| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right up until someone antagonizes a polymorphed gold dragon or pit fiend, yes....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yea I keep a spray Bottle full of water by the table to spray...
Ahh Nevermind not what you are talking about.
Seems like an excellent way to get hung for treason after provoking a crown prince in disguise.
Is it true this is a feat that works like Demoralize and makes someone attack you? I have a jerk character that would love this feat so he could coax people into taking the first swing (and provoke from his reach).
I can see this creating all sorts of problems, though, as far as campaigns are concerned! The ability to incite people to assault you has quite the ability to derail a campaign, I'd imagine.
It doesn't have to take that swing if doing so would harm it. They mention a wall of fire, but provoking from reach would count as well.
It doesn't have to take that swing if doing so would harm it. They mention a wall of fire, but provoking from reach would count as well.Really? What if I had reach but chose not to take the AoO, would they still attack me? How would they know until they tried? Furthermore, wouldnt it still "harm" them if I just cut them in half after they've attacked me, thus making it -always- harmful? And what if they're attacking unarmed?
And I'm not being entirely obtuse, I dont have UM so maybe they explain the difference. :)
It doesn't say. It just says "The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it". I take it to mean that the creature must think it will come to harm (after all, the example they use is a Wall of Fire, but if your target has no Spellcraft, it could easily be a Minor Image of a Wall of Fire instead and he'd be none the wiser). It looks like a GM judgment call. I would say that if you're holding up a long reach weapon with better reach than the enemy, that would count. If the creature is particularly savvy and has seen you already make an AoO this turn, perhaps it would think you were too distracted and try for it anyway (hoping you don't have Combat Reflexes), but that's entering the territory of GM judgments. The feat looks guaranteed to require them, though.
Is it true this is a feat that works like Demoralize and makes someone attack you? I have a jerk character that would love this feat so he could coax people into taking the first swing (and provoke from his reach).
Personally, I see ‘reach’ as the offender in that scenario, but I see your point.
I can see this creating all sorts of problems, though, as far as campaigns are concerned! The ability to incite people to assault you has quite the ability to derail a campaign, I'd imagine.
Just some friendly advice, if that’s where the players want to go with it that is where ‘the rails’ SHOULD lead. If you build a campaign as a ‘world’ and view/treat the players like an ‘all-terrain vehicle’ instead of building the campaign as a ‘rail’ and treating them like a ‘train’, you can eliminate these types of problems. Not everyone wants to run their games that way and that’s cool. In that case, I suggest you adjust the setting or houserule as needed to ‘nurf’ the players’ ability to effect the story – just be up-front about it. There are many players who would be okay with feats like this being off-limits. If you are not into outlawing stuff, you could introduce some ‘fighting words’ laws into the setting and a league of avengers to enforce them.
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is a feat I am particularly concerned about as well. I have an intimidation specialist in my party who would absolutely love this feat. The problem is that the antagonise description does not define the area of effect but I assume that it would be based off of the demoralize function of intimidate which is to say an opponent within 30 ft.
Where I have issue is that an antagonized opponent must make a melee attack even if doing so will not "harm" it. Let's say I have a puny mage within 30 ft. getting antagonized by Big Grimm; is that puny mage going to run in throwing his little staff around? Could you make an argument that getting within reach of Big Grimm would be considered "harmful", even though no attacks of opportunity are provoked?
Is it better just to say that the antagonized opponent attacks the antagonizer to the best of their ability (spells for wizards, ranged weaponry for ranged specialists, melee for melee specialists)?
I think this feat requires a small element of clarification.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Is it better just to say that the antagonized opponent attacks the antagonizer to the best of their ability (spells for wizards, ranged weaponry for ranged specialists, melee for melee specialists)?
I think that makes much more sense. Even in a "rage" (which is a word they shouldn't have used), I'm sure a angry wizard would shoot spells at you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there errata on the DC/effect for this Feat on its way?
I'm sure SOMETHING in terms of errata is coming for this feat. As it is now, it's one of the most poorly designed things I've ever seen come out in a game. Right up there with much of the stuff that makes people like Pathfinder over 3.5
It has a Dex requirement first of all.....no one can figure THAT one out. Plus the DC is so low it's laughable....and the skill essentially is an auto negation of ANY class/build that does not rely on being in melee combat. It's so poorly thought out that I seriously am losing faith in the whole UM book (in addition to all the other tons of errors that people are finding right away) and I don't even own it yet.
