Scare to Death: Is it odd that a skill is better at killing things than a spell?

[Exocist]

Ruzza wrote:

Exocist wrote:

It’s definitely got a much higher chance of critting than spells do, considering it’s a proficiency level above spells and has an item bonus. I’ve definitely found this feat to be very very strong against the numerous level-2 enemies found in APs. For instance, looking at 17th level, we’ll assume one is up against a level 15 creature with moderate fort and will.

Intim bonus = 17+8+6+3= +34

Spell DC = 17+6+6+10=39

Moderate save for a level 15 = +26

Chance to kill from scare to death = .45*.8 (you roll 12+ then opponent rolls 17 or less)=36%

Chance to kill from Weird = 0.15*.6 (opponent rolls 3 or less, the rolls 12 or less)=9%

I'm not sure how much this works as a direct comparison as weird is a multi-target spell and lacks the incap trait. It also directly does damage and has way higher range. While the comparison is helpful for the "double rolls," it's ignoring the fact that weird's biggest benefit isn't that it kills, but that deals a ton of damage to a (potentially) ton of creatures while frightening them.

DF was on the money with comparing it to finger of death (sort of, because that's still more of the HP threshold thing). Phantasmal killer, likewise, has more going for it than directly killing someone. Their critical success/failure is secondary. Perhaps that's how I'm viewing Scare To Death as well, which is an upgraded Demoralize with a potentially powerful critical success. Versus more powerful foes, however, you're better off sticking with just plain ol' Demoralize.

Comparing it to Phantasmal Killer would be unfair seeing as you get Killer... 8 levels before you can get scare to death. I thought weird might be a more apt comparison. It comes 2 levels after STD, deals damage (though not much - seriously 16d6 isn’t a lot vs high level creatures), has better range and is multitarget, but is also 2 actions and consumes a very limited resource.

[Ruzza]

Exocist wrote:

Comparing it to Phantasmal Killer would be unfair seeing as you get Killer... 8 levels before you can get scare to death. I thought weird might be a more apt comparison. It comes 2 levels after STD, deals damage (though not much - seriously 16d6 isn’t a lot vs high level creatures), has better range and is multitarget, but is also 2 actions and consumes a very limited resource.

The level really doesn't play as big a role here as the purpose of the action. You might also be underselling "better range" and "multitarget" given that it targets any number of creatures that you can see within 120 feet, especially more so when it's effective against creatures of higher level than you as well. It's immensely more versatile and likely to be used in different scenarios than Scare To Death. And while ~56 points of unavoidable damage to four-five level 17 - 20 creatures may not seem like a lot, it's still going to be taking away between 15 and 20% of the average creature's health while inflicting them with frightened almost guaranteed. And one can follow up with an additional use of the spell (though I doubt there are too many here that would opt to use another 9th level spell slot on weird)

Scare To Death can give you than same frightened condition against a singular opponent, but none of the damage from a much closer range against a much more limited selection of enemies. It shines as a one action ability to take out a weaker opponent, something that weird is not set up to do (though it functions great as a two action spell to take out many weaker opponents). While a spellcaster does commit a spell slot to the casting, they don't have to devote any skill feats or skill proficiency to get to legendary, which is also a serious investment.

Again, Scare To Death is really, really good. It's just not so good that we should be getting bent out of shape, in my opinion.

[Unicore]

There are multiple conversation threads interweaving together about this feat, and that can get a little confusing.

Zapp's primary concern seems to be the one on one fight between equal level characters resulting in an anti-climatic encounter. Something certainly possible, but not terribly likely and discussed above. Allies are not going to be using abilities here to debuff the enemy (or if they are, there will probably be additional situational consequences/challenges for doing so).
To use scare to death in this instance, the hero themselves is going to be using their own actions to impact this encounter so getting a bon mot off is a pretty steep cost, especially because the penalties from each are not really going to stack on each other. You have likely spent 2 out of 3 actions for the round to give your enemy a -1 or -2 frightened condition. Not the worst thing ever, but you only have one action left to either move or be able to attack and benefit from that penalty and then it is lessening significantly at the end of the enemy's turn and they are not susceptible to it again. All for having a 10-15% chance of outright killing the foe and maybe a 20ish percent chance (overlapping the 10-15%) of having them have to flee. Not bad, and perhaps encounter shattering when it happens, as seems like it might have been the case in Zapp's game, but from a player perspective, its not really that "no brainer" of a set of actions for a duel encounter. It is a pretty high risk/high reward situation for a gladiator to attempt, surrendering 2/3 of your teams total actions for an encounter to get a round or two of penalties with no damage added, by level 15 is risky. You are not fighting 10 duels in a row, so the "unlimited usage" of Scare to Death is irrelevant. It is a one and done ability in this situation, and if you have spells, you would be much better off using a 8th level spell if you've got them. Bon Mot and Max level dominate are going to be the much higher probability encounter one shot here. Even on a simple failure you get one round to have the enemy fully under your control, potentially throwing away their weapon/ attacking an influential member of the audience, tying themselves up, laying down in front of you, telling you everything you wanted to know from them, etc. You've used one more action (still doing the bon mot) to have about a 60% or higher chance of winning the encounter.

Then there is the other discussion about how the feat is too powerful in regular combats where the party will have much more than 3 actions per round so having an ally debuff the enemy means each of you spending 1 action out of 3 to potentially outright kill a foe that could even be one level higher than you in some situations (because of how incapacitation works). Generally speaking, to figure this out and possibly whether the save is worth making, you probably want a 3rd ally spending an additional action to recall knowledge on the foes in question as well, so it probably does add up to 1 full character's actions, but they can be spread across 3 characters as 3rd actions instead of wasting anyone's first action with no MAP. That is pretty good synergy! And yes, it will be a little on the powerful side, but tactics that encourage that much team play having a 25% chance of outright killing a foe that probably makes up somewhere between 15 and 30% of the encounter budget doesn't feel that broken to me. It feels like a mechanic that is encouraging players to work together and think about the game beyond having each player say, "I attack three times."

