Samurai Staredown

[Biggus]

I've just noticed the CW Samurai's Staredown class feature is somewhat ambiguously written:



At 6th level, a samurai becomes able to strike fear into his foes by his mere presence. He gains a +4 bonus on Intimidate checks and can demoralize an opponent (as described in the Intimidate skill description, page 76 of the Player's Handbook).

(Italics mine)

I'd always assumed it just meant that they got a +4 to Intimidate checks but otherwise it works normally, requiring a standard action. But when I looked at it again, I realised it could also be read to mean that they could demoralize one opponent without using an action ("by his mere presence"). This seems somewhat supported by the fact they specify he "can demoralize an opponent", since that's something anyone can do anyway, even if they don't have any ranks in Intimidate: why tell you that you can do something you can already do?

Then I looked at the Mass Staredown ability they gain later, and that does specify they need to use a standard action to use it, unlike normal Staredown, which arguably implies that the standard version doesn't, although it could also just mean that they can use it on multiple opponents as a standard action.

On the other hand, if normal Staredown is meant to not require an action, it's odd that they didn't say so in the description.

Given that demoralize isn't an especially powerful ability and Samurai are famously underpowered, I'm inclined to go with the "not an action" interpretation, but I'd be interested to hear how others read it.

[Doctor Despair]

But when I looked at it again, I realised it could also be read to mean that they could demoralize one opponent without using an action ("by his mere presence"). This seems somewhat supported by the fact they specify he "can demoralize an opponent", since that's something anyone can do anyway, even if they don't have any ranks in Intimidate: why tell you that you can do something you can already do?

I agree, it is silly that they repeated that, but it's sadly not written very ambiguously. It says they can demoralize an opponent as described in the Intimidate skill. That carries all the normal restrictions for it -- including action economy. Consider that if it was a free action or a nonaction, they could intimidate every foe around them NI times until they auto-failed. Why even include the +4 at that point? It's certainly not what they intended -- and it's not what the rules are explicitly laying out.


Then I looked at the Mass Staredown ability they gain later, and that does specify they need to use a standard action to use it, unlike normal Staredown, which arguably implies that the standard version doesn't, although it could also just mean that they can use it on multiple opponents as a standard action.

As you said: it's just specifying that they can use one standard action to demoralize many foes within that AOE instead of one standard action to demoralize a single foe.


On the other hand, if normal Staredown is meant to not require an action, it's odd that they didn't say so in the description.

Definitely would be, as it's an overwhelmingly broken reading of the ability.


Given that demoralize isn't an especially powerful ability and Samurai are famously underpowered, I'm inclined to go with the "not an action" interpretation, but I'd be interested to hear how others read it.

Demoralize is just fine as an ability. As a skill check, it's a natural ability, so it isn't a fear effect. That means that it isn't mind-affecting, and can affect anyone who isn't mindless or immune to fear specifically (a rather short list). Toss on Imperious Command and you have a very high save-or-lose ability that can completely shut down most enemies -- although granted only one enemy at a time. There are sufficient tools out there to reduce the action economy to a move action or less that it is somewhat reliable as a combat technique you can mix in with melee attacks to dispatch your cowering foes (insofar as any mundane combat technique is reliable).

Samurai is particularly potent for demoralizing by allowing you to perform the AOE demoralize at range. Just about every single other ability that allows you to make intimidate checks at range makes them mind-affecting (see Dread Pirate, Scarlet Corsair, etc). The same goes for just about every other ability that allows you to intimidate more than one enemy at a time. Never Outnumbered is useful 1/encounter, and at a much shorter range. Apart from that (and possibly Intimidating Rage, although I don't subscribe to that reading of the feat), I think Samurai is unique in allowing you to make AOE intimidates that aren't mind-affecting to shut down entire groups of enemies at once while you dispatch them. DCs can climb sky-high so that those who aren't outright immune simply can't pass them; technically it's not even a save, so a nat 20 won't allow success either.

If the enemy is immune (and there aren't ways to bypass that immunity that I'm aware of apart from an AMF in some cases), the technique does nothing.

If the enemy is not immune, and you can get within 30 feet (a requirement for all melee-based builds), it allows you to automatically beat entire groups of enemies.

