|
So, personally, I think pathfinder characters are too easily intimidated (demoralized). Mainly because all the bonuses they might have on will saves vs fear, will not apply to their demoralize DC. Now, I could think of all kinds of rules, but I wish for the fix to be as simple as possible.
What about?
The DC to demoralize is either your HD plus wis modifier, or equal to 10 plus your save bonus against fear effects.
This way, stuff like iron will, divine grace, or even the gnome variant ability ro gain +2 vs fear effects, still hold.
Another, more difficult ruling could be:
Any bonus or penalty that would alter your save vs fear effects, alters your DC to become demoralized by the same amount.
I personally like this one better, but it might raise questions. What do you guys and girls think? Should we even stop here? Or should we even give a plus 3 bonus to anyone who's ever had will as a high save? (to counter the class skill bonus with a 'sort of' class skill bonus to resist it)
For those who don't recognise my initial problem:
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that just succeeding on the check usually isn't enough to make demoralize effective. Unless you succeed by 5 or more it will only last for one round, which is a very questionable use of your own turn in-combat. You also need to spend lots of feats (or feat-equivalents) to get it to be effective, with Dazzling Display being mandatory and skill-buffing feats necessary to get the duration up to reasonable levels. Probably around 4 feats totals to get it to be practical.
While shaken is an annoying debuff, you still have to spend a full round action to do it. There are other problems, too. A lot of monsters are immune to fear effects entirely. That 30 foot range is very prohibitive in outdoors battles that rarely begin at such close quarters. Then you have the Remove Fear spell (a more popular spell than ever now that Psychic casters are a thing) which allows fear effects to be suppressed entirely. Contrary to the spell's name it suppresses and doesn't actually remove the fear effect, which means if you demoralize again it just lengthens the duration of the previous effect which is still suppressed. On top of all this, Shaken is not a crippling debuff (unless you're a psychic caster, in which case you will definitely be carrying countermeasures) and the demoralize effect explicitly cannot stack with other fear effects so it can never become crippling. Given all these things, I'd say that nearly-automatic success is perfectly fine.
With all that said, I think you're being reasonable with your proposal. Adding any effect that grants a bonus against fear saves to the demoralize DC makes sense, and will generally only be the difference of 1 round of duration which is unlikely to be make-or-break. I probably wouldn't apply general will saves (like Iron Will, or a Cloak of Resistance) to the DC, and would restrict it only to effects that are specifically for fear.
|
|
Thank you for the completeness of your answer. When I started reading, I feared it would be just a discussion about whether demoralize is bad, or not. I'll do you the same favor
On the topic of intimidate in combat being useful or not, I would point to the following feat options:
1 cornugon smash & hurtful, a debuff for free and an extra attack at full BAB
2 signature skill: intimidate, for a whole lot more than shaken.
Also, as you pointed out yourself, psychic spellcasters are effectively put down by demoralize. While I think this is a fine mechanic in itself, I would like them to be a little more resilient to it. They're quite hard to magically frighten, or with any fear aura or effect that calls for a save, since their will save is formidable. But some farmer threatening them will keep them from casting? At 30' range? I think that's just a little weird.
Which brings me to: why not only specific fear bonuses? Because a lot of feats and class powers include powers against fear, without specifying them. Iron will, steadfast personality, towering ego, and divine grace all help to ward off fear... It just doesn't specifically say so, because it is inclusive. I would not want to exclude bonuses because they're better (by being broader) than others.
But truly, am I alone in seeing a problem with auto-succeeding?
|
|
Consider a Scaled Fist Monk.
dragon style plus ferocity, cornugon strike and hurtful... and maybe even signature skill: intimidate.
Hit, intimidate, autosucceed, get another hit, stun with -2 to enemy save (shaken), and frighten the enemy in the same round, because of dragon ferocity.
The enemy is now stunned (or fatigued, sickened, staggered) and frightened, all in the surprise round. Oh, and hit twice
This is just nice character building, of course, but I would still eliminate the auto-succeed in this series of rolls.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made a character specifically designed to optimize Demoralize, namely a Cavalier (Order of Cockatrice/Rogue (Thug). I pretty much always demoralize things if they aren't one of the many types of monsters that aren't immune to fear, and I can even make a group of enemies run away for one round, with no saving throw allowed. It has been a very fun character, and demoralizing has been a useful tool in my tool box.
That being said, my Cavalier has played alongside archer Paladins, Slumber Witches, Dimensional Dervishing Magis, Summoners, Conjurers, Heavens Oracles, Zen Archer Monks, and tiger riding Sorcerers. I have never felt particularly OP, but I have always enjoyed having the option of doing something besides moving and hitting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also like to add that you won't be able to get that combo off in a surprise round, as you will need one swift action to activate Dragon style, and then another swift action for Hurtful.
