Antagonize Fixed?

Personally, I think more needs to be done.

Ravingdork fails a Perception check to notice two threads about this.

Both of those threads are over 15 pages long and are therefore not a good way to "get the word out" as only a handful of seriously invested people still follow them. So I started this thread here for discussion and to ensure the announcement itself can be seen from the front page, rather than be buried under hundreds of other off-topic posts.

Both of those threads are over 15 pages long and are therefore not a good way to "get the word out" as only a handful of invested people still follow them.

Sooooo every time a thread reaches 15 pages we have to make a new one? Well, that explains all the Paladin alignment threads! ;)

If it can get everyone back on topic and away from the flamers, yes.

I didn't fail a Perception check, I passed a Wisdom check.

Skr mentioned that more will be done and that he and JB were deciding what to do.

Hey guys. This feat is actually going to work, like against casters! We gotta get it changed!

i see nothing wrong with giving a combatant type class the ability to force a caster to engage him up close and personal.

i would make the following changes

the antagonized victim must take the most reckless possible route to the one who 'goaded' them, even if the obstacles involved offer a threat of great bodily harm or even death.

this totally balances the feat.

not only will those wizards have to walk up and take a melee swing on the fighter, but they will have to eat every attack of oppurtunity possible, walks through blade barriers, walls of fire and everything else until they get to thier target.

i would not include the base 10 to the DC.

because the intent of this feat is to give martials an option to force enemy casters into melee range.

in my opinion, mage slayer is a perfectly balanced feat and we need to bring it back.

Stuff.

I.....how.....wha....

Not sure if trolling.

First rule of Good Feat Design: If you have an NPC use it on your players, will they scream bloody murder? If yes, feat is bad.

The issue isn't in a feat that balances melee vrs casters or anything of the sort. The issue is a feat that gives an unlimited source of an effect that is stronger than several mind control spells.

I don't know, I took one look at it and saw "no fun if used against PCs" written all over it. At least stuff like Vampire Dominate and Hold Person and other "make me worthless for the fight" spells have Saves, SR, counterspells, and so on.

Glad to see they are getting to fine tuning it. Hopefully they can extract a good mechanic out of the horrible execution of a decent idea.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

Stuff.

I.....how.....wha....

Not sure if trolling.

First rule of Good Feat Design: If you have an NPC use it on your players, will they scream bloody murder? If yes, feat is bad.

Unless they are whiny pansy players who want their victories handed to them on sterling silver.

I think a feat that forces you to make a melee attack against an opponent (even if you're a spellcaster) is a valid feat if there's also a feat that forces you to cast a spell at an opponent (even if you're not a spellcaster)....

I think a feat that forces you to make a melee attack against an opponent (even if you're a spellcaster) is a valid feat if there's also a feat that forces you to cast a spell at an opponent (even if you're not a spellcaster)....

Do we get to choose the spell? I choose Disintegrate (works on everything).

can we bring back something along the lines mage slayer from complete arcane?

i can understand a feat that forces a melee attack, even if you are a spellcaster. everybody has the ability to do that. no matter how inept they are

a reverse feat that forces everyone to cast a spell (including noncasters) wouldn't be as balanced because there actually exists classes that cannot truly cast. while everybody can use a melee weapon, even if they are generally martially inept.

that caster forced to make a melee swing has a chance to still inflict some bodily harm. even if it is extremely narrow. a noncaster isn't even inept at spells, they just plain cannot cast them.

combatants and skill monkeys have enough counters already. especially rogues.

casters are said to have too much power.

antagonize only affects a given target once in a particular day. with a really short duration. it's not much different from stunning the caster.

This feat makes no sense to me. It is clearly a compulsion effect. A non-magical one but still a compulsion effect. The diplomacy action is still underwhelming and boring and the intimidate action is just a Taunt from World of Warcraft.

IMHO, it would work better by making it a saving throw with the DC based on skill ranks. A will saving throw versus (non-magical) compulsion, DC 10 + 1/2 ranks in intimidate/diplomacy (depending on which function you are performing) + Charisma modifier.

Ummm... and if I am not a caster... do I get the spell suddenly? :)

Okay, back to topic. Wouldn't the feat be actually better if it just forced the target to concentrate it's aggression (in whatever form it came) on your character, rather than forcing it into melee? Or perhaps allowed the target to do something else gave some heavy morale penalty for that?