[Zapp]

Cyouni wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Part of this may have been affected by the fact that I threw them up against devils constantly, which generally have either good Fort/Will (or both). That makes it a struggle to both crit vs the Will and also have them fail vs the Fort.

Yes, the issue is not with "monsters".

The issue is with human(oid)s.

Did you know that humanoids also have the same thing going on? Let's take the level 14 Zephyr Guard, who has +26 Fort and a Will DC of 39. A level 15 character with 20 Cha, legendary Intimidation and a +2 item has +30 Intimidation, needing you to hit a 19 on the die plus they roll 13 or lower on their Fort save. That's a 6.5% chance.

But what if they have Bon Mot on them plus the character has Heroism for a +2? That ups it to a 15 on the die, or a 19.5% chance. That's still really not that high for all the focus we've put into this.

Very small spoilers for Extinction Curse:

Spoiler:

Quormintur sports a +26 Will save, so this hero only needs to roll 16 to force the save or die, which she will easily fail (having a +28 Fort save she needs to roll 12). (She's 16th level so you can imagine how easy this will be once your hero levels up)

And take a alien monster you wouldn't think you could scare to death, for example the level 12 Gogiteth. Even with the language barrier in place (not that Undercommon is exactly uncommon) your hero only needs to roll a 14 to force the save or die which it really struggles to make (needing to roll a 15).

Sure, that's a relatively low-level enemy, but it still wipes 250 hp off the board with your least-valuable third action.

In one case, it's hard to not let NPC relations be influenced by this awfully potent ability - it's like every other high-level fighter will be capable of this LITERAL power word kill!

In the other case the ability feels really incongruous. And even if you fail against one Gogiteth, the fact they're lower level all but ensures there will be another to target right next to the first one.

---

So why don't you simply admit this ability feels severely off, compared to other abilities and spells, Cyouni.

I won't hold it against you - after all it wasn't you who wrote this feat and slipped up.

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

it could also be the case that having a 10% chance

The chance just isn't that low.

You can easily have a 20% chance, and in many combats (though not duels), if it doesn't work against one opponent you just go after the next. So the probability of it working in any given fight is, well not 100% of course, but surely closer to 100% than 10%.

But if it is a duel, the mathematics of encounters means that unless the duel is meant as a life-threatening extreme-level encounter, the enemy ***MUST*** be lower level than the single hero.

Adding an ability that gives a non-magical hero even a 25% chance of one-shotting your enemy (with a single glance even!) let alone 50% just tells me that writer is completely insensitive to the game as a storytelling narrative.

If viewed purely as a tactical boardgame, sure I can understand it. NPCs are after all only markers on a battleboard.

But as a fully-fledged roleplaying experience? Where NPCs make active decisions and have inner lives. No way.

The fact remains the effects of Scare to Death is in some ways better and cheaper than even a level 9 spell.

Something is clearly wrong.

[Winkie_Phace]

Feat seems fine. Chance to kill is fairly low, you have to deal with maxing out the weakest ability score for 14 levels before you get it or the chance goes from low to "lol, better luck using your 3rd attack", and it's an awesome visual that feels appropriately legendary.

[Unicore]

Zapp wrote:

Unicore wrote:

it could also be the case that having a 10% chance

The chance just isn't that low.

You can easily have a 20% chance, and in many combats (though not duels), if it doesn't work against one opponent you just go after the next. So the probability of it working in any given fight is, well not 100% of course, but surely closer to 100% than 10%.

But if it is a duel, the mathematics of encounters means that unless the duel is meant as a life-threatening extreme-level encounter, the enemy ***MUST*** be lower level than the single hero.

Adding an ability that gives a non-magical hero even a 25% chance of one-shotting your enemy (with a single glance even!) let alone 50% just tells me that writer is completely insensitive to the game as a storytelling narrative.

If viewed purely as a tactical boardgame, sure I can understand it. NPCs are after all only markers on a battleboard.

But as a fully-fledged roleplaying experience? Where NPCs make active decisions and have inner lives. No way.

The fact remains the effects of Scare to Death is in some ways better and cheaper than even a level 9 spell.

Something is clearly wrong.

50%? unless you are talking about targeting level -5 creatures or less, that seems like pretty extreme hyperbole. And against any such creatures a spell caster is going to be able to do much more interesting things with spells that are at levels that are barely going to be considered a significant resource.

Fighter and Barbarians and even non-scoundrel rogues are unlikely to be walking around with a Charisma of 20 by level 15. Most of them will probably want to cap CHA out at 18 max, assuming they are willing to be boosting it at all since STR, DEX, CON, and WIS are all saving throw attributes (which will help prevent them from getting one-shot by the myriad of enemy abilities that can be turning them to stone, killing them outright, or taking control of their characters by level 15.

But for the opportunity to kill a minion character 25% of the time, lets say every fighter is deciding to tank DEX, and keep their CHA as their 2nd attribute to hit that 20 by level 15 number, and if you do so, then clearly you are going to prioritize Intimidate and have a Greater demon mask as well for that +2 item bonus. So every fighter is dedicating around 25% of their character build to a skill feat they won't get until the final quarter of the game, for the purpose of occasionally killing minions in one action instead of 3 or 4. It is just not that broken of an ability mechanically or narratively.

But if you do find it to be the case, as a GM, that your players find the power irresistible and want to build their entire party around it, then, instead of fighting them about it, another option would be to have fun with it in the narrative that you are telling, AND have NPCs begin to prepare for it as well. Bonuses to saves vs fear effects are not hard to come by, even for the level 12 and 13 creatures. By level 15, the PCs are some of the most renown hero's of the land, who have dedicated significant party resources to being extra scary and making things run away from them. Word is going to spread, especially if they are not just using the feat occasionally, but turn it into a combat routine of debuffing the minions before using the ability on to maximize the opportunity of getting it to work.

