I have a quick question about how the raging intimidation class feat for barbarians interacts with the terrifying howl feat/action and I wanted to get some peoples perspective.
So it seems the general consensus is that if you use terrifying howl, that you are simply using the demoralize action as an AoE, and all rules for demoralize apply. I don't particularly like this determination as it seems to devalue Raging Intimidation as a class feat but I can follow it until such a time there is an errata or an official clarification from a Paizo employee over the topic.
My issue is that some people seem to be interpreting that Terrifying Howl does not require a character to also have the Raging Intimidation Feat to work. Since Terrifying Howl has the rage trait, some people have interpreted that to mean you do not need Raging Intimidation to bypass demoralize's concentration trait. That seems incorrect to me based on the previous interpretation that Terrifying Howl just allows you to use the demoralize action in AoE form and that all rules for demoralize must be followed. And if the traits for Terrifying Howl were supposed to supper cede the traits for demoralize, then that would mean the demoralizes for terrifying howl lose the fear, mental, and emotional traits as well.
My personal thoughts are that its an either or determination. Either Terrifying Howl is a separate action using the basic rules for demoralize with its own 1 minute cool down that is separate from the demoralize action itself, essentially allowing you to use demoralize against a creature you previously used terrifying howl against. Or terrifying howl's rage trait doesn't give the demoralize checks themselves the rage trait and you are still required to have Raging Intimidation for Terrifying Howl to work.
Madpup wrote: My issue is that some people seem to be interpreting that Terrifying Howl does not require a character to also have the Raging Intimidation Feat to work. Since Terrifying Howl has the rage trait, some people have interpreted that to mean you do not need Raging Intimidation to bypass demoralize's concentration trait. Correct. That is coming from the rules for Rage itself.
Rage wrote: You can't use actions with the concentrate trait unless they also have the rage trait. And from the rules for Subordinate Actions.
Subordinate Actions wrote: An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. Such as by being allowed to be used while Raging.
breithauptclan wrote: Madpup wrote: My issue is that some people seem to be interpreting that Terrifying Howl does not require a character to also have the Raging Intimidation Feat to work. Since Terrifying Howl has the rage trait, some people have interpreted that to mean you do not need Raging Intimidation to bypass demoralize's concentration trait. Correct. That is coming from the rules for Rage itself.
Rage wrote: You can't use actions with the concentrate trait unless they also have the rage trait. And from the rules for Subordinate Actions.
Subordinate Actions wrote: An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. Such as by being allowed to be used while Raging. The subordinate rules also state the following.
Subordinate Actions wrote: The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. Terrifying Howl has the Rage trait. The feat does not specifically state that the demoralize actions receive the Rage trait.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Madpup wrote: Terrifying Howl has the Rage trait. The feat does not specifically state that the demoralize actions receive the Rage trait. Terrifying Howl also doesn't list Raging Intimidation as a prerequisite.
Yeah, the rule could be a bit more clear and maybe actually say in Terrifying Howl that you can make the Demoralize action even while Raging - but at the same time, saying that is also a bit redundant. Terrifying Howl has the Rage trait and says to make a Demoralize check. Obviously it is meant to be used while Raging (it can only be used while Raging because of the Rage trait) and you should be able to do the action as written.
So whether you think that Terrifying Howl needs errata or not, it is intended to work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Huh, I never noticed this. This is actually pretty nice. Raging Intimidation feels likes a bit of a tax until Legendary kicks in, especially because barbarians should really favor intimidating prowess over intimidating glare. (Terrifying Howl still requires Glare, but I'd rather pay a skill feats than a class feat.)
breithauptclan wrote: Madpup wrote: Terrifying Howl has the Rage trait. The feat does not specifically state that the demoralize actions receive the Rage trait. Terrifying Howl also doesn't list Raging Intimidation as a prerequisite.
Yeah, the rule could be a bit more clear and maybe actually say in Terrifying Howl that you can make the Demoralize action even while Raging - but at the same time, saying that is also a bit redundant. Terrifying Howl has the Rage trait and says to make a Demoralize check. Obviously it is meant to be used while Raging (it can only be used while Raging because of the Rage trait) and you should be able to do the action as written.
So whether you think that Terrifying Howl needs errata or not, it is intended to work. You're right, it lists intimidating glare, a feat that allows you to use the demoralize action with the visual trait in place of the auditory trait... which doesn't apply to Terrifying Howl...
And again based on the rules as written, a subordinate action does not gain the traits of the larger action unless specified, and it doesn't specify that your demoralize checks gain the rage trait.
So thats the catch 22 with the current interpretation of how this all skakes out. Rules as written you can't Terrifying Howl then Demoralize the same creature on the next turn, but rules as written you also can't use Terrifying Howl unless you keep Raging Intimidation as a lvl 1 class feat even though its not a requirement for Terrifying Howl.
