Intimidate

[RNightstalker]

When someone uses the intimidate skill to demoralize an opponent, is it a standard action or a move action or neither? Someone actually used it in a game recently and we couldn't find out.

[Paragon]

Intimidating an opponent in combat is a standard action.

It says so in the Intimidate skill under Action

[Rebel7284]

Bonus: While usually it's a Standard action, Fearsome Armor enhancement from DotU allows you to intimidate as a move action.

[Doctor Despair]

Bonus: While usually it's a Standard action, Fearsome Armor enhancement from DotU allows you to intimidate as a move action.

Iirc that was updated and nerfed. Maybe in MiC?

There are classes that reduce the action economy though, like Samurai 14, Zhentarim Fighter 9, Crimson Scourge 7, Avenging Executioner 2, etc.

[Venger]

Iirc that was updated and nerfed. Maybe in MiC?

This both is and isn't true. Fearsome armor originally appeared in dragons of faerun and gave you a fear sla as a +2 enhancement. It was then nerfed in mic to panic enemies within 20 feet 3/day, and then buffed in the later dotu, the most recent version of it which grants the benefits Rebel7284 mentioned, in addition to being treated as though it has armor spikes and +5 enhancement to intimidate.

[Doctor Despair]

This both is and isn't true. Fearsome armor originally appeared in dragons of faerun and gave you a fear sla as a +2 enhancement. It was then nerfed in mic to panic enemies within 20 feet 3/day, and then buffed in the later dotu, the most recent version of it which grants the benefits Rebel7284 mentioned, in addition to being treated as though it has armor spikes and +5 enhancement to intimidate.

Wasn't MiC reprinted after DotU though? So it went DoF, MiC, DotU, MiC? Or am I just misremembering?

[Venger]

It was. I thought it was like a second printing so wouldn't affect which book was considered the latest regarding stuff like this. Apparently the 2013 reprint incorporated some errata making it the latest source. Its writeup on fearsome armor is identical to to the 2007 mic version, so it looks like that is in fact the latest version. Sorry for the confusion, well done.

[Doctor Despair]

It was. I thought it was like a second printing so wouldn't affect which book was considered the latest regarding stuff like this. Apparently the 2013 reprint incorporated some errata making it the latest source. Its writeup on fearsome armor is identical to to the 2007 mic version, so it looks like that is in fact the latest version. Sorry for the confusion, well done.

I only know it because someone else broke my heart corrected me on this in recent months, so don't take it too hard haha.

[RNightstalker]

Intimidating an opponent in combat is a standard action.

It says so in the Intimidate skill under Action

So it does. The playground comes to the rescue yet again. Thank you.

[Darg]

Does the MIC errata include more source books? DoF and DotU are lacking from the sources list otherwise. I'd say that all 3 books simply came up with a same name ability that are just different abilities. As far as I can tell none of the items or other item abilities from DotU are included in the MIC. There are plenty of other abilities that have the same name that do different things.

[Mordante]

Is intimidate a mostly useless skill?

[Doctor Despair]

Is intimidate a mostly useless skill?

Absolutely not. It's one of the only fear effects that isn't mind-affecting. Toss on Imperious Command and go to town

[loky1109]

Absolutely not. It's one of the only fear effects that isn't mind-affecting. Toss on Imperious Command and go to town

Rules compendium says all fear effects are mind-affecting.

[Doctor Despair]

Rules compendium says all fear effects are mind-affecting.

No, RC says all fear attacks are mind-affecting. Natural abilities are not fear attacks. Intimidation is a natural ability.

All fear attacks are fear effects; not all fear effects are fear attacks. Absent DM fiat, spells, SLAs, ex, and su abilities that cause fear are fear attacks.

[RNightstalker]

Absolutely not. It's one of the only fear effects that isn't mind-affecting. Toss on Imperious Command and go to town

Imperious Command? Where is that one found?

[Venger]

It's a feat. Drow of the underdark, p 50.

[Darg]

No, RC says all fear attacks are mind-affecting. Natural abilities are not fear attacks. Intimidation is a natural ability.

All fear attacks are fear effects; not all fear effects are fear attacks. Absent DM fiat, spells, SLAs, ex, and su abilities that cause fear are fear attacks.

The RC kinda butchered the fear section. Cowering isn't a stage of fear, it's a condition applied when a panicked creature cannot flee. Not to mention it doesn't even explain WHAT a fear attack is. I mean, if we take the RC at its word then undead are immune to being turned as turning causes the cowering condition which is supposedly a stage of fear. The RC does this in other places as well. Ultimately I've found the RC does more harm than good honestly. But that's just an opinion.

[RNightstalker]

It's a feat. Drow of the underdark, p 50.

Thanks again!

[Zombimode]

No, RC says all fear attacks are mind-affecting. Natural abilities are not fear attacks. Intimidation is a natural ability.

All fear attacks are fear effects; not all fear effects are fear attacks. Absent DM fiat, spells, SLAs, ex, and su abilities that cause fear are fear attacks.

If you really want to go the "the rules are a formal system where individual signifiers have no meaning other than their formal definition" route you would have to at least provide a citation for your last sentence.

Otherwise your position that the Demoralize use of the Intimidate is not an attack is just something you made up and choose to believe.


