| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so by this standard what fights wouldn't inflict the Frightened condition? Because you two are saying that your PC should be Demoralized by someone just screaming and swinging a weapon at them, which is basically every fight. You're not even describing taking an action to specifically do this; your examples are literally just "I am attacked with a weapon." This game assumes you aren't going to lose your cool every time something dangerous happens because dangerous things happening is the norm. Screaming and roaring while attacking isn't itself a Demoralize because you can always be screaming or roaring while attacking.Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like your opinion, man.
But in earnest. Nobody is debating that you need to spend an action to try to demoralize an opponent, even if we all know that you can talk for free during your round, we are just questioning the language dependent part because sight and sound alone can already cover a lot of meaning.
There simply is no need for the skill action to have the language dependant trait apart as a stepping stone for feats that will let you circumvent that trait / penalty.
Personally I've always though intimidation should have two methods (as base options without using feats) language dependent charisma based option and strength based sight and auditory dependent version.
The strength version is a display of power, which typically requires both sight and sound to be effective. The charisma version is more the person telling you how they're going to flay you alive and they suspect your endtrails will be the perfect shade of purple pink to put around their new lamp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strength should really have nothing to do with Intimidation. It's very, very possible to be really strong and also completely incompetent at using that strength to intimidate people.
For a great example, Dwayne Johnson's character in the Jumanji remake. Insanely strong... but basically miserable at using his strength to threaten people.
In fact, knowing how specifically to use your raw physical strength to intimidate someone is very much a learned talent. Like the sort of thing you might need a feat to do.
Oh wait. :P
Overall, I think this whole thread is a result of people conflating "things a character might find frightening" with "actions you can take to effectively frighten a character". "Bears are scary" does not mean "bears are good at scaring people". A bear is not trying to be scary, usually.
Random statement that people will probably dislike and disagree with: There's a very common belief that Charisma doesn't do enough to be worth putting points in unless you have special features that rely on it... but as soon as intimidation gets brought up a bunch of folks want to make it even less useful to a wide variety of characters, and stack more benefit onto the already super-useful Strength score.
My classic argument has been pretty compelling since 3.5
"RAAA!! I'M A BIG BAD BARBARIAN!"
*sticks pinky out and mimes drinking tea, all proper-like*
"And on Thrusdays I have tea with my grandmother."
When you start digging into the sorts of folks who are intimidating, classically, realistically, in films, historically, the whole nine yards, nearly all of them, all of them tend to be the ugly grunts. Sure, you do get the occasional Face who is charming AND scary, but so so many more are guys who are lead by someone more charismatic than they are.
Bears are not TRYING to scare people, is more my point. Taking the Demoralize action means "I am spending time actively trying to scare someone".
And, just to restate, if your basic premise is that bears are inherently scary and that should be reflected in Pathfinder, please remember that a grizzly bear will fail to intimidate the absolute meekest character possible 65% of the time without the -4 penalty.
To paraphrase you, you are not making the argument you seem to think you are making. :)
To be fair, I think bears probably do try to scare other creatures. A predator should prioritize scaring off other predators because fighting them can lead to injury and injuries make you slower and slower makes you unable to catch prey and that means you starve. I don't know if bears consider humans predators, though.
But if a bear is standing there trying to scare you, it is doing so before the fight has actually begun. It wants to make you back off, not soften you up to actually fight. In a game scenario, it would be doing so before the encounter begins, which would be the opportunity for a character with Wild Empathy to talk the bear down.
And I still don't see why bears being scary in the real world means they should be scary in Pathfinder where fighting bears and things much scarier than bears is the norm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have met very few (wild) bears, then. Bears are *excellent* at scaring people.
Yes but they're absolutely horrible at using appropriately timed taunts and cutting put downs to rattle someone
Yes but they're absolutely horrible at using appropriately timed taunts and cutting put downs to rattle someone
You have met very few (wild) bears, then. Bears are *excellent* at scaring people.
Which is again, why there should be 2 different types. The Hulk Intimidates in a very different, and much more common, way than Batman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Demoralize Action is a basic mechanic. As written, a Vrock would take a -4 Penalty to Demoralize most PCs, which is silly.
No, barring the fact that even at a -4 penalty the Vrock would be at a +14 -- what would be silly in this case would be using the Demoralize action against a single opponent with a Vrock who has the Stunning Screech Action which will effect everyone in a 30 foot emanation, go against their fort rather than their will and require a DC 28 save to avoid being Stunned rather than merely frightened.
The Hulk Intimidates in a very different, and much more common, way than Batman.
