paizo.com - Forums: Advice: Frightened 2 (2024)

What would be the (in your opinion) the most reliable way to inflict Frightened 2.

preferably in a manner that can be repeated across the day a fair amount of times (no need to be at will, but not like 3-4 times per day either)

And preferably be online by mid-levels (like 12 or so)

Let's see...

Fighter Intimidating Strike in a critical hit causes the Frightened 2, they have the best proficiency right now so they can do it with some reliability while flanking.

Cleric Nightmare Domain Focus spell, so it can be used every encounter, targets will.

Sorcerer Horrific Visage from Hag Bloodline Focus spell as well and in area, but it will only cause frightened 2 in a reliable way at lvl 9 and up.

These are the ones that I find better.

Crit Demoralize isn't super-reliable but it's a cheap attempt if you are Cha-invested, though you can only try it once per target.

+1 to Fear though, requires a failed save but at level 3 slot it targets 5 creatures, heckin nice.

to give a bit of context, I'm trying to build a Fighter that fully utilizes Fearsome brute feat (gain +3x Frightened value as circ*mstance bonus to damage) at level 10.

He'll obviously have the intimidation line, but that has its limitations.

So, i'm trying to see if i can capitalize on MC to gain additional sources of reliable Frightened 2 to get that juicy +6 to damage

Just something to think about, Fearsome Brute says:

Quote:

Fear makes your foes weak and more vulnerable to your attacks. You gain a circ*mstance bonus to damage rolls for Strikes against frightened creatures. The bonus is equal to double the target’s frightened value.

I may be wrong, but I believe you wouldn't get that bonus damage on anything except a basis strike. Meaning special ability attacks wouldn't have that benefit.

I'm not positive on that, but something I'm worried about being true. If it's limited to only when you use the Strike action it makes a lot worse.

Claxon wrote:

Just something to think about, Fearsome Brute says:

Quote:

Fear makes your foes weak and more vulnerable to your attacks. You gain a circ*mstance bonus to damage rolls for Strikes against frightened creatures. The bonus is equal to double the target’s frightened value.

I may be wrong, but I believe you wouldn't get that bonus damage on anything except a basis strike. Meaning special ability attacks wouldn't have that benefit.

I'm not positive on that, but something I'm worried about being true. If it's limited to only when you use the Strike action it makes a lot worse.

most "special attacks" actually do Strikes that do something in addition to the basic Strike. So it actually works for the vast majority of abilities.

In short, Strike is this edition's language for "attack with a weapon" in most cases.

as an example:
"SHATTER DEFENSES [one-action] FEAT 6
FIGHTER PRESS
Requirements A frightened creature is in your melee reach.
Your offense exploits your enemy’s fear. Make a melee Strike
against a frightened creature. If you hit and deal damage, the
target becomes flat-footed until its frightened condition ends.
If the target was already flat-footed to you when you damaged
it with this Strike, it can’t reduce its frightened value below 1
until the start of your next turn."

"POWER ATTACK [two-actions] FEAT 1
FIGHTER FLOURISH
You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit
unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple
attack penalty. If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least
10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to
three extra dice."

And etc for I think all "weapon attack" feats/abilities

Unicore wrote:

Team up with a party that debuff's will and causes fear?

Most of my character designs are used for NPCs since I'm like an eternal GM (i only get to play as a player usually in roll20, hence my gripe for some "raw" issues, for my own campaigns i just houserule)

but i digress, the issue with designing those concepts as NPCs villains, it's that i don't like the whole "party vs party" encounters to be that common, so I need them to work either as standalone, or standalone+mooks, or as "groups" (thugs with similiar builds)

that's why i can't usually mix several classes in a blender like a party to get ideal "cooperation" tactics.

shroudb wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Team up with a party that debuff's will and causes fear?

Most of my character designs are used for NPCs since I'm like an eternal GM (i only get to play as a player usually in roll20, hence my gripe for some "raw" issues, for my own campaigns i just houserule)

but i digress, the issue with designing those concepts as NPCs villains, it's that i don't like the whole "party vs party" encounters to be that common, so I need them to work either as standalone, or standalone+mooks, or as "groups" (thugs with similiar builds)

that's why i can't usually mix several classes in a blender like a party to get ideal "cooperation" tactics.

Well that is even better really. You can pair the 1 NPC up with some fear focused monsters that will make for a really fun and brutal encounter unless your party is composed of gutsy halflings.

Fear Gem
Item 4
Price 20 gp

If you have the Intimidating Strike feat, increase the frightened condition value from this Intimidating Strike to frightened 2, or frightened 3 on a critical hit.