Can you imagine the grat wyrm goading a squishy wizard to come to stab it with a knife? Can you imagine a machinegun squad goading a sniper to break his cover and run right to them? That's when I personally allow this sentence to take effect: "The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it"

EDIT: IMO the feat was originally meant for characters who want to pick a fight with seemingly unwilling enemy, but from the way it was written it ganed some other use as well.

This feat makes no sense to me.

That would be due to it being nearly a word-for-word reprint of the 2E Taunt spell.

Just throwing this out there:

It seems the big problem a lot of folks have with Antagonize as written is it kills the mood and takes control of characters away in a way that's harder to rationalize than saying "magic did it".

The example someone else brought up way back when this all started involving a generally peaceful character trying to keep the love of their life from bleeding out or otherwise dying really illustrates this. Someone with Antagonize can just troll that character into stopping what they're doing, charging the taunter, and letting the person they're seeing to die. That's jarring enough if that happens to an NPC. If it happens to a PC, the players would rightfully be upset. As it is, I would never use Antagonize against my players.

However, martial characters badly need a way to put the screws to casters capable of playing keepaway.

What if Antagonize worked like this: The target of the taunt is slammed with penalties that make skill and casting checks hard as hell. Those penalties hang over that character as long as the taunter is in sight/the encounter is continuing/whatever. Unless the target goes after the taunter.

Basically the taret of Antagonize would be given a choice. Either deal with those crippling modifiers and ignore the taunter, or give in "to all their hate and rage" and focus on him, after which those penalties are cleared.

That way, the theoretical character above isn't forced to act completely out of character. The Antagonize effect might still rattle them so much that they can't save the person they're tending to(the taunts cause their hands to shake during a Heal check, they distract at a crucial moment, etc.), but it would likely leave far less of a sour taste in everyones' mouths after the fact.

** spoiler omitted **

Personally, I think more needs to be done.

that is still a really easy DC, and the fact EVERY melee type will take this, IMO, shows it to be broken

Lets have a reverse one called Eldritch Despair

your skill at magic is so awesome that a character adjacent to you, must throw down his weapon and move away from you. Make a spellcraft check of DC 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's charisma modifier

OK, im being silly, but just the whole nature of the feat seems wrong and not what 'd20' games are about

Basically the taret of Antagonize would be given a choice. Either deal with those crippling modifiers and ignore the taunter, or give in "to all their hate and rage" and focus on him, after which those penalties are cleared.

What, like Boasting Taunt?

I think a feat that forces you to make a melee attack against an opponent (even if you're a spellcaster) is a valid feat if there's also a feat that forces you to cast a spell at an opponent (even if you're not a spellcaster)....

As long as a target has the option of voluntarily being dazed for a round (or whatever) instead of making a mandatory attack, the specifics of the attack in question wouldn't both me in the least.

EDIT: In other words, what Mikaze and TOZ just said regarding mechanics like those of Boasting Taunt.

I think that some folks in this thread are the reason why Pathfinder is called Caster Edition. Also, Fighters Can't Have Nice Things. Also, You Nerfed My CoDzilla, So Please Now Don't Buff Anybody Else.

Ummm... and if I am not a caster... do I get the spell suddenly? :)

Nope, you have to leave the battle, find a mage or priest to train you, learn how to cast spells, and then come back and cast a spell on your opponent.

Yes, it's that absurd.

Mikaze wrote:

Basically the taret of Antagonize would be given a choice. Either deal with those crippling modifiers and ignore the taunter, or give in "to all their hate and rage" and focus on him, after which those penalties are cleared.

What, like Boasting Taunt?

Ha! Yeah actually. Overlooked Boasting Taunt, but something closer to along those lines strikes me as more palatable in the long run, for folks that may both be using it and be targeted by it.

Keeping that in mind for my Jade Regent barb. I wouldn't feel good about using Antagonize, but Boasting Taunt? Oh yeah.

I made a thread about this, but I think Antagonize should, after the intimidate check is successful, allow the victim to make a save (Will, probably)

DC = 10 + antagonizer's B.A.B. + Cha

Something like that?

I really like the idea of B.A.B. based saves, b/c it allows the martial types to have stuff that is clearly intended for them, but that functions as a save as opposed to an attack.