The basic line that is being missed is that, by 15th level, targeting minions with any powers, spells or attacks that only target 1 creature, and are most likely to debuff and do no damage, is a less than efficient use of the action economy. Using single target debuffs (like Bon Mot) to set up single target debuffs (with a chance of outright killing an enemy) is doubly inefficient. Letting it occasionally shine is ok for the game and for your story. If it is game killing for PCs to occasionally 1 shot creatures that are average or lower threats to them, then you might be trying to tell a story that is not particularly well suited for the super heroic play of high level PF2, at least not without applying some variant or house rules to it.

[Ruzza]

Zapp wrote:

So why don't you simply admit this ability feels severely off, compared to other abilities and spells, Cyouni.

I won't hold it against you - after all it wasn't you who wrote this feat and slipped up.

Your math is flawed and coming from an angle which doesn't hold water if you look at it with even the most casual of number crunching, but this is downright infuriating. Zapp gonna Zapp, I know, but how do people put up with this?

[Zapp]

Unicore wrote:

Then there is the other discussion about how the feat is too powerful in regular combats where the party will have much more than 3 actions per round so having an ally debuff the enemy means each of you spending 1 action out of 3 to potentially outright kill a foe that could even be one level higher than you in some situations (because of how incapacitation works).

Just to note this is not how it works.

Yes, a level 15 spellcaster can use a level 8 spell to target a level 16 monster exactly as if he or she were level 16.

But a level 15 hero cannot Scare the same monster to Death.

Scare to Death is not a spell, so the "round up" effect does not come into play.

[SuperBidi]

I made a little bit of calculation. Considering a character with 20 Charisma and a +2 Item bonus to Intimidation (it seems to me like the best setup for a level 16 martial) chances to kill a monster you speak the language are:
Level 16: between 6% and 12% chances
Level 15: between 11.5% and 21% chances
Level 14: between 18.75% and 26.25% chances
Level 13: between 25.5% and 38.25% chances

Unless your DM gave you access to Tongues, chances are high that you won't speak the creature's language. In that case, chances are as follow:
Level 16: between 3% and 5% chances
Level 15: between 3.5% and 7% chances
Level 14: between 3.75% and 11.25% chances
Level 13: between 8.5% and 21.25% chances

Considering monsters with Moderate Will and Fortitude, High Will and Moderate Fortitude or Moderate Will and High Fortitude. I've not calculated for Extreme and Low values as both are supposed to be quite uncommon.

[Unicore]

Zapp, I am very interested to find out when your attitude about incapacitation effects changed from hating them enough to label abilities and spells that had the tag enough to label them completely useless, and arguing for characters to have the ability to win encounters with a single activity against any level of opposition, to arguing that incapacitation effects destroy the narrative because they are too powerful when having a minor chance of one-shotting a single lower level foe?

Is the issue simply that it is a skill feat? Or did you have this situation come up in play and felt like it really destroyed the fun of everyone at the table? A lot of the arguments you made about how it is ok to let a party member shine occasionally, back in your incapacitation threads seems like it should apply to this situation as well.

[Ruzza]

Zapp wrote:

Very small spoilers for Extinction Curse:

Alright, let's do this. First off, spoiler tags exist for a reason, so let's get that out of the way.

Extinction Curse NPC spoilers:

Qormintur is a Level 16 opponent and it is expected that they will encounter this opponent when they too are level 16. Let's look at how likely it is to outright kill them with Scare To Death.

Our character has an Intimidation bonus of +31 (Level 16 + Legendary 8 + Item 2 + Charisma 5), and equivalently our save DC would be 41.

Qormintur has a Will of +26 (low) and a Fortitude of +28 (moderate).

Here we go!

That's a 18% chance to outright kill this character without having to do anything. But we could also Bon Mot them! Or apply other debuffs to lower that Will DC, which is... good. But also, with more set-up, the impressive power of being a one action murder machine loses it's punch. Don't forget that if you don't get the critical success (and even if you do and they make their Fort save), then that's it. No more retrying for the combat. Is 18% too high? I would argue that it's not at all for a Legendary skill feat that you invested quite a bit into. I think it shines much better in other places or applied less like a blunt hammer.

It's... not even close to 100%. It's not even closer to 50%.

Quote:

So why don't you simply admit this ability feels severely off fine compared to other abilities and spells, Zapp.

[pixierose]

The leap of logic just doesn't make sense to me, high level creatures let a lone high level PC's are supposed to rare in most settings and especially the stuff. Of legends.

I'm not sure how this one feat ruins story potential or what npcs are capable of doing narratively

I'm a big roleplayers, it's my favorite aspect of the game, and I just can't think of the problem with this feat.

It's only a problem narattively if either
1) your players are cold hearted monsters who use their most powerful abilities on people willy billy, this allowing that fear to exist, not caring for their own morality

2) the npcs are some lex luthor level paranoia about the heroes of their story.

3) when it comes to gladiators, I feel like if you are agreeing to gladiator fights there is some aknowledgement of the crowd or at least some kind of honor code you are interacting with the fellow challenger, that you wouldn't try and one shot.

I don't want to dismiss the concerns I just don't understand them as somebody who also values roleplay

[DrakoVongola1]

Zapp wrote:

DrakoVongola1 wrote:

you have to build your entire character around it to make it even somewhat effective.

No you don't.

You do. You have to use one of your 3 Legendary skills, pump points into an otherwise weak stat, and find magic items to boost your Intimidation even further to even have a chance to use this well.

All for a 25% chance to kill something you were gonna kill in two hits anyway.