Could we pretty please, with sugar on top, have this conversation about the linguistic component of Demoralize without resorting to examples that utilize A.)creatures that aren't trained in Intimidation and would be at serious dice penalty to begin with B.)creatures that have better effects in their existing stat block and would simply be wasting their time with a meager usage of Demoralize or C.) aren't four color narrative characters existing in a different medium than the tabletop roleplaying game we're attempting to discuss?
Scaring someone and demoralizing/intimidating them are not the same thing.
A scary wild animal can trigger a fight/flight reaction, but you won't (for example) give it all of your food unless you yourself decide to do it. The scary wild animal has no control over how you react to its scariness.
An intimidating humanoid foe, on the other hand, can be very precise as to what actions he scares you into taking.
Scaring someone and demoralizing/intimidating them are not the same thing.A scary wild animal can trigger a fight/flight reaction, but you won't (for example) give it all of your food unless you yourself decide to do it. The scary wild animal has no control over how you react to its scariness.
An intimidating humanoid foe, on the other hand, can be very precise as to what actions he scares you into taking.
Just wanted to point out that that is what the Coerce use of Intimidation is. Really we are looking at Demoralize, which arguably doesn't have to have a language attached, which I tend to agree with.
For me, I don't like the idea of applying the language penalty to an animal's demoralize attempt. If that same animal tried to coerce you, then yeah, I can see there being a language barrier there.
Largely, I don't apply penalties from the "players side" of the rules to monsters when talking about skill checks. I generally assume that the score given to the creature reflects how good they are at something despite the differences they have with PC's. The bear companion is probably the best example of this, but there are others.
The Emperor Bird comes out of the box with a respectable +7 intimidation, probably because of it's feathery display. It doesn't have any inbuilt actions that utilize this skill, but if it were to attempt to demoralize someone, why would it take a penalty? In it's flavor text, it specifically uses its, "iridescent plumage for mating displays as well as for intimidating rival suitors and potential predators." If anything deserves to automatically gain the benefits of Intimidating Glare or some other similar ability, that bird does.
How about what the skill / action does is mechanically fine, just badly named (at least in the perception of some of us)?
My best guess is that most people here that complain (including me) would be less sceptical about the language dependency if - for example - the action would be called "smack talking" or "taunt" even if the penalty imposed by a hypothetical "distracted" condition would be 100% identical to the frightened condition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about what the skill / action does is mechanically fine, just badly named (at least in the perception of some of us)?
It isn't badly named at all, nor is it badly described. It is named after and described as the concept of using verbal intimidation to force your opponent to lose confidence. The description and literal definition of the word demoralize work just fine together.
Where it goes wrong, I think, is this: People read that it inflicts the Frightened condition and assume that it is about specifically being scary or terrifying toward your opponent. Being overtly scary or terrifying can demoralize an opponent, so can saying "Fight as hard as you want, my men are burning your pathetic village to the ground as we speak."
If you fixate on the result rather than the action itself, you'll probably think it is badly named or designed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can frame it that way, but I think the problem is that those of us who disagree think that flexing your big muscles and letting lose a battlecry should be a valid way of causing the same frightened condition in your opponents, and that it shouldn't require a feat to achieve.
We want the same basic result, via another analogous means. But rather than invent a similar mechanic, we'd just like an option to replace charisma and language dependency with strength and visual auditory dependency.
We want the same basic result, via another analogous means. But rather than invent a similar mechanic, we'd just like an option to replace charisma and language dependency with strength and visual auditory dependency.
I certainly agree that there should be an action to allow you to do that. I do not however think that the lack of existence of such an alternate action represents a flaw with this action.
Nor do I think that creatures who exist under different rules that have stat blocks that are incompatible with the existing action are particularly good examples that there should be a physical intimidation action.
|
In pf2 charisma is defined as "your character’s personal magnetism and strength of personality." Intimidation is a charisma skill, it takes no modifiers for size (unlike pf1), only a penalty for lack of ability to communicate. Note that it also takes no penalty if they can't see you. Your physical appearance is irrelevant to demoralizing an opponent.
So taking these facts into consideration, PF2 demoralize is not about physical threats or imposing looks, it is only about communication. While you can communicate simple concepts like threats through body language, it is more difficult than through language. Given this line of reasoning, the -4 makes sense.
Physical intimidation, like flexing your muscles, is quite simply not represented by the intimidate skill. Personally, my fix would be to make a skill feat that allows the use of the athletics skill to perform the demoralize action.