If you play an urban campaign, you could have the antagonized character attack with his fists.
If the player responds with weapons, charge him with attemped murder or assault.
Self defence has limits.
There's also a big chance that the offended party is so offended that he demands a duel, and then sends his champion (pc level +5). Or maybe just make the offended party pc level +5 to teach him a lesson if it happends too often.
The pcs words could also offend other people and organizations...
Personally, I would only allow this feat to be used against already hostile (or maybe unfriendly) characters. Purely to prevent PCs derailing an adventure.
I'm sure SOMETHING in terms of errata is coming for this feat. As it is now, it's one of the most poorly designed things I've ever seen come out in a game. Right up there with much of the stuff that makes people like Pathfinder over 3.5
It has a Dex requirement first of all.....no one can figure THAT one out. Plus the DC is so low it's laughable....and the skill essentially is an auto negation of ANY class/build that does not rely on being in melee combat. It's so poorly thought out that I seriously am losing faith in the whole UM book (in addition to all the other tons of errors that people are finding right away) and I don't even own it yet.
It seems obvious to me that they were (are?) trying to do too much too fast.
I'm super let down by the book (well my PDF, but I assume my book will contain the same...).
I think, "come to harm," is a pretty open term and its needed for the GM to run it properly.
I think the feat should only work against characters that reasonably believe they can beat you AND reasonably believe that the law won't prosecute them for it.
The GM could rule that an especially unwise individual might attack believing both to be true when they aren't, but that would be an exception.
Basically, I don't see how this ability would alter the effects of normal RPing. The feat sounds like something for a group that just skirmishes and rarely RPs.
Also, if you use it on Lady Windermere at her tea party, she can always just give you a slap across your face: "You, sirrah, have gone too far!" Then everyone at the party laughs at your comeuppance.
Aside from everything else that's wrong with this feat, there's no cost associated with it other than the loss of a standard action. A buffing bard often has spare standard actions, once they're able to start bardsong as a move action, and can easily just throw out uses of this all day long.
Aside from everything else that's wrong with this feat, there's no cost associated with it other than the loss of a standard action. A buffing bard often has spare standard actions, once they're able to start bardsong as a move action, and can easily just throw out uses of this all day long.
Well, a singing bard would make sense. He could taunt with the lyrics of his song. :D However, a bard playing a flute wouldn't be able to use the feat. The feat requires the target to understand you.
Aside from everything else that's wrong with this feat, there's no cost associated with it other than the loss of a standard action. A buffing bard often has spare standard actions, once they're able to start bardsong as a move action, and can easily just throw out uses of this all day long.Well, a singing bard would make sense. He could taunt with the lyrics of his song. :D However, a bard playing a flute wouldn't be able to use the feat. The feat requires the target to understand you.
I dunno, if I had a bard who could play the pan flutes one handed I could think up some universal expressions with the free hand to antagonize a foe. Still, this feat in some way will be modified, the DC changing if nothing else, so until then I'm just not allowing it. Characters who want to taunt in role play can, if it would apply, but no automatic forcing of the flying enemy wizards to come down to your level and face you with his staff if his personality wouldn't dictate that response.
Plus, can you imagine what a PC wizard would say the first time a half-orc barbarian used this against him? I'd imagine it'd be less than complementary and likely end up with a player who is pissed off that his concept of an intelligent and wise wizard attacking from afar is suddenly void because of a couple words.
maybe it means the creature uses its best judgement? use it on the big bad melee monster, and it might not even care about the wall of fire. it might simply take the fire damage and the swing. A mage on the other hand, will look at the fighter provoking him and say "screw that, he'll tear me apart" (AKA come to harm)
|
To my mind this feat is to hold aggro and it s an awesome feat...The fighter/barbariancanuse this to tank. It s something like taunt. You can save allies with it...
As for the powermonger that wishes to intimidate a charge against his reach weapon, that should not work as people have said. When you taunting someone to attack u want the other one to think you are weak.I would say that you can use that in some rear ocasions, vs large opponents, and raging barbarians.
"Look you amateur fighter I leave my shield down come and show me how patheticly you ll miss." If yu hold a shield and you leave it down imo you deserve a bonus to your roll.
It s a great way to implement speach and communicating skills in combat, just as acrobatics,stealth,sleight of hand etc
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To my mind this feat is to hold aggro and it s an awesome feat...The fighter/barbariancanuse this to tank. It s something like taunt. You can save allies with it...
