Nope. Sorry, not getting your argument here. Is spoiling the game meant to be the point? Never has been for me or anyone I enjoyed playing with.
|
Nope. Sorry, not getting your argument here. Is spoiling the game meant to be the point? Never has been for me or anyone I enjoyed playing with.
You know, maybe my post wasn't serious. Or maybe it was. Or perhaps it's a little from column A and a little from column B. You can never tell, even I can't.
|
Dabbler, Gorbacz essentially loves anything that makes casters weaker or more vulnerable, regardless of whether or not it's good for the game as a whole. Gorby, please correct me if I've misstated your position. When Antagonize was initially errata'd to only include the DC bump, he offered to pass out tissues to caster players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do get it, but the errata means it's no longer neutralising casters, just making you the target of them, so the main use is gone. But it can still turn Gandhi into a psycho, with no save, and that's just not a good thing. The feat simply does not take into account the nature of the target or their ability to resist acting on impulse.
It's a guaranteed way to make every paladin fall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't need a feat to make a paladin fall.
How about a spell? I hear grease is pretty effective at it at low levels.
|
|
Dabbler, Gorbacz essentially loves anything that makes casters weaker or more vulnerable, regardless of whether or not it's good for the game as a whole. Gorby, please correct me if I've misstated your position. When Antagonize was initially errata'd to only include the DC bump, he offered to pass out tissues to caster players.
My position is that having grown men cry is glorious. If it happens that they play a caster and feel invulnerable thanks to that, it's all the more glorious.
Making paladins fall isn't half as fun.
Dabbler, Gorbacz essentially loves anything that makes casters weaker or more vulnerable, regardless of whether or not it's good for the game as a whole. Gorby, please correct me if I've misstated your position. When Antagonize was initially errata'd to only include the DC bump, he offered to pass out tissues to caster players.My position is that having grown men cry is glorious. If it happens that they play a caster and feel invulnerable thanks to that, it's all the more glorious.
Making paladins fall isn't half as fun.
But the errata to the feat mean that casters are no longer at a massive disadvantage, but making paladins fall is still easy. All you need is ventriloquism and an innocent victim-to-be.
I'm totally with you on the casters-should-not-think-they-are-invulnerable thing, and that anything that brings them down to earth is good, by the way. But this feat is not that.
You could also be invisible or vanished and just stand behind some poor schmuck and use the feat on a Paladin to make him fall with this feat. Again, banned with an industrial ban hammer.
I have not seen the board so united as against this feat. Well maybe the VoP, and the new monk "clarification", but other than that, there is no competition.
Yes, it is pretty strong isn't it? Some people will use this feat, but no-one seems willing to justify or defend it. It's the same with VoP and the monk 'clarification' - a few it does not effect are happy with it, but even they admit them to be unnecessary and unrewarding in the broader sense of things.
It's just hard to see what the point of these is - you look at them and wonder:
"Guys, just what were you thinking?"
Some people will use this feat, but no-one seems willing to justify or defend it.
I'll defend it. It's a nifty form of battlefield control. In our game, it's been very situational. And not at all bad. My character has a bodyguard with this ability, and when buffed she has a very good roll. It takes considerable investment in skills to make this feat remotely work, and it's very situational.
For those of you complaining--have you actually played with this ability much at the table? No target will eat an AoO. No one will run though a wall of flame or do something where they might fall into a pit. Yes, it can get someone to briefly emerge from magical darkness. Yes, it can make a fleeing enemy pause. Yes, it can frustrate a wizard for a moment, and take him or her out of position. Once a day per target. Compared to other abilities? This is not bad at all.
Some complain that it could it blow certain Roleplaying encounters? First, so can a jillion spells. And I've seen that happen far, far more often at our table. Persistent dominate person can generally ruin many of these.
Second, for you who are unduly concerned about how someone could provoke someone to attack, thus violate the law as attacking someone "unprovoked"--all very lawyerly--well that's a very American and very 20th century view. In ye olde days, saying something that could provoke an imminent breach of the peace was a crime against the King's Peace, and I imagine similar law would obtain in a fantasy setting. You have to forget about the First Amendment. Truth was no defense in ye olde days--whatever you said or published, ye did so at yer peril. (And even in American law, so-called "fighting words" are not necessarily protected from criminal sanctions.) The whole sticks-and-stone-may-break-my-bones-but-words-will-never-hurt-me may square with your fantasy setting, but not with my idea of one. I think the feat is nifty and no big deal.
