| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works against 1 foe and only provokes aggro or hampers them a little. A ton of spells do much better job of this?
Please review the feat as it is CURRENTLY written before posting. It seems to have been reworked not so long ago?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forced wizards into melee, I believe.
The main problem I have with it is that you are making a skill check against a static DC rather than the opponent making a saving throw against a spell DC. It is much easier to get a massive skill modifier to Intimidate, such that you can Antagonize ANY creature 100% of the time with a standard action. This can effectively shut down an enemy who relies on spells or similar abilities without them having any chance to resist. That is incredibly powerful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most people don't realize that the feat has drastically changed since it was first released.
The main problem I have with it is that you are making a skill check against a static DC rather than the opponent making a saving throw against a spell DC. It is much easier to get a massive skill modifier to Intimidate, such that you can Antagonize ANY creature 100% of the time with a standard action. This can effectively shut down an enemy who relies on spells or similar abilities without them having any chance to resist. That is incredibly powerful.
How exactly does it shut down an enemy who relies on spells?
I think most people don't realize that the feat has drastically changed since it was first released.
I just looked it up, and you are right, they have balanced it significantly since I last looked at it. It's not that bad now. It used to be way too powerful.
The main problem I have with it is that you are making a skill check against a static DC rather than the opponent making a saving throw against a spell DC. It is much easier to get a massive skill modifier to Intimidate, such that you can Antagonize ANY creature 100% of the time with a standard action. This can effectively shut down an enemy who relies on spells or similar abilities without them having any chance to resist. That is incredibly powerful.How exactly does it shut down an enemy who relies on spells?
If I remember correctly, when the feat was first released, it forced the enemy antagonized to make a melee attack specifically, such that the barbarian could yell at the wizard so loudly, the wizard had to try to punch him. This has clearly changed.
Yeah it's barely a hindrance to spellcasters. they can still cast all day long, you just made yourself a target...
Intimidate is normally a Fear effect. Which Paladins are immune to.
I'd rule this the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think because it reminds people of the marking abilities of defenders in 4e, and I think that rubs people the wrong way far too often.
Also, it is something that allows melee martial characters to actively cut the power curve between themselves and caster types (this feat gets especially harry when combined with a barbarian using step up, following step, and the superstitious rage powers), and simply put their are a lot of people who don't want to deal with that possibility. Especially, when it can be done with "just a feat".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intimidate is normally a Fear effect. Which Paladins are immune to.
I'd rule this the same.
Probably a wise ruling, but Antagonize isn't actually a fear effect.
There were two problems with Antagonize pre-errata -- the DC was too low (I think they left out the 10) and it forced the enemy to make melee attacks instead of giving the variety of attack options that it does now.
Probably a wise ruling, but Antagonize isn't actually a fear effect.Intimidate is normally a Fear effect. Which Paladins are immune to.
I'd rule this the same.
I'm aware. But it would be at my table.
I don't think even the intimidate skill used to demoralize is a fear effect.I'm aware. But it would be at my table.Probably a wise ruling, but Antagonize isn't actually a fear effect.Intimidate is normally a Fear effect. Which Paladins are immune to.
I'd rule this the same.
I'm pretty sure it is, but I'm at work and can't check. Though that might have been a 3.5 ruling that is long since imprinted on my brain.
If so then just chalk it up to a house rule.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think even the intimidate skill used to demoralize is a fear effect.
It isn't in PF.
For some unknown (to me) reason, Paizo decided to remove this line from 3.5's Intimidate: "A character immune to fear can’t be intimidated, nor can nonintelligent creatures."
Edit: Actually, demoralize might be a fear effect after all. Intimidate to demoralize writes:
Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.
That strongly implies that any use of demoralize is a fear effect.
Thanks Are
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a feat used in combat, when there is already an aggressive scenario unfolding, this is basically fine.
It does woefully ignore potential non-combat abuses. It's just too easy to provoke people into actions they would never ordinarily undertake — even high level magic tends to ratchet up the Save bonus for such acts, and here we're seeing a HD/Wis based DC vs a skill check!
I'm not saying that feats and skills shouldn't be able to do these things, but they shouldn't be so easy, and without qualification.