If you would instead adopt a stance where the written rules are the medium that carry the intentions of the game designer and where the words are not just meaningless strings that need a formal definition to be understood, but instead have been chosen for their natural language meaning, you would hopefully agree with me that using intimidation to demoralize an opponent is of course an attack. A psycological one instead of physical, but still an attack.

[Doctor Despair]

If you really want to go the "the rules are a formal system where individual signifiers have no meaning other than their formal definition" route you would have to at least provide a citation for your last sentence.

Otherwise your position that the Demoralize use of the Intimidate is not an attack is just something you made up and choose to believe.


Alright, friend. I was away from book, but it's also right in the fear section of the RC under "Fear Attacks." The person I was responding to just cited "RC" with no page number or quote, so I put in an equal amount of effort.


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

Fear attacks can be spells, extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like. Other effects that cause fear are just fear effects, and aren't inherently mind-affecting. Intimidation is a skill. Skills are natural abilities. Ergo, no text specifies intimidate as a fear attack apart from DM fiat.

With regard to DM fiat, I have an argument there as well. Consider that intimidate also carries this language:


Special

...

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

Why specify that mindless creatures can't be intimidated? Mindless creatures are already immune to mind-affecting effects. The line about fear immunity should be sufficient to include mindless creatures. The answer? Immunity to mind-affecting abilities is not sufficient to be immune to the intimidate skill, as it is not mind-affecting.

With regard to turning undead: specific trumps general here. The ability specifically says it can affect undead, so it can, even though it's a fear attack and therefore mind-affecting.

The real answer is probably that the writers of the RC were just misinformed about whether all fear stuff was supposed to be mind-affecting. The intro paragraph was probably meant as reminder text that they were mistaken about. Prior to the RC, if I remember correctly, fear-causing abilities were not inherently mind-affecting unless they said they were. However, most fear stuff did carry that text. They probably thought it was a general rule when it was just a common theme.

However, we can't just handwaive the text because it was probably a mistake. RAW is RAW. After the RC, fear attacks are mind-affecting. That definition for fear attacks omits natural abilities, and so leaves intimidate as not mind-affecting. It may have been an intentional omission so that liches can intimidate the vampires serving them, or it may have been unintentional because wizards seldom shows total mastery of their rules. A DM is free to houserule that all fear effects should be fear attacks, and it was an accidental omission; a DM is free to use the definition for fear attacks given (i.e., not natural abilities), and allow folks to intimidate folks who are not mindless and not immune to fear, but otherwise immune to mind-affecting abilities. Personally, I use the RAW because although I'm empathetic to those that shy away from intimidate not being a fear attack, it's ultimately a super unproblematic. Mundanes deserve nice things too, and fear immunity is more common and easier to acquire than you'd think.

[Vaern]

With regard to turning undead: specific trumps general here. The ability specifically says it can affect undead, so it can, even though it's a fear attack and therefore mind-affecting.
This isn't really an exception. Turn Undead isn't a fear effect. Affected creatures flee and cower, but nowhere in the description of the ability does it mention fear. It looks a lot like a fear effect, but is very intentionally not called out as a fear effect.


The real answer is probably that the writers of the RC were just misinformed about whether all fear stuff was supposed to be mind-affecting. The intro paragraph was probably meant as reminder text that they were mistaken about. Prior to the RC, if I remember correctly, fear-causing abilities were not inherently mind-affecting unless they said they were. However, most fear stuff did carry that text. They probably thought it was a general rule when it was just a common theme.
The Monster Manual's glossary mentions fear, describes a couple of different types of fear attacks, and says that "All fear attacks are mind-affecting fear effects." Fear attacks being categorically considered mind-affecting is something that has been intended RAW since core.

[Doctor Despair]

This isn't really an exception. Turn Undead isn't a fear effect. Affected creatures flee and cower, but nowhere in the description of the ability does it mention fear. It looks a lot like a fear effect, but is very intentionally not called out as a fear effect.

Cowering is explicitly a stage of fear.

[Elves]

Despair is right. Fear attacks are mind-affecting. Fear attacks are defined as spells, SLAs, su or ex, Intimidate is none of the above, so it's not a fear attack.

But since fear is obviously a mental thing I can't blame DMs who rule otherwise.

This is also where you start to run up against some wrinkles in the system. It's obvious for example that intelligent undead shouldn't be immune to mind-affecting.

[Vaern]

Cowering is explicitly a stage of fear.

Stages of fear are shaken, frightened, and panicked. Cowering is a status effect described as being caused by fear, but is not itself a stage of fear. Turning mimics the effects of fear, but is explicitly not called out as a fear effect.

[Darg]

Stages of fear are shaken, frightened, and panicked. Cowering is a status effect described as being caused by fear, but is not itself a stage of fear. Turning mimics the effects of fear, but is explicitly not called out as a fear effect.

I agree with you, but the RC does not. It explicitly mentions that cowering is indeed a stage of fear. I've yet to find any actual clarification from the RC and in general just simply more controversy. Especially in this case, it's just better to ignore the RC.


This is also where you start to run up against some wrinkles in the system. It's obvious for example that intelligent undead shouldn't be immune to mind-affecting.

It probably has to do with the idea that the mind is heavily influenced by biological processes to the point that reality can be just as strange as fiction. Undead creatures have halted or pre-destroyed biological systems. It's just a theory though.