In pf2 charisma is defined as "your character’s personal magnetism and strength of personality." Intimidation is a charisma skill, it takes no modifiers for size (unlike pf1), only a penalty for lack of ability to communicate. Note that it also takes no penalty if they can't see you. Your physical appearance is irrelevant to demoralizing an opponent.
So taking these facts into consideration, PF2 demoralize is not about physical threats or imposing looks, it is only about communication. While you can communicate simple concepts like threats through body language, it is more difficult than through language. Given this line of reasoning, the -4 makes sense.
Physical intimidation, like flexing your muscles, is quite simply not represented by the intimidate skill. Personally, my fix would be to make a skill feat that allows the use of the athletics skill to perform the demoralize action.
I agree with what you've written here, my issue is as you state physical intimidation isn't represented at all as a PC option. My personal feeling is that it should be an option, without a feat, and not in need of completely new rules. We just need a "Threaten Physically" action to go along with Demoralize that says something like "This works like demoralize but you use your physical stature and threatening sounds to do it. Use your strength + ranks in intimidate to make a demoralize check." And would have the visual and auditory traits.
Really we've strayed a bit I think. The question isn't whether it's fair that a PC to use Strength and Size to gain an Intimidate bonus, but whether a Creature that speaks no languages should take the language penalty for Demoralize. And I don't think it is.
Really we've strayed a bit I think. The question isn't whether it's fair that a PC to use Strength and Size to gain an Intimidate bonus, but whether a Creature that speaks no languages should take the language penalty for Demoralize. And I don't think it is.
Is it fair that a creature that speaks no language take a -4 language penalty to an action that requires a shout, a taunt or a cutting put down? Absolutely it is.
It’s really hard to tell someone their mother smelled of elderberries if you don’t have a word for elderberries.
Really we've strayed a bit I think. The question isn't whether it's fair that a PC to use Strength and Size to gain an Intimidate bonus, but whether a Creature that speaks no languages should take the language penalty for Demoralize. And I don't think it is.Is it fair that a creature that speaks no language take a -4 language penalty to an action that requires a shout, a taunt or a cutting put down? Absolutely it is.
It’s really hard to tell someone their mother smelled of elderberries if you don’t have a word for elderberries.
Sure. But then why don't creatures have a "frighten" ability that is divorced from our Demoralize? In it's absence, the only option they have is either a purpose built ability, like the Megaprimatus' Terrifying Display, which has added benefits like effecting Everyone in a radius and inflicting Flat-Footed or the standard use of Demoralize.
There are plenty of creatures in the bestiary who are trained in Demoralize, have only 1 uncommon language or none, and have no specific ability to use that demoralize.
In PF2, monsters aren't built with the same rules that PC's are, and I feel that they also don't necessarily have to follow all of the same rules. In my previous example, you have the emperor bird who is capable of Intimidating pretty well for it's level, but speaks no language and has no specific ability that lets it scare someone. But it is called out, in fluff at least, as using it's Plumage in displays intended to scare predators.
Apply that -4 language penalty to it's intimidate and suddenly it's pretty terrible at intimidation. If that's the case, why would the creature develop that habit?
It is simply easier to adjudicate the action the creature is using to demoralize, and apply traits that make sense, rather than assume that the Emperor Bird is trying to speak to an opponent. Take away auditory, add visual and remove the language penalty.
Your argument conflates the effect of the demoralize action with what someone must do to achieve the action, conflates the Influence skill with the action itself and argues that since the monsters in the Bestiary don’t use the same rules as the PC’s we must rewrite the PC facing rules so it’s easier for the monsters to use them.
I’m not sure what to say to you beyond what has already been said.
Your argument conflates the effect of the demoralize action with what someone must do to achieve the action, conflates the Influence skill with the action itself and argues that since the monsters in the Bestiary don’t use the same rules as the PC’s we must rewrite the PC facing rules so it’s easier for the monsters to use them.
I’m not sure what to say to you beyond what has already been said.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not saying we need to re-write the PC facing rules at all. Only that they should be modified by the GM when used to apply to monsters.
Demoralize works fine as a rule for a PC to follow. It doesn't fit monsters who by all accounts Should be able to demoralize an enemy, but can't do so effectively.
A -4 penalty is the highest reasonable penalty or bonus we expect in PF2. Saying that a Bear Companion will Always take it to it's skill specialization is pretty unfair to the bear, and is equally "unfair" to any monster the GM may want to use who should be scary.