I'd say it makes Samurai a very strong T4 class all by itself, and you can use intimidate for some social encounters as well. The lack of access to just about anything that's not a melee fight and lack of skill points and UMD means it really shouldn't be T3 though, sadly.

Edit: To respond to your question about whether or not it would be reasonable to buff Samurai by making intimidate a nonaction -- I'm not generally in favor. It's not that much of a buff to begin with against most enemies. If you have decent cha and max ranks in intimidate, your take 10 will be:

10take 10 + (level + 3)ranks + 4Staredown + 2masterwork tool + 2synergy + cha + other mods

vs

1d20 + CL or HD + wis + fear mods.

They don't even get their will save modifier. Assuming equal investment, your cha will cancel out their wis, and your level will cancel out their level, so we're left with:

21 + mods

vs

1-20 + fear mods

If they aren't very wise, or are lower leveled, they won't even have that much luck. Unless they're immune, most enemies will just auto-fail anyway. Does forcing them to roll a 1 while you roll a 20 help in most cases then? Not for actually demoralizing as your goal against most enemies. It DOES hedge out the cases where someone has invested in fear a lot or is higher leveled than you and has a small chance to succeed -- but it'd feel pretty bad to be that PC who has done that, doesn't have immunity, and the DM basically says "you autofail."

Now, it DOES allow you to reduce the cost of a demoralization at lower levels so that you can mix in intimidations to attack routines earlier on, or charge up and intimidate, or something similar. It also brings it online MUCH earlier for the samurai (and two levels before Avenging Executioner comes online to reduce action economy for other intimidation-focused builds). I'd rate it as a quality of life change in that regard for a PC.

Overall... I don't think it's a positive change, nor a needed one.

Edit2: If you wanted to buff Samurais for the quality of life in this way, I'd probably houserule that it allows you to intimidate as part of another standard action.

[Biggus]

Thank you for the thorough answer. You make some very good points, although I don't agree with all of them.


Consider that if it was a free action or a nonaction, they could intimidate every foe around them NI times until they auto-failed.

It says they can Intimidate an opponent, not more than one. I can't see many DMs accepting the reading that the fact it's not an action means they can use it unlimited times per round, or even more than once.

Also, compare the wording to the Intimidate skill:


Intimidation includes verbal threats and body language.

To use the Intimidate skill you have to do something, whereas Staredown specifies that you "strike fear into (your) foes by (your) mere presence".



As a skill check, it's a natural ability, so it isn't a fear effect. That means that it isn't mind-affecting, and can affect anyone who isn't mindless or immune to fear specifically (a rather short list).

Where does it say that skills are natural abilities and therefore not fear effects/mind-affecting?



Toss on Imperious Command and you have a very high save-or-lose ability that can completely shut down most enemies -- although granted only one enemy at a time.

I'm going to be honest, I banned Imperious Command so long ago that I'd forgotten it existed. IMO though, it's IC that's broken, not Staredown.



I'd say it makes Samurai a very strong T4 class all by itself, and you can use intimidate for some social encounters as well.


You're in a small minority with that opinion, most people place it as a low T5 class.

[Doctor Despair]

It says they can Intimidate an opponent, not more than one. I can't see many DMs accepting the reading that the fact it's not an action means they can use it unlimited times per round, or even more than once.

If it's a free action, then it can be done any number of times; there is no limit (apart from DM fiat) to the amount of free actions a character can take in a round. A DM can place a limit, but the RAW of it is that reducing anything to a free action has serious implications you must consider. What happens when this action is repeated 200 times in one player's turn? In this case: they automatically succeed on the check against their target, then do it another 200 times against another target, and so on and so forth.

Yes, it does say you can intimidate an opponent, but unless you think it only ever works against that one opponent (and you can never use it in other encounters), that's just a limitation to the number of opponents you can target per use--not a limit to the number of times you can use it in a round. The way to limit that is via action economy (which it has done by referring you to the Intimidate skill).


Also, compare the wording to the Intimidate skill:


Intimidation includes verbal threats and body language.

To use the Intimidate skill you have to do something, whereas Staredown specifies that you "strike fear into (your) foes by (your) mere presence".


That's a fluff change as far as I can see. It doesn't say it modifies the action economy of intimidate, and in fact explicitly says it's as described in the PHb. There's not a lot of wiggle room there.



