Antagonize (the GM?!)


Rules Questions

501 to 550 of 583 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
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.

As I've said several times in this thread, what you want to do at your table is between you and your players, but that replacement is listed in the feat description as the effect for a diplomacy roll. If a feat has two effects listed by the designer and you only want to use one in your game, the feat isn't so broken that it should be removed from the game, you just prefer a house ruled version.

Edit: Sorry if that came across as snarky, but I just don't see this feat as big problem.


Hitdice wrote:
Bobson wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:
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.

I apologize. I don't think I saw that before. Was that added as part of the errata? Or did I just miss it?

It leads to the next question, though: How is a character who has +4 to saves against mind-affecting effects more resistant to this than a character who doesn't have that bonus?


It was always there. The problem is that what isn't there are the caveats in the various abilities for resisting mind control that would apply to this feat that they are effective against any mind-effecting effect, not just charms and enchantments. All your years of zen meditation in the temple achieving mental tranquillity don't count for jack if somebody moons you and calls you a jackass, apparently.


Gorbacz wrote:
Bobson wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
"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.

Can be countered by:

1) Immunity to stunning.
2) Having over 150 hp.
3) Spell resistance (which I have seen come in handy for the monk in my game - even a 20% chance to ignore a spell is better than a 0% chance).
4) Counterspell (which I've also seen used usefully - a bard who buffed with his song then readied to counterspell whenever he wasn't needed to heal or provide any other support).
5) Dispel magic after the fact.

Can you give me a list of counters to Antagonize? My list is:
1) Immunity to mind-affecting
2) Having a 1 or a 2 int.
3) Being unable to communicate in a common language.
4*) More HD or Wisdom - this only reduces the chance, not counters it.

I think one of these lists is a bit more reasonable than the other.


Bobson wrote:

I apologize. I don't think I saw that before. Was that added as part of the errata? Or did I just miss it?

It leads to the next question, though: How is a character who has +4 to saves against mind-affecting effects more resistant to this than a character who doesn't have that bonus?

You don't owe me an apology, it's not that serious. ;)

Personally, I'd add the saving throw bonus to the skill DC, but I'm one of those oddballs who likes to house rule thing mid-game.


... and bear in mind that Power Word: Stun is an 8th level spell, so only access to it at 15th level, at which point 150+hp is quite plausible. Not so Antagonise, available at 1st level.


And Antagonize doesn't make you drop what you are holding either..... wait what does that have to do with the price of tea in China again??


Gorbacz wrote:

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.

I've done both of these things with some success against a notoriously killer GM, especially the latter.

I guess I'm insane, but if spellcasting is so good, then killing spells before they hit the table is better.

That said, Antagonize is better, but still crazy. I'd have to establish the caveat that it works for combat participants only in my home games.

Liberty's Edge

Hitdice wrote:
Big M wrote:
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?

magic jar -> take over a child -> move within 70 foot of a paladin -> antagonize him, he can't attack you the first round but he must move to attack you so he has to get nearby -> maintain the antagonize effect with an immediate action and then use your standard action to leave the body returning to your jar -> when he get to act the paladin will kill a innocent, defenceless child crying and pleading (speaking is a free action but fleeing isn't)

That is, if you don't allow antagonize to work through ventriloquism or similar effects. If you can use ventriloquism ad have some other guy as the target of the paladin attack it is even worse.

Hitdice wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
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.

As I already pointed out a few post ago, there is the unresolved issue of the definition of harm when referred to the feat.

What is harm?
- I can get hit by an AoO
- he is a big scaring guy, I will not get near him
- I will lose my paladin powers
- I will damage my alignment
- I can end in prison
- I will find myself in a bad tactical position
- my dear friend will die
and so on

If losing the paladin powers is harm enough to protect from the feat effect I can find plenty of reason to deny the feat efficiency.
"My friend/loved one will die." is surely as harmful as losing the paladin powers.
"I will be in range from a full attack from a melee combatant" is as strong a getting it by an a AoO.
So either the feat is near useless or it is too strong.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:

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.

Gorbacz, read your posts. You are the poster example of why it is a bad feat.

Gorbacz wrote:
Still using it to make people cry at my table. One of best feats ever.


Diego Rossi wrote:

As I already pointed out a few post ago, there is the unresolved issue of the definition of harm when referred to the feat.

