Would you allow “menacing” on a conquest paladin?

[Spiritchaser]

Menacing is a decent UA feat. Not bad but nothing I’d worry about too much. Sure it raises the question of expertise on casters and martials but prodigy basically answers that for me anyway.

Add in aura of conquest and things get a bit more interesting.

Sure it’s single target but... a check not a save and you pretty much have expertise by definition.

Be a sorcadin for eagle’s splendour for maximimum craziness...

So...

Would you allow this in your campaign?

[MrWesson22]

Yes because a conquest paladin already has multiple ways to fear, and this one takes away 50% of their damage and only lasts 1 round. Plus, though it is very difficult for them to do, a save against it makes them immune to it for an hour.

[Man_Over_Game]

The reliance on the Fear would make it a one-trick pony that doesn't work against about half the things you'll fight, and almost nothing you'll fight at later levels.

[sophontteks]

Giving that extra cha, and expertise, and a strong CC makes it a pretty loaded feat in general. I don't think its balanced vs. the official feats in general, but there are no specific qualms with this feat.

I think it'd be more broken on sorcerers and bards. Giving them a crazy strong single target CC when they want to save spell. A sorcerer with quicken can cast a spell and CC an enemy each turn.

The save vs. the condition is just way too high. Better then a lot of spells.

[Deox]

Yes because a conquest paladin already has multiple ways to fear, and this one takes away 50% of their damage and only lasts 1 round. Plus, though it is very difficult for them to do, a save against it makes them immune to it for an hour.

This.

Additionally, the demoralization attempt provided by the feat can only be attempted against a humanoid within 30 ft.

[sophontteks]

This.

Additionally, the demoralization attempt provided by the feat can only be attempted against a humanoid within 30 ft.
Ooo good call.

[Deox]

Ooo good call.

Believe me. The first time I read the feat, I thought it was too strong. My brain assumed it was pretty much any target. After reading it a second time, the feat was reigned in quite a bit and honestly, a strong option but not OP.

[Spiritchaser]

This is a good point, and one I hadn’t noticed, though I would note that except in the North, most foes in this campaign are humanoid

[sophontteks]

I still think its a bit strong. I'd take 2 of those 3 things and be really happy. Expertise is a lot to me.

[CTurbo]

It's a great feat for Conquests and a good feat for any other Cha class.


I think it works best to be used on bosses and leaders of various groups. Intimidating and demoralizing a boss/leader can often lead to winning a "battle" without having to make a single attack. I've seen this happen in actual play more than once and it's great. A Conquest Pally made an entire group of bandits surrender by using Menacing on the boss. It happened in a different campaign with a guard captain. Yes I've seen it fail too.

[Corran]

I don't think menacing is a good feat, even on conquest paladins. Unless of course you happen to have an odd charisma score and there is not a better way to make it even (including a +1/+1 ASI). Here is why I think that:
Menacing is a little trickier to rate. For me, it's the restriction to humanoids that kills it. But let me not jump ahead to conclusions here. Now, menacing is used with some opportunity cost. That of sacrificing one of your two attacks. That opportunity cost becomes bigger once you get IDS, as you are sacrificing even more damage so that you can inflict a one-round fear effect against the enemy. Lets translate this opportunity cost into something more comprehensible. With a couple of calculations, one can see that with IDS in play, if an enemy's average damage (without plugging in hit chance) is about 20 per turn, then using using one of your attacks for damage has pretty much the same value as spending it with menacing. If the enemy deals less than 20 damage on average per turn, using the feat is not beneficial. And if the enemy deals more than 20 damage on average per turn (again, without plugging in hit chance), then it is profitable to use menacing in place of one of your attacks. But how much profitable is it? Well, if the enemy is dealing 21 damage on average per turn, then using the menacing feat has an equivalent value to 1 point of damage or 1 hit point. If the enemy deals 25 damage on average per turn, then using menacing in place of one of your attacks carries the worth of 5 points of damage/hp. It starts becoming clear that menacing is best used when up against fear-susceptible enemies with a high dpr. Now another question is born. Namely, is it good to spend a feat on menacing to squeeze some worth out of fighting fear-susceptible enemies with high dpr, or is it just better (meaning if it would lead to better damage prevention) to attack twice and stack smites on top of my successful attacks to bring said enemy down (of course without having to take a feat in this case, but also having to use spell slots). My answer is: it does not matter. Why? Cause of the restriction I mentioned in the beginning. It only targets humanoids. The vast majority of enemies that would be capable of inflicting high enough damage, for menacing to maybe be worth using instead of an attack with a smite on top of it (as it makes sense on using smites against high damaging enemies), are not even humanoid. And furthermore, if said enemy or group of enemies are fear-susceptible, you already have the tools already to deal with them. You don't need more eggs in the same basket. Now, if somehow you have an odd charisma score, it might make a lot of sense to take menacing, as it is probably better than the rest charisma half feats, strictly from an optimization perspective. But if you charisma score is even, then menacing is simply not good enough to be involved IMO. And taking a race that would allow me to start with an odd charisma score, only so that I can include menacing, is something I would not do, as the benefits of menacing are both situational and marginal.
So, bottom line, your will probably end up losing damage whenever you use it, for a chance to immobilize one humanoid enemy for one round (the damage provided due to the aura of conquest were included in the calculation). And the damage prevention is also worse in the case of menacing, as the enemies live longer due to attacking them less (and this stacks up). Not to mention that you have lots of other ways to do that (ie exert battlefield control), namely in conquering presence, wrathful smite and fear, all of which do that a lot better already, and all this while conquering presence can act as back up to either fear or wrathful smite. So I don't see any need for any more fear based powers. The worst thing IMO, is that players use this power hurting their character's efficiency and don't even know it...

[MrWesson22]

I missed the humanoid part too. That changes things significantly. I would still allow it even if it could target any creature. That said, as a charisma half feat, if you are half elf, take elven accuracy. If you are not half elf, take menacing.