Where does it say that skills are natural abilities and therefore not fear effects/mind-affecting?

SRD:


Natural Abilities
This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like.

Skills are not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like; ergo, they are natural.

RC:


Fear
Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are
mind-affecting fear effects.


FEAR ATTACKS
When they’re not spells, fear attacks can be extraordinary,
supernatural, or spell-like, with specifics explained in the
ability’s description.

These rules mean that things that are fear effects, but don't have the fear tag, can still be mind-affecting -- but only if they are categorized as fear attacks.

Fear attacks are spells or, when they aren't spells, they are ex, su, or sp. Natural abilities are not fear attacks, so they are not automatically mind-affecting unless their ability says so.



I'm going to be honest, I banned Imperious Command so long ago that I'd forgotten it existed. IMO though, it's IC that's broken, not Staredown.

I agree that IC is the stronger half of the combo, but it is so fundamental to Samurai that I really don't think you can't involve it in the discussion. It's like saying "I banned Natural Spell a long time ago, so we shouldn't consider it." It's a feat that 99% of druids should take and vastly increases their effectiveness.

With that said: I don't think Imperious Command is worthy of banning, but that's another conversation all together. This is probably the most potent class that can use it, but even that's just... fine. T4.



You're in a small minority with that opinion, most people place it as a low T5 class.

Most people aren't aware that demoralizing isn't mind-affecting. I wasn't until someone on the 3.5 discord pointed it out to me. That distinction and the existence of Imperious Command is enough to propel it up to T4 in my opinion. They're definitely as potent as a barbarian or Zhentarim fighter, who are called out as T4 in JaronK's tiers. Of course, any tier system is ultimately going to be arbitrary, but their access to AOE ranged demoralizing certainly makes them "capable of doing one thing quite well," and they are definitely "often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise."

[Biggus]

If it's a free action, then it can be done any number of times; there is no limit (apart from DM fiat) to the amount of free actions a character can take in a round. A DM can place a limit, but the RAW of it is that reducing anything to a free action has serious implications you must consider. What happens when this action is repeated 200 times in one player's turn? In this case: they automatically succeed on the check against their target, then do it another 200 times against another target, and so on and so forth.

It says right there in the definition of free actions (PHB p.139) that you can use them a "reasonable" number of times:


You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, the DM puts reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.

Suggesting that 200 times in a round is reasonable is totally nonsensical IMO.



That's a fluff change as far as I can see. It doesn't say it modifies the action economy of intimidate, and in fact explicitly says it's as described in the PHb. There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

Saying it's just a fluff change is pure assumption as far as I can see. It's part of the game rule information of the Samurai, not the descriptive text.


These rules mean that things that are fear effects, but don't have the fear tag, can still be mind-affecting -- but only if they are categorized as fear attacks.

Fair enough, I didn't know the RC had clarified that.



I agree that IC is the stronger half of the combo


I think that's the understatement of the year. Staredown on its own is a mediocre ability at best, if you add IC to it, it becomes brokenly good, for the reasons you explained in your first post.

[Doctor Despair]

It says right there in the definition of free actions (PHB p.139) that you can use them a "reasonable" number of times:

Suggesting that 200 times in a round is reasonable is totally nonsensical IMO.

Yes; that's arbitrary. Hence my comment that DM fiat is all that limits it. 200 was an exaggeration to illustrate that repeating it would guarantee success.

With that said, as I demonstrated with the modifier math in my first post, you're normally looking at a 21 + various intimidate mods (size, feats, spells, etc) vs a 1-20 + the target's mods against fear effects. Note that that will be a fairly short list, since modifiers to fear saves won't help in their modified level check to resist your demoralization. I'm not aware of any off the top of my head, but there may be some. Size will be the most common modifier, of course, but you can make yourself larger or toss on Skill Focus or Willing Deformity or whatever else you want to buff your check to compensate for that.

That's why I added my later comment that gifting Samurai the ability to repeat it 200 times isn't actually going to raise them up much. They already should be succeeding most of the time. However, it does make NPC Samurai potentially a lot more disappointing for a high-wisdom character to go against. Let's say the PC had a 10 or even a 20% chance of success at resisting the demoralization. When you make them repeat the check against the same DC, their odds of success drop from 20% to just 4% -- and below even 4% if they can attempt it a third time. It's demoralizing out of game for the player, haha.