If you have a human enemy, then yeah, sure it makes sense that they will use demoralize as is, penalties and all. But Demoralize as written is not a good rule to apply to creatures who, by their very nature, won't be attempting to use a "well-timed taunt, or a cutting putdown," to frighten an opponent but never the less is trained in Intimidation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't fit monsters who by all accounts Should be able to demoralize an enemy, but can't do so effectively.
How can they “by all accounts” deliver a skill action based around shouts, taunts and cutting put downs if they can’t speak to utter shouts, taunts and cutting put downs? Square that circle.
A -4 penalty is the highest reasonable penalty or bonus we expect in PF2. Saying that a Bear Companion will Always take it to it's skill specialization is pretty unfair to the bear, and is equally "unfair" to any monster the GM may want to use who should be scary.
Demoralize ISN’T about being scary, it’s about undermining your opponents will to fight. It uses frightened because that is the most reasonable condition to apply, but the text describing how Demoralize is delivered indicates fairly clearly what it is.
It doesn't fit monsters who by all accounts Should be able to demoralize an enemy, but can't do so effectively.How can they “by all accounts” deliver a skill action based around shouts, taunts and cutting put downs if they can’t speak to utter shouts, taunts and cutting put downs? Square that circle.
A -4 penalty is the highest reasonable penalty or bonus we expect in PF2. Saying that a Bear Companion will Always take it to it's skill specialization is pretty unfair to the bear, and is equally "unfair" to any monster the GM may want to use who should be scary.Demoralize ISN’T about being scary, it’s about undermining your opponents will to fight. It uses frightened because that is the most reasonable condition to apply, but the text describing how Demoralize is delivered indicates fairly clearly what it is.
So then how does an Emperor Bird use it's Intimidate skill? It's trained in it. It doesn't use it for any of it's abilities, so why bother including it in the stat block? The same can be said for a slew of enemies we have access to.
Demoralize can be about being scary. If you take Intimidating Glare, you get all of that nuance across with a Clint Eastwood style glare. The stereotypical "don't mess with me punk," look that can make an enemy shake in their boots. Intimidating Prowess allows you to not only gain a bonus to intimidation through purely being in a position of Strength over your opponent, but also allows you to convey that through non-language means.
My point is that the demoralization is more broad than the PC facing rule, Demoralize, and it isn't reflected well for use by monsters, and the GM has the ability to alter that to suit their needs, and likely should in this case.
Sidenote: I can't wait for someone to flip the Word of the Day calendar so everyone can stop using the word, "conflating".
So then how does an Emperor Bird use it's Intimidate skill? It's trained in it. It doesn't use it for any of it's abilities, so why bother including it in the stat block?
It’s there because it’s the underlying stat justifying the bird’s dazzling display.
Demoralize can be about being scary.
It can be about being scary, but because it isn’t exclusively about being scary and it is exclusively about language “scary animals” that can’t talk don’t just get to do it with ease.
If you take Intimidating Glareyou get all of that nuance across with a Clint Eastwood style glare. The stereotypical "don't mess with me punk," look that can make an enemy shake in their boots. Intimidating Prowess allows you to not only gain a bonus to intimidation through purely being in a position of Strength over your opponent, but also allows you to convey that through non-language means.
Those are great examples.... of a feat tax that a player has to pay to do something you feel the system should allow animal companions to do for free.
My point is that the demoralization is more broad than the PC facing rule
The point is that it isn’t more broad than that, you would just prefer that it was.
Sidenote: I can't wait for someone to flip the Word of the Day calendar so everyone can stop using the word, "conflating".
If you would like people to stop using the word conflate then you might want to try ending your practice of mistakenly using two disparate yet related terms interchangeably or interpolating the result into the meat of the action while trying to make your point.
So then how does an Emperor Bird use it's Intimidate skill? It's trained in it. It doesn't use it for any of it's abilities, so why bother including it in the stat block?It’s there because it’s the underlying stat justifying the bird’s dazzling display.
That's interesting, because it's Dazzling Display has nothing to do with "intimidating rival suitors and potential predators."
So then why is Intimidate one of it's trained skills?
Demoralize can be about being scary.It can be about being scary, but because it isn’t exclusively about being scary and it is exclusively about language “scary animals” that can’t talk don’t just get to do it with ease.
Why not? If I wanted to allow an Emperor Bird demoralize a 1st level character, why wouldn't their display be intimidating? Ever been rushed by a Turkey? They can be pretty intimidating, and they don't speak english the last time I checked.
