Making Intimidate a Legitimate Pathfinder Battle Strategy: The Bullyboy Build

[nlitherl]

Intimidate checks are a great way to succeed on social interactions in the short term, and they're extremely useful for taking a bit of oomph out of enemies during combat. However, shaken only lasts for a round or so, and it takes a standard action to Intimidate someone. It isn't a lot of bang for your buck.

Or is it? Improved Initiative broke out the calculators, and when all the number crunching was said and done figured out the best way to scare the fight out of your foes with the Bullyboy. Leave your enemies pissing themselves for a few rounds, and make them flat-footed (that's right rogue aficionados, flat-footed) against future attacks. Pop your heads in and see what I.I. has on offer this week. Tell your family, and tell your friends, your DM will hate you for it.

The Bullyboy (http://taking10.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-bullyboy.html)

[nlitherl]

Update on this build: A feat that had escaped the original build, Enforcer, has now been included along with all of its benefits. There are some tasty implications for those who want to get their Thug on.

[Psyren]

Interesting, I never knew about that feat. I could see this build being very handy for Thugs.

Is there a way to combine Gory Finish with Cleave on a more musclebound build? You would finish off one foe, swift-action demoralize everyone around you and when you cleave over to them, get your full sneak attack damage. A build like this might even be able to use Great Cleave.

(Maybe I could build a nasty PF Bozzok...)

[Keneth]

So... nothing we don't already know then? Thug + Enforcer is pretty standard, and Dazzling Display + Shatter Defenses is almost a must, especially if more than one character depends on enemies being denied their Dex bonus or if ranged rogues are part of the party. I think you'll find this advice in every rogue guide for PF ever created. :smallbiggrin:

I don't like these tactics though, especially the Thug/Enforcer combo. It kills encounters where creatures aren't immune to fear, and it's useless in encounters where they are. Extremes are no fun, and I ended up houseruling the whole Intimidate skill and all related feats on account of all the frustration.

[nlitherl]

If a player is smart enough to come up with something using basic rules, I've never found the need to take that away from them as the ST. On the other hand, I feel that the best option is to use creative tactics to solve this problem.

Immunity to fear or mind-effects is one option (depending on how one rules emotional manipulation). Giving enemies armor that negates precision damage, or abilities that make it much reduced, is another option for getting around the sneak attack that's the big part of this build. Then, of course, there's the very simple and basic strategy of making sure that players can't get into melee range. That renders Enforcer useless, and it can make it a range game for the 30 feet required for Intimidate.

It's all about tactics. DMs know what their players can do, and they should be able to respond to it in a measured way that keeps the game challenging without blatantly stripping players of their abilities. Just my two cents.

[Occasional Sage]

So... nothing we don't already know then? Thug + Enforcer is pretty standard, and Dazzling Display + Shatter Defenses is almost a must, especially if more than one character depends on enemies being denied their Dex bonus or if ranged rogues are part of the party. I think you'll find this advice in every rogue guide for PF ever created. :smallbiggrin:

I don't like these tactics though, especially the Thug/Enforcer combo. It kills encounters where creatures aren't immune to fear, and it's useless in encounters where they are. Extremes are no fun, and I ended up houseruling the whole Intimidate skill and all related feats on account of all the frustration.


If a player is smart enough to come up with something using basic rules, I've never found the need to take that away from them as the ST. On the other hand, I feel that the best option is to use creative tactics to solve this problem.

Immunity to fear or mind-effects is one option (depending on how one rules emotional manipulation). Giving enemies armor that negates precision damage, or abilities that make it much reduced, is another option for getting around the sneak attack that's the big part of this build. Then, of course, there's the very simple and basic strategy of making sure that players can't get into melee range. That renders Enforcer useless, and it can make it a range game for the 30 feet required for Intimidate.

It's all about tactics. DMs know what their players can do, and they should be able to respond to it in a measured way that keeps the game challenging without blatantly stripping players of their abilities. Just my two cents.

I think you're misunderstanding Keneth's idea. He's saying (from what I grok without his actual houserules) that his table plays Intimidate in a middle ground that's less swingy: not likely to hammer-frag most encounters, but not useless in the common corner-cases.

So Keneth, care to share?

[Psyren]

So... nothing we don't already know then? Thug + Enforcer is pretty standard, and Dazzling Display + Shatter Defenses is almost a must, especially if more than one character depends on enemies being denied their Dex bonus or if ranged rogues are part of the party.

Am I missing something? Shatter Defenses only applies to YOUR attacks, so it's not like you're opening up the enemy to get pincushioned by the entire thieves' guild with this.

[Keneth]

If a player is smart enough to come up with something using basic rules, I've never found the need to take that away from them as the ST. On the other hand, I feel that the best option is to use creative tactics to solve this problem.

Like I said, the only way to avoid the tactic, is to render it useless. I don't like extremes. If a player invests into something, I want them to feel like that investment is worth something, but I also don't want that investment to ruin the game for everyone.


He's saying that his table plays Intimidate in a middle ground that's less swingy: not likely to hammer-frag most encounters, but not useless in the common corner-cases.

Correct, I actually separated Intimidate and the demoralize action. Since it's no longer a skill check, it's also no longer DC: Yes. I've also created a new condition called demoralized, which is easier to deal with, both for me and for players, and it still leaves the creature open to Shatter Defenses. I've also vastly improved feinting, so this large investment is no longer a necessity, and feinting (not being a fear effect) works just as well on creatures immune to fear or mind-affecting effects.


Am I missing something? Shatter Defenses only applies to YOUR attacks, so it's not like you're opening up the enemy to get pincushioned by the entire thieves' guild with this.

Shatter Defenses is for you alone, but Dazzling Display isn't. One party member can demoralize pretty much the whole battlefield, leaving them vulnerable to Shatter Defenses, which any ranged sneak attacker pretty much needs to have. In one of our games, a bard first buffed the party, and then, not being the combat type, proceeded to Intimidate everyone on his round as necessary (ironically enough), while the rogue finished off everything at range. It's a decent tactic, even if the first attack is generally not a sneak attack.

[Psyren]

Shatter Defenses is for you alone, but Dazzling Display isn't. One party member can demoralize pretty much the whole battlefield, leaving them vulnerable to Shatter Defenses, which any ranged sneak attacker pretty much needs to have. In one of our games, a bard first buffed the party, and then, not being the combat type, proceeded to Intimidate everyone on his round as necessary (ironically enough), while the rogue finished off everything at range. It's a decent tactic, even if the first attack is generally not a sneak attack.

But they need to blow a feat on Dazzling Display anyway, even if someone else in the party ultimately uses it. To utilize this "combo" in 1 round, the party is forced to use "teamwork" and "tactics" - it's not something a ranged rogue can pull off by themselves without needing multiple rounds. I'm really not seeing the big issue or the need to ban anything. They can't even use Enforcer with it.

[Keneth]

I'm really not seeing the big issue or the need to ban anything..

Indeed, and Shatter Defenses doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, I find it to be an unneeded investment for something a rogue should have been able to do from the get go. It's Intimidate and Thug/Enforcer combo I took an issue with. For one, I don't like skills having a direct combat application because they scale entirely different from all other combat values, and my players and I both decided that Thug/Enforcer was just bad game design after it was used a few times on both sides.

[Spore]

That build is indeed quite powerful, if restricted to being a one-trick-pony. A fellow player of mine uses Dazzling Display combined with a glaive and improved trip and he is quite capable of disabling the BBEG and then dishing out the damage. I think adding in Improved Trip is a good idea to create flexibility for that build, at least for BSF type characters that is.