What is harm?
- I can get hit by an AoO
- he is a big scaring guy, I will not get near him
- I will lose my paladin powers
- I will damage my alignment
- I can end in prison
- I will find myself in a bad tactical position
- my dear friend will die
and so on

Thing with this is, if these all count as harm, there isn't much that DOESN'T count as harm, and the feat becomes effectively useless. When a feat is as powerful (even with errata) as Antagonize appears, it's badly designed; if it's as powerless as the interpretations of harm are concerned, it's badly designed; if it faces this much grey area, it's been badly designed.

Whichever way you look at it, it's badly designed.


Like I said, I think it's a step in the right direction, it just goes too far. All spells and spell-like effects have clear rules on targeting, line of effect, and how mechanically you use them to interact with your target. Because its a Feat and not a spell, there's a giant grey field of how this feat can be used to interact with the Antagonized. Can it be used from a Magic Jar'd enemy? What about an invisible enemy using Clairaudience? Is there a distance range if you have someone with a "loudspeaker" yelling at a top of a mountain? Since Diplomacy and Intimidate don't have "ranges" because they're skills (except for the Demoralize aspect of intimidate) its unclear as to how and when this Feat works.
Also, as has been stated, there's not really a counter to this ability, unlike every spell in the game.
(PW:S, for instance gets stopped nicely by Spell Turning, Greater Spell Immunity, and Protection from Spells. Or counterspelling. No Counterspelling Antagonize.)


By RAW, I don't see why it wouldn't work from a Magic Jar'd victim, from ventriloquism or the like. As long as your target can hear you and locate the source, that's all the feat seems to require.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

I don't see how a paladin would fall from the magic jarred Antagonizing kid trick -- the key is that when made angry by a child, the truly good paladin doesn't walk up and cut the kid down with a sword, he walks up and makes a CMB-based attack to grapple the obnoxious brat and ask where his parents are. Then the child gets really confused (as the magic jarring wizard departs) and the paladin (who hopefully remembered to invest in Sense Motive) gets suspicious.

Nothing in the feat says the attack has to be lethal.


coyote6 wrote:

I don't see how a paladin would fall from the magic jarred Antagonizing kid trick -- the key is that when made angry by a child, the truly good paladin doesn't walk up and cut the kid down with a sword, he walks up and makes a CMB-based attack to grapple the obnoxious brat and ask where his parents are. Then the child gets really confused (as the magic jarring wizard departs) and the paladin (who hopefully remembered to invest in Sense Motive) gets suspicious.

Nothing in the feat says the attack has to be lethal.

No, but it is implied because it makes you enraged. I don't know many enraged people who don't go all-out. Remember, though there is no Sense Motive check, there is no intelligence check, there is no Will save. You are Antagonized, then you become enraged and you move to the Antagonizer and attack. Do not pass 'Go', do not collect 200gp, do not reflect that this is a dumb thing to do.

You could be right of course, but then this means once again that Antagonise is far too open to interpretation and has insufficient guidance written in. The feat says what you MUST do, it does not list any exceptions save that you may avoid 'obvious harm'.


coyote6 wrote:

I don't see how a paladin would fall from the magic jarred Antagonizing kid trick -- the key is that when made angry by a child, the truly good paladin doesn't walk up and cut the kid down with a sword, he walks up and makes a CMB-based attack to grapple the obnoxious brat and ask where his parents are. Then the child gets really confused (as the magic jarring wizard departs) and the paladin (who hopefully remembered to invest in Sense Motive) gets suspicious.

Nothing in the feat says the attack has to be lethal.

What Dappler said. If you allow that, you also allow the wizard you targeted to pull a bug out of his spell component pouch and flick that at you. It's a ranged attack. He makes a ranged attack roll. Even though he's 80' away, and it wouldn't do any damage even if he had a chance of hitting you. And then it becomes a feat which is effectively "Spend a standard action to make someone waste a standard action."


ShadowcatX wrote:
Its funny, people will ignore RAW because they don't like the fluff but then they'll ignore the fluff in favor of the RAW when they don't like the fluff.

Where did I do so? Vague replies do not enhance your credibility. to the contrary--your flat ad hominem suggests your argument is lacking. I welcome an engaging discourse but not attacks on some negative trait that I have.


Bobson wrote:
coyote6 wrote:
Nothing in the feat says the attack has to be lethal.
What Dappler said. If you allow that, you also allow the wizard you targeted to pull a bug out of his spell component pouch and flick that at you. It's a ranged attack. He makes a ranged attack roll. Even though he's 80' away, and it wouldn't do any damage even if he had a chance of hitting you. And then it becomes a feat which is effectively "Spend a standard action to make someone waste a standard action."