Saying it's just a fluff change is pure assumption as far as I can see. It's part of the game rule information of the Samurai, not the descriptive text.

It would be neat to give them a mini-Mass Staredown, I guess, by allowing them to use it once on any given enemy they're eligible to demoralize (e.g., Mass Staredown, but with a 5-foot range instead of 30). That would be a neat little quality of life change -- basically just giving them at-will Never Outnumbered. Of course... they could just take Never Outnumbered and get that 1/combat already, haha. (Edit: Although this would be free-action and repeatable, so I suppose it would be a noticeable increase in power since it comes online at level 6. Normally, you wouldn't get move-action until level 7 (Avenging Executioner) or swift until level 9 (Fighter). This would enable the large-scale lockdown a lot sooner (whereas you'd normally be waiting until level 12).)

As you said in your OP though: if they meant for it to reduce the action economy, it's really, really weird that they wouldn't have said that it did. RAW-wise, it looks like they just changed how your character demoralizes, but not how long/what action it takes to do so. Saying that they do it with their presence doesn't mean it doesn't take an action. As I said in my original comment though: as written, it's probably equivalent to a nice QoL change for a Samurai if you read it that way, but not a significant enough increase in power to affect its tier. If a player asked me to let them use it as a 5-foot Mass Staredown (Standard, but intimidates each enemy next to them), I'd probably let them. My old DM used to houserule that you could intimidate your target after an attack as a free action, or intimidate someone that can see you as a standard action, and it didn't cause major problems.

(Edit: To clarify, an Avenging Executioner can already use IC on two adjacent enemies each round as it is from level 7. Samurai would be better at 6 in that it can attack while locking them down (which is less relevant if the AE's party is there to attack), but the Samurai's advantage in the number of enemies intimidated is only relevant if there are 3 or more enemies adjacent to them when they use it under this reading. That's why I don't think it would be particularly problematic compared to what's already possible.)



Fair enough, I didn't know the RC had clarified that.

Yeah; it was news to me too, but it's a welcome buff for intimidation-based builds IMO.



I think that's the understatement of the year. Staredown on its own is a mediocre ability at best, if you add IC to it, it becomes brokenly good, for the reasons you explained in your first post.

Eh; I don't think it's brokenly good. In a 1v1 against an enemy who is neither mindless, nor immune to fear, nor significantly larger or wiser or higher-leveled than you, yeah, it allows you to paralyze them with fear indefinitely; if it's using your standard, it will be challenging to capitalize on that.

If you have several levels in specific classes (fighter 9, avenging executioner 2, etc), it allows you to walk up to them while they're paralyzed and cut them to pieces. That's pretty great -- if they're alone. If they have friends nearby, that won't work nearly as well, but does let you disable one enemy (who lacks the aforementioned qualities) with a move or swift action while you fight their friend.

If you have specifically Samurai 10 and the ability to demoralize as a move or swift action, then yes, you can paralyze the whole group -- if they're not mindless, not immune to fear, not significantly larger than you, not significantly wiser than you are charismatic, and not significantly higher-leveled than you -- as long as they're within 30 feet of you. If there are casters or archers out of range, you're still getting pelted while you deal with the melee folks. If you leave the melee folks to attend to them, they can charge you after IC wears off the next round.

Let's say there are no mages or archers though; it's just this group of melee mooks huddled together in a phalanx. You still have to go before them. If they beat you in initiative or surprise round you, you can still be charged, or be subject to readied actions. You don't have Nerveskitter or dire tortoises to help you avoid that.

Let's say you go first (or manage to get to your turn in initiative unscathed) and manage to freeze up all the mooks though. That's great! It's also something a shock trooper pounce fighter can do, or a wizard with nerveskitter and a pumped-up AOE spell. You spent 10-14 levels to replicate that with a skill.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm partly playing devil's advocate here. I think it's a great feat, a great combo, and I think it'd be very satisfying for a PC to play. However, I don't think it brings the Samurai out of T4. No matter how effective they get in melee combat (within 30 feet), it still doesn't help them deal with the situations they lack resources to address. I think CW Samurai is at least as good as a Zhentarim Fighter, so I'd put them in T4, but only because IC exists. It brings them up like 1 or 2 tiers all by itself because of the synergy, but it still isn't going to make them as good as a properly-built bard, or a factotum, or a binder.