If you take Intimidating Glareyou get all of that nuance across with a Clint Eastwood style glare. The stereotypical "don't mess with me punk," look that can make an enemy shake in their boots. Intimidating Prowess allows you to not only gain a bonus to intimidation through purely being in a position of Strength over your opponent, but also allows you to convey that through non-language means.Those are great examples.... of a feat tax that a player has to pay to do something you feel the system should allow animal companions to do for free.
And monsters aren't built using the same rules as PC's, so "feat taxes" don't apply, and shouldn't.
My point is that the demoralization is more broad than the PC facing ruleThe point is that it isn’t more broad than that, you would just prefer that it was.
No, your point is that it isn't more broad than that. I disagree. A GM can simply run a creature using Intimidate without applying a language penalty, so long as it makes sense in that circumstance. A creature with no languages can be intimidating, they can cause demoralization, without a specific special ability allowing them to do so. Why hamstring a GM's options? Or should a bear defending it's young only ever attack, without roaring or putting any warning display out to ward off trespassers? Because bears do that, and they are plenty demoralizing. You could say they apply the Frightened condition when it happens.
As to the conflate argument, what exactly am I combining? I've only attempted to point out that PC facing rules don't always have to apply to monsters. I gave examples of ways that PC's can bypass those rules, and simply stated that monsters more than likely can as well, at a GM's discretion.
If I somehow conflated two disparate yet related terms in a way that isn't "proper", then I suppose my bad. I don't think I have.
Why not? If I wanted to allow an Emperor Bird demoralize a 1st level character, why wouldn't their display be intimidating?
Intimidating it may be, but it won’t be the Demoralize action because the bird can’t talk
Ever been rushed by a Turkey? They can be pretty intimidating, and they don't speak english the last time I checked.
When was the last reported incident of a turkey making a cutting remark to a person? The Demoralize action requires you to shout (which Turkeys can’t do,) issue a well timed taunt (which a turkey can’t do,) or utter a cutting remark (which a turkey can’t do.). Turkeys, much like bears are wholly immaterial to this conversation
And monsters aren't built using the same rules as PC's, so "feat taxes" don't apply, and shouldn't.
Ah, so... The PC facing rule governing the Demoralize action doesn’t cover monsters so we need to have a lengthy conversation about how to apply that rule properly to the monsters, but limiting factors that apply to PC’s in relation to this same rule we’re discussing shouldn’t apply to the monsters because the monsters aren’t built using the same rules. So you’re demanding that consistency be applied inconsistently. Cool.
A creature with no languages can be intimidating, they can cause demoralization without a specific special ability allowing them to do so.
No they can’t because by RAW it REQUIRES a language.
Or should a bear defending it's young only ever attack, without roaring or putting any warning display out to ward off trespassers?
The demoralize action isn’t a warning display to ward off trespassers, it’s a verbal taunt to an opponent. It is in the description.
bears do that, and they are plenty demoralizing.
No they aren’t, because while the demoralize action in this game applies the frightened condition - the actual definition of demoralize relates to the loss of confidence or the loss of hope. A bear scaring you away from their young, doesn’t remove your hope, neither does a Turkey charging at you.
As to the conflate argument, what exactly am I combining?
You have repeatedly combined the concepts of the Demoralize action and the Intimidate skill so that you can use them as interchangeable terms. Like where you described monsters in the bestiary as being trained in Demoralize. That combination of those two concepts is the core of your entire argument. Animals can be intimidating therefore they must be able to demoralize therefore demoralize must not impose the -4 penalty to non verbal monsters, because GM freedom or whatever. Demoralize is intimidation, intimidation is demoralize, turkeys and bears are intimidating and thus demoralizing.
Demoralize is not THE intimidate action it is AN intimidate action that is based around linguistic taunts. Coerce, unlike demoralize is an intimidation action based around threats - like the bear roaring. If either should be allowed as an action by a bear attempting to scare off predators it should be coerce. Yet that would require us to stop conflating the action with the skill itself.
And monsters aren't built using the same rules as PC's, so "feat taxes" don't apply, and shouldn't.
They're not built in the same way, but they do play by the same rules for the most part. Very intentionally so.
I think it'd end up rubbing some players the wrong way if there were general rules about how abilities worked and whole categories of NPCs got to ignore those rules because.... reasons.
If you want Demoralize to be a nonverbal action, just make it a general house rule.
Apparently there is just a difference in opinion on the matter. I will concede that the RAW reading would be to apply the penalty to a bear using demoralize. I would not do so. Whether I achieve that by allowing the bear the benefit of Intimidating Glare/Intimidating Prowess, or by inventing a unique action using intimidate is immaterial. To me, it makes sense that a bear would be able to roar and inflict frightened.