[WatersLethe]

pixierose wrote:

when it comes to gladiators, I feel like if you are agreeing to gladiator fights there is some aknowledgement of the crowd or at least some kind of honor code you are interacting with the fellow challenger, that you wouldn't try and one shot.

Yeah, Gladiators are showmen, and popular ones rarely died. If they did, the people making money off of them would be *pissed*.

So besides the fact that only some kind of deity would have level 15 anything fight for their amusement, going for a quick kill is already never going to happen just from a baseline assumption about how gladiatorial combat works.

The idea that Scare to Death is a problem because it would make 1v1 combat unamusing is not a productive argument. Lots of things would make 1v1 combat unamusing.

But what IS amusing is the hypothetical gladiator targeted by Scare to Death having a Black Pearl Aeon Stone which reflects the Scare to Death causing both gladiators to die instantly after the first action.

Edit: Also, if going into a fight to the death, I feel like a Bravo's Brew might be on the table. And if going up against someone known to be scary, I'd buy an Iron Medallion, no question.

[Alchemic_Genius]

I'm honestly not sure I really care that much about level -1 or more enemies dying fast. Scare to Death is an incapacitation effect, and it requires you to reach legendary in a skill that is basically only good for scaring people.

Like, it's powerful for sure, but at level 15, the power scale of the game is practically to the point where the PCs are demigods. Killing something that's weaker than if you roll REALLY good, and they roll pretty low isn't a bad thing imo.

[Sapient]

STD has been fine in our game. I think between 15th and 18th level, it has killed 3 or 4 creatures that were not really that big of a threat anyway. Balfeful Polymorph has done more. The Rogue that has STD now can just walk through walls, and I kind of love the idea of an enemy anticipating the arrival of a party of demigod-like adventurers, suddenly a voice emerging from the wall behind them proclaiming their doom.

[Cyouni]

Zapp wrote:

The fact remains the effects of Scare to Death is in some ways better and cheaper than even a level 9 spell.

Something is clearly wrong.

Oh wow, you're right.

Just like every other legendary skill feat if you look at it in a certain cherrypicked way.

I mean, Divine Guidance can't even be duplicated with a spell, and it's usable infinitely. Legendary Medic is like having 9th level Remove Disease/Restore Senses, but you can have a better bonus and it's also applicable to other things too - it can even fix artifact-level effects!

[DrakoVongola1]

It's almost like a set of skills you build your entire character around are purposefully more powerful in certain situations than a spell every fullcaster gets by default.

[Djinn71]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Scare to Death is an incapacitation effect, and it requires you to reach legendary in a skill that is basically only good for scaring people.

Scaring people can be pretty versatile. Honestly Quick Coercion + Group Coercion is way more gamebreaking than Scare to Death is, and they come online way earlier. If you get a single round to speak before combat you can tell a whole room full of enemies (up to 25 at Legendary Intimidation) to get lost, no Incapacitation tag. Talk about a skill action that's better than a spell.

I had a character in Extinction Curse that I'm glad crit failed against Phantasmal Killer because he was starting to cause problems as a Ruffian rogue focused on Intimidation.

He was able to potentially bypass any encounters where the enemies were written to attempt to threaten/converse with the PCs before combat begins (which is a decent number of them).

[Captain Morgan]

Djinn71 wrote:

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Scare to Death is an incapacitation effect, and it requires you to reach legendary in a skill that is basically only good for scaring people.

Scaring people can be pretty versatile. Honestly Quick Coercion + Group Coercion is way more gamebreaking than Scare to Death is, and they come online way earlier. If you get a single round to speak before combat you can tell a whole room full of enemies (up to 25 at Legendary Intimidation) to get lost, no Incapacitation tag. Talk about a skill action that's better than a spell.

I had a character in Extinction Curse that I'm glad crit failed against Phantasmal Killer because he was starting to cause problems as a Ruffian rogue focused on Intimidation.

He was able to potentially bypass any encounters where the enemies were written to attempt to threaten/converse with the PCs before combat begins (which is a decent number of them).

Mix in some disguises to buy time and that can work pretty dang well.

[Deriven Firelion]

WatersLethe wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

So you didn't find it anti-climactic for the Hellknight to be yelling some intimidating words at someone and killing them outright

This is why people are coming to the conclusion that this is a personal problem for you, rather than a problem with the feat.

"yelling some intimidating words" is a failure on your part to describe what a Legendary intimidation skills feat is and what it means in world.

Start from a group of NPCs in a tavern whispering about a legendary warrior who the bards say can kill his foes with a look and a word. A person so terrifying you would do well to never cross them or they could stop your heart without lifting a finger. Extrapolate from there what that would actually look like, and describe it appropriately.

It's not merely some schmuck saying something random and their enemies dropping cartoonishly. It's a person who has trained in intimidation to such an extent that they know how to bring to bear their force of will to exert nearly unimaginable mental pressure, using only their demeanor and their voice.

If you can't make it narratively satisfying to your table, then you should consider banning it in the same way that some tables ban guns. It's just not your thing.

What you describe is very cool.

What happens in the game is any character who spends the feats and skills cartoonishly dropping someone by shouting some words at them. Literally, due to the effectiveness of this feat, it is very likely so common that any lvl 16 plus character in the world with a decent charisma has this feat.

So the fighter you described is far less likely to have this.

Instead it would be every Bard, Cleric, Paladin, and charisma-based class.

You could in fact take that scary fighter and he would get scared to death by the dandy looking bard who can tell a joke so scary it can kill most hardened warriors.

Really, picture it in your head. A group of frost giants in there longhouse preparing for battle. Some bard or sorcerer shows up and instead of using his spells, he shouts some scary words at them and they start dying 2 per round with the 3rd action being for movement.

How does that look in your mind's eye?

The hardened warrior with his greatsword swings and does maybe half the frost giant's hit points. While the mandolin playing bard is taking down two a round at range.

