Can you use the intimidate skill to demoralize a foe who is already demoralized? It seems that you can based on the fact that the description of the intimidate skill specifically mentions: “Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.” What I’m a little less sure of is whether demoralizing an already demoralized foe with the intimidate skill would “count” as demoralizing the foe so that you could trigger trigger another swift action attack from the Hurtful feat. This could come up when multiple creatures with the Hurtful feat attempt to use it against a single foe or when a single creature with the Hurtful feat attempts to use it against a particular foe repeatedly over the course of multiple rounds. Hurtful says that you get to make the swift action attack, “When you successfully demoralize an opponent within your melee reach with an Intimidate check”.
The case for - I successfully “used demoralize” against a foe (possibly with a +5 to the DC), so I should get my free attack. I’m assuming that “using demoralize” successfully means basically the same thing as “successfully demoralize”.
The case against - Since the foe is already demoralized I can’t demoralize it again, kind of like I can’t trip an already tripped foe. Extending the duration of the shaken effect from demoralize by “using demoralize on the same creature” doesn’t actually count as successfully demoralizing the creature. Instead it counts “only” as extending the duration of an existing shaken effect and can't trigger anything else since it "only" does that.
I'll admit that the case against might be kind of a strawman since I'm basically arguing against myself here, but it is honestly the best idea I could come up with regarding why this shouldn't work. I wonder what other folks think though. Is “using demoralize” on an already demoralized foe a legal way to trigger the swift action attack from the Hurtful feat? If so is it a fair and balanced use, or would you call it abusing a loophole? Also, does anybody understand whether the durations are supposed to stack or overlap? Based on the language I'd guess that they stack, but I wouldn't say that I feel sure.
Well, looking at the feat 'disheartening display', it gives you the ability to ramp up fear past demoralized, and eventually all the way to 'fetal position in the corner'.
Conversely...you could argue that this means you need a special ability like the feat in order to do more than demoralize. The feat gives you permission to do this, and that implies that you need that permission.
"Demoralizing" someone is the act of successfully rolling Intimidate vs. (10 + their HD + their Wis + anti-fear mods), not the act of making them shaken as a result of that roll.
I agree that it seems tough to find a difference between when you succeed at the act of "using demoralize" and when you "successfully demoralize". There were some threads a while back about stuff like "is an action used to attack an attack action" though, and the DM seems suspicious that something similar could be going on here. I figured it doesn't hurt to ask, especially since other folks might find themselves asking similar questions at some point.
The +5 DC could be a significant balancing factor, especially for my goblin PC who usually takes a -4 penalty on intimidate for being smaller than his foes. Some decent d20 rolls will be required for him to demoralize repeatedly against anybody but the basest of mooks.
@lemeres - I'm not trying to increase the fear level, just to eke out an extra attack once in a while. Anyhow, my PC doesn't even have Dazzling Display. He just uses Intimidating Glare and aspires to take Terrifying Howl one day. That seems like a pretty wimpy plan now that I've seen the terrifying power of Disheartening Display (though I wouldn't be shocked if that got hit with the nerf bat at some point). Anyhow, do you think that extending the duration that a foe is demoralized for by using demoralize on him should count as successfully demoralizing him?