Complete Warrior, anybody got it? What's in it?

[hong]

I think 2d4 rounds is too long. I'd go with 1d4. A -2 to most everything most all your enemies around you rolls is a pretty extreme penalty. I'd also make it a standard action.

I'll make it a standard action, tone it down to 1d6 rounds (which is the same as Kiai Shout) and make it usable once/encounter. How's that?

As written, it's just about as good as a prayer spell, and of course it's usable at will. Abilities like this are exactly what I think prestige classes ought to have; the unique abilities that are require ultra-specialized training. Cuz after all, anyone can already try to intimidate an enemy in combat- this just makes it extremely effective.

It might be okay as-is at the top of a feat chain, though.

Well, I don't think there's anything inherently exceptional or unique about intimidating people on the battlefield. The standard use of the skill is pretty wimpy, as PS said; this just makes it more viable. You'll have to be fairly high level to get the most out of it anyway.

 

[Gez]

It's Darkness!!1!1! He has returned from the dead! Run for your lives!!11

Where have you been, Darkness? We Austrians gotta stick together, you know.

It's a long while you havn't been to Topherland, heh? He hanged there with the other nuts. Err, tophs.


Anyway, to go back on the current hijack:

- You no longer add your BAB to your Intimidate check. Being able to consistently intimidate someone twice your level is silly.

Another way to avoid that would be to let the foes add their own BAB to their own check. Metagame reasonning: It's roughly the way the 3.5 anti-feint Sense Motive check works. In game reasonning: "Feh, he thinks he's impressive, performing that old trick?". Result: Wizards and sorcerers (and commoners!) are more vulnerable to this intimidation than fighters or barbarians.

 

[hong]

It's a long while you havn't been to Topherland, heh? He hanged there with the other nuts. Err, tophs.

No, I haven't been with the low-hanging nuts for a while. Err, tophs.

Another way to avoid that would be to let the foes add their own BAB to their own check. Metagame reasonning: It's roughly the way the 3.5 anti-feint Sense Motive check works. In game reasonning: "Feh, he thinks he's impressive, performing that old trick?". Result: Wizards and sorcerers (and commoners!) are more vulnerable to this intimidation than fighters or barbarians.

That certainly makes sense. I'd rather not make it an "official" mechanic as such, though. As far as possible I want to remain within the framework of the existing rules, as opposed to making up new ones of my own.