But maybe that's just me and the people I game with. It'd need some fine-tuning (A mundane, infinite/day ability MAYBE shouldn't get up to DC 33, but then, it does require a skill check, and allows a save) but that way is still more balanced than currently...Also, it balances, say, Half-Orc Inquisitors using the feat a bit, IMO. To be fair, it kinda makes Paladins have way higher relative utility from the feat. Again. Fine-tuning.

Another simple thing: Antagonize(Intimidate) should most likely be called out as a compulsion effect.

Disclaimer: I may or may not be onto anything, and have no real qualifications for any posts about balance/design I may make.

I'm fine with the feat if it didn't remove control of a party without a save. If it were worded, say:

The target gets a penalty to all attacks and skill checks equal to your intimidate ranks, and a spell failure chance of 5% times your intimidate ranks, except those that target you. These penalties last until your target makes a melee attack against you, whether it successfully hits or not. The DC for this check is 10+the target's HD+Wisdom Modifier+any special bonus it may have to saves against mind-affecting spells or affects.

I mean, with this it still TOTALLY messes your target up. I mean an 8th level fighter will wreck a caster's game, 40% miss chance? But it's not loss of control, the target has a choice to accept a hefty miss chance/attack penalty or attack a specific target. The math should certainly be such that someone who is optimized for it (skill focus intimidate, cha 14, max ranks) probably only fails 20% of the time against an appropriate APL+3 opponent.

Why not go with the obvious change:

The target must attack or otherwise directly harm the antagonizer (apply the same rules to "attack" and "harm" as are used to determine if you stay invisible.

Casters can cast, archers can arch; and that is plenty enough control over the battlefield.

Why not go with the obvious change:

The target must attack or otherwise directly harm the antagonizer (apply the same rules to "attack" and "harm" as are used to determine if you stay invisible.

Casters can cast, archers can arch; and that is plenty enough control over the battlefield.

I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force a caster to do something he would do anyway, read: try to take me out with a spell? I'd much prefer to draw a bow and ready for casting, that at least gives me some chance to disrupt the spell?

I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force an archer to do something he would do anyway, read: full attack me with ranged? I'd much prefer to close the distance ASAP so I can actually hurt him.

I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force a melee to do something he would do anyway, read: charge me? I'd much prefer to either get in there myself first or ready something against the advancing foe.

Ah, I remember. Fighters Can't Have Nice Things.

Ah, I remember. Fighters Can't Have Insanely Borked Things.

Fixt.

I'm fine with the feat if it didn't remove control of a party without a save. If it were worded, say:

The target gets a penalty to all attacks and skill checks equal to your intimidate ranks, and a spell failure chance of 5% times your intimidate ranks, except those that target you. These penalties last until your target makes a melee attack against you, whether it successfully hits or not. The DC for this check is 10+the target's HD+Wisdom Modifier+any special bonus it may have to saves against mind-affecting spells or affects.

I mean, with this it still TOTALLY messes your target up. I mean an 8th level fighter will wreck a caster's game, 40% miss chance? But it's not loss of control, the target has a choice to accept a hefty miss chance/attack penalty or attack a specific target. The math should certainly be such that someone who is optimized for it (skill focus intimidate, cha 14, max ranks) probably only fails 20% of the time against an appropriate APL+3 opponent.

That's not a bad option, if somewhat fiddly.

LoreKeeper wrote:

Why not go with the obvious change:

The target must attack or otherwise directly harm the antagonizer (apply the same rules to "attack" and "harm" as are used to determine if you stay invisible.

Casters can cast, archers can arch; and that is plenty enough control over the battlefield.

I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force a caster to do something he would do anyway, read: try to take me out with a spell? I'd much prefer to draw a bow and ready for casting, that at least gives me some chance to disrupt the spell?

I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force an archer to do something he would do anyway, read: full attack me with ranged? I'd much prefer to close the distance ASAP so I can actually hurt him.

I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force a melee to do something he would do anyway, read: charge me? I'd much prefer to either get in there myself first or ready something against the advancing foe.

Ah, I remember. Fighters Can't Have Nice Things.

Because otherwise he'll target the glass cannons? You're a fighter. You can take the hit (or twelve).

