|
It's a beautiful book. I just don't understand this feat. Is there something I'm missing or the feat is missing? I just don't get it
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/caustic-slur-general
Why would I want to spend a feat fort my favored enemies to have better damage against me? Couldn't I just ask DM for that without spending a feat? I bet he would be delighted to do that for me
|
|
I may be a noob on rangers, so it may seem as a strange question, but why would I want monsters to attack me so bad that I'd spend a feat to do it?
Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?
I kinda have a feeling that somebody forgot to explain "angered" as a sort of condition, since this just looks like spending a feat and an action to give monsters the power attack so they might possibly attack me, maybe... with power attack
It would be awesome if monsters would take this feat, so the fighter would "maybe miss them" :D
I may be a noob on rangers, so it may seem as a strange question, but why would I want monsters to attack me so bad that I'd spend a feat to do it?
Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?
I kinda have a feeling that somebody forgot to explain "angered" as a sort of condition, since this just looks like spending a feat and an action to give monsters the power attack so they might possibly attack me, maybe... with power attack
It would be awesome if monsters would take this feat, so the fighter would "maybe miss them" :D
1) You'd want monsters to attack you to protect the squishier party members that they might otherwise want to focus on, like the wizard or rogue. Also, it's a matter of pride: your enemies should fall before you.
2) Here's a reason to spend that standard action: AoOs. Make an enemy provoke a few coming to you, instead of the other way around. Maybe they'll hit that puddle of grease the sorcerer just laid down as well, or move away from that squishy rogue....
Not to mention that if you do this to an enemy spellcaster, they're obligated to spend their action attacking. As in not casting spells.
It's a feat that allows you to decide what your opponents are going to do on their turn. Sure, taunting a advanced, giant, troll barbarian might not be in your best interest. But a high level kobold sorcerer? I think I'd rather have him taking Power Attacks on me rather than fireballing the party.
And if you already have an impressive AC, taunting them to attack you (with a penalty) isn't really putting you at risk.
|
So, it is about wording. I found it strange since I didn't see anything about monsters having to attack me. Just about giving them free power attack against me in case they feel stupid and decide to leave the wizard and walk on on his grease
Well think of it like this.
You are a dumb smelly orc.
You encounter 3 adventures with a group of your buddies while you are out hunting/scouting/pillaging. Whatever.
You are angry and dumb. Lets say you have an Anger Index.
Adventurer X = Anger score 1 (Half-Orc? Maybe friend?)
Adventurer Y = Anger score 2 (It gnome, me no like)
Adventurer Z = Anger score 3 (SHINY ROBES MAKE BOOM!)
Now and one of the 3 creatures attacking you slings a PARTICULARLY dirty, vile, and sick burn at you. Your anger level towards the creature spikes drastically as he has some weird enraging information about your mother that your friends think "So funny." This adds like... 5 to your anger score for them.
You are pissed and you want that guy dead. You might have other pressing issues come up but right now he has to die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat does say "if it attacks you". Using the feat, as per the actual wording, doesn't actually force the enemy to attack you as opposed to anyone else, nor does it force him/her to attack you in physical combat.
That may have been the intent, but it's not what it says.
The feat does say "if it attacks you". Using the feat, as per the actual wording, doesn't actually force the enemy to attack you as opposed to anyone else, nor does it force him/her to attack you in physical combat.
That may have been the intent, but it's not what it says.
That's because we're not playing a computer game, monsters don't have "aggro" stats vs. PCs, and the GM decides who the monsters attack based on their Int and the circumstances of the battle.
The game also doesn't say "If the fighter is hitting a monster each round for 30 and the wizard is hitting that monster each round for 1, the monster should attack the fighter because the fighter is a bigger threat." Because that's common sense.
Sure, I agree completely. I was commenting primarily on the posts to the effect that using this feat would force a spellcaster to attack the feat-user in melee rather than casting spells. Which it doesn't do. More likely, said spellcaster would, being angry at the feat-user, cast his biggest damage-dealing spell at him :)
That's because we're not playing a computer game, monsters don't have "aggro" stats vs. PCs, and the GM decides who the monsters attack based on their Int and the circumstances of the battle.
The game also doesn't say "If the fighter is hitting a monster each round for 30 and the wizard is hitting that monster each round for 1, the monster should attack the fighter because the fighter is a bigger threat." Because that's common sense.