To you it doesn't, and that is fine.
Seriously people? You want to complicate things by going out of your way to apply PC rules to monster stat blocks?
You do you, but I'll be lazy and just assume that the monster's stats already have everything relevant accounted for. So that, you know, I don't have to bother with that kind of nit-picking rules-lawyering and just can play that bear or whatever in peace.
PCs have to adjust their Intimidate score according to the language tag. Monsters just roll their assigned stat and call it a day.
Why do you feel the need to make things needlessly complicated?
Apparently there is just a difference in opinion on the matter. I will concede that the RAW reading would be to apply the penalty to a bear using demoralize. I would not do so. Whether I achieve that by allowing the bear the benefit of Intimidating Glare/Intimidating Prowess, or by inventing a unique action using intimidate is immaterial. To me, it makes sense that a bear would be able to roar and inflict frightened.
To you it doesn't, and that is fine.
It makes sense to you to give Bears proficiency levels in a skill they don't have proficiency in so that they can use an action that is based around insults and taunts to growl loud enough to inflict the frightened condition. You're willing to give them the benefit of a feat that would require a PC to be an Expert in intimidation in order to do this.
One more time for the cheap seats... you're so fixated on the part where Demoralize inflicts the frightened condition that you think demoralize is about being frightening. It isn't.
If you're having to house rule THAT far just to give a CR 3 Bear the ability to inflict the frightened condition - just how far will you bend much harder and faster rules than Demoralize? What expectations of parity would a player in one of your games have?
Apparently there is just a difference in opinion on the matter. I will concede that the RAW reading would be to apply the penalty to a bear using demoralize. I would not do so. Whether I achieve that by allowing the bear the benefit of Intimidating Glare/Intimidating Prowess, or by inventing a unique action using intimidate is immaterial. To me, it makes sense that a bear would be able to roar and inflict frightened.
To you it doesn't, and that is fine.
It makes sense to you to give Bears proficiency levels in a skill they don't have proficiency in so that they can use an action that is based around insults and taunts to growl loud enough to inflict the frightened condition. You're willing to give them the benefit of a feat that would require a PC to be an Expert in intimidation in order to do this.
One more time for the cheap seats... you're so fixated on the part where Demoralize inflicts the frightened condition that you think demoralize is about being frightening. It isn't.
If you're having to house rule THAT far just to give a CR 3 Bear the ability to inflict the frightened condition - just how far will you bend much harder and faster rules than Demoralize? What expectations of parity would a player in one of your games have?
There is no expectation of parity between players and monsters anyway. A monster can, and frequently do, have access to abilities they does not necessarily meet the requirements for. The bestiary gives us a loose guideline that tells us approximately what level they have a specific proficiency, but even that is mutable by design.
And no, I don't think that demoralize is solely about being frightening. I am merely advocating that it can be about being frightening. The existence of intimidating glare and intimidating prowess shows that pretty well.
There is no expectation of parity between players and monsters anyway.
I was talking about parity between you the GM and the players in your game.
See there is this expectation that players play by the rules and SO DOES THE GM. When you, on a whim, decide that a creature should have full access to an action that is incompatible with the creatures stat block and usually requires a PC to have multiple levels of proficiency and a feat to use it in the way you're applying it to the creature that shouldn't be using it - you've violated the expectation
A monster can, and frequently do, have access to abilities they does not necessarily meet the requirements for.
When that happens it's noted in the stat block, but since we're back to this whole "conflating" thing again I'm going to have to disabuse of the usage of the word "abilities" and spell out why bears can't demoralize. Demoralize isn't an ability it's an action. Intimidate isn't an ability it's a skill. Bear's aren't trained in the intimidate skill. The Intimidate skill that allows the Demoralize action is based off the the Charisma ability for which Bears are at a negative per their written stat block. Mainly though, and I can't believe I have to reiterate this again: it's because they can't speak and the action REQUIRES speech. See, they're doubly not able to do it.
Giving a bear the ability to use demoralize at the same level as a PC who acquired through XP both the expert proficiency in intimidation and two feats is not you correcting the flawed oversight of the rules, it's you throwing those rules out the window so that you can apply the frightened condition to your players. Use a different monster.
And no, I don't think that demoralize is solely about being frightening. I am merely advocating that it can be about being frightening. The existence of intimidating glare and intimidating prowess shows that pretty well.
Both of those feats show that if someone gets really good at intimidating they can demoralize with just a look rather than words, but bears suck at intimidating so they shouldn't skip over the rules and have the ability anyways because... growls are scary.