Alternatively, I'm a Wizard with an intelligence that rivals Deep Thought's. The guy over there with the bulging muscles and lethal lookng swrd, not to mention the inch thick armour said something bad abot my mother. Rather than frying him with magic, I sall try to stab him with my knife. Does that make more sense to you? Really?

Because otherwise he'll target the glass cannons? You're a fighter. You can take the hit (or twelve).

Alternatively, I'm a Wizard with an intelligence that rivals Deep Thought's. The guy over there with the bulging muscles and lethal lookng swrd, not to mention the inch thick armour said something bad abot my mother. Rather than frying him with magic, I sall try to stab him with my knife. Does that make more sense to you? Really?

More sense than falling from 500 feet and taking 70 damage on average.

Or casting lightning bolt underwater with some weirdo physics that don't make me fry every form of life in general vicinity.

Or shooting a composite longbow six times in six seconds.

More sense than falling from 500 feet and taking 70 damage on average.

Or casting lightning bolt underwater with some weirdo physics that don't make me fry every form of life in general vicinity.

Or shooting a composite longbow six times in six seconds.

Why do people keep making this argument? It's an fallacy so huge even a pre-errata 20th level monk with cloud step couldn't leap from one side of it to the other in one turn.

Gorbacz wrote:

More sense than falling from 500 feet and taking 70 damage on average.

Or casting lightning bolt underwater with some weirdo physics that don't make me fry every form of life in general vicinity.

Or shooting a composite longbow six times in six seconds.

Why do people keep making this argument? It's an fallacy so huge even a pre-errata 20th level monk with cloud step couldn't leap from one side of it to the other in one turn.

It's not a fallacy.

"Casters can get away with anything because it's you know MAGIC, while non-casters must strictly observe Newtonian physics and other realistic limitations", now that's a fallacy.

Now, this fallacy was present in D&D from day 1. But in previous editions, it didn't make a problem due to far better caster/melee balance in 1E/2E. It popped up in 3E and it's still here.

Curiously, 4E got rid of this problem altogether, but in a true WotC fashion, they threw the baby out with the water. So since we don't want to repeat that mistake, let's try to keep the distance between GodWizards and Mortals a bit closer to 1E/2E, shall we?

Zmar wrote:

Ummm... and if I am not a caster... do I get the spell suddenly? :)

Nope, you have to leave the battle, find a mage or priest to train you, learn how to cast spells, and then come back and cast a spell on your opponent.

Yes, it's that absurd.

Seems I failed my check against irony when I read Seans first post in this thread. ^^

Yeah, Antagonize needs to be changed up a bit.

Sorry mate, but ...

better caster/melee balance in 1E/2E.

Really, REALLY!?

1E and 2E are freaking AWESOME, and I play them to this day, but it was SO imbalanced it hurted me to play a melee character. But, I did it anyway and was called a Masochist, but ok.

Now, the problem with the feat is obvious, and I'm a fihter kinda guy, love melee and hate the fact that archers are way better.

Caster aren't nearly as good as they used to be in previous editions due to everything having a save and the nearly no damage scalation on spells but the insane scalation of HP and melee damage.

The feat should work diferently, simply because it breaks the game AND it's ludricous, not everyone will fall to goads, let alone put himself in a complicated situation because of some words.

Now, the way I see it, it should have a save (everything does) and it should be something like Street Fighter (RPG) Rage. You HAVE to use your most damaging attack, you MUST move towards the target while doing so. A decrease in AC and imposibility to do ANY defensive maneuver would also be good.

Caster aren't nearly as good as they used to be in previous editions due to everything having a save and the nearly no damage scalation on spells but the insane scalation of HP and melee damage.

Casters don't win battles in 3E by casting damage spells. They do so by casting save-or-suck/die/lose/cry spells. If you play your casters like you played 1E/2E casters, yes they are weaker. In 1E and 2E casters were so flimsy that you really had to protect them in order to give them a chance to do something. Interrupting spells back then was easy, as opposed to "impossible" in 3.5 and "damn hard" in Pathfinder. So no, 3.5/PF casters are far more powerful than 1E/2E. It would be perfectly fine if martial classes somewhat scaled to the same degree, but they don't.

I'm sorry buddy, but you are just plain wrong about casters being more powerful now. Just gonna name a few spells here to try and prove a point.

