Frightening Injection - Why?


General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thematically I like this but mechanically(Paizo you always do good work but also botch at the end like this).

Frightening Injection - When you successfully inject a creature with a substance (including a biohacker’s biohack) using a weapon that has the injection special property, you can attempt an Intimidate check to demoralize that creature as a move action before the end of your turn. A creature can be affected by this ability only once per day.

It's nice, it's cool, it fits with 'mad space doctor' vibe.

Why would you ever take this.

1) Biohacker has no need for CHA and thus would have a lower Intimidate score than someone else.
2) It works with Injection weapons only, thus limiting it's usefulness to other classes as they can operate better weaponry.
3) A once per day per target restriction. Meaning you have to move on to the next target if you fail or vs a solo target, it's a dead feat.
4) Demoralize is range 30, and the feat doesn't at least as RaW remove that. So you're more than likely having to stay up close to a target rather than using a rifle to stay safer.
5) And all of the above could be debated and argued over if it's a good skill or not; if Improved Demoralize didn't exist.

I love little fun feats like this that really help flesh a character out, but it's truly TRULY hard to argue taking it when Improved Demoralize does the job but better without having to make an attack roll and be limited to once per day per target.

Paizo has a history of making really good thematic feats but then just making them garbage. Why does this feat exist?


Improved Demoralize certainly devalues this feat. But based on the wording of frightening injection, and how limited it is otherwise, I would say it does allow you to ignore the range requirement of demoralize since it specifies that creature. But I can also see the argument that it doesn't. If it doesn't remove the requirement then it's a pretty bad feat, especially given improved demoralize existing and being just all around better.


According to google, Improved Demoralize originated in an AP (Signal of Screams, Heart of Night). Has it made it into any actual books?

If not, I can see the writers of the COM not considering AP feats when balancing frightening injection. Don’t know how many GMs allow feats from APs nowadays (you can find the full wording online easily enough so don’t have to own it), but it could be a factor if you have a “books only” type GM.


Alangriffith wrote:

According to google, Improved Demoralize originated in an AP (Signal of Screams, Heart of Night). Has it made it into any actual books?

If not, I can see the writers of the COM not considering AP feats when balancing frightening injection. Don’t know how many GMs allow feats from APs nowadays (you can find the full wording online easily enough so don’t have to own it), but it could be a factor if you have a “books only” type GM.

In my online play experience, people just seem to pick and play with anything they find online with the expectation that it's in the rules, so it must be selectable.

That's a whole other discussion that leads inevitability to Blood Money though.


Most GMs that homebrew material, in my experience, either state everything that's within the bounds, or state the online sources that are valid. That said, I've always played at tables that allow all paizo material.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe it should have let the biohacker use their int bonus on the check. Because being injected with 20 ccs of dihydrogenmonoxide certainly SOUNDS dangerous.

Dataphiles

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Maybe it should have let the biohacker use their int bonus on the check. Because being injected with 20 ccs of dihydrogenmonoxide certainly SOUNDS dangerous.

LOL deadly stuff...to hang overs.

Community / Forums / Starfinder / Starfinder General Discussion / Frightening Injection - Why? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.