Actually that in and of itself is not a bad thing; it's an effective use of a feat that is not disproportionately powerful - you didn't goad the wizard into blowing you up or trying to knock your teeth out, but you did prevent him from casting a spell. However, if that was the intent, then it should clearly state so in the feat description.


Diego Rossi wrote:


magic jar -> take over a child -> move within 70 foot of a paladin -> antagonize him, he can't attack you the first round but he must move to attack you so he has to get nearby -> maintain the antagonize effect with an immediate action and then use your standard action to leave the body returning to your jar -> when he get to act the paladin will kill a innocent, defenceless child crying and pleading (speaking is a free action but fleeing isn't)

Why didn't the paladin give the kid a noogie instead? That's what would actually happen at the table, anyhow. That's an attack. The feat is satisfied. C'mon guys.

Liberty's Edge

Big M wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Its funny, people will ignore RAW because they don't like the fluff but then they'll ignore the fluff in favor of the RAW when they don't like the fluff.
Where did I do so? Vague replies do not enhance your credibility. to the contrary--your flat ad hominem suggests your argument is lacking. I welcome an engaging discourse but not attacks on some negative trait that I have.

Arguing that because someone can make a non-damaging attack (such as grapple or disarm) to prevent a paladin from falling ignores the fluff of the feat, even as it holds to the RAW. (And if it wasn't you making that argument, then obviously I wasn't talking about you.)

As to people ignoring RAW for fluff, that was more of a comment about the gunslinger thread. It just amused me how people are so different, yet so similar.


Dabbler wrote:
By the RAW, you don't get a Sense Motive check to see that you are being goaded . . . .

Um, why not? How is it different from, you know, a lie?

Dabbler wrote:
Antagonize controls what the character WANTS to do.

So do a jillionandone spells. And much more efficaciously and for considerably less investment. But unlike those spells, the player has great discretion in how to have his or her character manifest that momentary want, and the want is very brief. If the issue is the slaughter of innocents (really happens at a table? really?) I advocate more noogies by Paladins--that's RAW.


Iomedae forgive them for creating new and unusual mechanics that don't break the game in playtest.

I am still waiting for any actual instances where the feat did something borked at a table with real dice and real players. Having playtested dozens of books for a variety of systems, actual play is way more probative than any armchair hemhawing.

Challenge issued--I believe I have a fairly high result on my antagonize roll here against the nay-sayers. :)


ShadowcatX wrote:
Big M wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
[P]eople will ignore RAW . . . .
Where did I do so? . . . .
Arguing that because someone can make a non-damaging attack (such as grapple or disarm) to prevent a paladin from falling ignores the fluff of the feat . . . .

Disagree--usually the feat would be used in the context of hot combat. But outside of that, a measured response would be appropriate. Slapping a man in the face, grabbing an man for a moment and giving him a nasty look, or giving a child a noogie.

I'm bad for ignoring the RAW or not ignoring the RAW? I can't do both at the same time. Help me!

Forgive them Iomedae they know not what they do. :)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Meanwhile, UM errata has arrived!

Page 143—In the Antagonize feat, in the Benefit
section, in the second sentence, change “the target’s
Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier” to “10 + the
target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier”. In
the Intimidate paragraph, add the following to the
end of the second sentence: “, make a ranged attack
against you, target you with a spell, or include you
in the area of a spell.” In the third sentence, change
“reaching you” to “attacking you.” In the fourth
sentence, change “cannot reach you” to “cannot
attack you.” In the fifth sentence, change “makes a
melee attack against you” to “attacks you”.


Big M wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
By the RAW, you don't get a Sense Motive check to see that you are being goaded . . . .
Um, why not? How is it different from, you know, a lie?

Because it is Antagonize. It says quite clearly you attack the person Antagonising you, that is your only option. Giving a Sense Motive check is a house-rule.

Big M wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Antagonize controls what the character WANTS to do.
So do a jillionandone spells. And much more efficaciously and for considerably less investment. But unlike those spells, the player has great discretion in how to have his or her character manifest that momentary want, and the want is very brief. If the issue is the slaughter of innocents (really happens at a table? really?) I advocate more noogies by Paladins--that's RAW.

We've already covered this: the spells in question either comple you to follow a course of action, but allow you to interpret how you do it to your character, or if they DO compel an action against your nature allow you a second save at a bonus to throw off the effects.

In fact for the most part, the spells allow far more leeway in how the character acts than Antagonise. Just how much leeway is there in: "You grow enraged and attack person X who called you a *****"?