Anyhow, at our game, this has been a nuanced ability of battlefield control, that requires significant investment in skills, is very situational, and has never provided the clutch ability for the death of a BBEG. I think there's much ado without practical experience in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's much ado without practical experience in this thread.
I'll second that M.
It's not my place to tell any other DM which feats should be allowed at their table, but I'm curious how forcing an immediate attack became equivalent to a paladin falling from grace.
I've got a question for those against the feat though: do you guys find it more unbalanced in the hands of PCs, NPCs or just across the board unfit for human consumption?
Across the board unfit for use.
How about an example from actual play? With actual dice and actual people? Or are you just hypothesizing from an armchair?
Some people will use this feat, but no-one seems willing to justify or defend it.I'll defend it. It's a nifty form of battlefield control. In our game, it's been very situational. And not at all bad. My character has a bodyguard with this ability, and when buffed she has a very good roll. It takes considerable investment in skills to make this feat remotely work, and it's very situational.
Oh I don't deny the feat is good battlefield control, it's not a debate about how effective it is that is the problem (although it is half of the problem because it's still too easy). Here's a situation for you then: Cast ventriloquism, and make the Antagonize sound as if it comes from an inoffensive old man. Said Antagonise is directed at, say, the party paladin. He has no great wisdom, and at, say 10th level, the Antagonist can have an Intimidate score of +15 (that's just from skill ranks, moderate charisma), so an 80% success chance.
Almost auto-success, and his Aura of Resolve doesn't count for anything as this is not a charm spell or spell-like ability. The paladin, according to the blurb, wants to attack an innocent. So he attacks, hits an innocent old man, and he falls because, according to the wording of the feat, he wanted to do it.
The problem with the feat is that as stated before it controls not what a character does, but what a character wants to do, and because it isn't a spell or spell-like ability any of the classes that specifically should be less likely to succumb to outside mental influence - characters like the monk (still mind is useless against this feat) or paladin (not even the blanket immunity of Aura of Resolve counts).
In short, this feat can make Gandhi a psychopath, almost automatically, with no save on their part. Not even the high-level charm spells are THAT good!
I have no problem with the feat if it was some kind of mental influence, but frankly, I just don't see how a jackass yelling insults is going to influence the desires of a noble paladin or an ascetic monk.
|
|
Antagonize is a problem when somebody at the table is a jerk.
But at that point, it's a symptom, not a source of the disease. The problem isn't "Antagonize may be used to make paladins fail or be to troll the game". The problem is "Somebody at the table is a jerk enough to use Antagonize for malicious purposes". And honestly, jerks can use any Core rule to ruin the day for everybody, they don't need Antagonize.
Now, I don't like design such as Vow of Poverty or Prone Shooter. That's because they're trap options (vop) or redundant design (PS), and taking them is shooting yourself with an arrow in the knee. Antagonize isn't a trap or redundant design, it's a feature that may become a problem if people act stupid. But acting stupid is the real problem, which won't be fixed by nerfing Antagonize.
Here's a situation for you then: Cast ventriloquism, and make the Antagonize sound as if it comes from an inoffensive old man.
I think that's injudicious reading of the diplomacy skill. A diplomacy roll only involves spoken words? Since when? Such a skill use requires more than merely talking and the sounds of words. I mean this is really infuriating stuff--real-in-your-face antagonism.
Again, has that happened at the table, or are you just playing from an armchair?
I don't need to try playing a single classed wizard as a melee combatant with an 8 intelligence to know it is undesirable. Nor do I have to try vow of poverty to know it is a massive power down. Ditto on trying this feat.
Nope, you don't. But my point, which you've failed to rebut, is that the ability is tame at an actual table, with actual AoOs and actual tactical considerations and actual action economy in play. Usually, it's been much better for the character to do something other than antagonize.
Antagonize is a problem when somebody at the table is a jerk.