Sleep - No Save
Hold Metal - No Save
Otto's Irresistable Dance - No Save
Stone Skin - IMUNITY to a number of attacks (Lasts until used)

So, back to topic.
I do believe warriors need nice things (not the fighter alone, I think he is powerful enough) but a feat like this is not the way to go, as explained earlier.

I think that some folks in this thread are the reason why Pathfinder is called Caster Edition. Also, Fighters Can't Have Nice Things. Also, You Nerfed My CoDzilla, So Please Now Don't Buff Anybody Else.

But Antagonize as written isn't just an anti-caster/archer feat, It's an anti-everybody feat.

Rogue! Come here and melee me, the big dragon! Eat an AoO as you approach and a full attack next round!

Paladin! I know you're smiting the Big Bad, but instead, come over here and fight me, his lowly minion!

Aristocrat! I have said insulting things about you in court! leap over the table and try to kill me in front of the King!

...and so forth.

I'm sorry buddy, but you are just plain wrong about casters being more powerful now. Just gonna name a few spells here to try and prove a point.

Sleep - No Save
Hold Metal - No Save
Otto's Irresistable Dance - No Save
Stone Skin - IMUNITY to a number of attacks (Lasts until used)

So, back to topic.
I do believe warriors need nice things (not the fighter alone, I think he is powerful enough) but a feat like this is not the way to go, as explained earlier.

You won't get anywhere by just comparing the spells, because you have to take all the rules into context.

Each of those spells could be easily interrupted before they are cast, that's why they had no saves - because if you actually managed to cast one, it would be rather anal if it didn't work.

Also, 1E/2E caster hp was so funny that you really had to watch out what you are doing. 3.5 and PF even more so are very liberal with hp, meaning that you can take more risks than you used to in previous editions.

In 3.5, no amount of damage you take during a round can stop you from casting the spell, unless someone readied against your casting, managed to hit you and you failed your Concentration check (which was laughable in 3.5 and only slightly difficult in PF).

That's one of reasons why 3.5 casters > previous editions.

Gorbacz... what your saying isn't jiving with me. I don't have my books here with me to look up the rules but I recall 3.5 having the rule that if a caster was struck in combat before their turn and were going to cast a spell they had to make a concentration check = to 10? 15? + the damage they took.
I don't recall this being something that was added in pathfinder.

Also I will disagree with your assessment that casters in 1e/2e were easy to interrupt. I have DM'd many a caster in those editions and speed factors played a large part in being able to cast. True if you were struck that was that, no casting that round, you lost the spell. But most weapons had speed factors in the range of 5+ while most spells had a speed factor = to their level. At lower level play it was quite common for casters to go first. And as Xum pointed out, stoneskin would keep you safe and able to cast irregardless of when your turn was.

Example.. warrior runs up and cracks the caster with his two handed sword for 30 points. Okay that's one point off of stone skin, now eat a lightning bolt.
I do miss lightning bolt ricochet :)

Ravingdork wrote:

Both of those threads are over 15 pages long and are therefore not a good way to "get the word out" as only a handful of invested people still follow them.

Sooooo every time a thread reaches 15 pages we have to make a new one? Well, that explains all the Paladin alignment threads! ;)

Actually, he has a good point. If I've been away from the boards for a while and see a thread with several hundred posts already, I generally steer clear of it because I don't want to make the time investment to read the entire thread, and personally try not to comment on a thread unless I've read through the entire thing, to avoid being duplicative.

Xum wrote:

I'm sorry buddy, but you are just plain wrong about casters being more powerful now. Just gonna name a few spells here to try and prove a point.

Sleep - No Save
Hold Metal - No Save
Otto's Irresistable Dance - No Save
Stone Skin - IMUNITY to a number of attacks (Lasts until used)

So, back to topic.
I do believe warriors need nice things (not the fighter alone, I think he is powerful enough) but a feat like this is not the way to go, as explained earlier.

You won't get anywhere by just comparing the spells, because you have to take all the rules into context.

Each of those spells could be easily interrupted before they are cast, that's why they had no saves - because if you actually managed to cast one, it would be rather anal if it didn't work.

Also, 1E/2E caster hp was so funny that you really had to watch out what you are doing. 3.5 and PF even more so are very liberal with hp, meaning that you can take more risks than you used to in previous editions.