[Darg]

SRD:

Skills are not designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like; ergo, they are natural.

RC:

These rules mean that things that are fear effects, but don't have the fear tag, can still be mind-affecting -- but only if they are categorized as fear attacks.

Fear attacks are spells or, when they aren't spells, they are ex, su, or sp. Natural abilities are not fear attacks, so they are not automatically mind-affecting unless their ability says so.

The RC doesn't limit fear attacks to only those 3 types of abilities. If it did then fear spells, psionics, and other forms of abilities would not be incorporated into the rule. "Can be" =/= "can only be."

Natural abilities are special abilities as categorized by the PHB. Special abilities that are a form of attack are classified as special attacks by the MM.


attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent.

If intimidate is a natural ability as you say, it must be a fear attack because it is a fear effect and a form of attack.

[Telonius]

Staredown is an (Ex) ability. Using a skill that takes an action to use, usually provokes an attack of opportunity when you're in a threatened square. Demoralize in combat takes an action, so it provokes. But (Ex) abilities generally don't provoke, so there is a gain form it there, over the usual use of Intimidate.

Demoralize usually has a couple restrictions on how it can be used:


You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent’s resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target’s modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.

It's a bit of a stretch, but I could see somebody ruling that "by his mere presence" would remove either or both of the underlined restrictions on who you can demoralize. (I'd probably allow it, because melee classes deserve Nice Things).

EDIT: Trying to hunt down a relevant old build, "Takahashi no Onisan" by ShneekyTheLost. I remember it used Imperious Command and a bunch of other tricks to almost automatically immobilize anything. Looks like it was lost to mythweavers though.

[Doctor Despair]

The RC doesn't limit fear attacks to only those 3 types of abilities. If it did then fear spells, psionics, and other forms of abilities would not be incorporated into the rule.

"Can be" =/= "can only be."

First of all, I'm going to start by establishing a very important premise: things aren't mind-affecting unless there are rules saying that they are. No matter your RAI, there needs to be rules text saying that this effect is mind-affecting.

Likewise, fear attack is a game-defined term. Things are fear attacks if the game says they are.

What does the RC say?


Spells, magic items, and monsters can cause fear... Fear attacks can have various consequences, but all of them are mind-affecting fear effects...

When they’re not spells, fear attacks can be extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like, with specifics explained in the ability’s description.

The RC does mention that fear attacks can be spells, so they can qualify as fear attacks, as can extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities. The DM could invent home-rules that make other abilities eligible to be fear attacks, but by RAW, the only things designated as fear attacks by the RC are potentially spells and those types of abilities. This does, however, not mean that every ability of those types that causes the shaken/ frightened/ panicked/ cowering conditions is a fear attack.

Consider that Touch of Vecna, a [Fear] spell, does not have the mind-affecting tag. It is not inherently mind-affecting, even though it can cause the shaken condition. Likewise, a cleric can use Turn Undead, a supernatural ability, to make even undead cower. Mind Blank alone is not sufficient to protect someone from these effects, as they are not mind-affecting. With that said, there are no other [Fear] spells that don't inherit the [Mind-Affecting] tag, so WotC seemed to have an otherwise unified design philosophy -- but there are lots of spells that cause the shaken/escalation conditions without being Fear spells or Mind-Affecting.

Psionics and other subsystems are technically a different action, yes, but there are few powers that cause fear directly. Demoralize is one, but it is [Mind-Affecting]. Primal Fear is another, and it's also [Mind-Affecting]. Technically they aren't fear attacks according to the RC, but the abuse is prevented because of their tag. A Spell-to-Power Erudite could technically take those spells that cause the shaken/escalation conditions but don't have a [Mind-Affecting] tag and try to argue that they're not spells or one of the aforementioned abilities, but technically they're not explicitly fear attacks even when they are spells.

Regardless of all that: a DM is told that fear attacks are mind-affecting, and fear attacks can include spells, ex, su, and slas. Natural abilities are not included in that description, so it would be a pure houserule to make them one.

Let's look at Intimidate specifically to discuss the RAI of it regardless. Intimidate includes the following text:


A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures.

