Intimidating prowess range ?

[Kazumalice]

Hello

In situations where you can physically menace the target when you Coerce or Demoralize, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your Intimidation check and you ignore the penalty for not sharing a language. If your Strength score is 20 or higher and you are a master in Intimidation, this bonus increases to +2.

I want to know if "In situations where you can physically menace the target" this part mean to say "at reach" ?

[The Raven Black]

Kazumalice wrote:

Hello

In situations where you can physically menace the target when you Coerce or Demoralize, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your Intimidation check and you ignore the penalty for not sharing a language. If your Strength score is 20 or higher and you are a master in Intimidation, this bonus increases to +2.

I want to know if "In situations where you can physically menace the target" this part mean to say "at reach" ?

If it was only within reach, or within a given range, they would have written it directly.

[HumbleGamer]

Kazumalice wrote:

Hello

In situations where you can physically menace the target when you Coerce or Demoralize, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to your Intimidation check and you ignore the penalty for not sharing a language. If your Strength score is 20 or higher and you are a master in Intimidation, this bonus increases to +2.

I want to know if "In situations where you can physically menace the target" this part mean to say "at reach" ?

I share the feelings on this one, especially when it comes to battle cry and similar stuff ( not to say how difficult is to get even a +1 circ bonus on a specific skill, which mostly may come through ancestry feats ), but given how limited the description is, I'd simply go for the modifier and that's it.

We already have a a similar feat that a polymath bard can use to demoralize, so it's not a big deal now that there are different ways to get it.

Finally, a little consideration of mine, 20 STR to get the +2 is meant for combatants, which probably won't be able to greatly invest into charisma, since they'd probably go with STR/DEX/CONST/WIS as primary ones.

Even with entirely dropping DEX would result into a lower charisma if compared to a charisma spellcastaster, and either classes may easily result into the same bonus ( 18 char + 2 circ for the combatant vs 20 char +1 circ for the spellcaster ).

[Captain Morgan]

I'd say just about any combat situation should allow for physically menacing the target. Coercing a shop keeper into paying you protection money would also. But there are situations where it wouldn't apply, like high court.

[HumbleGamer]

Captain Morgan wrote:

But there are situations where it wouldn't apply, like high court.

*Giove slap*

"How dare You. I challenge you to a duel"

Even if... everybody is going to have intimidating glare, so it's not realistic to see somebody demoralize with a speech...

[Captain Morgan]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

But there are situations where it wouldn't apply, like high court.

*Giove slap*

"How dare You. I challenge you to a duel"

Even if... everybody is going to have intimidating glare, so it's not realistic to see somebody demoralize with a speech...

Even that doesn't really feel like physically menacing someone. The glove slap is pretty dainty and that's all that really sets it apart from a verbal threat.

[The Raven Black]

It does not work if you're a prisoner I think.

[BloodandDust]

1) Demoralize specifies "a creature within 30 feet"
2) Coerce requires conversation which is more like 10 feet IMO. 20' for a loud conversation and 30' for yelling.

Intimidating Glare and Intimidating Prowess specify Demoralize, so 30' range RAW.

Given circumstances you could argue for longer range; e.g. you at the top of a hill with an army, plus some shouting and shield clashing might be good for a group demoralize at some distance. Alternately I might let you make an Intimidating Prowess impact with a showy weapon display: swinging a big hammer about if you play a big barbarian, an arrow fired at the enemy's feet if you are a deadly elf ranger, that sort of thing...either of which could Demoralize a distant enemy in the right context.

In general though: 30' or less.

[Lightning Raven]

The interpretation at my table is while in combat Intimidating Prowess only works within the Character's reach.

[Baarogue]

I interpret this as more of a visual limitation than a range one, which I agree should be no different than normal. If they can't see you, then they can't see you draw your thumb across your throat, or flex your guns, or crack your knuckles, or whatever you do to "physically menace" them

[Squiggit]

Lightning Raven wrote:

The interpretation at my table is while in combat Intimidating Prowess only works within the Character's reach.

That seems kind of punitive to me.

[Lightning Raven]

Squiggit wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

The interpretation at my table is while in combat Intimidating Prowess only works within the Character's reach.

That seems kind of punitive to me.

Well, you kinda can't physically threaten people without them being at kicking distance.

For coercion I change things up, since things are more free form.

Otherwise, why they would need a clause for "physically threatening" at all if the intention was to make the feat have the same range as Demoralize itself? It seems weird to me.

I'm all for giving power to the players, but to me this seems clear cut that the intention is to give the extra bonus in certain situations only rather than just a straight upgrade to Demoralize/Coerce.

My players often like to Demoralize when they're up close anyways, so it was never an issue for us.

[Aw3som3-117]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

The interpretation at my table is while in combat Intimidating Prowess only works within the Character's reach.

That seems kind of punitive to me.

Well, you kinda can't physically threaten people without them being at kicking distance.

For coercion I change things up, since things are more free form.

Otherwise, why they would need a clause for "physically threatening" at all if the intention was to make the feat have the same range as Demoralize itself? It seems weird to me.

I'm all for giving power to the players, but to me this seems clear cut that the intention is to give the extra bonus in certain situations only rather than just a straight upgrade to Demoralize/Coerce.

My players often like to Demoralize when they're up close anyways, so it was never an issue for us.

To me what seems clear/obvious is that if it was meant to have a range requirement it would have one. I definitely think there are times where you can't easily physically menace someone/something, but if those times can be summed up with a range requirement, or even if that's just a part of it, then they could have easily included a few words to put that in there.

[Lightning Raven]

Aw3som3-117 wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

The interpretation at my table is while in combat Intimidating Prowess only works within the Character's reach.

That seems kind of punitive to me.

Well, you kinda can't physically threaten people without them being at kicking distance.

For coercion I change things up, since things are more free form.

Otherwise, why they would need a clause for "physically threatening" at all if the intention was to make the feat have the same range as Demoralize itself? It seems weird to me.

I'm all for giving power to the players, but to me this seems clear cut that the intention is to give the extra bonus in certain situations only rather than just a straight upgrade to Demoralize/Coerce.

My players often like to Demoralize when they're up close anyways, so it was never an issue for us.

To me what seems clear/obvious is that if it was meant to have a range requirement it would have one. I definitely think there are times where you can't easily physically menace someone/something, but if those times can be summed up with a range requirement, or even if that's just a part of it, then they could have easily included a few words to put that in there.

This range requirement to me is coming from the specific mention to physically threaten someone. To me seems like you either rough up (or similar) people when you're using Coerce, or you're close to them and can cause immediate harm to them while intimidating.

Just to clarify, I'm running it like that, but I wouldn't find it unreasonable to give it more range than a creature's normal reach.