My group has been doing this for a while, with the roll out of the enforcer in the hired gun splat.

We have said that a character can use the intimidating talent to upgrade the difficulty of the fear check prompted by fearsome. Strictly speaking this isn't RAW, but we thought that the strain was a fair cost, and that the talents would synergize in this way.

Since the aggressor is composed of similar talents, I wanted to ask if people think this is miss-using these talents, or if that is a fair extrapolation?

Also, would you let a player use influence in conjunction with the fearsome talent?

I always thought Fearsome was pretty weak sauce myself, so anything to give it more teeth is a good idea imo.

If you're a 'talented' aggressor and you engage a group of foes, they make a hard difficulty fear check, if they fail they get a setback die on all actions. If you use the Terrify action, you make an average Coercion check, success allows you to disorient your foes and spending force points allows you to immobilize them. So, you'll end up with a group of enemies who have 2 setback dice to all of their actions and they can't use maneuvers. If you score a Triumph on the Terrify action, you also get to stagger one targeted opponent, preventing them from using Actions until the end of the next round.

Seems like a pretty potent combo.

As for the main thread question... I don't necessarily think Intimidating and Fearsome were intended to work together.

I always thought Fearsome was pretty weak sauce myself, so anything to give it more teeth is a good idea imo.

That was my first impression, but I think it's actually pretty potent, especially once you get a second rank. Giving any opponents who want to go toe-to-toe with you a setback for the encounter is a pretty big deal. It shouldn't happen a lot at first rank, but will be often enough to pay for itself I think.

At one rank fearsome is not very useful, at 2 or 3 it's actually quite good. Many combatants will start failing fear checks at 2 or 3 difficulty. Spend a destiny, or come up with another good reason to upgrade their difficulty and they might start getting despairs on their fear check.

It's not in the rules, but narratively speaking as a GM if a character rolls bad enough on a fear check, especially a minion, I might have them just break and run, drop their weapon, or literally wet themselves in terror.

At one rank fearsome is not very useful, at 2 or 3 it's actually quite good. Many combatants will start failing fear checks at 2 or 3 difficulty. Spend a destiny, or come up with another good reason to upgrade their difficulty and they might start getting despairs on their fear check.

It's not in the rules, but narratively speaking as a GM if a character rolls bad enough on a fear check, especially a minion, I might have them just break and run, drop their weapon, or literally wet themselves in terror.

Exactly, I'd be flexible about the results of the Fear check. Remember, the Setback on a failure is just a suggestion.

My question is more to the non-RAW interaction that we have done at my table with the enforcer.

Something to consider: If an aggressor chose to take the enforcer spec, they could gain fearsome 6 times. that's an impossible fear check. you'd also have intimidate 5-6 times (AFB for enforcer). That's a really potent combo... however it's made between one core book not released and a splat for a different (but compatible) game line.

I'm not saying it's too powerful one way or the other, but do people think the non-RAW interaction between intimidate and fearsome at our table is too much? I like making talents applicable, but this may be reaching too far.

I don't think that Intimidating applies to Fearsome. I don't think it should, either.

I'm not saying it's too powerful one way or the other, but do people think the non-RAW interaction between intimidate and fearsome at our table is too much? I like making talents applicable, but this may be reaching too far.

I think so. They weren't meant to interact, or it would have said so, and they probably weren't meant to because of the new stuff coming in F&D.

I'd keep intimidating and fearsome separate. Neither talent is amazing right off the shelf, but with a few levels both can get pretty disgusting. Combining them and people might start fainting the moment you enter the room. Or possibly you're Darth Vader.

I had forgotten that you could take Fearsome so many times in both Enforcer and Aggressor. The next character I was pondering is an enforcer. I don't know if I'd do it, but having them get force sensitive and move into aggressor at some point and they could get amazingly scary.

As an aside, I would think Fearsome, after say 3 ranks, would play into the Morality mechanic in some way...

My question is more to the non-RAW interaction that we have done at my table with the enforcer.

Something to consider: If an aggressor chose to take the enforcer spec, they could gain fearsome 6 times. that's an impossible fear check. you'd also have intimidate 5-6 times (AFB for enforcer). That's a really potent combo... however it's made between one core book not released and a splat for a different (but compatible) game line.

I'm not saying it's too powerful one way or the other, but do people think the non-RAW interaction between intimidate and fearsome at our table is too much? I like making talents applicable, but this may be reaching too far.

I would not let it apply.

While it's certainly possible, getting that high of Fearsome also requires a lot of experience. Or a good amount of experienced and a super narrow min-maxed character.

As an aside, I would think Fearsome, after say 3 ranks, would play into the Morality mechanic in some way...