It's also common sense that dragons are terrifying and that characters will occasionally be seduced by a succubus, but there are still specific rules for that.
The specific rules for Caustic Slure are "you spend a feat, use a standard action, and make a skill check, to give your opponent the benefits of a combat feat", with a vague implication that it could, perhaps, induce him to engage in bad tactics. Withing the framework of 3E/Pathfinder, it's a terribly phrased feat.
There are many better ways to model "hey, uglyface, attack me!" in D&D: 4E marking, 3.5 PHB2 knight mechanics, that paladin spell from Advanced Player's Guide (knight's calling, I think), the Goad feat from Complete Adventurer...
|
There are basically two schools of DMing: the narrativist school (hey, he used a feat that pisses the monster off. It's natural and cool that the monster will focus on him.) and the gamist (or, Denist) school (hey, this feat is a weaksauce failure of design because NOTHING forces the monster to attack.).
The first group welcomes such feats with open arms, the other group shakes their head. But the same divide applies to many Core feats, so it's not a big deal if it persists in peripheral crunch.
(I, for one, would love to see a PF "tanking" mechanics someday, most likely as a feat tree or CM or something equally universal and available to everyone, not just one specific class)
Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?
And so you can TWF them with a full attack.
|
|
Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?And so you can TWF them with a full attack.
how do I TWF them after a standard action better then TWF-ing them after a move action?
There are basically two schools of DMing: the narrativist school (hey, he used a feat that pisses the monster off. It's natural and cool that the monster will focus on him.) and the gamist (or, Denist) school (hey, this feat is a weaksauce failure of design because NOTHING forces the monster to attack.).
The feat is a failure of design because it doesn't fit the wider rules framework at all. Descriptive natural language mechanics without precisely specified effects are fine in a game that works that way, but Pathfinder is not such a game.
Even the feat itself is not, consistently, such a mechanic: it specifies in technical terms what sort of action it is to use it, what sort of skills and saving throws are involved, and what sort of benefits the opponents get. But the benefits the user gets is that the opponents "become angered"? It's like if fireball specified school, range, spell level, Reflex save for half, and spell resistance, but the entirety of the spell effect was "you create an explosion" (with the implication that the consequences of an explosion are up to the DM to be adjudicated using common sense).
The first group welcomes such feats with open arms, the other group shakes their head. But the same divide applies to many Core feats, so it's not a big deal if it persists in peripheral crunch.
It does? I can't immediately think of any core feat that offers absolutely no mechanical benefit whatsoever, much less which only grants benefits to opponents.
It does? I can't immediately think of any core feat that offers absolutely no mechanical benefit whatsoever, much less which only grants benefits to opponents.
Eschew Materials taken by a fighter, rogue, barbarian, or monk. >_> <_< Ooh! Exotic Weapon Proficiency (kama). That's one (functions exactly as a sickle, except is a monk weapon and thus flurryable...but monks get it for free, so the feat EWP taken for it gives no mechanical benefit). Intimidating Prowess with a Str of 9 or lower... Weapon Finesse with a Dex of 9 or lower... Metamagic feats for a noncaster...
but yeah, there certainly aren't many, and the ones there are are very obviously stupid choices for the characters they would be worthless for/harmful to.
how do I TWF them after a standard action better then TWF-ing them after a move action?Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?And so you can TWF them with a full attack.
You can't TWF with a standard action. You must have a full-round action to full attack.
|
|
There are basically two schools of DMing: the narrativist school (hey, he used a feat that pisses the monster off. It's natural and cool that the monster will focus on him.) and the gamist (or, Denist) school (hey, this feat is a weaksauce failure of design because NOTHING forces the monster to attack.).The feat is a failure of design because it doesn't fit the wider rules framework at all. Descriptive natural language mechanics without precisely specified effects are fine in a game that works that way, but Pathfinder is not such a game.
Even the feat itself is not, consistently, such a mechanic: it specifies in technical terms what sort of action it is to use it, what sort of skills and saving throws are involved, and what sort of benefits the opponents get. But the benefits the user gets is that the opponents "become angered"? It's like if fireball specified school, range, spell level, Reflex save for half, and spell resistance, but the entirety of the spell effect was "you create an explosion" (with the implication that the consequences of an explosion are up to the DM to be adjudicated using common sense).