I don't like feats that treat the game as if it were solely about combat and introduce abuses such as this.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Antagonize can just be used to set up way too many silly situations. Children charging dragons, heroes that let the BBEG burn down an orphanage because his minions keep taunting them, wizards that float just at the top of a jumping fighter's reach so he has to sepnd 2 rounds trying for a 20 on a jump, that sort of thing. Somewhere on the boards there is a wonderful story about a village torn apart by an orc horde with Antagonize. It describes old women leaving their grandchildren to die in order to run into the orc army and get torn apart. There is no way to defend against it, no way to build up resistance to it, and the DC is trivial for a dedicated character and easy for a dilettante.
Tabletop RPGs don't need a taunt mechanic. Computer games have them because AI isn't very good at true threat assessment or tactics. The characters in a tabletop game are controlled by a person. Would you think it fair that your PC not be allowed to attack an enemy spellcaster until the big brute with ridiculous AC and saves had fallen? Any taunt mechanic should be evaluated on the assumption it will be used against players by the GM. If it passes that test then it might be okay. Antagonize really fails that test.
Design Manager
|
As a feat used in combat, when there is already an aggressive scenario unfolding, this is basically fine.
It does woefully ignore potential non-combat abuses. It's just too easy to provoke people into actions they would never ordinarily undertake — even high level magic tends to ratchet up the Save bonus for such acts, and here we're seeing a HD/Wis based DC vs a skill check!
I'm not saying that feats and skills shouldn't be able to do these things, but they shouldn't be so easy, and without qualification.
I don't like feats that treat the game as if it were solely about combat and introduce abuses such as this.
I think something as simple as a stipulation that the feat only functions against hostile opponents, or must be used against a creature that has taken hostile action against you or a party member, or really anything that directed this feat into a combat-specific scenario would have been good. Combat feats are okay, as long as they're channeled in such a way as to apply specifically to combat. The open RP aspects of the game were largely ignored when Antagonize was written up.
Of course, the target of Antagonize is not forced to use the most effective attack on the antagonizer -- he does have the option of punching with his fist, throwing any object, or casting a relatively harmless spell. The antagonizer has no choice as to how his target attacks him.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really that big of a deal? Or perhaps many don't like it since it's a feat and not some spell?
Look at what it does and look at what some spells can do. Then can you honestly saw that it is broken in its mechanics?
Sure perhaps it should be usable only in combat, but even with out that it doesn't make people commit murder.
If someone uses Antagonize in a city to provoke someone like a Paladin then the Paladin could just use non-lethal damage. Yes the city watch may not like it but the person using the feat will be in just as much trouble. It's a thing called rabble-rousing or causing a disturbance.
Also keep in mind anything can be used inappropriately. Sure, i can run around using Antagonize upon all the npcs i meet, but maybe just maybe the GM and other players might not be thrilled with me acting like an idiot.
Once this feat isn't being used by ass-hats and morons to troll the world around them then its a good feat for a bodyguard type PC.
Oh yeah and the Intimidate portion of the feat can only be used once per day upon the same target.
|
With regard to the possible legal consequences of punching someone after Antagonize is used, it is worth remembering that many jurisdictions, even today in the decidedly-less-violent-than-the-typical-fantasy-sword-and-sorcery-setting modern era, render a perpetrator of assault immune to charges (or reduce the potential penalties for same) if they assault someone who has provoked them with words "that might cause a reasonable person to react violently." Any Intimidate-related use of Antagonize would basically by definition meet that standard.
|
|
We're not talking about something that can be proved or disproved in a court of law, however, we're talking about whether a paladin would fall if someone used Antagonize on her. Even if she might risk conviction because of lack of evidence to support her side of the story, she would know (and, presumbaly, so would her deity, if that's relevant) that she was acting legally, and so would not have violated her code.
|
It is largely unused because it breaks verisimilitude. It is still way too easy to use antagonize (after errata) to force a pacifist, law abiding player to attack anywhere.
It doesn't even have to a paladin, anyone who wants to play a good law abiding character can be auto d*cked around by this feat.
There is nothing you can do to defend it, you can't really up your saves, get SR,even cancel it with a spell.
Basically another character just takes control of your character, and there isn't even a mechanical thing you can do to defend against it.
