Intimidating Prowess vs. Intimidating Glare

[Prethen]

I've taken Intimidating Glare and now that I see I will be able to take the Intimidating Prowess feat, I have to wonder why would I NOT want to train out of the Intimidating Glare feat for something else? It looks like Intimidating Prowess basically overrides the need for the the Glare feat...right? In what circumstances if I'm in battle that I would NOT be able to use physical intimidation? Unless physical intimidation is only meant for when you're in physical contact with an opponent.

[Kyrone]

I usually rule that for Intimidating Prowess you need to be able to physically threat the opponent, so adjacent to it.

[Prethen]

However, that's not RAW. In fact, neither have a range.

[Bongo BigBounce]

The Demoralize action under Intimidation has a range of 30 feet.

[Ascalaphus]

I think intimidating prowess is a bit stronger, but also a lot narrower in application. You have to meet the prerequisites and actually be in a position to make physical threats. Intimidating glare is much better for the sorcerer staring daggers at a foreign guest at a dinner party social skill encounter.

[Prethen]

I get the feeling I need to retrain my way out of Glare and just take on Prowess. I'm guessing there are very limited circumstances where it will not be advantageous to just have Prowess as a melee type.

[Martialmasters]

Why not get both eventually?

[Prethen]

Seems like a waste of a feat when one basically overrides the other, almost completely. I could take on another skill feat that would be much more useful.

[Deadmanwalking]

In addition to the 'can't always physically threaten' factor, Intimidating Glare also removes auditory and adds visual, so if you have both you can choose which of those traits applies.

With Intimidating Prowess alone you're stuck with Auditory, which is occasionally relevant.

[lemeres]

Prethen wrote:

Seems like a waste of a feat when one basically overrides the other, almost completely. I could take on another skill feat that would be much more useful.

I usually grab intimidating glare through a background when it comes up. So, switching to another strength friendly background... seems like more trouble than it is worth.

If I grabbed warrior, then I would likely end up losing warfare lore. Not sure if I ended up using it, but it feels silly to lose knowledge that I had.

Martial disciple might work, but i am not interested enough in quick jump or cat fall to do a retraining.

And if I am playing a barbarian, it isn't really a choice at all. You get intimidating glare as an automatic bonus to the feat that turns intimidation on in the first place (and that feat also give automatic scared to death...).

[Prethen]

If I can't physically threaten, then it might be moot for me to trying to intimidate anyway. Most creatures will be able to hear...and, yes, occasionally that might be an issue but not very frequently. So far it seems there's no compelling reason to keep Glare.

[Deadmanwalking]

Prethen wrote:

If I can't physically threaten, then it might be moot for me to trying to intimidate anyway. Most creatures will be able to hear...and, yes, occasionally that might be an issue but not very frequently. So far it seems there's no compelling reason to keep Glare.

Not being able to 'physically menace' a target is a GM call on when it applies, so this will depend a lot on your GM.

My own inclination would be that if you can't visibly and believably attack them in melee you can't do it...so no using it on flying enemies or enemies across a chasm unless you're flying, no using it when you're locked in a cell, and so on.

In my games it's not a debilitating restriction, but it is a real one.

[Prethen]

Deadmanwalking, I think what you said makes sense. I get that I couldn't use it all the time. I just think that in the majority of useful circumstances it will be fine to have that feat alone based on how I read it and what I'm seeing from others.

[Deadmanwalking]

Prethen wrote:

Deadmanwalking, I think what you said makes sense. I get that I couldn't use it all the time. I just think that in the majority of useful circumstances it will be fine to have that feat alone based on how I read it and what I'm seeing from others.

Oh, probably. Intimidating Prowess is a better Feat, as befits its higher prerequisites.

The question is whether another base level Skill Feat will be useful enough to warrant retraining when there are still some niche uses for Intimidating Glare. The answer may be 'Yes', but it's still a good question to ask.

[Prethen]

Retraining at lower levels seems to make sense since it's pretty cheap with just some missing downtime. I think Battle Medicine is calling my name!

[Martialmasters]

I always pick up both when I make an intimidation character as I hate having my shtick negated due to niche scenarios.

[Deriven Firelion]

Doesn't glare remove the language issue? So you won't have to worry about language and take the penalty? Makes it easier to use against animals and the like?