[Deriven Firelion]

Qaianna wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

A lot of math, look those charts over, but basically he said ' I think that Scare to Death is a very powerful skill feat, no doubt, but I strongly doubt that it's ever optimal in a way that would require playstyles to form around it.

Again, really good. Legendary good, but I think it's just another tool in the kit.'

Interesting, and pretty likely. And from an RP view, if your barbarian has used those two earlier actions to chop up one or two enemies, scaring to death may be a feasible thing. 'Oh dear Lamashtu, that gnome just ATE Grognar the Invincible to death! Hold it together hold it together OH NO SHE'S LOOKING AT ME OH NO OH *urk* *thud*'

The comedic aspect of Scare to Death I do like. A gnome or halfling scaring someone to death with a look and some words is comedy gold.

[Deriven Firelion]

Cyouni wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

From a DM perspective using this in place of your martial attacks each round because it is more efficient at killing your enemies is anti-climactic. It's pretty easy to build and coordinate for. This idea of a charisma based character shouting some intimidating words more powerful than a power word kill or finger of death is pretty lame with unlimited use is pretty lame.

As someone who ran Hell's Rebels in 2e from 15-17 with a Hellknight who took it at 15, I didn't find it that much of an issue. The player threw it down every time he thought he had a chance, and though it killed a decent number of things, he still was definitely a martial character over a Scare-to-Death character.

So you didn't find it anti-climactic for the Hellknight to be yelling some intimidating words at someone and killing them outright while your casters are unloading spells and the martials are swinging their sword and doing less against these same minions?

Doing less? Hardly. It wasn't terribly common to hit the crits he needed to actually trigger it. Also it's only useful against living things your level or lower, which was a large limiting factor. Those things that were tended to be devils, which - surprise - usually have Fort or Will as their strongest save.

Not to mention you're saying "some intimidating words" as though it's not in the same class as:
- convincing someone you've been in their lives all along (Reveal Machinations)
- dropping from orbit and landing without any issue (Cat Fall)
- casually relax without any food or water in temperatures colder than the Arctic (Legendary Survivalist)
- move so slowly that you're invisible to the eye (Legendary Sneak)
- operate on someone to cure cancer in an hour (Legendary Medic)
- be able to completely impersonate someone in 6 seconds (Quick Disguise)
- wriggle through a tunnel barely large enough for your head as fast as people can run (Quick Squeeze)

These are the...

True enough. Those are legendary abilities. They look very cool in the mind's eye. Scare to Death ends the fight unlike those other feats and looks stupid doing it.

I'm sorry. When the party paladin was having greater success with Scare to Death than her sword, it didn't look great. It pretty much short-circuited the fight in a way none of those other abilities would.

I feel like it needs something like one successful use per 10 minutes or something to make it seem unique. Not just a random eye beam death ray-like ability used at will that can clear minions better than a martial with a weapon.

[Captain Morgan]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

So you didn't find it anti-climactic for the Hellknight to be yelling some intimidating words at someone and killing them outright

This is why people are coming to the conclusion that this is a personal problem for you, rather than a problem with the feat.

"yelling some intimidating words" is a failure on your part to describe what a Legendary intimidation skills feat is and what it means in world.

Start from a group of NPCs in a tavern whispering about a legendary warrior who the bards say can kill his foes with a look and a word. A person so terrifying you would do well to never cross them or they could stop your heart without lifting a finger. Extrapolate from there what that would actually look like, and describe it appropriately.

It's not merely some schmuck saying something random and their enemies dropping cartoonishly. It's a person who has trained in intimidation to such an extent that they know how to bring to bear their force of will to exert nearly unimaginable mental pressure, using only their demeanor and their voice.

If you can't make it narratively satisfying to your table, then you should consider banning it in the same way that some tables ban guns. It's just not your thing.

What you describe is very cool.

What happens in the game is any character who spends the feats and skills cartoonishly dropping someone by shouting some words at them. Literally, due to the effectiveness of this feat, it is very likely so common that any lvl 16 plus character in the world with a decent charisma has this feat.

So the fighter you described is far less likely to have this.

Instead it would be every Bard, Cleric, Paladin, and charisma-based class.

You could in fact take that scary fighter and he would get scared to death by the dandy looking bard who can tell a joke so scary it can kill most hardened warriors.

Really, picture it in your head. A group of frost giants in there longhouse preparing for...

PC build options do not define the world. PCs are unique. And option being common for them doesn't mean it is common for NPCs who happen to have similar stats.

[Deriven Firelion]

SuperBidi wrote:

I made a little bit of calculation. Considering a character with 20 Charisma and a +2 Item bonus to Intimidation (it seems to me like the best setup for a level 16 martial) chances to kill a monster you speak the language are:

Level 16: between 6% and 12% chances
Level 15: between 11.5% and 21% chances
Level 14: between 18.75% and 26.25% chances
Level 13: between 25.5% and 38.25% chances

Unless your DM gave you access to Tongues, chances are high that you won't speak the creature's language. In that case, chances are as follow:
Level 16: between 3% and 5% chances
Level 15: between 3.5% and 7% chances
Level 14: between 3.75% and 11.25% chances
Level 13: between 8.5% and 21.25% chances

Considering monsters with Moderate Will and Fortitude, High Will and Moderate Fortitude or Moderate Will and High Fortitude. I've not calculated for Extreme and Low values as both are supposed to be quite uncommon.

You are calculating using the following rules:

+30 intimidation check against a will save.

DC 40 Fortitude save if the critical success succeeds. 10+Skill Modifier for the DC.

At lvl 16 you will be fighting groups of likely 14 or 13 level minions with something stronger.

Let's say you are fighting a group of lvl 14 Frost Giant warriors.

Fort: +28 Will: +24

So DC 34 Intimidate check. You have to roll a 14 or better giving you a 35% chance not using a lvl 6 heroism to get a Critical Success.