And then you also have the question about if the demoralize from Terrifying Howl has its immunity dropped from 10 minutes to 1 minute. Based on the Actions Rules for Subordinate Actions, I'd say yes, however most peoples interpretation is that demoralizes 10 minute immunity supersedes Terrifying Howls 1 minute immunity.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Madpup wrote:
And then you also have the question about if the demoralize from Terrifying Howl has its immunity dropped from 10 minutes to 1 minute. Based on the Actions Rules for Subordinate Actions, I'd say yes, however most peoples interpretation is that demoralizes 10 minute immunity supersedes Terrifying Howls 1 minute immunity.
Specific overrules general. That means the 1 minute immunity for Terrifying Howl will overrule the normal 10 minute immunity from a demoralize.
Well, I would lean more toward Terrifying Howl doing what it says that it does.
Though usually it is a bit of a moot point whether the immunity to Demoralize inside of Terrifying Howl lasts for 1 minute or 10 minutes - both exceed the life expectancy of the enemy.
What I think they need to do is fix the rage trait so it enables the ability in Raging. Or fix rage to allow demoralise checks, Or otherwise fix intimidating glare in the same way.
It is all clearly supposed to work.
breithauptclan wrote: Well, I would lean more toward Terrifying Howl doing what it says that it does.
Though usually it is a bit of a moot point whether the immunity to Demoralize inside of Terrifying Howl lasts for 1 minute or 10 minutes - both exceed the life expectancy of the enemy.
But again, all Terrifying Howl lets you do is roll a demoralize against every creature within a 30ft radius of your PC. And as Raging Intimidation states, you need this feat to demoralize while you are raging. And as the rules state, no subordinate action gains traits from the larger action unless the feat specifically states that it does. RAW Terrifying Howl doesn't work unless you have/keep Raging Intimidation.
And in regards to whether the immunity time matters, it does. I agree that MOST combats will end within one minute, but we can all come up with scenarios on the top of our heads where combat can last longer than a minute and have all been in a combat that's lasted longer than a minute.
Gortle wrote: What I think they need to do is fix the rage trait so it enables the ability in Raging. Or fix rage to allow demoralise checks, Or otherwise fix intimidating glare in the same way.
It is all clearly supposed to work.
I think the whole idea that you need a class feat to demoralize is a stupid concept, but if they haven't changed it yet I doubt they ever will. At the very least, they should errata Terrifying Howl to make Raging Intimidation a requirement to remove the confusion.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Good thing then that PF2's CRB explicitly states that RAW is no longer king, so nobody has to get hung up on this snag and we all can play Terrifying Howl as its obviously intended.
When in doubt, approach from good faith and do what the thing clearly intends instead of getting hung up
I agree it should use some errata tweaks to be more clear
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Castilliano wrote: Good thing then that PF2's CRB explicitly states that RAW is no longer king, so nobody has to get hung up on this snag and we all can play Terrifying Howl as its obviously intended. Martialmasters wrote: When in doubt, approach from good faith and do what the thing clearly intends instead of getting hung up
I agree it should use some errata tweaks to be more clear
But that again is an issue, cause what's obvious to you isn't obvious to me or really alot of other people. Looking at TH it's obvious raging intimidation is required to use it, but to me it's also obvious that they intended for TH to have its own immunity that what separate from demoralize. But everyone seems to lean hard into RAW for it granting immunity to normal demoralize actions while simply ignoring RAW when it comes to it requiring you to have Raging Intimidation to actually use the demoralize checks for TH.
It would be nice if someone from Paizo could actually answer how these interactions between Raging Intimidation, Terrifying Howl, and Demoralize are actually supposed to work.
Are you saying you've heard from "a lot of other people" about the obviousness of how Terrifying Howl doesn't work or the non-obviousness of how it does?
Who's "leaning hard into RAW"?
I think most people here would be fine if you ruled at your table that TH's immunity was separate from that for Demoralize (which is probably how I'd run it too BTW). They simply rule differently, and that's okay too IMO.
If you're saying that Raging Intimidation is required, you're saying that the feat doesn't work. That's a non-starter, so a good indication to read it from a different angle (and the CRB says this explicitly). Plus it took extrapolation to get there, so it's not the plain-reading PF2 rules aim for.
At times I miss the extensive rules clarifications from PF1 (et al), but I understand the time drain it represents. And it's a slippery slope, as there's ever further minutiae to delve into as there are infinite corner cases in an open system like PF2. Paizo, in other ways too, has put more control in the GMs' hands, and I love that. Yes, it means there's more GM adjudication, yet what healthy table would fear that?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Specific overrides general. The general rule is you can't Demoralize while raging because it is a concentrate action. Feats are more specific than class features. The Terrifying Howl feat has the Rage trait, meaning you can and in fact can only use it while raging, so obviously it's meant to be used while raging. It says you Demoralize every creature w/i 30', which is not a >normal demoralize action. That's the specific feat that overrides the general class feature. What's the -ing problem?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Baarogue wrote: That's the specific feat that overrides the general class feature. I agree that this is a reasonable approach. We certainly have to do it enough elsewhere.