What Gignere said.
Also:
If an injured child is about to bleed out at her mother's feet and her mother is holding a healer's kit, no feat should exist that can convince the mother to throw her healer's kit as an improvised ranged weapon instead of using it to save her child's life. (Note that Antagonize would convince the mother to let her child die, not force her to do it.)
Post-errata Antagonize is a pretty weak feat, IMO. The Pre-Errata version, though, was the bane of casters and archers.
If it could only be used in combat, I'd not care about it, but having the ability to make anyone attack you anytime you want is silly.
Do you guys think it'd be too problematic if:
a) Antagonize can only be used in combat.
b) The Diplomacy effect were a swift action
c) The penalty from multiple enemies using Antagonize does not stack, only the last one used applies. (I think this is already the case, but better make sure)
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
No god would take the powers of a paladin for such a minor offense. After the time and energy expended to call and train a righteous warrior, 1 unarmed blow would not remove his/her paladinhood.
Any GM that ruled it thus is an assmonkey.
No. They are fleeing from combat.
Post-errata Antagonize is a pretty weak feat, IMO. The Pre-Errata version, though, was the bane of casters and archers.
If it could only be used in combat, I'd not care about it, but having the ability to make anyone attack you anytime you want is silly.
Do you guys think it'd be too problematic if:
a) Antagonize can only be used in combat.
b) The Diplomacy effect were a swift action
c) The penalty from multiple enemies using Antagonize does not stack, only the last one used applies. (I think this is already the case, but better make sure)You would have to define used in combat. Say in the following scenario, villagers are running away from a dragon who is trying to eat the villagers.
Are the villagers in combat?
Good Point. I guess "in combat" would only apply to whoever tries to fight back. It's indeed a very grey area, though.
Is it really that big of a deal? Or perhaps many don't like it since it's a feat and not some spell?
Look at what it does and look at what some spells can do. Then can you honestly saw that it is broken in its mechanics?
Sure perhaps it should be usable only in combat, but even with out that it doesn't make people commit murder.
If someone uses Antagonize in a city to provoke someone like a Paladin then the Paladin could just use non-lethal damage. Yes the city watch may not like it but the person using the feat will be in just as much trouble. It's a thing called rabble-rousing or causing a disturbance.
Also keep in mind anything can be used inappropriately. Sure, i can run around using Antagonize upon all the npcs i meet, but maybe just maybe the GM and other players might not be thrilled with me acting like an idiot.
Once this feat isn't being used by ass-hats and morons to troll the world around them then its a good feat for a bodyguard type PC.
Sadly, you have to make rules a@$%~@# proof. For every guy that is responsible, you have that one dick that will abuse the hell out of it to get their way because sometimes, players just like to watch the world burn...
Post-errata Antagonize is a pretty weak feat, IMO. The Pre-Errata version, though, was the bane of casters and archers.
If it could only be used in combat, I'd not care about it, but having the ability to make anyone attack you anytime you want is silly.
Do you guys think it'd be too problematic if:
a) Antagonize can only be used in combat.
b) The Diplomacy effect were a swift action
c) The penalty from multiple enemies using Antagonize does not stack, only the last one used applies. (I think this is already the case, but better make sure)
Why would you need any of these house rules? They seem arbitrary.
The feat takes a standard action to implement.And in the Intimidate version can only be used once per day.
I'm not seeing the Horrificness of this.
Command, and Compel Hostility, does the same thing (even better cause you CAN make amage charge you) as a first level spell. Murderous command does worse by making you attack your OWN ally and these are all 1st level.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It works against 1 foe and only provokes aggro or hampers them a little. A ton of spells do much better job of this?
Please review the feat as it is CURRENTLY written before posting. It seems to have been reworked not so long ago?
1) It's not broken in anyway and in it's current form could maybe be considered underpowered.
2) Arcane Spell-casters are jealous of anyone who rains on their hurf durf "I'm the best at battlefield control, taunt mechanics shouldn't exist in table top rpgs unless they're in the form of a spell cast by me!" mentality.
3) It's basically just the rules equivalent of the cliche from movies/books where a hero/heroine says, "Hey you big ugly son of a b&$~#! Come and get me..." Thus distracting the ravenous beast/monster/evil-doer from the otherwise delicious mage/maiden/group of small children as the case may be.