If you succeed, they have to roll a DC 40 Fort save. That is a 12 or better or they die. So a 55% chance of failure.

There are all kinds of supporting muscle type minions of this kind. Toss in a bard using a Dirge of Doom and putting a heroism 6th level on the Scare to Death guy and you shift those numbers to 50% chance of success and 70% chance of failure.

It's real common for a equal level or higher creature to be supported by Level-2 or -3 muscle. This seems like a formidable encounter, until the paladin takes out multiple muscle minions with single actions.

[Qaianna]

Don't forget the thirty-foot restriction on Scare to Death. Yes, a solid defence against it is ten yards. Intimidation is a big thing but are all these minions just sitting around?

I'm imagining a hero breaking in on a massive 80x80 room, with Large monsters. Against the back wall are the boss, a heavy hitter, four agile fighters of lower level, maybe two tanks on the flanks. In front in a row, eight cannon-fodder sorts. The party starts all the way on the other side.

How will Scare to Death fare in this battle?

(Yes. This is a chess set you're fighting.)

[Ruzza]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Let's say you are fighting a group of lvl 14 Frost Giant warriors.

Fort: +28 Will: +24

So DC 34 Intimidate check. You have to roll a 14 or better giving you a 35% chance not using a lvl 6 heroism to get a Critical Success.

If you succeed, they have to roll a DC 40 Fort save. That is a 12 or better or they die. So a 55% chance of failure.

Discounting range, with a 35% chance of a critical success and a 55% chance of failure, you have a 19.25% chance of successfully killing them outright with your action. If you don't manage to do so, it's not like you can retry. It seems like... yes? Like that's totally okay and acceptable.

EDIT: Not to mention, tactically, it seems like a bad course of action for the champion to spend his opening rounds trying to kill an opponent with an 80% chance a failure. That seems like it's leaving room for the giants to get the leg up on the party.

[Hbitte]

Unicore wrote:

Zapp, I am very interested to find out when your attitude about incapacitation effects changed from hating them enough to label abilities and spells that had the tag enough to label them completely useless

Probably in the fact that it uses finite resources and two actions. you are comparing it to a spell but, in fact, you should compare it against raising the shield, demoralizing the opponent or walking.

YES is a legendary skill, but unlike others you can use all rounds, multiple times, like walking, different from spells.

[Ruzza]

Don't forget that the enemy becomes immune to your Scare to Death once you use it on them. That does take it from "you can use it always," to "you can use it once per combat per enemy that is your level or lower." That's much more limited than walking.

EDIT: A more apt comparison, fittingly, would be against Demoralize which you can use whenever, but also has immunity strings attached. Scare to Death just has a much more impressive critical success and the incapacition limiter.

[Hbitte]

Yes, I can already imagine a paladin who only uses the sword as a last resort, literally.

[Qaianna]

Hbitte wrote:

Yes, I can already imagine a paladin who only uses the sword as a last resort, literally.

So can I. In fact, I can see Scare to Death in that light as less-lethal munitions. And slightly more merciful, if you think a sudden heart attack or brain shock is less painful than getting hacked a bunch with a sharp object. And if they just run away instead? Then no bloodshed, yay!

[SuperBidi]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

I made a little bit of calculation. Considering a character with 20 Charisma and a +2 Item bonus to Intimidation (it seems to me like the best setup for a level 16 martial) chances to kill a monster you speak the language are:

Level 16: between 6% and 12% chances
Level 15: between 11.5% and 21% chances
Level 14: between 18.75% and 26.25% chances
Level 13: between 25.5% and 38.25% chances

Unless your DM gave you access to Tongues, chances are high that you won't speak the creature's language. In that case, chances are as follow:
Level 16: between 3% and 5% chances
Level 15: between 3.5% and 7% chances
Level 14: between 3.75% and 11.25% chances
Level 13: between 8.5% and 21.25% chances

Considering monsters with Moderate Will and Fortitude, High Will and Moderate Fortitude or Moderate Will and High Fortitude. I've not calculated for Extreme and Low values as both are supposed to be quite uncommon.

You are calculating using the following rules:

+30 intimidation check against a will save.

DC 40 Fortitude save if the critical success succeeds. 10+Skill Modifier for the DC.

At lvl 16 you will be fighting groups of likely 14 or 13 level minions with something stronger.

Let's say you are fighting a group of lvl 14 Frost Giant warriors.

Fort: +28 Will: +24

So DC 34 Intimidate check. You have to roll a 14 or better giving you a 35% chance not using a lvl 6 heroism to get a Critical Success.

If you succeed, they have to roll a DC 40 Fort save. That is a 12 or better or they die. So a 55% chance of failure.

There are all kinds of supporting muscle type minions of this kind. Toss in a bard using a Dirge of Doom and putting a heroism 6th level on the Scare to Death guy and you shift those numbers to 50% chance of success and 70% chance of failure.

It's real common for a equal level or higher creature to be supported by Level-2 or -3 muscle. This seems like a formidable encounter, until the paladin takes out multiple muscle minions with...

Yes, exactly what I said, between 18.75% and 26.25% chances for a level 14 monster. It's not that your paladin will outright kill anything. You need 5 Giants and 2 rounds for your Paladin to kill one (which is certainly very close to what he should be able to do with his sword).

And if you start adding Dirge of Doom, you increase slightly the chances of success but you also drastically reduce the failure effects. And if you add Heroism, you spend now 2 extra actions and a high level spell slot to be able to increase (nicely) the chances of success.

Scare to Death is really strong. Clearly on the overpowered side of things. But it's not trivializing fights at all. It's not writing another story unless your character is really lucky.
And if you start pumping buffs, debuffs and aid another, you'll end up with a pretty strong group tactic but not better than normal fighting. So it's a matter of choice.

From my memories, you were badly playing Scare to Death with your paladin in the beginning (adding the benefits of feats affecting Demoralize). And I'm pretty sure that's why it has been so strong, as a +2 to your check really increase the chances of success to crazy levels.