In 3.5, no amount of damage you take during a round can stop you from casting the spell, unless someone readied against your casting, managed to hit you and you failed your Concentration check (which was laughable in 3.5 and only slightly difficult in PF).

That's one of reasons why 3.5 casters > previous editions.

We are gonna have to agree on disagreeing then. To me a first level spell that kills more than one character at once is too much. But ok.

You REALLY think, the feat is fair the way it is? After all the examples said before? On that you cannot seriously agree now, can ya?

I think a feat that forces you to make a melee attack against an opponent (even if you're a spellcaster) is a valid feat if there's also a feat that forces you to cast a spell at an opponent (even if you're not a spellcaster)....

Yes!!! When will the Fighter spell list, Barbarian spell list and Rogue spell list be out?

I really like the argument that if the feat doesn't allow a fighter to cause a wizard to come down from the sky and beat on him with a stick, then it's completely useless.

Look (as has been pointed out here and elsewhere several hundred times), sometimes you just want the hate focused on you and not the other guy. Is it advantageous to make the enemy wizard cast Black Tentacles on you, the fighter, rather than have him dispelling or otherwise disabling the party wizard? Yes, it is.

To win Chess (you know, one of the oldest games out there - not the oldest, certainly, but an ancient game), you need Knights, Bishops, Rooks, Pawns...and yes, Queens. One might be able to make the case that "Queens need nerfed" or, more accurately for this discussion, "Knights need to be able to make Queens position themselves either two squares away and one square over or one square away and two squares over from knights", but the imbalance of the pieces is part of the strategy - and fun - of the game. Plenty of people still enjoy playing knights, and knights are still viable pieces. In a vaccum, they will never ever capture a queen, but chess isn't played in a vacuum, and neither is Pathfinder.

I really like the argument that if the feat doesn't allow a fighter to cause a wizard to come down from the sky and beat on him with a stick, then it's completely useless.

Look (as has been pointed out here and elsewhere several hundred times), sometimes you just want the hate focused on you and not the other guy. Is it advantageous to make the enemy wizard cast Black Tentacles on you, the fighter, rather than have him dispelling or otherwise disabling the party wizard? Yes, it is.

To win Chess (you know, one of the oldest games out there - not the oldest, certainly, but an ancient game), you need Knights, Bishops, Rooks, Pawns...and yes, Queens. One might be able to make the case that "Queens need nerfed" or, more accurately for this discussion, "Knights need to be able to make Queens position themselves either two squares away and one square over or one square away and two squares over from knights", but the imbalance of the pieces is part of the strategy - and fun - of the game. Plenty of people still enjoy playing knights, and knights are still viable pieces. In a vaccum, they will never ever capture a queen, but chess isn't played in a vacuum, and neither is Pathfinder.

Imagine a game of chess where a different person controls every piece - now tell me, would you prefer to play a pawn, likely dead at the opening or sacrificed later on, or the Queen, likely in there until the very end of the game?

Better comparison, please.

a possible get around to the intimidate is that your group just decides to be your ennemy for one round, thus you can't enter and then leave any squares they or your real opponents threaten.
Thus someone has probably wasted a standard action for nothing.

By the way what would happen if you ready antagonize against "when he casts a spell"?
He casts, you trigger, he ... ? Antogize happens on his next turn, does that mean he casts his spell, and next turn it happens?

Also, I'm not as much defending the feat as it's written. It's more a problem that goes like this: there are caster classes that can turn an encounter upside down in one round. Sleep, Power Word (Suck), Black Testicles, Hold Monster, Domiate Monster, yadda yadda. Everyone is fine with that.

And suddenly there comes a feat which gives a similarly powerful "roll or suck" ability to everyone. Limited, usable once per day per target (unlike, say, any spell), needs a roll, requires blowing a feat (unlike, say, any spell), can't be quickened, the list goes one.

What happens? "Incredibly broken" and "OMG not realistic". My mind boggles.

Xum wrote:

I'm sorry buddy, but you are just plain wrong about casters being more powerful now. Just gonna name a few spells here to try and prove a point.