I don't think it's about how many ranks you have, but how you use them. I mean, Morality is a largely RP mechanic, and if you're scaring off the mooks so you don't have to kill them, that might not be so bad. If you're just making them piss themselves so that killing them's easier, that's a different story.

I can give opponents all a Setback with a rank of Defense on armor, it's automatic, and it doesn't cost me three ranks in a Talent tree, nor give them a chance to avoid having it imposed on them. Fearsome is weak sauce.

It stacks.

as to the xp cost, it's actually pretty minimal a cost. three ranks on aggressor is pretty minimal, and 1 rank from enforcer is 5 xp (+30 for the spec...) and 4 ranks is a pretty generous fear check.

As to if the effect of fear is good or bad, I would say that, based on the armor comparison, armor can be negated through precise aim (?) while fear setback can't. also, it applies to all allies and all checks, not just attacks at your character.

It's not amazing, but an aggressor with lots of fearsome and brass knuckles could fear and disorient and then stagger (through terrify) opponents, adding several setback dice to enemies in a turn or two. not a bad gig.

as to synergizing intimidate, interesting that many people find it to be a bad idea. I will have to have one of my players use it with the aggressor, as with the enforcer it was a pretty nice way to give fearsome a goose, since for enforcer the 2 and 3 fearsome talents are in the 25 xp row. With the enforcer it was not a problem.

It stacks.

as to the xp cost, it's actually pretty minimal a cost. three ranks on aggressor is pretty minimal, and 1 rank from enforcer is 5 xp (+30 for the spec...) and 4 ranks is a pretty generous fear check.

As to if the effect of fear is good or bad, I would say that, based on the armor comparison, armor can be negated through precise aim (?) while fear setback can't. also, it applies to all allies and all checks, not just attacks at your character.

It's not amazing, but an aggressor with lots of fearsome and brass knuckles could fear and disorient and then stagger (through terrify) opponents, adding several setback dice to enemies in a turn or two. not a bad gig.

as to synergizing intimidate, interesting that many people find it to be a bad idea. I will have to have one of my players use it with the aggressor, as with the enforcer it was a pretty nice way to give fearsome a goose, since for enforcer the 2 and 3 fearsome talents are in the 25 xp row. With the enforcer it was not a problem.

Too much xp for too little return. You have to be engaged with the opponent to get it to work. It still amounts to a roll that provides an opponent an opportunity to negate it completely. In regards to comparing Precise Aim allow me to point out Confidence which is also ranked and doesn't cancel Setbacks, it decreases the Difficulty on Fear checks and thereby completely guts the Talent. I say again, weak sauce.

so by that logic, defense is a poor choice because precise aim can gut it?

Can anyone point out the NPC enemies that posses confidence? Edit: None in FaD.

Also, at 4 difficulty, engaging a group of 4 storm troopers to attack them will make them roll a fear chack of 3 prof and 1 ability to 4 difficulty. this means that 37 % of the time the troopers will suffer setback, and all incidental to trying to kill them in melee, which is what an aggressor (or enforcer) will want to do.

It's not fool proof, and the talent isn't goign to be adjusted. but it's nice because it doesn't interphere with your action economy.

However, you are under no obligation to take it, and there are certainly more reliable talents out there.

Very Confident people should be difficult to make fearful. That's kind of the point.

My group has been doing this for a while, with the roll out of the enforcer in the hired gun splat.

We have said that a character can use the intimidating talent to upgrade the difficulty of the fear check prompted by fearsome. Strictly speaking this isn't RAW, but we thought that the strain was a fair cost, and that the talents would synergize in this way.

Since the aggressor is composed of similar talents, I wanted to ask if people think this is miss-using these talents, or if that is a fair extrapolation?

Also, would you let a player use influence in conjunction with the fearsome talent?

Fearsome forces opponents to make a Fear check.

Intimidating upgrades/downgrades Coercion checks.

Fear and Coercion are not the same thing and while you could argue that you can Coerce using Fear, that's really not how Fear seems to be intended to work in this game. I would keep the two talents separate and not run it the way you describe.

I think using Influence with Fearsome would be okay. You'd have to spend a dark pip, because the talent notes that only dark pips can be used to generate rage, fear, or hatred. Then I would add one Threat per dark pip used to the target's Fear check. That seems to match up mechanically because the talent tpically can inflict a point of Strain which seems to be about equal to one Threat. However, I think this would make it feel a bit weak considering that you would use your Action to make the Influence check and all you'd do is add Threat to a roll. Maybe inflict both the Strain and the Threat and double up the Conflict for the use. You'd basically be using the pip for two effects, so seems like twice the Conflict would make sense.

Just spitballing here. I'd be interested in some discussion about mixing Powers with Talents.

Remember that "setback on all checks" is just a suggestion. The results of a Fear check can be whatever the GM wants them to be.