Activate ** Intimidating Strike

Maybe buy/craft a lot of this talismans? 20gp is a lot for each, but at lvl 10 when fearsome brute comes online they should be a lot more affordable.

shroudb wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Just something to think about, Fearsome Brute says:

Quote:

Fear makes your foes weak and more vulnerable to your attacks. You gain a circ*mstance bonus to damage rolls for Strikes against frightened creatures. The bonus is equal to double the target’s frightened value.

I may be wrong, but I believe you wouldn't get that bonus damage on anything except a basis strike. Meaning special ability attacks wouldn't have that benefit.

I'm not positive on that, but something I'm worried about being true. If it's limited to only when you use the Strike action it makes a lot worse.

most "special attacks" actually do Strikes that do something in addition to the basic Strike. So it actually works for the vast majority of abilities.

In short, Strike is this edition's language for "attack with a weapon" in most cases.

as an example:
"SHATTER DEFENSES [one-action] FEAT 6
FIGHTER PRESS
Requirements A frightened creature is in your melee reach.
Your offense exploits your enemy’s fear. Make a melee Strike
against a frightened creature. If you hit and deal damage, the
target becomes flat-footed until its frightened condition ends.
If the target was already flat-footed to you when you damaged
it with this Strike, it can’t reduce its frightened value below 1
until the start of your next turn."

"POWER ATTACK [two-actions] FEAT 1
FIGHTER FLOURISH
You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit
unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple
attack penalty. If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least
10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to
three extra dice."

And etc for I think all "weapon attack" feats/abilities

No no, I get that. What I'm saying is I fear that it doesn't count because it's not just a strike, it's actually a Power Attack or a Shatter Defense. Despite using the word Strike in the description, I'm not sure if it counts or not.

Unicore wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Team up with a party that debuff's will and causes fear?

Most of my character designs are used for NPCs since I'm like an eternal GM (i only get to play as a player usually in roll20, hence my gripe for some "raw" issues, for my own campaigns i just houserule)

but i digress, the issue with designing those concepts as NPCs villains, it's that i don't like the whole "party vs party" encounters to be that common, so I need them to work either as standalone, or standalone+mooks, or as "groups" (thugs with similiar builds)

that's why i can't usually mix several classes in a blender like a party to get ideal "cooperation" tactics.

Well that is even better really. You can pair the 1 NPC up with some fear focused monsters that will make for a really fun and brutal encounter unless your party is composed of gutsy halflings.

i would have prefered, if i can ofc, to find a solution to work either solo or with the mooks, since that particular encounter i have in mind involves the fighter in question being the leader of a thug group.

well, frightened 1 is still fine if i can't make it work, but i really wanted to give a bit of spotlight on those with "reduce fear faster" abilities in the party.

we'll see when the time comes, i think it'll be quite some time till they'll actually face him in combat, for now he's just planned to order them around like the small fries they are^^

Claxon wrote:

No no, I get that. What I'm saying is I fear that it doesn't count because it's not just a strike, it's actually a Power Attack or a...

Unless I'm misreading, p. 462 agrees with you. If Strike is called for, activities that include a Strike as a subordinate action don't apply.

Apotheosis wrote:

Claxon wrote:

No no, I get that. What I'm saying is I fear that it doesn't count because it's not just a strike, it's actually a Power Attack or a...

Unless I'm misreading, p. 462 agrees with you. If Strike is called for, activities that include a Strike as a subordinate action don't apply.

If something asks for you to do a Strike you can't substitute a Power attack. But if something affects a Strike, it does affect Power attack.

In short, a Power attack contains a Strike, but a Strike isn't a Power attack.

So, a Power attack does a Strike, with whatever that "strike entails".

But you can't use Power attack instead of a Strike.

The "parent action" (Power attack in this case) gains everything from the subordinate action (Strike) but the Subordinate action (Strike) doesn't gain anything from the Parent action (Power attack).

As an example:

You do a running jump. This is an activity that combines Stride and Leap for some additional benefits.

The running jump is simultaneously both a Stride AND a leap, with whatver bonuses applying to both Stride and leap applying.

BUT

If you are called to do a "stride" or a "leap" you can't somehow do a running jump instead just because ruinning jump happens to inlclude strides and leaps.

Is it any more clear now?

shroudb wrote:

Apotheosis wrote:

Claxon wrote:

No no, I get that. What I'm saying is I fear that it doesn't count because it's not just a strike, it's actually a Power Attack or a...

Unless I'm misreading, p. 462 agrees with you. If Strike is called for, activities that include a Strike as a subordinate action don't apply.