The first group welcomes such feats with open arms, the other group shakes their head. But the same divide applies to many Core feats, so it's not a big deal if it persists in peripheral crunch.It does? I can't immediately think of any core feat that offers absolutely no mechanical benefit whatsoever, much less which only grants benefits to opponents.
This feat does grant mechanical benefit, it's equal to +1 AC versus that enemy.
And as for descriptive natural language mechanics: Ghost Sound. Do I have rules for what happens when I use that spell ? Are there rules that tell me how shall a monster react to a ghost sound if it fails the save ? It must/can/shouldn't/can't investigate ? It's all down to the DM. Some love such freedom, some - like you - don't, because you want mechanics for everything.
|
|
You can't TWF with a standard action. You must have a full-round action to full attack.how do I TWF them after a standard action better then TWF-ing them after a move action?Also, why would I want to spend my standard action (and a feat) to make monsters maybe attack me instead of just spending a move action to get to them and attack them first (if I was a close combat ranger for some reason)?And so you can TWF them with a full attack.
rolf, i feel the urge to go through this as many times as needed:
option a)
1) You take a weapon focus or nimble fingers or any feat from phb.
2) You want to attack an enemy with twf?
3) You move towards him
4) YOU ATTACK HIM ONCE
5) he attacks you once
6) you TWF
7) Awesome!
option b)
1) You take caustic slur.
2) You want to attack an enemy with twf?
3) You spend your standard action
4?) YOU DON'T ATTACK HIM AT ALL
5) enemy attacks you once with power attack
6) you TWF
7) Awesome?
Do you notice ANYTHING better with option b? Because, as I said in the begining, any DM would be very happy for a player to grant power attacks to enemies for free. He don't need a feat to do that :D
option a) (without caustic slur)
1) Suprise round: You take a move action to close in.
2) 1st rnd: TWF
3) 2nd rnd: move action to get close to another opponent.
4) 3rd rnd: TWF
Rinse and repeat.
Awesome?
option b)(with caustic slur)
1) Suprise round: You activate caustic slur as a standard and all creatures of the same type are angered and spend their surprise round to close in on you giving up their cover bonuses to AC.
2) 1st rnd: TWF
3) 2nd rnd: TWF
4) 3rd rnd: TWF
5) 4th rnd: TWF
6) 5th rnd: TWF
7) Awesome!
Only pick it if you are confident in your AC/HP and want to taunt creatures into giving up their advantage.
Keep in mind that their Power Attack penalties worsen. So if you've got good defence, you'll be better off. Unless they critical hit you, in which case you'd be screwed either way.
|
|
And as for descriptive natural language mechanics: Ghost Sound. Do I have rules for what happens when I use that spell ? Are there rules that tell me how shall a monster react to a ghost sound if it fails the save ? It must/can/shouldn't/can't investigate ? It's all down to the DM. Some love such freedom, some - like you - don't, because you want mechanics for everything.
You don't have exact mechanics for prestidigitation or dancing lights either. Those aren't feats, they are 0th level spells :)
If you want to wing it, why do you need a feat anyway? This way it's even worse. I can't be a cool bluffing gnome that angers monsters, noo, now I have to be a ranger and have this extra feat and the monster must be my favored enemy for that. That's even worse. I could go as far as saying that the existence of this feat diminishes role playing
Now that's ridiculous. Diminishes roleplaying. sheesh, if you want to be a cool bluffing gnome that angers monsters ask your DM if you can take or homebrew the Goad feat from 3.5.
I'm out.
|
|
And as for descriptive natural language mechanics: Ghost Sound. Do I have rules for what happens when I use that spell ? Are there rules that tell me how shall a monster react to a ghost sound if it fails the save ? It must/can/shouldn't/can't investigate ? It's all down to the DM. Some love such freedom, some - like you - don't, because you want mechanics for everything.You don't have exact mechanics for prestidigitation or dancing lights either. Those aren't feats, they are 0th level spells :)
If you want to wing it, why do you need a feat anyway? This way it's even worse. I can't be a cool bluffing gnome that angers monsters, noo, now I have to be a ranger and have this extra feat and the monster must be my favored enemy for that. That's even worse. I could go as far as saying that the existence of this feat diminishes role playing
You can do it always, but if you are a ranger and you have the feat you have crunch to go along with it.
Anybody can say that they splatter the innards of their opponents when they finish them off, but only somebody with the right feat is so good at it that he gets a free Initimdate all round.