Hurtful is a nasty feat for an intimidation build...too bad it isn't legal for PFS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've named a lot of feats at this point, and I generally expect a character who throws the majority of their feats into specializing in one thing to be really fricken good at that one thing. I do think Badblood has a bit of a point in that an optimized demoralize build fits in well with things like Slumber Witches and Dimensional Dervish Magi, but not every table has that level of power. Your experience could be very different.
If you're having problem with one character dominating, then maybe sit down with that player and see about toning things back by removing some of the more problematic feats. I just don't see automatic success as a problem; mere success is a 1 turn consolation prize when it comes to demoralizing, getting good results means being the check by at least 5, preferably 10. Shaken just isn't the most powerful effect out there.
|
|
Two swift actions... Missed that one there... thx.
Well, you guys are probably right in that this effect is not the strongest around, and that auto-success doesn't upset the game that much. I realise now that my biggest problem with this is the idea that otherwise really tough characters are suddenly scared by boastful words or some pretty display of weapons. The cavalier mentioned would really pose me with a problem as to how I view heroic characters, stoic dragons, or unfazed liches who've seen it all and are hardly ever frightened.
As to the amount of feats: a scaled fist monk can get dragon style, intimidating prowess, and dragon ferocity as bonus feats by level 6. Getting that example off means just to add power attack, hurtful, and cornugon smash. Nonhumans could have this by level 6.
Back to the "why are they frightened??" question. It just vexes me that it takes fear immunity to stop this, where an extremely high will save (your normal defense against fear and other emotion effects) doesn't help you one bit...
I guess I'll just have to come to grips with the notion that, in pathfinder, every living and unliving soul is constantly very easily scared by one another, even while they beat said other to death (enduring a -2 penaly). We're playing in a multiverse of wussies with enourmous powers, it seems.
Comparing it to real life... In my life I've been working at funerals, have been a policeman, a security employee in clubs, a sergeant in the army, and now I'm a nurse. I'm not immune to fear, but it would take someone pretty badass to instill it in me. Making this into game rules I would say I'm not an unusually wise person, but my will save has increased considerably through my professions. The rules, as they are, seem not to be able to reflect someone of my disposition. And heroic characters, I'd say, go through a hell of a lot more than I ever have. That's what will saves are there to reflect, I think. Don't you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think demoralizing works on undead, or anything mindless, along with a host of other monsters that are immune to fear.
In regards to everyone in the Pathfinder being a bunch of wussies...a round only lasts for about 6 seconds, and the effect of demoralize is only a -2 penalty to some actions. The fear effects you can get from the skill unlock do grant a Will Save, leaving only the Rogue Thug archetype with a way to grant fear (for one round, and only if you beat the check by +10) that doesn't require a save.
I think that even people who are in tough jobs and get used to seeing the worst in humanity can get unnerved from time to time. It might not even necessary be fear...it could even rage. But think of it as the body's natural fight or flight response working against someone for a short period of time. This might include shaking hands, trouble concentrating, tunnel vision, or physiological responses. It wouldn't call a someone who saw something particularly disturbing and had shaky hands (for six seconds) cowardly. And remember, even if a person is shaken, they can still do what they need to do (they just have a -2 penalty), whether it is put an arrow or sword into a bad guy, resist a dominate person spell, tumble past an enemies claws, or maintain concentration on the spell they are casting. And I think in real life, a hero is someone that still acts even when they are scared.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure if you use 6 feats, all your bonus feats, and take a 3 or 5 level dip into unchained Rouge your going to after one hit have a cowering opponent and be going against his flat footed AC. I mean it is a build you can do, it's just that it'll be all you do. Seems reasonably balancedo IMO.
|
|
I like your explanation, Badblood. Thanks!
I don't really agree that a person would get a penalty to anything, while in the state of heightened awareness that sudden scares bring to people who are used to them. They should get bonuses to quite a lot of physical skills and any well-trained (protocollized) skill. But then again, that's really hard to put into game terms, and would give an opponent little incentive to bring anyone in that state. So I guess I could live with the shaken penalty for 6 seconds.
Thanks for thinking my way :)
Backpack, I don't think an intimidate focused build needs to be a one-trick pony. But it doesn't really matter because in the end, my problems with intimidate were problems with the logic of the thing, not game balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems Badblood was able to convince you, but just to reiterate, I think you're a little too hung up on the idea that the shaken condition means you're a mewling little scaredy-cat. It could simply be a quick moment where you're thrown off your game. A sudden, surprise scream rattles you for just a little bit. The fear you routinely choke down bubbles up just a bit in the back of your mind. Not enough to send you running, but enough to throw off your concentration ever so slightly.