But at that point, it's a symptom, not a source of the disease.
Right on, just as many abilities are. :)
Incorporate the olde idea that words can wound (not at all a strange idea given wizardry), the importance of vindicating honor, and these petty abuses complained of are just forcing square pegs into round holes--they don't fit, because the first injury comes from the words, not the sword strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I don't deny the feat is good battlefield control, it's not a debate about how effective it is that is the problem (although it is half of the problem because it's still too easy). Here's a situation for you then: Cast ventriloquism, and make the Antagonize sound as if it comes from an inoffensive old man. Said Antagonise is directed at, say, the party paladin. He has no great wisdom, and at, say 10th level, the Antagonist can have an Intimidate score of +15 (that's just from skill ranks, moderate charisma), so an 80% success chance.
Solely my own interpretation here, but I gotta say attacking an innocent old man and losing all pally powers in just as harmful to a paladin as a running through a wall of fire or charging into a chasm.
I gotta say attacking an innocent old man and losing all pally powers in just as harmful to a paladin as a running through a wall of fire or charging into a chasm.
Or sense motive DC 5 to realize that by his body language, the old man doesn't mean it at all. Or the paladin strikes for nonlethal--maybe a slap, or even a vigorous shaking (a grapple is a melee attack, no?). Again, this is the problem with hypothesizing in a vacuum, without actual people, actual dice, and an actual story.
It does not make Ghandi psychotic: he can "attack" with a disarm attempt.
Or you have to target the guy with a spell. Doesn't say what kind of spell. It could be a Cure Light Wounds, or a Light cantrip.
It does not make a paladin fall any more than a Charm or Dominate would: it's also a mind-afecting effect. Oh, and he can attack with non-lethal means, even a non-damaging Bull Rush.
It is a non-magical, usable once/day/target, skill-based Command-like ability. It's not that bad.
Oh I don't deny the feat is good battlefield control, it's not a debate about how effective it is that is the problem (although it is half of the problem because it's still too easy). Here's a situation for you then: Cast ventriloquism, and make the Antagonize sound as if it comes from an inoffensive old man. Said Antagonise is directed at, say, the party paladin. He has no great wisdom, and at, say 10th level, the Antagonist can have an Intimidate score of +15 (that's just from skill ranks, moderate charisma), so an 80% success chance.Solely my own interpretation here, but I gotta say attacking an innocent old man and losing all pally powers in just as harmful to a paladin as a running through a wall of fire or charging into a chasm.
And if the DM rules it isn't, by RAW, 'harmful' because that, in his view, constitutes physical harm? Too much of this feat is open to very different interpretations. I get where you are coming from, but seriously you shouldn't need to have a player be a rules-lawyer to get out of the problem, and so much should not be left open to interpretation as this.
By the RAW, you don't get a Sense Motive check to see that you are being goaded into an unwise course of action, which is what this feat NEEDS to balance it out.
Antagonize is a problem when somebody at the table is a jerk.
Antagonise is a problem because it makes it really, really easy to be a jerk. It's got "Jerks use ME!" written all over it. It's not just allowing bad behaviour, it's all but encouraging it, and that's not a good thing.
But at that point, it's a symptom, not a source of the disease. The problem isn't "Antagonize may be used to make paladins fail or be to troll the game". The problem is "Somebody at the table is a jerk enough to use Antagonize for malicious purposes". And honestly, jerks can use any Core rule to ruin the day for everybody, they don't need Antagonize.
... it just makes it easier. You can argue that it's the player, not the tool, it's still bad design to make it easy to be a jerk.
Now, I don't like design such as Vow of Poverty or Prone Shooter. That's because they're trap options (vop) or redundant design (PS), and taking them is shooting yourself with an arrow in the knee. Antagonize isn't a trap or redundant design, it's a feature that may become a problem if people act stupid. But acting stupid is the real problem, which won't be fixed by nerfing Antagonize.
No, these are examples of bad or at least poorly thought out design, end of. Trap options shouldn't exist, IMHO because they do not actually make the game for fun for anyone except the people that like to snigger at noobs. You should have good options, and less obvious slightly better options, so new players can be effective and old hands can be creative. Bad options mean you are not having fun. Brokenly good options - like this - should likewise not exist.