Noogies by paladins is not RAW. It's your particular RAI. Another DM may well say "no, you have to make a PROPER attack."

Big M wrote:
Iomedae forgive them for creating new and unusual mechanics that don't break the game in playtest.

What makes you think this was play-tested?

Big M wrote:
I am still waiting for any actual instances where the feat did something borked at a table with real dice and real players. Having playtested dozens of books for a variety of systems, actual play is way more probative than any armchair hemhawing.

We've given plenty of examples of how it could be abused, any of which could be applied in a game. Personally, I have no intention of having a game implode by actually being daft enough to allow this feat just so I can post here about to convince somebody who I've never met.

Big M wrote:
Challenge issued--I believe I have a fairly high result on my antagonize roll here against the nay-sayers. :)

*rolls eyes*

Big M wrote:
Disagree--usually the feat would be used in the context of hot combat. But outside of that, a measured response would be appropriate. Slapping a man in the face, grabbing an man for a moment and giving him a nasty look, or giving a child a noogie.

Can you point to the RAW that says this? the only implication I can read into the description is that the attack should be potentially damaging at least.

Big M wrote:
I'm bad for ignoring the RAW or not ignoring the RAW? I can't do both at the same time. Help me!

As you ask so nicely :p

The RAW of the feat is pretty explicit. Your interpretations of 'attack' as a paladin giving a noogie are pretty hyperbolic interpretations of 'attack' that I have never seen in Pathfinder before. They are your interpretations, therefore. Now I submit that this interpretation makes the feat much less broken, but the fact that you have to stretch the definition of 'attack' this far shows that you are in effect house-ruling the feat.

Inadvertently, this is actually making our case: If the feat is broken if you don't house-rule 'attack' to mean an inoffensive action that has no chance of causing damage or even inconvenience to the target, then the feat as-written and as-implied must be broken.


Dabbler wrote:
No, but it is implied because it makes you enraged. I don't know many enraged people who don't go all-out. Remember, though there is no Sense Motive check, there is no intelligence check, there is no Will save. You are Antagonized, then you become enraged and you move to the Antagonizer and attack. Do not pass 'Go', do not collect 200gp, do not reflect that this is a dumb thing to do.

So you think it's borked not because of anything that happened at the table, but because you read into it extra bits not in the RAW.

So, to return to my initial response to your challenge:

Dabbler wrote:
Some people will use this feat, but no-one seems willing to justify or defend it.

The justification is it's different, interesting, and creates a structured mechanic to social skills--otherwise horribly absent in the game. In the absence of a bad playtest example, different options are often nice in a system.

You may disagree, but we're at the very least in the realm of where reasonable minds can disagree. It's certainly not slam-dunk awful as you and others suggest: no one has even provided an example of where it screwed things up at a table with real dice and real players. You hypothesize some instances, though not when employing the rules as written. However, I can identify of many, many times that spells have caused substantial disappointment at a table and for adventure or encounter design. This feat? Nopers.


Big M wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
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?

The feat clearly says you are incited to a certain action, and the intimidate aspect is the issue. Unless you are going to argue that the spell, uh feat does not make you want to commit the action I don't see the point of your argument.


wraithstrike wrote:
The feat clearly says you are incited to a certain action . . . .

Grapple, punch, etc. is all an attack action. You are reading something into the rule text that is not there. No wonder you're frustrated.


Big M wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The feat clearly says you are incited to a certain action . . . .
Grapple, punch, etc. is all an attack action. You are reading something into the rule text that is not there. No wonder you're frustrated.

The key word was incited not attack.

Actually incited was a bad word to use.
The issue is that you choose to attack with choose being the key word.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I love how everybody has ignored my errata post! /pouts

Shadow Lodge

It's not the errata they're ignoring...


just had an idea for when someone uses this in a social setting where a retaliatory attack might be bad (royal ball, banquet ect)

'i pull off my glove and strike him with it (rolls attack) then throw it to the ground.
"have at thee, knave! i demand satisfaction!"'

what? it's better than stabbing him in front of all those witnesses!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Cool down, folks.


Who are you responding to TOZ?

(The errata was posted a couple pages ago. Thanks for the repost)


Gorbacz wrote:
I love how everybody has ignored my errata post! /pouts

No, we saw it, it just didn't say anything that fixed any of the fundamental problems with the feat.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I love how everybody has ignored my errata post! /pouts
No, we saw it, it just didn't say anything that fixed any of the fundamental problems with the feat.