Horribly weak crunch, truth to be said, but that's another story.
|
|
1) Suprise round: You activate caustic slur as a standard and all creatures of the same type are angered and spend their surprise round to close in on you giving up their cover bonuses to AC.
Sooo... If I'm a ranger and I just won initiative against a whole bunch of favored enemies that can't easily hit me, I'm better off using this feat then, say, shot on the run?
That kinda sounds like a fire mage still learning mostly fire spells while adventuring through hell "in case somebody vulnerable to fire actually shows up". That's not role-playing, that's forcing the DM to put training wheels on hell
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This feat does grant mechanical benefit, it's equal to +1 AC versus that enemy.
Don't be absurd. Giving the opponent the benefits of Power Attack is not a benefit.
And as for descriptive natural language mechanics: Ghost Sound. Do I have rules for what happens when I use that spell ? Are there rules that tell me how shall a monster react to a ghost sound if it fails the save ? It must/can/shouldn't/can't investigate ? It's all down to the DM.
So that's one 0-level spell on one side, and pretty much the whole weight of the 550+ page rulebook on the other.
Some love such freedom, some - like you - don't, because you want mechanics for everything.
Like me? Because I want? How in the world did this become a discussion about me?
Focus on the feat.
|
|
This feat does grant mechanical benefit, it's equal to +1 AC versus that enemy.
Don't be absurd. Giving the opponent the benefits of Power Attack is not a benefit.
That's debatable. I didn't say that the crunch is good (because it isn't), but that's relative. After all, we have people who say that lay on hands is too strong and people who say it isn't :)
And as for descriptive natural language mechanics: Ghost Sound. Do I have rules for what happens when I use that spell ? Are there rules that tell me how shall a monster react to a ghost sound if it fails the save ? It must/can/shouldn't/can't investigate ? It's all down to the DM.
So that's one 0-level spell on one side, and pretty much the whole weight of the 550+ page rulebook on the other.
Most of the illusion school spells. Miracle. Wish. Fabricate. Knowledge (military). There's more descriptive natural language in D&D.
Some love such freedom, some - like you - don't, because you want mechanics for everything.
Like me? Because I want? How in the world did this become a discussion about me?Discuss the feat.
I'm not discussing you, I'm stating that you are a gamist, and your look at the crunch is influenced by that. You say that the feat is "terribly phrased" - that's not what it is. Selective Spell or Vital Strike, those are terrible phrased feats.
Giving the opponent the benefits of Power Attack is not a benefit.That's debatable.
Don't be absurd.
I didn't say that the crunch is good (because it isn't), but that's relative. After all, we have people who say that lay on hands is too strong and people who say it isn't :)
Are you suggesting that you're disagreeing merely to be contrary because we disagreed in a completely unrelated thread over a completely unrelated issue?
Most of the illusion school spells. Miracle. Wish. Fabricate. Knowledge (military). There's more descriptive natural language in D&D.
Knowledge (military)? Now you're just making things up.
I'm not discussing you, I'm stating that you are
This doesn't strike you as an odd thing to say?
By the way - thanks for this thread, guys (Jasin too :) because it helps me in writing my epic two-part "Pathfinder Companions: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot ?" post, bound to appear on the forums soon.
What is it going to be about?
|
|
What is it going to be about?
Most of the illusion school spells. Miracle. Wish. Fabricate. Knowledge (military). There's more descriptive natural language in D&D.Knowledge (military)? Now you're just making things up.
From the rules on Knowledge skills:
You are educated in a field of study and can answer both simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses a number of different specialties. Below are listed *typical* fields of study.
The list of Knowledge (something) in the book is not closed. You can have other Knowledge skills than those listed, it's just that some of them have a hardwired mechanical benefit.
What is it going to be about?
Part one will be about fluff, but part two will be about how come that Paizo can write very good and though-out crunch in the core books, and at the same time the crunch in Companions is way off the mark (Caustic Slur is a great example, and don't even get me started on Adventurer's Armory).
Part one will be about fluff, but part two will be about how come that Paizo can write very good and though-out crunch in the core books, and at the same time the crunch in Companions is way off the mark (Caustic Slur is a great example, and don't even get me started on Adventurer's Armory).
I'm interested to see your thoughts on why that is (even though my assessment of the situation is somewhat simpler: Paizo just isn't that good at crunch in general :p).