Aggro, tanking, and taunting are all concepts that are foreign to tabletop gaming, at least in the sense they're used in an MMO, which is the sense this feat provides.
It s a great way to implement speach and communicating skills in combat, just as acrobatics,stealth,sleight of hand etc
There's already a mechanism for that in tabletop games which doesn't exist in a MMO. It's called speech and communication skills, as arbitrated by a GM. A feat which forces someone to behave in a very ineffective manner, as an entirely unmagical effect, just makes no sense. If I'm a fragile mage, and I know I'm a fragile mage, what can you possibly yell at me in combat that would make me run over and hit you over the head with my staff instead of casting magic missile at you?
|
|
It's funny how people rage about how unbalanced the game is, with spellcasters being so much more powerful than martial characters.
A feat which forces someone to behave in a very ineffective manner, as an entirely unmagical effect, just makes no sense.
And other people rage against the entire concept of a non-magical effect being even vaguely effective.
It's funny how people rage about how unbalanced the game is, with spellcasters being so much more powerful than martial characters.A feat which forces someone to behave in a very ineffective manner, as an entirely unmagical effect, just makes no sense.And other people rage against the entire concept of a non-magical effect being even vaguely effective.
It's not that I object to non-magical effects being effective. It's not that I object to non-magical effects dicating what I can't do. It's that I object to non-magical effects dictating what I must do.
It has been errata'd. See previous post.
The DC is still ridiculous, even with the errata. Anything this feat should do, like provoke a slap or something to that effect, should be and can be done with RP. This is unnecessary and it adds an abusive mechanic.
|
OK let's do the maths:
A level 20 wizard with a wisdom of 16 (being generous) needs a successful intimidate check of DC 33 to be antagonised.
So Bob the Half Orc inquisitor is 16th level. He has his friends Dave the Fighter, Andy the Rogue and John the Cleric with him. They round the corner to come face to face with Goggle the Evil (said 20th level wizard)
Bob will almost certainly win initiative so he antagonises Goggle. His DC is 33 but Bob is prepared for that:
16 ranks in intimidate
+3 Class skill
+6 Skill focus (intimidate)
+8 Stern Gaze (Inquisitor ability)
+2 Intimidating (Half Orc racial ability)
+1 Amazingly ugly (trait from Orcs of Golarion)
+4 Persuasive feat
That means with the expenditure of 2 feats and without spending a single gold piece Bob's Intimidate bonus is +40. This means he could have a charisma of 3 and would still automatically succeed at antagonising an opponent up to 6 levels higher than him.
So Goggle then has to move in to attack Bob. Even if by some miracle Goggle hits he is unlikely to do much more than 15 points of damage tops. So if the party has set up properly they should be in the following formation:
-G-
ABD
-J-
That means Andy, Dave and John merely have to 5 foot step to get full attacks in the following formation:
AGD
JB-
Alternatively John could have a harm spell ready to go for this exact situation.
Because Bob won initiative he now gets a full attack with Judgement and Bane up at the start of the second round. Then assuming Goggle is still alive he is in an awful position. His options are as follows:
1) 5 foot step and try to cast: This might work but if the party has invested in the disruptive (for Dave and for Bob through the spell killer inquisition) and step up feats then getting out won't be that easy. Plus the spell casting is far from guaranteed especially if it's a high level spell.
2) Withdraw: This doesn't help either. It will provoke at least 2 AOO's and will waste Goggle's actions for the round.
3) Move provoking AOO's and cast : 4 attacks of AOO? Good luck...
4) Use a quickened spell to get out: That wastes a high level spell slot and who wastes a 8th or 9th level slot with a quickened dimension door or teleport?
5) Cast defensively where he stands: (see 1) plus 4 incoming full attacks next round.
6) Cast without being defensive: 4 more AOO's and the high chance that the spell will fizzle.
Basically through the use of the antagonise feat Goggle can't get out of this situation. The use of intimidate/antagonise isn't a mind effecting effect by RAW so no form of defence can mitigate it. Basically if the antagoniser's intimidate is high enough it works without any way of avoiding it.
To be clear I like the idea of a taunt type ability that will attract attacks to a defensive minded character however this feat is way too powerful as it is written and is an absolute game ruiner if used to it's logical conclusion.