Why in the world would they need to specify this if all fear effects were mind-affecting? "A character immune to fear can't be intimidated" is certainly reminder text, not an indication that intimidate isn't a fear effect, but why discuss nonintelligent creatures? They're immune to mind-affecting; if all fear effects are mind-affecting, then surely that means that all mindless creatures are already immune to fear effects (and therefore intimidate), right? The text is included because mindless creatures aren't automatically immune to fear. They're immune to fear attacks; not all fear effects. You can intimidate an intelligent undead; you can't intimidate a mindless zombie.



Natural abilities are special abilities as categorized by the PHB. Special abilities that are a form of attack are classified as special attacks by the MM.

If intimidate is a natural ability as you say, it must be a fear attack because it is a fear effect and a form of attack.

And yet fear attack doesn't include natural abilities. They didn't say attacks that cause fear are mind-affecting, or that fear effects used to attack are mind-affecting; they said fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.

If we want to sink to that level of pedantry: intimidate, even under that definition, would be a fear special attack, not a fear attack.


Staredown is an (Ex) ability. Using a skill that takes an action to use, usually provokes an attack of opportunity when you're in a threatened square.

From the SRD on actions in combat (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm), using a skill that takes a full round or standard usually (but not always) provokes. That includes use rope, survival (tracking), sleight of hand (except for hidden weapon), search, handle animal (pushing), heal (treating a wound/poison), intimidate (demoralize), open lock, disable device (simple device), diplomacy (rushed), and bluff (except to feint/secret message, and doesn't if you spend more than 1 round doing it for some reason).

Usually is different than yes. With a yes, we'd need a specific exception carved out for it not to provoke. With a usually, it is up to DM fiat which of those actions provoke AOOs. For example, open lock probably should provoke, but bluff probably shouldn't. With that said: reducing demoralize to a move action removes any chance that it provokes an aoo.



Demoralize in combat takes an action, so it provokes. But (Ex) abilities generally don't provoke, so there is a gain form it there, over the usual use of Intimidate.

A samurai doesn't use Mass Staredown, just like barbarians don't use Fast Movement. It is a special quality that modifies how they can use intimidate checks. If demoralize provokes, it still does if you're benefiting from Mass Staredown. If it doesn't, then unmodified demoralize doesn't either.



Demoralize usually has a couple restrictions on how it can be used:

It's a bit of a stretch, but I could see somebody ruling that "by his mere presence" would remove either or both of the underlined restrictions on who you can demoralize. (I'd probably allow it, because melee classes deserve Nice Things).


That would be neat. It would mean someone wouldn't have to go into Kalashtar or Changeling to get access to Quori Dread to get a demoralize option with decent range. As you said, it's a bit of a stretch, but it is definitely a neat mini-buff to consider.



EDIT: Trying to hunt down a relevant old build, "Takahashi no Onisan" by ShneekyTheLost. I remember it used Imperious Command and a bunch of other tricks to almost automatically immobilize anything. Looks like it was lost to mythweavers though.

Probably relied on an inaccurate reading of Intimidating Rage. People can use Instantaneous Rage to rage even when flat-footed. Then, they want to use this:


Benefit
While you are raging, you designate a single foe within 30feet of you that you can attempt to demoralize as a free action (see the intimidate skill page 76 of the Player's Handbook). A foe that you successfully demoralize remains shaken for as long as you continue to rage. You may only use this feat against a single foe in any particular encounter.

They think it lets them pick an enemy within 30 feet, and then they can demoralize them as a free action. They want this to let them intimidate anyone whenever they want. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny though.

For starters: what action is it to pick the foe? If it doesn't seem clear, it's because under that reading of the benefit, there isn't one. In truth, it's a free action (and the text tells us so):


While you are raging, you designate a single foe within 30feet of you... as a free action

Wait, you ask -- what action would the intimidate be then? The answer to that is a standard action unless otherwise modified. It refers you to the PHb for a reason.

If we do go with the broken reading though, there is still the issue of how you're taking the free action when it isn't your turn. People forget you need some action for the free action to attach itself to. Never fear; I have an answer, but it's ugly.