There is no expectation of parity between players and monsters anyway.I was talking about parity between you the GM and the players in your game.
See there is this expectation that players play by the rules and SO DOES THE GM. When you, on a whim, decide that a creature should have full access to an action that is incompatible with the creatures stat block and usually requires a PC to have multiple levels of proficiency and a feat to use it in the way you're applying it to the creature that shouldn't be using it - you've violated the expectation
I've certainly never had that expectation. Show of hands everyone, who expects the GM to have parity with the players?
I would say that there is an expectation that the GM isn't hostile to the players, but they certainly will never have parity. A GM can craft their narrative as they see fit if they want. Or they can allow the players to craft their narrative, and fill in the blanks. But they never have parity. Parity is for a competitive game.
The point of having a GM is that they can improvise, and ignore/modify the rules to fit the narrative as they see fit. See adjudicating the rules for more information.
Maybe you have that expectation, but I don't know if that is the standard expectation. Do you?
A monster can, and frequently do, have access to abilities they does not necessarily meet the requirements for.When that happens it's noted in the stat block, but since we're back to this whole "conflating" thing again I'm going to have to disabuse of the usage of the word "abilities" and spell out why bears can't demoralize. Demoralize isn't an ability it's an action. Intimidate isn't an ability it's a skill. Bear's aren't trained in the intimidate skill. The Intimidate skill that allows the Demoralize action is based off the the Charisma ability for which Bears are at a negative per their written stat block. Mainly though, and I can't believe I have to reiterate this again: it's because they can't speak and the action REQUIRES speech. See, they're doubly not able to do it.
Giving a bear the ability to use demoralize at the same level as a PC who acquired through XP both the expert proficiency in intimidation and two feats is not you correcting the flawed oversight of the rules, it's you throwing those rules out the window so that you can apply the frightened condition to your players. Use a different monster.
You know, Bear animal companions are specialized in the Intimidate skill. Shouldn't they be able to utilize it? Or are they not actually a bear? (Also oof on "they does not necessarily..." Maybe I shouldn't phone post half asleep. I swear it looked good when I hit submit post.)
And while I never directly said that I wanted to give a monster bear training in Intimidate, I don't really see an issue with that either, so long as it fits the narrative. After all, we do have rules for creating creatures, and can happily use those rules to alter any stat block we wish.
However to address bears out of the box, yeah I think they should be able to demoralize, trained or not, with no penalty and if that situation came up in one of my games I would just roll with it. Because that is an interesting situation. Because that is how a GM creates a narrative. Or should bears only ever move and attack?
And no, I don't think that demoralize is solely about being frightening. I am merely advocating that it can be about being frightening. The existence of intimidating glare and intimidating prowess shows that pretty well.Both of those feats show that if someone gets really good at intimidating they can demoralize with just a look rather than words, but bears suck at intimidating so they shouldn't skip over the rules and have the ability anyways because... growls are scary.
Why not? Sure, you can be of that opinion, and RAW bears don't have those feats, training or some other similar ability. But that definitely does not mean that they can't, and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't.
The point of having a GM is that they can improvise, and ignore/modify the rules to fit the narrative as they see fit. See adjudicating the rules for more information.
yeah, flat out ignoring all of the rules related to something so you can impose conditions that a creature doesn't normally impose for no logical reason isn't adjudicating the rules it's throwing the rules out entirely so that you have an advantage over your players.
You know, Bear animal companions are specialized in the Intimidate skill.
Oh we're talking about animal companions now? Before now you were specifically addressing the Bears in the bestiary that aren't proficient in the intimidate skill and are at a negative to Charisma.
And while I never directly said that I wanted to give a monster bear training in Intimidate
No you just said that you would give a monster bear access to the usage of Demoralize consistent with the way it functions in conjunction with the Intimidating Prowess Feat - for which a PC would need to be an Expert in Intimidate. You would give this to a monster with no proficiency in intimidate and a -1 Charisma.
However to address bears out of the box, yeah I think they should be able to demoralize, trained or not, with no penalty
Explain how. Explain how a bear is going to use a well timed verbal taunt or cutting put-down. Explain how a bear is going to use either of the delivery mechanisms for the action. Growling at me to get away from her cubs isn't the same thing, that's "GET AWAY FROM MY KID" not "I'll let you live long enough to make you watch me kill your friends" The more you keep bringing up the Bear growling, the less I think you know what the word demoralize means.
Why not? Sure, you can be of that opinion, and RAW bears don't have those feats, training or some other similar ability. But that definitely does not mean that they can't, and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't.