The problem remains: Antagonize controls what the character WANTS to do. Not what they do, not to influence them to do something, this feat actually gets up and tells the player 'hey, doesn't matter how YOU conceive of your character, this is what you want to do, so do it.' It's handing your character sheet to someone who wants to use it to wipe their backside. This is an absolute taboo with player-characters, it's why all the social skills that affect standing and behaviour have no effect on player characters if they do not wish it too. Until you take this feat.
The secondary problem is that it's practically an auto-success. No save, no accounting for mental strength, serenity or any such. You can argue interpretations of 'attack' but that then leaves way, way too much leeway in DM interpretation and rules-lawyering.
It would be easy to fix this feat with the cameo that it does not force any target to act in a manner not in their nature, and that like social skills it is up to players how their PCs react. Less fun, perhaps, for the Antagoniser, but hey it's a feat you can take at 1st level, not an 8th level spell...
The problem remains: Antagonize controls what the character WANTS to do. Not what they do, not to influence them to do something, this feat actually gets up and tells the player 'hey, doesn't matter how YOU conceive of your character, this is what you want to do, so do it.' It's handing your character sheet to someone who wants to use it to wipe their backside. This is an absolute taboo with player-characters, it's why all the social skills that affect standing and behaviour have no effect on player characters if they do not wish it too. Until you take this feat.
Buuuuuut making a PC "want" to do something is perfectly ok when it's a Suggestion spell or the like? Or is it only ok when it's a spell and not a skill?
It does not make a paladin fall any more than a Charm or Dominate would: it's also a mind-afecting effect.
Do you have a source for that? Because the feat does not say that it's a mind-affecting effect. Which means it's no more mind-affecting than a disarm attempt is.
Even if it seems like it should be.
The problem remains: Antagonize controls what the character WANTS to do. Not what they do, not to influence them to do something, this feat actually gets up and tells the player 'hey, doesn't matter how YOU conceive of your character, this is what you want to do, so do it.' It's handing your character sheet to someone who wants to use it to wipe their backside. This is an absolute taboo with player-characters, it's why all the social skills that affect standing and behaviour have no effect on player characters if they do not wish it too. Until you take this feat.Buuuuuut making a PC "want" to do something is perfectly ok when it's a Suggestion spell or the like? Or is it only ok when it's a spell and not a skill?
Two points:
1) Suggestion - and other charm spells - is external control, the character is not responsible for their actions. You cannot 'suggest' a monk act chaotically and have them lose their abilities. Suggestion also has to be a course of action that seems reasonable, and it is up to you how you do it.
2) Spells follow a sliding scale of DC that allows a reasonable chance of success. In the case of suggestion, at 10th level it could have a DC of say, 10 + 3 for level of spell + 7 for casting stat (say 22 at 10th level, not excessive or unreasonable) for DC20 save. Our paladin above would have +7 from level, +4 from Charisma (divine grace), a 60% chance of success even if he wasn't immune via Aura of Resolve. Only in the worst cases (a 10 wisdom fighter, say) would the chance drop to that equivelant to Antagonise against, well, anyone, and with far less major consequences.
The problem remains: Antagonize controls what the character WANTS to do. Not what they do, not to influence them to do something, this feat actually gets up and tells the player 'hey, doesn't matter how YOU conceive of your character, this is what you want to do, so do it.' It's handing your character sheet to someone who wants to use it to wipe their backside. This is an absolute taboo with player-characters, it's why all the social skills that affect standing and behaviour have no effect on player characters if they do not wish it too. Until you take this feat.Buuuuuut making a PC "want" to do something is perfectly ok when it's a Suggestion spell or the like? Or is it only ok when it's a spell and not a skill?
Yes, because of two reasons:
1) A spell is subject to some combination of: Spell resistance, will saves, and bonuses or immunity to mind-affecting effects, compulsions, and the like. This feat does not.2) A spell can be dispelled, counter-spelled, or negated by an AMF. There is no way to block this feat.
"It's all fine as long as it's magic, if it's not magic then: PANIC!".