[The Raven Black]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

True enough. Those are legendary abilities. They look very cool in the mind's eye. Scare to Death ends the fight unlike those other feats and looks stupid doing it.

That is your take on it. As we have seen other people do not find it that ridiculous. And most of all, it does not make the feat broken in any way or shape.

Come to think of it, I believe we can find visuals for the other Legendary skill feats that can look pretty stupid too. Like Catfall always having you fall on your bottom, and maybe bounce a little up and down repeatedly before settling on the floor.

All as part of the visuals of course.

[Ruzza]

If we're talking about visualizing feats and actions and that being difficult, I would like to point at Implausible Infiltration.

"Did that halfling just fall out of the ceiling? How did- Oh, god he's got knives."

[Unicore]

To really bring things back around to the subject of the Original post, all of this seems to boil down to a debate as to whether spells or skill feats are supposed to be the more powerful way of accomplishing a task.

The developers clearly feel that legendary skill feats should outpace spells, as most of the legendary skill feats accomplish something that spells do less effectively, and only in very specific and usually time sensitive methods (like feather fall exists as a first level spell, same as fear is a first level spell, but both catfall and Scare to Death are more powerful than either with legendary skill training).

The advantage of spells is that you don't have to memorize or cast those specific ones in the encounters or situations where they are not that useful to you, and your character can still focus in on having a legendary skill or three with the commensurate power, if there is a specific set of actions that feel worth being that focused on.

Also, while Scare to death is not evil, it is murder anytime you use it outside of self defense or in accordance with the law. The ability to commit murder at any time, up to 30ft away without a weapon is going to place a lot of scrutiny on you in areas where you have been seen to use this power. Many people will assume it is dark magic, or in the case of a paladin, perhaps divine will, but it will definitely get talked about as a legendary and impossible thing that you just did.

In that regard, in world, people would see the use of legendary skill feats as something even more rare than most magic, which an average character might be expected to see occasionally in their lifetime, depending upon where they live.

In that regard, I don't really see Scare to death as existing outside of what is possible with other legendary skill feats or any more gamebreaking than what skill feats are supposed to be at the highest levels of the game. It doesn't seem like some gross miscalculation on power balance was made with this feat. The ability to occasionally surpass spells with skills and feats was a deliberate choice of the system that is completely contrary to the balance between spells and skills in first edition. Skills in PF2 are important and not to be made irrelevant by spells, not even at the highest levels of the game.

[Fumarole]

Ruzza wrote:

If we're talking about visualizing feats and actions and that being difficult, I would like to point at Implausible Infiltration.

"Did that halfling just fall out of the ceiling? How did- Oh, god he's got knives."

Indeed, that's a great feat. I can totally see one of my players taking it. Many of these high-level feats are totally over the top in a fun way. It's almost as if we're all playing a fantasy game, which some people seem to forget occasionally.

[Ruzza]

Unicore wrote:

The developers clearly feel that legendary skill feats should outpace spells, as most of the legendary skill feats accomplish something that spells do less effectively, and only in very specific and usually time sensitive methods (like feather fall exists as a first level spell, same as fear is a first level spell, but both catfall and Scare to Death are more powerful than either with legendary skill training).

I disagree with this so strongly. I don't think that developers are trying to make legendary skill feats outpacing spells, but rather giving characters that dedicate themselves towards those skills options that you don't need magic for.

Again, fear isn't comparable to Scare to Death, especially given that its role in combat is mainly debuffing higher level enemies given that even if the enemies saves it gets frightened. At no point is it being used to out and out remove a singular lower-level enemy. While I agree that skills are much more focused and provide direct solutions to specific problems, I don't feel like this outpaces spells in any way. A wizard doesn't stop casting phantasmal killer, fear, weird, finger of death, or any other spells just because someone in their party has an unreliable (as we've shown numerous times through math, a 75% - 80% chance of failure is not something I'd call reliable) single-target, incapacitate death skill. They all have very different purposes and are applied in wildly different circumstances.

[whew]

The Raven Black wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

True enough. Those are legendary abilities. They look very cool in the mind's eye. Scare to Death ends the fight unlike those other feats and looks stupid doing it.

That is your take on it. As we have seen other people do not find it that ridiculous. And most of all, it does not make the feat broken in any way or shape.

Come to think of it, I believe we can find visuals for the other Legendary skill feats that can look pretty stupid too. Like Catfall always having you fall on your bottom, and maybe bounce a little up and down repeatedly before settling on the floor.

All as part of the visuals of course.

Yes, a player who insists on using the worst possible flavor can ruin any game.

[Demonknight]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

The comedic aspect of Scare to Death I do like. A gnome or halfling scaring someone to death with a look and some words is comedy gold.

The Goblin Rogue in the campaign of Age Of Ashes i am Gming uses a Kilt and when he uses Scare to Death he lifts it...

[GM Tomppa]

I think the issue is that Scare to Death is Cheap to Use, and can be used All the Time, because combat and violence and killing enemies is so commonplace.

It's true that other legendary feats may provide effects of similar magnitude, such as an orbital drop without scratches, but the difference is... How often do you really drop from a great height?
It's just not similarly spammable or applicable as often.
Likewise, you can produce similar effects with spells... But not all day long.
And I feel the "I can keep killing people with my gaze all day long" really cheapens the feat. It's probably dramatic the first time the paladin uses it to scare some filthy slaver to death with appropriate roleplaying and atmosphere, but if it becomes a routine where the "Goblin looks around the battle field and shouts! 'I'll KILL YOU! And YOU! And YOU!'" "Okay, two of the three are now dead.", that's anticlimatic.