If something asks for you to do a Strike you can't substitute a Power attack. But if something affects a Strike, it does affect Power attack.

In short, a Power attack contains a Strike, but a Strike isn't a Power attack.

So, a Power attack does a Strike, with whatever that "strike entails".

But you can't use Power attack instead of a Strike.

The "parent action" (Power attack in this case) gains everything from the subordinate action (Strike) but the Subordinate action (Strike) doesn't gain anything from the Parent action (Power attack).

As an example:

You do a running jump. This is an activity that combines Stride and Leap for some additional benefits.

The running jump is simultaneously both a Stride AND a leap, with whatver bonuses applying to both Stride and leap applying.

BUT

If you are called to do a "stride" or a "leap" you can't somehow do a running jump instead just because ruinning jump happens to inlclude strides and leaps.

Is it any more clear now?

Erm...not entirely? Forgive me, I'm not trying to be dense, I'm actually trying to understand this. Where I guess I'm confused is this line from the book: "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions". Wouldn't the Power Attack be doing exactly that? That's where I'm tripped up? I hope that makes sense.

Claxon wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Just something to think about, Fearsome Brute says:

Quote:

Fear makes your foes weak and more vulnerable to your attacks. You gain a circ*mstance bonus to damage rolls for Strikes against frightened creatures. The bonus is equal to double the target’s frightened value.

I may be wrong, but I believe you wouldn't get that bonus damage on anything except a basis strike. Meaning special ability attacks wouldn't have that benefit.

I'm not positive on that, but something I'm worried about being true. If it's limited to only when you use the Strike action it makes a lot worse.

most "special attacks" actually do Strikes that do something in addition to the basic Strike. So it actually works for the vast majority of abilities.

In short, Strike is this edition's language for "attack with a weapon" in most cases.

as an example:
"SHATTER DEFENSES [one-action] FEAT 6
FIGHTER PRESS
Requirements A frightened creature is in your melee reach.
Your offense exploits your enemy’s fear. Make a melee Strike
against a frightened creature. If you hit and deal damage, the
target becomes flat-footed until its frightened condition ends.
If the target was already flat-footed to you when you damaged
it with this Strike, it can’t reduce its frightened value below 1
until the start of your next turn."

"POWER ATTACK [two-actions] FEAT 1
FIGHTER FLOURISH
You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit
unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple
attack penalty. If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least
10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to
three extra dice."

And etc for I think all "weapon attack" feats/abilities

No no, I get that. What I'm saying is I fear that it doesn't count because it's not just a strike, it's actually a Power Attack or a...

you can't substitute an activity containing a Subaction for that action, but the activity gets everything affecting the subaction.

so, you can't Power attack instead of a Strike.
But everything affecting a Strike affects power attack.

shroudb wrote:

The "parent action" (Power attack in this case) gains everything from the subordinate action (Strike) but the Subordinate action (Strike) doesn't gain anything from the Parent action (Power attack).

You didn't read pg 462 carefully enough. The parent action does NOT gain everything from the subordinate action - it specifically notes that a one action attack that includes a Strike cannot be made as part of the step, stride, or strike provision of a quick action via Haste. If something calls for a Strike, it has to be the actual Strike action, not an action that incorporates a Strike.

The issue is whether Brutal Strike is calling for a Strike Action (which would foreclose anything that incorporates a Strike but does more) or the effects of a Strike. I don't know that pg 462 or any other rules really consider the last category to even be a thing.

Apotheosis wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Apotheosis wrote:

Claxon wrote:

No no, I get that. What I'm saying is I fear that it doesn't count because it's not just a strike, it's actually a Power Attack or a...

Unless I'm misreading, p. 462 agrees with you. If Strike is called for, activities that include a Strike as a subordinate action don't apply.

If something asks for you to do a Strike you can't substitute a Power attack. But if something affects a Strike, it does affect Power attack.

In short, a Power attack contains a Strike, but a Strike isn't a Power attack.

So, a Power attack does a Strike, with whatever that "strike entails".

But you can't use Power attack instead of a Strike.

The "parent action" (Power attack in this case) gains everything from the subordinate action (Strike) but the Subordinate action (Strike) doesn't gain anything from the Parent action (Power attack).

As an example:

You do a running jump. This is an activity that combines Stride and Leap for some additional benefits.

The running jump is simultaneously both a Stride AND a leap, with whatver bonuses applying to both Stride and leap applying.

BUT

If you are called to do a "stride" or a "leap" you can't somehow do a running jump instead just because ruinning jump happens to inlclude strides and leaps.

Is it any more clear now?