You can take free actions when you take any other action, so you could use Instantaneous Rage to start raging (from some non-barbarian ACF to get rage), then use Barbarian Ferocity to take an immediate action when it isn't your turn, allowing you to use your free-action intimidating rage to shout your opponent to death (presumably with Imperious Command). It's a cute combo, but as I said, it's predicated on a flawed reading of the Intimidating Rage feat.

[Darg]

Likewise, fear attack is a game-defined term. Things are fear attacks if the game says they are.

What does the RC say?

Your quote doesn't define what a fear attack is though.


The RC does mention that fear attacks can be spells, so they can qualify as fear attacks, as can extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities. The DM could invent home-rules that make other abilities eligible to be fear attacks, but by RAW, the only things designated as fear attacks by the RC are potentially spells and those types of abilities. This does, however, not mean that every ability of those types that causes the shaken/ frightened/ panicked/ cowering conditions is a fear attack.

"can be" =/= "can only be."

So fear attacks can be spells. Can you explain where the rules specifically point out which fear spell is an attack and which isn't?


Consider that Touch of Vecna, a [Fear] spell, does not have the mind-affecting tag. It is not inherently mind-affecting, even though it can cause the shaken condition. Likewise, a cleric can use Turn Undead, a supernatural ability, to make even undead cower. Mind Blank alone is not sufficient to protect someone from these effects, as they are not mind-affecting. With that said, there are no other [Fear] spells that don't inherit the [Mind-Affecting] tag, so WotC seemed to have an otherwise unified design philosophy -- but there are lots of spells that cause the shaken/escalation conditions without being Fear spells or Mind-Affecting.

According the RC, it must be a fear effect to escalate.


Psionics and other subsystems are technically a different action, yes, but there are few powers that cause fear directly. Demoralize is one, but it is [Mind-Affecting]. Primal Fear is another, and it's also [Mind-Affecting]. Technically they aren't fear attacks according to the RC, but the abuse is prevented because of their tag. A Spell-to-Power Erudite could technically take those spells that cause the shaken/escalation conditions but don't have a [Mind-Affecting] tag and try to argue that they're not spells or one of the aforementioned abilities, but technically they're not explicitly fear attacks even when they are spells.

Regardless of all that: a DM is told that fear attacks are mind-affecting, and fear attacks can include spells, ex, su, and slas. Natural abilities are not included in that description, so it would be a pure houserule to make them one.

It's not a house rule when the rule itself is not an exhaustive statement. "can be" =/= "can only be."


Let's look at Intimidate specifically to discuss the RAI of it regardless. Intimidate includes the following text:



Why in the world would they need to specify this if all fear effects were mind-affecting? "A character immune to fear can't be intimidated" is certainly reminder text, not an indication that intimidate isn't a fear effect, but why discuss nonintelligent creatures? They're immune to mind-affecting; if all fear effects are mind-affecting, then surely that means that all mindless creatures are already immune to fear effects (and therefore intimidate), right? The text is included because mindless creatures aren't automatically immune to fear. They're immune to fear attacks; not all fear effects. You can intimidate an intelligent undead; you can't intimidate a mindless zombie.



And yet fear attack doesn't include natural abilities. They didn't say attacks that cause fear are mind-affecting, or that fear effects used to attack are mind-affecting; they said fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects.

If we want to sink to that level of pedantry: intimidate, even under that definition, would be a fear special attack, not a fear attack.

What if I told you that the RC is filled with compilation errors and nonsensical statements? Fear Attacks are left undefined, and yet were expanded in the RC to include spells and extraordinary forms of fear without direct guidance to adjudicate them. Prior to the RC, Fear attacks were supernatural or spell-like abilities that fell under 4 categories: fear, a fear aura, a fear cone, or a fear ray. Frightful presence was it's own different ability. Turn undead wasn't a fear attack. Spells weren't fear attacks. Etc. The RC calls cower a stage of fear even though it's just a condition and can't be escalated to.

I ignore the RC for these kinds of reasons. It can make things more complicated than they need to be and does very little in the way of clarifying anything either. In the section of damage reduction they combined attributes from the DMG and the MM, but forget the additional effect exemptions on attacks. DR prevents delivery of touch attacks/spells, energy damage on a weapon, and effects like energy drain.

I'm not really against your interpretation of the RC, it's just based on assumptions made from sloppy work done by WotC as they were likely working on 4e at the time.