In summary it's great flavor add for your campaign as long as you don't let your players bulldozer your game world with their stupid interpretation of the rules and when they can use them. I.E. this ability is great for starting a bar fight or making an otherwise reserved Guard Captain backhand the mouthy rogue in your party, but don't let it be the end all be all of social encounters.
Finally! Reason!
*edit: It seems that a whole lot of GM's have to put up with a whole lot of creepy, power mad gamers. If you have to iron coat all the rules so your players won't take advantage of them, maybe you need different players?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even non-lethal the paladin will fall because he probably broke a law. It won't be a costly atonement but he will still need one.
The only thing I don't like about it is that there is no counter. Even for spells like charm person, dominate you can counter with another spell. There are even outs within the spell to allow a second save.
Short of knocking the person being antagonized unconscious there is literally nothing you can do to stop him. There needs to be some kind of mechanical counter to antagonize in the game rules but there are none.
1. Breaking the law does NOT necessarily cause a paladin to fall.
2. Being forced to do something is NOT doing it because of your free will. Whether the forcing is magical or not is irrelevant.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It works against 1 foe and only provokes aggro or hampers them a little. A ton of spells do much better job of this?
Please review the feat as it is CURRENTLY written before posting. It seems to have been reworked not so long ago?
3) It's basically just the rules equivalent of the cliche from movies/books where a hero/heroine says, "Hey you big ugly son of a b++#~! Come and get me..." Thus distracting the ravenous beast/monster/evil-doer from the otherwise delicious mage/maiden/group of small children as the case may be.
Okay but why does it need to be a feat? Can a character not insult an opponent with out a feat and a rule?
Post-errata Antagonize is a pretty weak feat, IMO. The Pre-Errata version, though, was the bane of casters and archers.
If it could only be used in combat, I'd not care about it, but having the ability to make anyone attack you anytime you want is silly.
Do you guys think it'd be too problematic if:
a) Antagonize can only be used in combat.
b) The Diplomacy effect were a swift action
c) The penalty from multiple enemies using Antagonize does not stack, only the last one used applies. (I think this is already the case, but better make sure)Why would you need any of these house rules? They seem arbitrary.
The feat takes a standard action to implement.
And in the Intimidate version can only be used once per day.I'm not seeing the Horrificness of this.
Command, and Compel Hostility, does the same thing (even better cause you CAN make amage charge you) as a first level spell. Murderous command does worse by making you attack your OWN ally and these are all 1st level.
I wasn't trying to nerf Antagonize, au contraire, (did I write that right?) I was trying to make it more useful.
a) Is so people can't simply force people to attack them whenever they feel like it. Other posters showed this concern. Even high level spells allow saves.
b) Is to make the Diplomacy effect more useful (IIRC, it uses a Standard action) and I think it's a great mechanic and very fair and useful for tanks.
c) Is just so the guy being antagonized suffers something like a -8 to attack other people.
|
|
Finally! Reason!
*edit: It seems that a whole lot of GM's have to put up with a whole lot of creepy, power mad gamers. If you have to iron coat all the rules so your players won't take advantage of them, maybe you need different players?
That's definitely the best solution.
However don't forget that Antagonize already has built in preventative measures. Maybe the next time, "Magic Mouth" decides it's time he tells the local NPCs what he thinks of them he's now dealing with the local crime lord/crow prince or archwizard.
That's the best part about this feat so many fun possibilities =P!
Even non-lethal the paladin will fall because he probably broke a law. It won't be a costly atonement but he will still need one.
The only thing I don't like about it is that there is no counter. Even for spells like charm person, dominate you can counter with another spell. There are even outs within the spell to allow a second save.
Short of knocking the person being antagonized unconscious there is literally nothing you can do to stop him. There needs to be some kind of mechanical counter to antagonize in the game rules but there are none.
1. Breaking the law does NOT necessarily cause a paladin to fall.
2. Being forced to do something is NOT doing it because of your free will. Whether the forcing is magical or not is irrelevant.
Can it really be considered being forced? I mean its just an insult so nasty the target loses its cool and attacks.