Erm...not entirely? Forgive me, I'm not trying to be dense, I'm actually trying to understand this. Where I guess I'm confused is this line from the book: "Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions". Wouldn't the Power Attack be doing exactly that? That's where I'm tripped up? I hope that makes sense.

nah it is kinda weird because it's a one way "inheritance"

the activity inherits everything from the subaction, but the subaction inherits nothing from the parent activity.

For the sentence you quoted, the example immediately after explains what it means:

a Power attack is NOT a Strike.

You cannot use Power Attack instead of a Strike (in the haste example).

but a power attack CONTAINS a Strike, so everything affecting a Strike (including it's traits and etc) affects Power attack the same.

Xenocrat wrote:

shroudb wrote:

The "parent action" (Power attack in this case) gains everything from the subordinate action (Strike) but the Subordinate action (Strike) doesn't gain anything from the Parent action (Power attack).

You didn't read pg 462 carefully enough. The parent action does NOT gain everything from the subordinate action - it specifically notes that a one action attack that includes a Strike cannot be made as part of the step, stride, or strike provision of a quick action via Haste. If something calls for a Strike, it has to be the actual Strike action, not an action that incorporates a Strike.

The issue is whether Brutal Strike is calling for a Strike Action (which would foreclose anything that incorporates a Strike but does more) or the effects of a Strike. I don't know that pg 462 or any other rules really consider the last category to even be a thing.

Feasome brute does not asks to make a Strike (it's not an action).

Fearsome brute adds an effect on all Strikes.

That's different from like haste that asks to do a Strike.

If it was a 1 action that said:
do a strike, it gains x/y/z, then yes, it wouldn't combine.

but it doesn't do that. It modifies all strikes.

and since:
"This subordinate
action still has its normal traits and effects"

and fearsome brute is an effect on all Strikes, then it works fine.

Xenocrat wrote:

The issue is whether Brutal Strike is calling for a Strike Action

It's not calling for anything, it's a modifier.

The sidebar on 462 says you can't nest actions and use Haste to make a power attack. It doesn't say anything about Power Attack's Strike not being a Strike.

In fact it says the opposite: "This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects" is in the paragraph above the one being argued here.

Kyrone wrote:

Fear Gem

Item 4
Price 20 gp

If you have the Intimidating Strike feat, increase the frightened condition value from this Intimidating Strike to frightened 2, or frightened 3 on a critical hit.

Activate ** Intimidating Strike

Maybe buy/craft a lot of this talismans? 20gp is a lot for each, but at lvl 10 when fearsome brute comes online they should be a lot more affordable.

missed that within the conversation about activities.

thank you, that was exactly what i was looking for.

it even leaves behind loot for the players^^

Xenocrat wrote:

shroudb wrote:

The "parent action" (Power attack in this case) gains everything from the subordinate action (Strike) but the Subordinate action (Strike) doesn't gain anything from the Parent action (Power attack).

You didn't read pg 462 carefully enough. The parent action does NOT gain everything from the subordinate action - it specifically notes that a one action attack that includes a Strike cannot be made as part of the step, stride, or strike provision of a quick action via Haste. If something calls for a Strike, it has to be the actual Strike action, not an action that incorporates a Strike.

The issue is whether Brutal Strike is calling for a Strike Action (which would foreclose anything that incorporates a Strike but does more) or the effects of a Strike. I don't know that pg 462 or any other rules really consider the last category to even be a thing.

This is perfectly what I was trying to describe, but failed to do so.

Claxon wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

shroudb wrote:

The "parent action" (Power attack in this case) gains everything from the subordinate action (Strike) but the Subordinate action (Strike) doesn't gain anything from the Parent action (Power attack).

You didn't read pg 462 carefully enough. The parent action does NOT gain everything from the subordinate action - it specifically notes that a one action attack that includes a Strike cannot be made as part of the step, stride, or strike provision of a quick action via Haste. If something calls for a Strike, it has to be the actual Strike action, not an action that incorporates a Strike.

The issue is whether Brutal Strike is calling for a Strike Action (which would foreclose anything that incorporates a Strike but does more) or the effects of a Strike. I don't know that pg 462 or any other rules really consider the last category to even be a thing.

This is perfectly what I was trying to describe, but failed to do so.

I think I'm convinced by their counterargument, but I'm not sure the developers are.

shroudb wrote:

Kyrone wrote:

Fear Gem

Item 4
Price 20 gp

If you have the Intimidating Strike feat, increase the frightened condition value from this Intimidating Strike to frightened 2, or frightened 3 on a critical hit.