I'm fine with the power of it's use... Kinda. I'm not happy with how it easily becomes a routine. I'd slap a limit on it - maybe once or thrice per day, or once per hour max 1 successful use per day, personally.
Alternatively, tell the paladin that it has 1 charge, and that recharges every time everybody else in the party has had a legitimate, not-self-created-use for their legendary feats.

I mean, compare it to legendary survivalist. Yeah, I'm sure that'll come up often in a campaign, and certainly in ways which you couldn't handle with a couple low level spells or items anyway.

[Captain Morgan]

GM Tomppa wrote:

I think the issue is that Scare to Death is Cheap to Use, and can be used All the Time, because combat and violence and killing enemies is so commonplace.

It's true that other legendary feats may provide effects of similar magnitude, such as an orbital drop without scratches, but the difference is... How often do you really drop from a great height?
It's just not similarly spammable or applicable as often.
Likewise, you can produce similar effects with spells... But not all day long.
And I feel the "I can keep killing people with my gaze all day long" really cheapens the feat. It's probably dramatic the first time the paladin uses it to scare some filthy slaver to death with appropriate roleplaying and atmosphere, but if it becomes a routine where the "Goblin looks around the battle field and shouts! 'I'll KILL YOU! And YOU! And YOU!'" "Okay, two of the three are now dead.", that's anticlimatic.

I'm fine with the power of it's use... Kinda. I'm not happy with how it easily becomes a routine. I'd slap a limit on it - maybe once or thrice per day, or once per hour max 1 successful use per day, personally.
Alternatively, tell the paladin that it has 1 charge, and that recharges every time everybody else in the party has had a legitimate, not-self-created-use for their legendary feats.

I mean, compare it to legendary survivalist. Yeah, I'm sure that'll come up often in a campaign, and certainly in ways which you couldn't handle with a couple low level spells or items anyway.

See, I think Legendary Survivalist is an underpowered feat. My own house rule is that you don't need to rest anymore, at least unless you want to recover spell slots.

You are right that Scared to Death can technically be used all the time, but in practice I think it probably won't be. The limitations on it are such that even just standard encounter variance is going to stop it from always being the right answer. And "all day long" isn't really applicable when the party is tied down to other limited resources like hit points. In practice, the only encounters it annihilates are ones that would be speed bumps. One of my players wiped out 3 level-2 enemies with it once. It ended the encounter in a round, but so what? The rest of the party would have killed them that round anyway.

Even in the fights that is referenced in the opening post, where the lower level enemies are back up for a boss... A single level appropriate spell would dispose of them much more efficiently and potentially hurt the boss as well.

[WatersLethe]

Table variance is definitely in play. For example, my current game is a 1 or 2 fight per 8 hour session game. When they get to higher levels, I could easily see Scare to Death being less broadly applicable than the diplomacy feats.

At the risk of moving the thread to homebrew, I have a few ideas that could help up the drama and reduce the power of Scare to Death for people who are finding it unsatisfying for their games.

1. Unlock Scare to Death by burning your initial Hero Point. You're so bad-ass you don't need the security blanket.

2. Limit it to once per encounter unless your first one succeeds, then it can combo until someone succeeds. Scare one guy to death, the others might follow suit. Try and fail one one guy, the others aren't likely going to be impressed either.

3. Give it the Flourish trait. It's very hard to perform three separate ghastly threats in rapid succession.

4. Give it uses per day equal to your Charisma modifier

5. Limit it to one at-level, two level-minus-one, and three level-minus-two kills per day. Anything lower is unlimited.

6. Lower the chance of success, but make it an AOE effect, then limit it to once per day. One big display of scariness may feel better than a bunch of smaller ones.

[The Raven Black]

GM Tomppa wrote:

I think the issue is that Scare to Death is Cheap to Use, and can be used All the Time, because combat and violence and killing enemies is so commonplace.

It's true that other legendary feats may provide effects of similar magnitude, such as an orbital drop without scratches, but the difference is... How often do you really drop from a great height?
It's just not similarly spammable or applicable as often.
Likewise, you can produce similar effects with spells... But not all day long.
And I feel the "I can keep killing people with my gaze all day long" really cheapens the feat. It's probably dramatic the first time the paladin uses it to scare some filthy slaver to death with appropriate roleplaying and atmosphere, but if it becomes a routine where the "Goblin looks around the battle field and shouts! 'I'll KILL YOU! And YOU! And YOU!'" "Okay, two of the three are now dead.", that's anticlimatic.

I'm fine with the power of it's use... Kinda. I'm not happy with how it easily becomes a routine. I'd slap a limit on it - maybe once or thrice per day, or once per hour max 1 successful use per day, personally.
Alternatively, tell the paladin that it has 1 charge, and that recharges every time everybody else in the party has had a legitimate, not-self-created-use for their legendary feats.

I mean, compare it to legendary survivalist. Yeah, I'm sure that'll come up often in a campaign, and certainly in ways which you couldn't handle with a couple low level spells or items anyway.

I feel that attacks from any level 15 martial and cantrips from any level 15 caster will easily wreck devastation on par with Scare to death in such encounters as you mention.

Yet no one seems to find those inappropriate.

Which is why I believe it is truly a matter of disagreeing with the flavor / visuals and not about the feat being truly beyond the pale.

[Oakblade]

ArchSage20 wrote:

wait does that mean a character with that feat could kill entire armies of low level characters without even fighting wow

A young man went up the mountain to train in the art of the sword with a sensei. But the sensei refused to train him, for he saw the man's heart was bent on vengeance.

"How can I prove my worth to you as a student?" the young man asked.

"See this rock?" the sensei nodded at a boulder.

"Yes?"

"Break it with your sword."

"That's not possible! This thing is huge, the best I could do is dull the blade!"

"The best warrior is like this rock. He doesn't need to draw his sword to win the fight. Be like this rock, and you won't need what I teach."

[Sara Marie]

Thanks for participating in the discussion, I think we're going to wrap this one up.