Ah, the "it exists" problem.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big M wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The feat clearly says you are incited to a certain action . . . .
Grapple, punch, etc. is all an attack action. You are reading something into the rule text that is not there. No wonder you're frustrated.

Maybe you need to read the feat again. And the description of melee or ranged attacks.

PRD wrote:

Antagonize

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
PRD wrote:
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
PRD wrote:
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.

Unarmed Attacks, Natural Attacks and Combat Maneuvers have separated descriptions. Combat maneuvers aren't even under the Attack heading.

So you can't give the target a noogie, slap him, grapple or whatever.
Your choices, by RAW, are hitting him with a melee weapon, hitting him with a ranged weapon, affect him with a spell.
The only way not to harm the target is to use some non damaging spell.


Sorry Big M, but you kinda lost that one bad. You cannot satisfy the requirements of the feat by flicking peanuts at people. The paladin has to hack down the annoying kid, and because he wanted to do it, filled with rage, he falls.

The feat is broken.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed some posts. Cool down, folks.

It's not their fault, they're being antagonized.


Dabbler wrote:

Sorry Big M, but you kinda lost that one bad. You cannot satisfy the requirements of the feat by flicking peanuts at people. The paladin has to hack down the annoying kid, and because he wanted to do it, filled with rage, he falls.

The feat is broken.

Actually, nothing says it is in your personality to inflict lethal damage. The feat makes you attack (not saying how you attack) so you can do nonlethal.

When I allowed it in my Way of the Wicked game, I made Intimidate effect a Charm effect (since it is). So 8th level Pally get +4 save vs it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You folks are using "a child with Antagonize mind controlled to make paladins fail brouhahahaha" strawman? Really?


Gorbacz wrote:
You folks are using "a child with Antagonize mind controlled to make paladins fail brouhahahaha" strawman? Really?

Ok,

I'm an anti-paladin. I find 10 street kids, I give them food and clothes, and I teach them how to use Antagonize. Then I promise them more food if they go embarass the paladin's by calling their mommy's names. Then I point them toward the Paladin's chapter house, and watch as a dozen Paladin's go berserk in full view of witnesses and chop down street kids who called them names.

If you don't like Paladin's, insert any of the following : City Guard, Royal Guard, Nuns, Ghandi, The Grandmother's Benevolence Society.

Liberty's Edge

Dabbler wrote:

Sorry Big M, but you kinda lost that one bad. You cannot satisfy the requirements of the feat by flicking peanuts at people. The paladin has to hack down the annoying kid, and because he wanted to do it, filled with rage, he falls.

The feat is broken.

Actually, nothing says it is in your personality to inflict lethal damage. The feat makes you attack (not saying how you attack) so you can do nonlethal.

"When your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. While unconscious, you are helpless."

So 20-22 hp of non lethal damage and the target child/elder is dead.

Starbuck_II wrote:
When I allowed it in my Way of the Wicked game, I made Intimidate effect a Charm effect (since it is). So 8th level Pally get +4 save vs it.

Yes, it can be house ruled in plenty of ways. That don't make the feat valid as written.

You have added a) a ST to intimidate b)made it a charm effect. Practically you have turned it into a spell that everyone can cast. No problem with that, but it mean that now a lot more defences work against it.


It seems we will now need to FAQ antagonize just to find developer intent on what type of attack with regard to lethal or nonlethal was intended. At least we got rid of wedgies and wet willies though.

None of that still changes the fact that the pacifist is bringing harm to someone, and that the bigger the target is the more likely he is to attack them, which makes no sense. It also

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mdt wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
You folks are using "a child with Antagonize mind controlled to make paladins fail brouhahahaha" strawman? Really?

Ok,

I'm an anti-paladin. I find 10 street kids, I give them food and clothes, and I teach them how to use Antagonize. Then I promise them more food if they go embarass the paladin's by calling their mommy's names. Then I point them toward the Paladin's chapter house, and watch as a dozen Paladin's go berserk in full view of witnesses and chop down street kids who called them names.

If you don't like Paladin's, insert any of the following : City Guard, Royal Guard, Nuns, Ghandi, The Grandmother's Benevolence Society.

That's being a jerk. And if you did that as a player/GM, my problem would not be "you can do that with Antagonize", my problem would be "you're a disruptive derp". Even if there was not Antagonize around, with a mindset like that you would find dozens of ways to go full out jerkass(hey, Wish and Limited Wish are just around the corner!).

So no, not broken.

501 to 550 of 583 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Antagonize (the GM?!) All Messageboards