Considering you can only use it once per day per target, I don't really see a way it could be abused. It's very all or nothing from how I've seen it used in my game. I don't find it an issue, both mechanically and conceptually.
but that's entering the territory of GM judgments. The feat looks guaranteed to require them, though.Agreed, and it also looks totally awesome to use against wizards! They have, have, have to attack you in melee (with a very easy DC) on their turn? Win!
ps: does the subject actually enter a "rage", as per the spell? (and thus no int-based skills allowed?)
No. I would say that a wizard Antagonised by a fighter in plate armour will NOT attack them in melee, as a wizard attempting to attack a fighter is only going to end one way, and wizards are intelligent enough to know it - in short, a wall of fire situation. If a wizard is angry at somebody, they get a fireball or a baleful polymorph for their trouble.
Also, I think the DC is badly thought out. What happens if the recipient has a decent Sense Motive skill? He can see that the person is trying to antagonise him. What about creatures that have resistance to mind-affecting effects?
This feat is very badly phrased and wide open to abuse.
Considering you can only use it once per day per target, I don't really see a way it could be abused. It's very all or nothing from how I've seen it used in my game. I don't find it an issue, both mechanically and conceptually.
It only needs to work once a day to kill the target. After that, it doesn't matter that you can't use it on them again. They're dead.
I have seen enraged foot ball player's (american football) pull their helmet off to hit someone with it... ah... if you are getting in a fist fight, it makes no sense to pull your helmet off, so your enemy can then hit you in the head. Sometimes enraged people do really stupid things.
That has more to do with a person not being smart than anything else. Most people can't be made to do something that silly.
That has more to do with a person not being smart than anything else. Most people can't be made to do something that silly.
I agree. There is no allowance in this feat for coming up against somebody smart enough to see through you. I can see entire campaigns where combats are won or lost on which side got in the first Antagonize even if both sides KNOW it;s a dumb idea to attack!
I may errata that the feat only works on people who have an intelligence or wisdom of less than 10....
Low int = stupid, might fall for it.
Low wis = no common sense, might fall for it.
Or just give the opponent a Save or a Sense Motive check.
easiest thing, just ban the feat from the game. If your PCs complain, have the party wizard get his butt kicked due to the feat in the first few levels by a fighter, and see if they then agree to get rid of it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Even with low int or wisdom combat experience counts for a lot. Another thing with the football issue is that it is looked as just a fight. I am sure if the person's life was on the line they would not have taken that helmet off. Being in danger of dying can strongly curb stupidity.
Even with low int or wisdom combat experience counts for a lot.
It does, but even more is a strong skill at self control and an understanding of social interactions. This is a social attack, not a physical attack, and like using your social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate) it can and should be ignored at times - because it is not a supernatural ability, spell, or spell-like effect. Even spells that do this kind of thing have higher requirements and better save chances.
If an archer is mad at you, he's going to shoot you. End of.
If a wizard is mad at you, he's going to cast a spell on you.
Somebody with a cool head will simply ignore you, or return the compliment.
Only somebody who's forte is beating the stuffing out of other people in hand-to-hand combat is going to try and do that. Even then, if he has another means to hand of offering harm to his antagonizer more immediately, I think it likely he'll take it instead.
I'm happy to say this feat can make somebody mad at you - but what they choose to do about it is their decision.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Antagonize feat is the first Paizo published thing I have outright banned at in any game I will ever run. Beyond being poorly written and a terribly unbalanced mechanic which should have never existed in the first place; it's just too evil.
Imagine how angry your players would be if you slapped this feat on your NPCs. Just optimize some mooks for Antagonize, and then watch as your party keeps having to ignore the Big Bad to take out insulting goblins. It's very likely that if the GM bothered to use this feat even half-heartedly, it could result in some serious party deaths, and really annoy the PCs as the GM basically says "Ok, the goblin makes you mad, you cannot employ your strategy, you must try to hit the goblin, and ignore the mind-flayer/ogre-mage/evil wizard that is trying to kill you."
I banned it also when I first read it.
|
I keep pestering SKR about it. He's already tired of me. My guess is that this turns up in one of the next two FAQ attack blogs. He already said something about it in response to my repeated haranguing, 1 sec and I'll look for it...
edit: Ah, yes. HERE.
I believe we're also changing it like this (new/revised text in bold):
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
Edit the 15th: This isn't official yet, though.