Today I was trying to demoralize a foe using intimidation skill and the GM said: "I know what you do, I am simply not looking at you so you can't intimidate me." So, aside from him "knowing" my tricks, I looked up intimidate rules and saw this line again:
Quote:
Demoralize Opponent:
...
You can only threaten an opponent this way if it is within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you.
...
Now, I know where he got that idea. But how do we handle this "clearly see and hear" part? Just not looking at the character is enough to count as not clearly seeing and break the condition? Or shall we say that the target is able to clearly hear and see the offender and choosing not to look at him is simply not enough?
I feel that the former one feels cheesy, there are similar questions about people trying to avoid vision based effects by precisely executed free action blinks and those questions got good clarifications. However, I couldn't find any discussion about this.
I'm not sure why this needs discussion. All they have to do to be subject to demoralize is be able to see you. Presumably any part of you. By contrast, a gaze attack only works if you look into that creature's eyes. "A gaze special attack takes effect when foes look at the attacking creature's eyes." One of the options for avoiding the gaze attack is just not looking:
Wearing a Blindfold wrote:
The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
Seems like it would work just as well for this, if not something even more punitive (seriously, try walking through a supermarket while never looking at some specific person there). I do not actually recommend trying that but I hope the point is made about how difficult it is to not look at one specific person out of many.
Anyway, that's more on the houserules side. Since this is rules, by the rules you can't just not look at someone. There is no facing or directionality (you're looking in all directions at once). Everyone has to do something like the Gaze attack rules require if they want to "not look at someone".
The "clearly see and hear" allows things like thick fog or darkness or the area of a silence spell to interfere.
Averting your eyes or wearing smoked goggles doesn't help.
I'm not for sure but I believe there's rules for "averting your eyes" meaning not just looking aside but going completely out of your way to not look at something, which gives penalties to AC and attack rolls.
Can't remember where I read it so it might just be something attached to a specific monster or item ability.
Averting your eyes is only (somewhat) effective against gaze attacks. Intimidate is not a gaze attack.
Universal Monster Rules: Gaze Attack:
Gaze (Su) A gaze special attack takes effect when foes look at the attacking creature's eyes. The attack can have any sort of effect: petrification, death, and charm are common. The typical range is 30 feet, but check the creature's entry for details. The type of saving throw for a gaze attack varies, but it is usually a Will or Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 gazing creature's racial HD + gazing creature's Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature's text). A successful saving throw negates the effect. A monster's gaze attack is described in abbreviated form in its description. Each opponent within range of a gaze attack must attempt a saving throw each round at the beginning of his or her turn in the initiative order. Only looking directly at a creature with a gaze attack leaves an opponent vulnerable. Opponents can avoid the need to make the saving throw by not looking at the creature, in one of two ways.
Averting Eyes: The opponent avoids looking at the creature's face, instead looking at its body, watching its shadow, tracking it in a reflective surface, etc. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance to avoid having to make a saving throw against the gaze attack. The creature with the gaze attack, however, gains concealment against that opponent.
Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one's back on the creature or shutting one's eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent.
A creature with a gaze attack can actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range. That opponent must attempt a saving throw but can try to avoid this as described above. Thus, it is possible for an opponent to save against a creature's gaze twice during the same round, once before the opponent's action and once during the creature's turn.
Gaze attacks can affect ethereal opponents. A creature is immune to gaze attacks of others of its kind unless otherwise noted. Allies of a creature with a gaze attack might be affected. All the creature's allies are considered to be averting their eyes from the creature with the gaze attack, and have a 50% chance to not need to make a saving throw against the gaze attack each round. The creature can also veil its eyes, thus negating its gaze ability.
Format: gaze; Location: Special Attacks.
Now, wearing a blindfold or otherwise giving all other creatures total concealment might work, but that has issues of its own.
Today I was trying to demoralize a foe using intimidation skill and the GM said: "I know what you do, I am simply not looking at you so you can't intimidate me."
Was this the GM saying that he knows your tricks? Because if so, then yeah, that's a total dick move on the GM's part.
If it's a character - as in, a rival NPC who has had the time to realize that your character tries to intimidate but isn't always able to back it up - then I can see letting the NPC get a benefit to resist the Intimidation.
As others have said, if they're just trying to not look at you - ok, fine, they're not demoralized, but they're also dealing with you as if you have concealment, because they have no way of knowing what you're doing if they're trying to ignore you.
To add more :
I would argue that if my opponent know my trick and he is not looking at me, it's means he is already demoralize, just by the fact that he don't even dare to look at me.
Even if averting your eyes is a valid thing to do in response to a demoralize attempt, it's description indicates you can still see the creature, just not as clearly.
So I'd allow it for a PC trying to avoid demoralize, for instance, but I think taking the miss chance for concealment is worse than the shaken penalty so I don't know why they would bother...
That said, it's not at all clear that you can avert your gaze against anything other than a gaze attack.
...
Since this is rules, by the rules you can't just not look at someone. There is no facing or directionality (you're looking in all directions at once).
...
Thanks for reminding that, I believe that invalidates "simply looking at the other way" option.
SlimGauge wrote:
The "clearly see and hear" allows things like thick fog or darkness or the area of a silence spell to interfere.
Averting your eyes or wearing smoked goggles doesn't help.
That is also my interpretation of the mechanic. Also, intimidate is not a gaze attack by RAW as you point out so, using avert gaze option against it is a little bit on the houseruling side I guess.
I should probably have mentioned in the first post that this was a Society game. That's why I am wondering the behavior of "clearly hear and see" part and the possible interactions by RAW. Intimidation is a vital tool against occult classes and they are frequently seen in society games. Although I agree with some of the rulings suggested here, an official explanation would be better for the sake of Society use.
Leandro Garvel wrote:
...
I think taking the miss chance for concealment is worse than the shaken penalty so I don't know why they would bother...
That said, it's not at all clear that you can avert your gaze against anything other than a gaze attack.
Well, he was controlling a psychic BBEG and the worst part was not shaken condition but the fear effect since fear effectively shuts down his spellcasting capabilities.
AaronUnicorn wrote:
Was this the GM saying that he knows your tricks? Because if so, then yeah, that's a total dick move on the GM's part.
Yeah, those were his out of character words but I noticed the vibe and we sorted it out later. Our party crushed one of the encounters in an unexpected and anticlimactic way that day, which probably annoyed him and caused him to let his guard down for a moment. No hard feelings really.