Baarogue wrote: Specific overrides general. The general rule is you can't Demoralize while raging because it is a concentrate action. Feats are more specific than class features. The Terrifying Howl feat has the Rage trait, meaning you can and in fact can only use it while raging, so obviously it's meant to be used while raging. It says you Demoralize every creature w/i 30', which is not a >normal demoralize action. That's the specific feat that overrides the general class feature. What's the -ing problem? The problem is that most people's interpretation seems to be that using Terrifying Howl is simply doing X number of demoralizes, and there for all aspects of demoralize, such as the 10 minute immunity, come into play after Terrifying Howl is used. I'd agree with your interpretation prior to looking all this crap up that Terrifying Howl is its own action, with its own immunity, meaning in 1-2 turns you would be free to use the demoralize actions on a creature you previously used terrifying howl on.
But as others have pointed out, the rules over subordinate actions makes it clear that you follow the rules and traits of the subordinate actions, in this case Demoralize, unless the larger action, in this case Terrifying Howl, states otherwise, and specifically the subordinate actions "doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified." In Terrifying Howls case, it doesn't specify that it's rage trait applies to the demoralize checks.
So I guess the -ing problem is that there is this weird consensus that terrifying howl triggers Demoralizes immunity based on RAW, which disincentivizes keeping Raging Intimidation as a feat while at the same time ignoring the same set of rules that makes it clear you need to keep the feat for Terrifying Howl to even work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I'm still not entirely sure what you are trying to prove by continuing to argue this - that the feat could use some errata? Sure. But there are bigger problems than this that I would like to see first.
I am seeing two potential errata scenarios for this.
1) Terrifying Howl lists Raging Intimidation as a prerequisite.
2) Terrifying Howl explicitly says that you can use the Demoralize subordinate actions while Raging.
Feel free to write in the margins of your CRB whichever one you like better. But good luck convincing other people to use #1.
Madpup wrote: Baarogue wrote: Specific overrides general. The general rule is you can't Demoralize while raging because it is a concentrate action. Feats are more specific than class features. The Terrifying Howl feat has the Rage trait, meaning you can and in fact can only use it while raging, so obviously it's meant to be used while raging. It says you Demoralize every creature w/i 30', which is not a >normal demoralize action. That's the specific feat that overrides the general class feature. What's the -ing problem? The problem is that most people's interpretation seems to be that using Terrifying Howl is simply doing X number of demoralizes, and there for all aspects of demoralize, such as the 10 minute immunity, come into play after Terrifying Howl is used. I'd agree with your interpretation prior to looking all this crap up that Terrifying Howl is its own action, with its own immunity, meaning in 1-2 turns you would be free to use the demoralize actions on a creature you previously used terrifying howl on.
But as others have pointed out, the rules over subordinate actions makes it clear that you follow the rules and traits of the subordinate actions, in this case Demoralize, unless the larger action, in this case Terrifying Howl, states otherwise, and specifically the subordinate actions "doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified." In Terrifying Howls case, it doesn't specify that it's rage trait applies to the demoralize checks.
So I guess the -ing problem is that there is this weird consensus that terrifying howl triggers Demoralizes immunity based on RAW, which disincentivizes keeping Raging Intimidation as a feat while at the same time ignoring the same set of rules that makes it clear you need to keep the feat for Terrifying Howl to even work.
>terrifying howl triggers Demoralizes immunity based on RAW
Ah, so this is the true point of contention then? Based on the rules for Subordinate Actions I believe I agree with the consensus. As you say, Subordinate Actions says the sub actions aren't changed any more than the activity says they are. While TH says you make Intimidate checks to Demoralize, it doesn't say Demoralize's cooldown is altered. While at first read it looks like TH's cooldown is redundant with Demoralize, it is slightly different. TH's wording says, "each creature is then temporarily immune to Terrifying Howl for 1 minute," while Demoralize's cooldown line says, "the target is temporarily immune to your attempts to Demoralize it for 10 minutes." >your attempts. So if you double-barbed it up, you couldn't double-TH the same foes w/i 1 minute because they're immune to TH altogether for a minute, not just your TH
>which disincentivizes keeping Raging Intimidation as a feat while at the same time ignoring the same set of rules that makes it clear you need to keep the feat for Terrifying Howl to even work
There is no >make it clear here to anyone except those who are twisting their heads into knots trying to find a paradox the devs have already accounted for with the Specific vs General rule. You don't need Raging Intimidation because Terrifying Howl doesn't say you do. It says you check to Demoralize, so you check to Demoralize. It's that simple. The devs chose to make TH's feat tax a skill feat instead of a class feat, though if it were me I'd probably keep RI anyway (if I even took it in the first place) for the free Scare to Death at 15
This is shown to be a bias issue more than anything
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
