Pathfinder 2E Discussing a new PF2 healing paradigm

Staffan

Legend
Eh, I think the idea is that Intimidate is a verbal action. I get the reasoning, but it's one of the more egregious feat gates out there.
I think the idea is that to actually frighten someone, and not just make them rationally cautious, the default is that you need to speak and think about what you're saying, which means the Demoralize action has the Concentration trait which means you can't use it while raging. It's the same reasoning behind making Intimidate based on Charisma.

That said, if you do take Raging Intimidation (which gives Demoralize the Rage trait allowing it to be used in a rage despite Concentration), you also get Intimidating Glare (trade the Auditory trait on Demoralize for Visual, and remove the -4 penalty for not being understood) and Scare to Death skill feats for free once you fulfill the requirements.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
I think the idea is that to actually frighten someone, and not just make them rationally cautious, the default is that you need to speak and think about what you're saying, which means the Demoralize action has the Concentration trait which means you can't use it while raging. It's the same reasoning behind making Intimidate based on Charisma.

That said, if you do take Raging Intimidation (which gives Demoralize the Rage trait allowing it to be used in a rage despite Concentration), you also get Intimidating Glare (trade the Auditory trait on Demoralize for Visual, and remove the -4 penalty for not being understood) and Scare to Death skill feats for free once you fulfill the requirements.
All this sounds like stuff a Barbarian should just be able to do. If somebody wants their wizard to intimidate targets, they can dump all their valuable resources to be able to do it. YMMV.
 

Philip Benz

A Dragontooth Grognard
Ignoring rules? Pffft.
Over the course of some 50+ sessions, my players have learnt how to handle the Treat Wounds checks on their own and in total accordance with the RAW. It doesn't really cut into table time, since after a big fight, I often need to take a short breather - us old guys have needs after an hour or so in the hot seat.

I may personally feel that the Treat Wounds system in PF2 is unecessarily complex, but we still use it as written. So please, Cap'n, go cast your aspersions somewhere else.
 

Philip Benz

A Dragontooth Grognard
All this sounds like stuff a Barbarian should just be able to do. If somebody wants their wizard to intimidate targets, they can dump all their valuable resources to be able to do it. YMMV.
Payn, I agree completely that some of the trait interactions, like intimidation having the concentrate trait, making it require special hoops to jump through to make it work while raging, are totally counterintuitive.

It's a situation ripe for house rules - I'd be tempted to simply exempt combat intimidation attempts from the rage prohibition for concentrate actions. If some rule element feels counterintuitive and just plain wrong, any decent DM is free to reconsider whether or not to apply that rule. This sort of thing doesn't invalidate the PF2 game system as such, but it does give the feeling that perhaps some things are too seriously (or downright mistakenly) codified.
 

Like most people I would be intimidated by a growling bear. So this is a case for me of feat-gating breaking immersion.
I wouldn't have thought to even look up this rule in the heat of gaming.

My inherent problem with this reasoning is that you could basically apply this to any and all dangerous situations. Most people would be intimidated by anything that can cause dismemberment, let alone a dude who can just make s*** explode with a few words. Like, you know who is a more intimidating than this?

Nappa_Artwork.png


This dude right here.

Frieza.png


The Nappa might seem more physically intimidating, but Frieza actually exudes menace through words in way someone just screaming doesn't.

I think the idea is that to actually frighten someone, and not just make them rationally cautious, the default is that you need to speak and think about what you're saying, which means the Demoralize action has the Concentration trait which means you can't use it while raging. It's the same reasoning behind making Intimidate based on Charisma.

That said, if you do take Raging Intimidation (which gives Demoralize the Rage trait allowing it to be used in a rage despite Concentration), you also get Intimidating Glare (trade the Auditory trait on Demoralize for Visual, and remove the -4 penalty for not being understood) and Scare to Death skill feats for free once you fulfill the requirements.

Yeah, all combat should be frightening at some level. Actually imposing some sort of penalty would to be unsettling beyond what you'd expect from a situation where you could actually die. That said, I do understand the complaint at a certain level, but the Raging Intimidation feat has a lot of benefits beyond just that.

All this sounds like stuff a Barbarian should just be able to do. If somebody wants their wizard to intimidate targets, they can dump all their valuable resources to be able to do it. YMMV.

I mean, why would be intimidated by a big dude with an axe more than a dude who can literally toss lightning from his fingtips.
 

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
I mean, why would be intimidated by a big dude with an axe more than a dude who can literally toss lightning from his fingtips.
I dont get the dragonballz references, sorry.

Why does intimidation rely on sight and language at all? I mean, for me I like to link it to charisma. You are intimidating not because of the things you say, the weapon you have, or abilities (all these can contribute) but because you know how to use your personality, your presence, to intimidate people. It's a natural result of your class abilities, or something you have invested in to make happen. For monsters, I like them having this ability too. (Tho, in PF2 they can cause they dont have to work like PCs anymore.)

I like the 3E/PF1 philosophy (its far from perfect I know that) in that some classes have abilities that make them good at things, but all characters can invest in it. Intimidation is something I can see a barbarian being good at. Why? I dont know, a feral presence, a tap into their ferocity in rage, being misunderstood is all just thematic. For others, its not a class ability, then they can use skill/feat/item resources to accomplish it.