[HammerJack]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Doesn't glare remove the language issue? So you won't have to worry about language and take the penalty? Makes it easier to use against animals and the like?

They both do that.

[Deriven Firelion]

HammerJack wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Doesn't glare remove the language issue? So you won't have to worry about language and take the penalty? Makes it easier to use against animals and the like?

They both do that.

So does Intimidating Prowess remove the auditory trait?

[HammerJack]

Nope.

[Hilltrot]

Intimidation does not always involve physical threats. Intimidating prowess must involve physical menacing.

In most cases outside of combat, coercion cannot involve physical menacing as that would be evil and also bring the law down on you. RAW

[Ravingdork]

In what possible situation can you not physically threaten someone???

Even in the aforementioned dinner party scenario, you pick up a sturdy walnut, show it to your target, then crush it between your thumb and index finger like it was nothing.

Physical threat delivered.

The only one I can think of is if you are completely bound and helpless, or paralyzed. Intimidating Glare would be great if your a mental patient strapped to a bed, whereas Intimidating Prowess would not.

EDIT: I take that back. Making it look like you're about to burst the straps by flexing your bulk could be construed as physically intimidating.

[graystone]

I can sense some unholy necromancy from his thread... Was there a reason to drag it from its grave?

[YuriP]

Taking advantage of the resurrection of the topic to compile all things mechanically togheter and clearer:

Default Demoralize: If the target does not understand the language you are speaking, or you're not speaking a language, you take a –4 circumstance penalty to the check.

Intimidating Glare Demoralize: loses the auditory trait and gains the visual trait, and you don’t take a penalty if the creature doesn’t understand your language. So you can use a visual Demoralize that works vs Deafened opponents but not for Blinded opponents and at same time don't have -4 circumstance penalty vs opponents that are unable to understand you. This feat also is a requirement to Terrifying Howl feat.

Intimidating Prowess: Prerequisites Strength 16; expert in Intimidation. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your Intimidation check or +2 when you have Strength 20 and you ignore the penalty for not sharing a language also work for Coerce action too.

Now notice some interesting differences. Even though it looks better Intimidating Prowess have a hard prerequisite for many builds. You need a good investment into Str what usually is unlikely for pure caster builds. Making the feat usually more useful for some Warpriest builds, Battle Oracles and some MC builds. Also it requires expert in Intimidation that means not only it's available only after level 2 but while you not choose to progress this skill you also cannot take this feat.
The other strange and interesting difference is that Intimidating Prowess still keep the default auditory trait so if your opponent is Deafened you cannot Demoralize it! Unless you use Intimidating Glare Demoralize with it.
The main idea here is that Intimidating Glare is more useful for Cha based characters to improve it's Demoralize capabilities and eventually reach Terrifying Howl while Intimidating Prowess is developed to allow non-focused Cha classes to compensate it's lower Cha. Yet can be used by Cha casters with some focus in martial abilities to have a more better chance to Demoralize too.

[Ravingdork]

graystone wrote:

I can sense some unholy necromancy from his thread... Was there a reason to drag it from its grave?

That's...odd. It came up in my queue as a new thread.

Perhaps someone brought it forth, then deleted their post shortly after I responded to it?

[Cordell Kintner]

Menace means to display a weapon in such a way to threaten or intimidate someone, so to Physically Menace someone that would be like putting a knife to their throat or something. You totally need to be within reach of the target to take advantage of the bonus.

In the end though, it's up to the GM what that really means.

Also on the necro, someone was probably searching for threads about this skill and didn't notice how long ago the original post was made.

[Grumpus]

Whatever happened to Deadmanwalking? They used to post all the time and were usually very smart about their ideas on the game.

[Blissey1]

I feel like everybody is assuming the char in question has to physical statue to "physically threaten" someone

your 8 str sorcerer/oracle is going to have good intimidation but probably isn't the most physically threatening individual

[Errenor]

Blissey1 wrote:

I feel like everybody is assuming the char in question has to physical statue to "physically threaten" someone

your 8 str sorcerer/oracle is going to have good intimidation but probably isn't the most physically threatening individual

I'm not sure what are you replying to and to whom, but Intimidating Prowess requires 16 Str.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=797

[Inspector Jee]

Grumpus wrote:

Whatever happened to Deadmanwalking?

This is my new favorite quote.

- Jee