Can Barbarians attack and intimidate contemporarily?

[Galannor]

Hi everybody,
pretty much what the title says: can a Barbarian attack AND use her Intimidate Special Ability in the same round (not necessarily against the same target)?
Many thanks & Cheers,
Galannor

[Rigon]

I would rule no, but I'm kind of a harsh CK. However, you could allow it. Maybe have the barbarian make a Cha check or something like that.

R-

[redwullf]

I agree. Since it's a specific action, separate from an attack, I would treat it as the barbarian's action for that round. Imagine the barbarian spending the round unleashing a litany of harsh language and threats, after which he launches his attack against the now-intimidated target(s) in the following round.

For best effect, you should really insist the player role plays the intimidation. I wouldn't be satisfied with just, "I use my intimidate ability..." My response would be, "OK, let's hear it!"

[serleran]

My current pit fighter has the ability. He can intimidate as part of an attack...

[Crab_Daddy]

Maybe have him take a penalty on his check, make it more of an extremely ferocious attack that shakes the enemy rather than a barrage of words/yells specifically for intimidating.

[serleran]

The rules as written for the ability, at least 4th printing, do not require the barbarian make a check. They require the opponent to make a save. The barbarian only need to perform some action, and continue to do so, for the duration.

[Lurker]

... The barbarian only need to perform some action, and continue to do so, for the duration.

Good point ... I missed that when I read the barbarian description. I could see a barbarian, snarling and hacking away at you, knocking your shield around, and pushing you back swing by swing with a great ax as VERY intimidating

[redwullf]

The rules as written for the ability, at least 4th printing, do not require the barbarian make a check. They require the opponent to make a save. The barbarian only need to perform some action, and continue to do so, for the duration.

Ah, a keen observation. This forces me to rethink my "it's an action" position.

[Frost]

I've been ruling he can do it more or less at will.

Seems to be working ok... then again the player keeps forgetting to do so, ha.

[Rigon]

... The barbarian only need to perform some action, and continue to do so, for the duration.

Good point ... I missed that when I read the barbarian description. I could see a barbarian, snarling and hacking away at you, knocking your shield around, and pushing you back swing by swing with a great ax as VERY intimidating

Yes, goods point. I'll have to rethink it as well.

R-

[Lord Dynel]

For me, it's a toss up.

There's part of me that wants to take a step back from move actions, attacks actions, partial actions, etc., etc. and think about the base feasibility of such an action taking place. Can the barbarian let out a blood-curdling scream and slash out at his foe in the same round? I'd say that should be easily achievable.

Then the other part of me that wants to keep that sort of balance. An attack is more than a swing of the sword. An Intimidate action is more than a blood-curdling scream. Maybe it's a short phrase ("I'm going to kill you...oh yes, I am...") accompanied by a throat slash motion. Maybe it's an "Ultimate Warrior" type freak-out (shout out to my 80s and 90s WWF fans! ). And maybe it's something else...something else that requires a bit more time and "lead up" than just a scream.

In the end, I think I'd go with the former. Making it possible to pull an Intimidate off with an attack is saying "yes" to the player (which isn't a bad thing...and allows the CK to do it as well...), and ups the "cool factor" a notch. And anything that gets away from action types (and how many one can do in a round) associated with Castles & Crusades (other than what's already in the PHB).

Galannor, if you're the CK then it's pretty much up to you. It even says so in the PHB, as the "official ruling" (page 129-130, 4th printing) for such matters. If you're okay with Intimidation being a quick action ( certainly would), then I say go for it.

[serleran]

When I allow it, the player must describe an especially interesting attack, such as the time the little 2' tall dwarf (he is a deep dwarf from the CKG) does a power bomb (the dwarf has a 19 Strength) to an orc chief and says "and I'd like that to intimidate his underlings." So, I see it as being feasible that action 1 can be coexistent with action 2 -- in fact, they rely on each other.

[Omote]

No. The PHB says so. Look up Combat Actions on page 129, 5th printing.

~O

[serleran]

5th printing. Yeah. Don't have that. But it's good to know there is some clarity somewhere.

I'll ignore that.

[Lord Dynel]

Yeah, Omote's got it right. Actually in the 4th printing, too. I was looking and there seemed to be a spot that may leave it to CK fiat, but it is spelled out. I guess it's for the best, really, to allow only one class ability/racial ability or an attack per turn. I think the only major issue would be when you allow both things (an attack and an ability) in one particular circumstance then not allow it for a different character's ability and attack, it could cause an issue to arise. Probably better to leave it as written. At least in my (revised) opinion.

And, as serl pointed out, you can always ignore it!

[serleran]

Right, it is about consistency.

Who allows a caster to ready a touch spell but not let them use the round they cast it? No DM I have played with. Technically, that is how it should work. So, that would mean something like cure light wounds actually takes two rounds... one to cast, the other to fondle. That could mean death in some cases.