Sleep - No Save
Hold Metal - No Save
Otto's Irresistable Dance - No Save
Stone Skin - IMUNITY to a number of attacks (Lasts until used)

So, back to topic.
I do believe warriors need nice things (not the fighter alone, I think he is powerful enough) but a feat like this is not the way to go, as explained earlier.

You won't get anywhere by just comparing the spells, because you have to take all the rules into context.

Each of those spells could be easily interrupted before they are cast, that's why they had no saves - because if you actually managed to cast one, it would be rather anal if it didn't work.

Also, 1E/2E caster hp was so funny that you really had to watch out what you are doing. 3.5 and PF even more so are very liberal with hp, meaning that you can take more risks than you used to in previous editions.

In 3.5, no amount of damage you take during a round can stop you from casting the spell, unless someone readied against your casting, managed to hit you and you failed your Concentration check (which was laughable in 3.5 and only slightly difficult in PF).

That's one of reasons why 3.5 casters > previous editions.

Your argument about casters being all-powerful is debatable, and I actually believe it is true at higher levels, but it has been beaten to death on these boards many, many times before. Even if you accept it as true, that doesn't mean that you have to look for weird, illogical and ridiculous ways to balance it out.

As I've said before, the Antagonize feat is poorly designed and more importantly to me, completely unnecessary. In a game with a real live GM who can and should determine NPC actions and real live players who can and should determine PC actions, this feat has no place. Roleplay the taunting (or whatever it is) and then play the characters logically. Don't reduce all this discretion to a die roll. The hothead bandit lord who is in therapy for control issues and is sensitive about the fact his mother really was a whore, might go bonkers and charge somebody who insulted his mother. The coldly intellectual and amoral alchemist who killed his own mother because she objected to his dissecting the family dog to further his own study of anatomy? Not so much.

So to me, the best thing Paizo can do with this feat is get rid of it. I've booted it from my game with the enthusiastic and unanimous support of my players. Or leave it as an optional feat for that minority of groups out there who think it serves a useful purpose.

Ravingdork wrote:

Both of those threads are over 15 pages long and are therefore not a good way to "get the word out" as only a handful of invested people still follow them.

Sooooo every time a thread reaches 15 pages we have to make a new one? Well, that explains all the Paladin alignment threads! ;)

Yes. Those forums are way too long.

But Antagonize as written isn't just an anti-caster/archer feat, It's an anti-everybody feat.

Rogue! Come here and melee me, the big dragon! Eat an AoO as you approach and a full attack next round!

Paladin! I know you're smiting the Big Bad, but instead, come over here and fight me, his lowly minion!

Aristocrat! I have said insulting things about you in court! leap over the table and try to kill me in front of the King!

...and so forth.

About the dragon thing, and the fact that this feat will make players cry if used against them, I'd like to point out a pet peeve of mine. Why the hell can monsters select player feats and players can't take monster feats (and do go all "You can with your DM's approval" on me, rules are there to provide for a stable environment where you can rely on your expectations, using DM fiat for everything screws that over).

Seriously, if the feat appears in the monster base built, fine, but if you are building one or leveling one and have to select feats, keep to your damn Monster Manuals (exception made for playable races built solely by class levels of course). And yes, I am aware that class levels for monsters screws my point over. Whatever. I don't care.

As for the wording of Antagonize, I believe simply not forcing the attack to be melee is a sufficient fix, considering the +10 to DC that has already been added. But in that case, it definitely should force the attack to be the most damaging one available to the target, and if melee is chosen the most direct path possible, barring stupid things like passing trough a wall of fire, a spike trap or a line of pikemen (passing trough a few enemies ready to AoO is fine tough, and logical, as those possible attacks are not so much of an obvious hazard).

From my perspective, more that harassing casters (tough this is a laudable end by itself) this feat is more about forcing the big brutish thing away from the healer/glass canon/injured person and toward the fighter. Or to force said big hulking foe to move toward the fighter and single attack him, so the fighter can then have the leisure of full attacking first next round. Basically, it should still force melee if meleeing is'nt equivalent to suicide for the targeted being. Battlefield control should'nt be only for casters.

As for the saving throw bit, yes, maybe replace the flat skill check by a saving throw versus the skill check result if it makes it feel more in the spirit of the game. Same difference. I believe this would make the taunt more likely to succeed anyways, as generally total hit dice + wisdom mod > will save bonus.