If it was a non-magical effect which still said it was a mind-affecting compulsion that allowed a will save to negate, then it would be a reasonable feat. Still strong, because you can't counter/dispel it, but reasonable. Characters with strong will saves would have a better chance to resist it. Characters with immunity to compulsions wouldn't be compelled by it. But neither of those is the case.
It's the fact that it side-steps the established rules that is objectionable. If it was a spell that had no will save, no spell resist, was universal school with no sub-schools, and had the exact same mechanic, it would be equally objectionable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It's all fine as long as it's magic, if it's not magic then: PANIC!".If it was a non-magical effect which still said it was a mind-affecting compulsion that allowed a will save to negate, then it would be a reasonable feat. Still strong, because you can't counter/dispel it, but reasonable. Characters with strong will saves would have a better chance to resist it. Characters with immunity to compulsions wouldn't be compelled by it. But neither of those is the case.
It's the fact that it side-steps the established rules that is objectionable. If it was a spell that had no will save, no spell resist, was universal school with no sub-schools, and had the exact same mechanic, it would be equally objectionable.
The spell resist argument is silly, because both you and I know that SR on PCs is a dumb thing, so let's not pretend that it's valid, OK? While at it, let's stop talking about counterspelling because no sane caster does that.
For the rest, let me introduce you to Power Word: Stun.
It does not make a paladin fall any more than a Charm or Dominate would: it's also a mind-afecting effect.Do you have a source for that? Because the feat does not say that it's a mind-affecting effect. Which means it's no more mind-affecting than a disarm attempt is.
Even if it seems like it should be.
It says it is here, here, and in my copy of ultimate magic, in the last line of the Benefit paragraph.
|
|
"It's all fine as long as it's magic, if it's not magic then: PANIC!".If it was a non-magical effect which still said it was a mind-affecting compulsion that allowed a will save to negate, then it would be a reasonable feat. Still strong, because you can't counter/dispel it, but reasonable. Characters with strong will saves would have a better chance to resist it. Characters with immunity to compulsions wouldn't be compelled by it. But neither of those is the case.
It's the fact that it side-steps the established rules that is objectionable. If it was a spell that had no will save, no spell resist, was universal school with no sub-schools, and had the exact same mechanic, it would be equally objectionable.
That.
Characters that get hit by mind affecting magic can at least have the comfort of that they weren't themselves. That there was an external force making them act unnaturally.
Antagonize doesn't work like that. People that get hit by antagonize can only blame themselves for the actions that someone else's mechanics force upon them.
Even most mind affecting spells come with caveats dealing with the target's usual behavior and nature. Antagonize skips it entirely.
As suggested several times before in this very thread, rip out the "target goes DERP" mechanic, replace it with "I'm so antagonizing that the target is debuffed unless he focuses on me". Done. It doesn't take peoples' characters away from them, and it also actually makes much more sense flavor-wise. Spellcasters tremble with disruptive anger and fear. Healers' hands shake. The guy keeping his buddy from falling off a cliff loses some of his focus. All if they try not to focus on the guy taunting them. And if that debuff does cause them to fail at whatever they're doing, at least the characters were true to themselves and remained in-character.
"It's all fine as long as it's magic, if it's not magic then: PANIC!".
Once again, you miss the point. It's got nothing to do with being magic or not. Try:
"If it follows established rules for controlling the actions of another character, taking into account strength of will and nature of the target, it's good. If it breaks the rules, side-steps existing protections, and allows an inordinately good chance of success and has no real defences against it, it's bad."
Magic is merely the best example of this. Look at Dominate Person, a 4th-5th level spell, where it says: "any subject forced to take actions against it's nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus". Not only is the save easier, there is a greater chance of resistance.
Even if it seems like it should be.It says it is here, here, and in my copy of ultimate magic, in the last line of the Benefit paragraph.
It's mind-effecting, but it's not a charm spell or spell-like ability. Up until this feat, everything that effected your mind WAS a charm spell, enchantment or spell like ability and allowed a saving throw - so the Paladin's Aura of Resolve or the monk's Still Mind were effective. This ability bypasses these defences with no real explanation of why, and frankly I don't think it should.
But Mikaze, it's not broken because the DM can compensate for it! ;)
...with the banhammer!