Activate ** Intimidating Strike

Maybe buy/craft a lot of this talismans? 20gp is a lot for each, but at lvl 10 when fearsome brute comes online they should be a lot more affordable.

missed that within the conversation about activities.

thank you, that was exactly what i was looking for.

it even leaves behind loot for the players^^

The Fear Gem is a Talisman, though, which is a consumable.

In addition, you can only have one Talisman attached to a weapon at a time, and it's something that requires you to spend a few minutes and Craft to attach one. So not something that can be done in combat.

Though I suppose your NPC enemy could have a quiver of swords that each have a talisman on them and just drop them after they're used.

Claxon wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

shroudb wrote:

The "parent action" (Power attack in this case) gains everything from the subordinate action (Strike) but the Subordinate action (Strike) doesn't gain anything from the Parent action (Power attack).

You didn't read pg 462 carefully enough. The parent action does NOT gain everything from the subordinate action - it specifically notes that a one action attack that includes a Strike cannot be made as part of the step, stride, or strike provision of a quick action via Haste. If something calls for a Strike, it has to be the actual Strike action, not an action that incorporates a Strike.

The issue is whether Brutal Strike is calling for a Strike Action (which would foreclose anything that incorporates a Strike but does more) or the effects of a Strike. I don't know that pg 462 or any other rules really consider the last category to even be a thing.

This is perfectly what I was trying to describe, but failed to do so.

it's mostly badly written, but the example directly below and the paragraph directly above cover it fine.

what they are trying to say is this:

When an activity has a subaction, then that subaction gets all of its normal traits AND EFFECTS but the activity itself is not the action.

So, the Strike in the Power Attack gets all the effects of a Strike BUT it still is a "Power attack activity" and not a Strike. So you can't use it if a specific action calls for a Strike (like the extra action from Haste).

A simple way to look at it is like a nested effect tree:

Power attack is "Power attack traits" +xd8 dices+Strike
---Strike adds "Strike traits" + yd8+str damage
----Effects riding on a Strike add A+B+C

End effect is a "Power attack" that deals (x+y)d8+str+ effect A, B, C and has the traits of both Power attack, and Strike.

But it still is "power attack" and not a "strike"

Re: The NPC thug leader.

It's your beast, so just make him as you'd like, just balanced.
Maybe he's undead and has some sort of aura, like Dirge of Doom (but w/o the action cost)
Maybe he's part hag and can unleash Horrific Visage.
Dragon-blood w/ presence.
And so forth.

Visage & Fearsome Brute are both 10th level powers, so that should close him off from having too much else if level 10, except some Reaction.
The other variants might be based off of similar creatures, like what is the presence of a 10th level dragon like?

And then your players may all save and ruin it.

The thugs also might be really good at Intimidate.
Dirge of Doom is only level 6 (and only Frightened 1), but there's no save and a level 6 shouldn't alter the XP/difficulty much.
It's not like their 3rd attacks should hit anyway.

Or there could be a Haunt that the baddies are somehow immune to (or not).
It could unleash a magic effect (3rd level Fear) to start the battle.

One trouble is Frightened usually fades really fast.
Another is that Fearsome Brute isn't obvious to the players, so you may want to add a visible effect, even if it seems magical. Like fear as a tangible force that his weapons draw in before releasing in a burst.
Or something.
You're the GM.

Quote:

As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

It's an example so expanding on that, I interpret this to be if something says "This happens when you Strike" is essentially saying "If the action you use is a Strike, this happens" in which case it appears things like Power Attack would not apply.

Power Attack is not a Strike, it's Power Attack. You cannot substitute an action for Strike in the phrase "If the action you use is a Strike, this happens."

Syries wrote:

Quote:

As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

It's an example so expanding on that, I interpret this to be if something says "This happens when you Strike" is essentially saying "If the action you use is a Strike, this happens" in which case it appears things like Power Attack would not apply.

Power Attack is not a Strike, it's Power Attack. You cannot substitute an action for Strike in the phrase "If the action you use is a Strike, this happens."

Strikes are the basic unit of attacking; One action, one attack.

They appear on their own, and when they do that's all they are, i.e. AoOs and many forms of Quickened allow Strikes. Those can't be replaced (except with explicit substitution which no ability has that I can tell.)
So what a Strike is on its own is straightforward. (I hope.)

And Strikes appear elsewhere, often with adjustments, like in Power Attack. Power Attack is an attack option that takes two actions.
It consists of a Strike w/ extra damage.
A Strike is explicitly being made, as per the phrasing.
If somebody has a bonus to all Strikes, they have a bonus to that Strike too. It seems pretty clear to me. If Paizo wanted an ability only to apply to a Strike when it's not part of a different action they should've made that clear.

My 2 c.p.
Cheers