Considering the abstraction of the combat round, it doesn't even necessarily have to last for the full six seconds. It could just last long enough for the opponent to gain the advantage over you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the game doesn't always make sense from a real life stand point...I actually have trouble wrapping my head around hit points, which I don't think do a great job of simulating injuries and death...but mechanically they work okay for game play, so I let it slide :)
I will admit that I am a little biased. I really like playing martials (they aren't as powerful as casters, but you tend to miss them when there isn't at least one in the party, which actually happens quite often in PFS) and Intimidate can be a handy extra tool in to fit into your toolbox. It doesn't take a lot of investment...basically a skill point every level, and if you really like using it, maybe pick up a feat, like Enforcer or Cornugon Smash.
If you really want to specialize in it, I would actually recommend finding other types of debuffs to stack on top of it. I never thought of Stunning Fist in conjuction with Enforcer or Cornugon Smash, but an Unchained Rogue(Scout & Thug) with a sap and the Enforcer feat can hit an enemy on a charge, dealing sneak attack damage and causing them to become demoralized, sickened, and debilitating, which is a whopping -6 to hit(-8 vs the rogue). Kind of nifty, and outside of one feat and having to pick two pretty solid archetypes (you do lose trapfinding and uncanny dodge), there isn't much investment to pull this off.
|
|
Trigger Loaded, you're probably right. I just had (and have) some qualms with it being so easy to pull off. I mean, if someone has maxed out intimidate, and their cha is equal to the wis of someone they try to intimidate, their HD are the same, and it's a class skill, they succeed on a 8 plus. Just like that. And while there are all kinds of ways to improve intimidate, there is hardly any way to improve your defenses on it. I still think that's a little odd, so here's another ruling that might solve that:
houserule proposition:
The DC to demoralize is equal to either HD + wis, or 10 + sense motive bonus, whichever is higher. Bonuses on saves against fear effects increase either DC.
Whereas sense motive isn't necessarily what should oppose intimidate (knowing the motive of your intimidator wouldn't automatically make you less scared), it gives characters the option of building up a defense against it. And in a way, it is not that bad. I mean, if demoralize is used mainly to unnerve me, a high sense motive would enable me to see a threat for what it is: an attempt to bring me off guard, quite like bluff, but different, more aggressive.
Badblood, I feel you on the HP system. Have you ever read the Starwars d20 Vitality points system? It's a beautiful fix to the weirdness of HP. In short: you have HP equal to your con score (not modifier), and VP (vitality points) based on class and level, same as in Pathfinder. Normal damage gets deducted off of your VP, indicating scratches, nonlethal punches, and near misses, that exhaust you, and therefore lower your vitality. When your VP is zero, you'll start losing HP. Critical hits carry no multiplier to damage, but do damage to HP directly, instead of to VP. Also, losing HP gets you penalties, because you're wounded.
I also understand your wish for martials to get a little more options. I just think one should be able to increase defense to anything people can do to them. I mean, we have traits and feats to increase saves, AC, and CMD, but off the top of my head only a 4th level Mammoth Rider gets some resistance to intimidate, adding str to his DC.
The enforcer build is nice. Too bad I don't really see a way to make all those penalty's last until after your attacks in the next round. The debuffing goodness is always gone right at the moment you plan on capitalizing upon it! :D
|
|
Off hand, I know that Order of the Cockatrice cavaliers and Vigilantes also get a bonus to increase the DCs of demoralizing attempts against them.
I was surprised that bonuses on your saves vs. fear don't affect demoralize, and I think that's pretty logical. Being able to use sense motive (I would personally go with intimidate itself actually) seems like a balanced house rule. The best defense against demoralize is probably the good old remove fear spell.
Enforcer has an incredibly long duration (1 round per point of damage dealt), and the Thugs sickening ability lasts 1 round per two levels, so you're getting multiple after level 4. The Unchained Rogue's debilitating strike also increases by one round per sneak attack. You'll get a little more benefit out of it if you have multiple attacks, but the penalty to their attack is always good. The main advantage of doing this is so that when the enemy attempts to attack you back, they are looking at a -8 penalty to hit.
|
In regards to everyone in the Pathfinder being a bunch of wussies...a round only lasts for about 6 seconds, and the effect of demoralize is only a -2 penalty to some actions. The fear effects you can get from the skill unlock do grant a Will Save, leaving only the Rogue Thug archetype with a way to grant fear (for one round, and only if you beat the check by +10) that doesn't require a save.
Of note: the Enforcer feat can also cause fear for one round on a critical hit. (Which can be pretty sweet on a crit build. I've considered building a Swashbuckler with Blade of Mercy & Enforcer combined with a Fortuitous weapon for two AOOs when they run away.)
|
|
This is what you're referring to:
These penalties do not stack with themselves, but additional attacks that deal sneak attack damage extend the duration by 1 round. A creature cannot suffer from more than one penalty.
I had never read it that way! I had read it as if the round is extended to 1 round every time. But you're right! It says by!! Cool!!
Thanks for all the feedback, mate :)