So, because the rules don't support it - ignore the rules and let the monster have the best possible version of the action even though their own written stats don't support it either? Glad you're not my DM.
A -4 penalty is the highest reasonable penalty or bonus we expect in PF2. Saying that a Bear Companion will Always take it to it's skill specialization is pretty unfair to the bear, and is equally "unfair" to any monster the GM may want to use who should be scary.
I began by speaking about Bear Companions, as they are specialized in Intimidation, but apparently simply can't use it effectively. The mundane bear came up later, and really only in response to you.
yeah, flat out ignoring all of the rules related to something so you can impose conditions that a creature doesn't normally impose for no logical reason isn't adjudicating the rules it's throwing the rules out entirely so that you have an advantage over your players.
There's a very logical reason to do so: It fits the story. If a party trespasses in a bears territory, that bear is going to roar, and that roar can be demoralizing.
No you just said that you would give a monster bear access to the usage of Demoralize consistent with the way it functions in conjunction with the Intimidating Prowess Feat - for which a PC would need to be an Expert in Intimidate. You would give this to a monster with no proficiency in intimidate and a -1 Charisma.
Sure. Or I would invent an action from whole cloth based on demoralize that allowed the bear to bypass the language penalty entirely. That is also an option.
Explain how. Explain how a bear is going to use a well timed verbal taunt or cutting put-down. Explain how a bear is going to use either of the delivery mechanisms for the action. Growling at me to get away from her cubs isn't the same thing, that's "GET AWAY FROM MY KID" not "I'll let you live long enough to make you watch me kill your friends" The more you keep bringing up the Bear growling, the less I think you know what the word demoralize means.
Demoralize doesn't have to be language based. Many animals will make threatening displays, not because they actually want to attack, but to, "cause (someone) to lose confidence or hope; dispirit." You know, the definition of demoralize. I mean, unless you are saying that you wouldn't be demoralized by a bear roaring at you in a threatening manner.
So, because the rules don't support it - ignore the rules and let the monster have the best possible version of the action even though their own written stats don't support it either? Glad you're not my DM.
Sure, so long as it fits the narrative I'm trying to put together, why not?
And there is no need to get personal. I thought we were having a fun conversation. I don't mean to anger you.
I began by speaking about Bear Companions, as they are specialized in Intimidation, but apparently simply can't use it effectively. The mundane bear came up later, and really only in response to you.
Yes, you spoke about Bear companions once, I responded to the companion with a comment about companions and then you shifted to the Bestiary and stayed there this whole time. You moved us to the Bestiary until you decided it was useful to your argument to move back to the animal companion.
There's a very logical reason to do so: It fits the story. If a party trespasses in a bears territory, that bear is going to roar, and that roar can be demoralizing.
See I don't agree that that's a logical enough reason to cheat.
Demoralize doesn't have to be language based.
Yes it does, you've wasted the better part of two days arguing to be right on the internet about removing the negative penalty for it not being language based.
Many animals will make threatening displays,
In an attempt to frighten you not in an attempt to demoralize you. A predator trying to scare you off wants you to run away, they're not concerned with depriving you of hope, and they're not taunting you with insults. There is no connection between demoralizing and being frightened here in the real world, and animals are trying to frighten.
unless you are saying that you wouldn't be demoralized by a bear roaring at you in a threatening manner.
I wouldn't be. I would be afraid and I would flee if able - but it wouldn't shake my resolve, deprive me of hope, weaken my morale, break my discipline, bewilder me, confuse me, throw me into a state of disorder or any of the other things that are actually associated with the word demoralize.
Sure, so long as it fits the narrative I'm trying to put together, why not?
Because the rules are there for you just as much as they are there for your players. It's a collaborative game, and the rules are there to create reasonable expectations on both sides. If you're willing to completely throw those out to allow a CR 3 creature do something the book and rules say it can't do because it suits your narrative to COMPLETELY rewrite an action - what other rules will you throw out and when?
It's apparent that we just have differing opinions on how the game can be played. The GM has the leeway to create creatures that perform feats that a PC simply can't. To me, doing so doesnt constitute "cheating". Cheating would be fudging rolls, something many gms do behind their screens. And most some people are fine with that.
Your position appears to be that the rules are rigid and immutable to both the GM and the players. Mine is that this is not the case, and that is the best part of table top roleplaying. How boring must it be to only ever fight creatures straight out of the bestiary, or some other official source.
Whatever the case, I hope you find enjoyment in the game, after all it is a game.