MAD, it's... well, mad.
So, yeah, it seems like you could do it. Question is: would you want to build towards that end?
The better option, IMO, is that Bounty Hunter archetype of Slayer, which will allow you to get multiple DTs per round while still attacking. It's one of the few places where you can justify TWF. The trick is to go first or get a flank fast.
Just don't forget!
The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver...
While that is true, it's referring to the fluff part of the action (pull down pants, sand in the eyes, etc.). The important part is that it does have a mechanical backbone:
The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened.
But, as stated in the fear status, they stack unless they say they don't.
@Serisan
I am not sure how is "The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver..." a fluff text. Please elaborate. Pulling the pants down might not be possible in some conditions, for example, the opponent might not have any pants on.
Because that statement is in the context of making up effects. Full text of that paragraph:
You can attempt to hinder a foe in melee as a standard action. This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short period of time. Examples include kicking sand into an opponent's face to blind him for 1 round, pulling down an enemy's pants to halve his speed, or hitting a foe in a sensitive spot to make him sickened for a round. The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver, but it cannot be used to impose a permanent penalty, and the results can be undone if the target spends a move action. If you do not have the Improved Dirty Trick feat or a similar ability, attempting a dirty trick provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
That paragraph is to tell the player/GM that this is a catch-all maneuver for things not otherwise covered in the rules. The mechanical crunch of the ability is in the 2nd paragraph.
If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened. This condition lasts for 1 round. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD, the penalty lasts 1 additional round. This penalty can usually be removed if the target spends a move action. If you possess the Greater Dirty Trick feat, the penalty lasts for 1d4 rounds, plus 1 round for every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD. In addition, removing the condition requires the target to spend a standard action.
In PFS the ruling is apparently no, you can never stack on a Demoralise shaken condition, the best you can do is extend it:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jsox&page=10?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-20-F AQ#491
But I don't know how much people apply the rulings from that to wider gaming. It's the only ruling I could find when googling to see if I could stack the Shaken from Frightful Presence atop Demoralise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jsox&page=10?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-20-F AQ#491
|
|
In PFS the ruling is apparently no, you can never stack on a Demoralise shaken condition, the best you can do is extend it:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jsox&page=10?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-20-F AQ#491
But I don't know how much people apply the rulings from that to wider gaming. It's the only ruling I could find when googling to see if I could stack the Shaken from Frightful Presence atop Demoralise.
That is also a ruling from the infancy of the game, before Dirty Trick existed. Also Demoralize has specific language covering that it can not enhance a shaken state to frightened. So, I don't think that post applies in this case.
I am not saying it can be for sure. I am saying that one post does not actually relate completely to the question.
In my opinion yes they would stack to become frightened, as there is no language in dirty trick to restrict this stacking. I would rule that when the duration of the original demoralize runs out then the effect would return to being shaken.
In PFS the ruling is apparently no, you can never stack on a Demoralise shaken condition, the best you can do is extend it:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jsox&page=10?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-20-F AQ#491
But I don't know how much people apply the rulings from that to wider gaming. It's the only ruling I could find when googling to see if I could stack the Shaken from Frightful Presence atop Demoralise.
Never trust Josh Frost, the man of Raging Skeletons. Morale bonus what?
OTOH, we have some text changes in the PRD and removal from errata versus someone actually saying "This is how it works." and no explicit "We changed or." statements thereafter. Thus, I'd lean towards the initial ruling.
(P.S. Thanks for the linkifying, Lamplighter, I'm on my phone so couldn't be arsed with hunting down the square brackets)
|
|
OTOH, we have some text changes in the PRD and removal from errata versus someone actually saying "This is how it works." and no explicit "We changed or." statements thereafter. Thus, I'd lean towards the initial ruling.
(P.S. Thanks for the linkifying, Lamplighter, I'm on my phone so couldn't be arsed with hunting down the square brackets)
And I reiterate that that ruling was specific in what it applied to and the Original question is not something that it applies to.
Never trust Josh Frost, the man of Raging Skeletons. Morale bonus what?In PFS the ruling is apparently no, you can never stack on a Demoralise shaken condition, the best you can do is extend it:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jsox&page=10?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-20-F AQ#491
But I don't know how much people apply the rulings from that to wider gaming. It's the only ruling I could find when googling to see if I could stack the Shaken from Frightful Presence atop Demoralise.
To be fair, that mistake was repeated in Mummy's Mask (Empty Graves), as well...
-TimD
|
Because that statement is in the context of making up effects.
Again, you didn't explain how is "The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver..." a fluff text. Do the pants on the opponent magically return back? Does every opponent have eyes and ears? If I, as a GM tell you that he doesn't have any pants, are you saying that you can still pull his imaginary pants down because "it's a fluff text"?
Of course, I don't mean any disrespect to NPCs. Walking around without pants on will likely get them arrested sooner or later for public nudity.
|
|
@DrakeRoberts
The way I see it is this. You (a player) declare what and how you do it to NPC or monster. Then I (a GM) decide if what condition it gets. You don't get to choose condition. GM arbitrates it completely. In some cases, I might mention that such trick isn't possible (because NPC doesn't have any pants on), but that seems about it. This is why, there is no "fluff" in ability description. Every part of text is mechanical explanation.
@DrakeRoberts
The way I see it is this. You (a player) declare what and how you do it to NPC or monster. Then I (a GM) decide if what condition it gets. You don't get to choose condition. GM arbitrates it completely. In some cases, I might mention that such trick isn't possible (because NPC doesn't have any pants on), but that seems about it. This is why, there is no "fluff" in ability description. Every part of text is mechanical explanation.
A player can very reasonably state what they're intending to do with the action, but yes, the GM can shoot you down on the pantsing if the target is wearing a onesie or something. Similarly, if something has no eyes (like a skeleton, perhaps) or too many eyes (like a gibbering mouther), you could say the "sand in the eyes" option will not work.
The GM should inform the player of this before allowing the player to take that action, though, unless it would be reasonable to require a knowledge check to know it first.