The PF2 philosophy seems to be a funnel of ability. You have some things that you can do at the most basic levels. Then, a handful of things that you are good at. During level up you have to continually invest in things just to keep up. Not only that, but doing these things is often pointless unless you are fully invested and statted. This also needs to be planned early, there is little you can do to change it via magic, magic items, ASI, etc..

The worst part of PF2 is they took the feat dynamic from 3E/PF1 and extended it to everything. You can try it without the feats, but good fin luck. In this, I agree with capp zapp on PF2, though, im trying to be more respectful.
 

I dont get the dragonballz references, sorry.

Eh, not worth getting into then.

Why does intimidation rely on sight and language at all? I mean, for me I like to link it to charisma. You are intimidating not because of the things you say, the weapon you have, or abilities (all these can contribute) but because you know how to use your personality, your presence, to intimidate people. It's a natural result of your class abilities, or something you have invested in to make happen. For monsters, I like them having this ability too. (Tho, in PF2 they can cause they dont have to work like PCs anymore.)

I mean, I think that's one interpretation of Intimidation, though I wouldn't necessarily link it to Charisma. Or more than that, D&D 6-Stat games aren't good at handling it (I was going to say d20, but I realized that's not quite true).
I like the 3E/PF1 philosophy (its far from perfect I know that) in that some classes have abilities that make them good at things, but all characters can invest in it. Intimidation is something I can see a barbarian being good at. Why? I dont know, a feral presence, a tap into their ferocity in rage, being misunderstood is all just thematic. For others, its not a class ability, then they can use skill/feat/item resources to accomplish it.

Like, isn't that what's literally happening with Raging Intimidation?

The PF2 philosophy seems to be a funnel of ability. You have some things that you can do at the most basic levels. Then, a handful of things that you are good at. During level up you have to continually invest in things just to keep up. Not only that, but doing these things is often pointless unless you are fully invested and statted. This also needs to be planned early, there is little you can do to change it via magic, magic items, ASI, etc..

The worst part of PF2 is they took the feat dynamic from 3E/PF1 and extended it to everything. You can try it without the feats, but good fin luck. In this, I agree with capp zapp on PF2, though, im trying to be more respectful.

I mean, this is literally not true. You don't have to pre-plan out everything, nor do you really need to completely max out everything for it to work. The problem is that this has been the meta in most d20 games that people feel that, but you don't need stuff like Scare to Death to make investing in Intimidation worth it.
 

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
I mean, I think that's one interpretation of Intimidation, though I wouldn't necessarily link it to Charisma. Or more than that, D&D 6-Stat games aren't good at handling it (I was going to say d20, but I realized that's not quite true).
I mean, intimidation is tied to charisma, not strength, or intelligence. I think its appropriate and makes total sense. YMMV
Like, isn't that what's literally happening with Raging Intimidation?
On second look, yes it is. I think for me its how much investment goes into the feats for non-barbs. Making skills into feats just doesn't work for me. It made the crappy combat feat dynamic of 3E/PF1 into another part of the game it doesn't need to be in.
I mean, this is literally not true. You don't have to pre-plan out everything, nor do you really need to completely max out everything for it to work. The problem is that this has been the meta in most d20 games that people feel that, but you don't need stuff like Scare to Death to make investing in Intimidation worth it.
So, you can just grab skill feats in things you have no proficiency with? Oh wait you cant do that. Taking skill feats in your dump stats works? Oh wait, it doesnt. The idea hasnt been beaten into folks heads because of tradition, its beaten in because its how the game actually works.
 

I mean, intimidation is tied to charisma, not strength, or intelligence. I think its appropriate and makes total sense. YMMV

I mean, if we are just going on the idea that you can intimidate someone without words, I absolutely think it is not linked to Charisma. But like, this is part of the problem with d20 stat systems in my opinion.

On second look, yes it is. I think for me its how much investment goes into the feats for non-barbs. Making skills into feats just doesn't work for me. It made the crappy combat feat dynamic of 3E/PF1 into another part of the game it doesn't need to be in.

They didn't make skills into feats, they made it so that feats expanded what you could do with skills instead of often just handing out skill bonuses.

So, you can just grab skill feats in things you have no proficiency with? Oh wait you cant do that.

So like, you want to do something specialized in a skill... but you don't want to have the skill?

Taking skill feats in your dump stats works? Oh wait, it doesnt.

There's not really a "dump stat" in PF2, but this is also dependent on things; you could still be pretty good at things in your dump stat just from proficiency alone.

But also... is there any d20 game where taking skill feats in your dump stat "works"? Because the most effective characters I've seen with a lower stat is in PF2 largely because of how proficiency works.

The idea hasnt been beaten into folks heads because of tradition, its beaten in because its how the game actually works.

No, because those things don't prove your point. You talk about having to max out something, but you don't. You don't have to take every expansion feat for Intimidation to get something worthwhile out of it. Certain things become harder at higher levels, but at higher levels even your minimal skills will allow you to do insane things that experts at lower levels couldn't do consistently.
 

nevin

Hero
people in games don't measure themselves by what experts can do. They measure themselves by what other players , and NPC's can do. Thus the drive for people to only put skills in something that will be high. The problem with PF2e and how it works is not that the system doesn't work it's that the system ignores basic human emotional drives. It assumes rational players at every step, and humans are almost never fully rational about anything that involves them.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top