This true, Ashiel.
Set it as 10 + 1/2 (skill ranks + cha modifier), then.
Glad to be of service. I've been at this 3.x/PF thing for a long time, and I learned a long time ago that skills are not set up within the system to ever scale at the same rate as things like saving throws, or even attack / AC, and setting DCs for combat sorts of things with skills has more or less never worked well (didn't work well with bard in 3.x, or the bard playtest in PF). So don't feel bad, it's a mistake that's happened to other good people too.
===================================================
Also, yes, Mikaze's post is awesome and full of win. It was up to 9 when I favorited it for 10 favs, and it's still climbing; rightfully so! :D
|
Don t make artificial rules... if you want just a higher DC and you are good with the effects. set the base value of the DC higher either to 15 or to 20 as done in many skills
1/2 of intimidate ranks makes no sense at all, since some max the skill not by ranks but by boosting ability or taking feats (feat bonus isn t a rank bonus so the 1/2 does nothing)
If you can t live with the effects even after the modifications suggested...well...I feel terribly sorry for you... :D(consider that as an antagonize check)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. I don't think anyone can top Mikaze's example, but here's another.
Great Wyrm Dragon is hungry.
Great Wyrm has antagonize.
Great wyrm lands outside village.
One by one, it calls to each person it sees "Hey... Stupidface!.... you're stupid!"
Scared villager #1: "I hate you colossal dragon! Yahh!!!!(charging in)
Dragon: (Gulp)
Dragon: "hey stupid face #2... you saw what just happened to your friend! You're stupid too!"
Scared Villager #2: "No I'm not! Raaaa! (charging in)
Dragon: (Gulp)
Repeat x100
"They wanted to run and hide, but his insults were so bad that they had no choice but attack"
Villager #101: Man everyone's dead, I should just run and try to live through this. I.."
Dragon: "hey last snack! You're stupid too!"
Villager #101: "Oh well... Yaaah! (gulp)
...Seems as illogical as the above dialogue.
Don t make artificial rules... if you want just a higher DC and you are good with the effects. set the base value of the DC higher either to 15 or to 20 as done in many skills
1/2 of intimidate ranks makes no sense at all, since some max the skill not by ranks but by boosting ability or taking feats (feat bonus isn t a rank bonus so the 1/2 does nothing)
If you can t live with the effects even after the modifications suggested...well...I feel terribly sorry for you... :D(consider that as an antagonize check)
Artificial rules? Do you mean setting the DC to be equivalent to virtually every other non-spell save DC?
Also, what is "maxing" a skill if not putting the maximum ranks into it?
Finally, skill checks never work as save DCs, and the math you project is terrible, because it's entirely linear. To get DCs that aren't insane at high levels, you are nerfing people at low levels. DC = check result - 15 or -20? So you need to hit DC 35 to 40 just go get a DC 20 Will save? Do you even think about what you say before you say it, Arisps?
Meanwhile, a feat that grants two new options which have power based on the amount of investment you have put from your character into two skills which already have their own game mechanics and rules, is more reasonable, and plenty fair.
All of course is assuming that the antagonize feat's effect burns in the nine, and is replaced by something like Dazing and Cowering, instead of the pile of stupid it is now.
PS: Your check must have failed, 'cause I didn't stop what I was doing and run out of my room to try and find you to make a melee attack against you.
Don t make artificial rules... if you want just a higher DC and you are good with the effects. set the base value of the DC higher either to 15 or to 20 as done in many skills
1/2 of intimidate ranks makes no sense at all, since some max the skill not by ranks but by boosting ability or taking feats (feat bonus isn t a rank bonus so the 1/2 does nothing)
If you can t live with the effects even after the modifications suggested...well...I feel terribly sorry for you... :D(consider that as an antagonize check)
A good game designer or GM makes rules that work within the system. Dabbler's idea works within the system so far. If you have an idea that works then present it.
If you are not putting as many ranks into the skill as possible then you are not maxing the skills. Improving a skill and maxing it are not the same thing.When I was in the military one of my bosses told me he is fine with us criticizing him, but we also better need come with a solution that is feasible otherwise we should just stay quiet.
So I ask what is your solution that is not an auto-success? You know better than to suggest a base DC as 15 or 20 since you know it won't be accepted.
They started to run towards the buildings we had prepared as shelter. But as they ran, as they heard the calls of those orcs....I swear most of them were half-orcs...they stopped in their tracks. Men. Women. Children. The old. They all just turned around and charged towards their own deaths.
Not to take anything away from this story or your point, but you do realize that nearly this same scenario played out in the Iraq war, right? American troops blared insults over loudspeakers and Iraqi soldiers/insurgents would leave defensible cover in anger only to be cut down pretty much immediately.
(And that the feat itself states that if the Antagonizee would be harmed in moving to the Antagonizer they don't have to go, right?)
|
|
Artificial rules? Do you mean setting the DC to be equivalent to virtually every other non-spell save DC?
Also, what is "maxing" a skill if not putting the maximum ranks into it?
Finally, skill checks never work as save DCs, and the math you project is terrible, because it's entirely linear. To get DCs that aren't insane at high levels, you are nerfing people at low levels. DC = check result - 15 or -20? So you need to hit DC 35 to 40 just go get a DC 20 Will save? Do you even think about what you say before you say it, Arisps?
Meanwhile, a feat that grants two new options which have power based on the amount of investment you have put from your character into two skills which already have their own game mechanics and rules, is more reasonable, and plenty fair.
All of course is assuming that the antagonize feat's effect burns in the nine, and is replaced by something like Dazing and Cowering, instead of the pile of stupid it is now.
PS: Your check must have failed, 'cause I didn't stop what I was doing and run out of my room to try and find you to make a melee attack against you.
I m sorry i don t understand what you r saying i was refering to change the DC to 15+HD+wis modifier instead of 10+HD+wis...
Antagonize doesn t give 2 new options it enhances allready achieved ones(check intimidate skill)
so PS means antagonize is not auto success...
|
|
Don t make artificial rules... if you want just a higher DC and you are good with the effects. set the base value of the DC higher either to 15 or to 20 as done in many skills
1/2 of intimidate ranks makes no sense at all, since some max the skill not by ranks but by boosting ability or taking feats (feat bonus isn t a rank bonus so the 1/2 does nothing)
If you can t live with the effects even after the modifications suggested...well...I feel terribly sorry for you... :D(consider that as an antagonize check)
A good game designer or GM makes rules that work within the system. Dabbler's idea works within the system so far. If you have an idea that works then present it.
If you are not putting as many ranks into the skill as possible then you are not maxing the skills. Improving a skill and maxing it are not the same thing.
When I was in the military one of my bosses told me he is fine with us criticizing him, but we also better need come with a solution that is feasible otherwise we should just stay quiet.So I ask what is your solution that is not an auto-success? You know better than to suggest a base DC as 15 or 20 since you know it won't be accepted.
Ok name another skill check that the overall bonuses are divided by 2...
I gave you alternatives pleanty and very good ones, but you refused them all most of em without a solid arguement to the point...
How does that address the fact that the feat allows you to make Ghandi attack you?
Given his nonviolence in the face of the British Empire's treatment, I always figured Ghandi was immune to mind-affecting effects.
They started to run towards the buildings we had prepared as shelter. But as they ran, as they heard the calls of those orcs....I swear most of them were half-orcs...they stopped in their tracks. Men. Women. Children. The old. They all just turned around and charged towards their own deaths.
Not to take anything away from this story or your point, but you do realize that nearly this same scenario played out in the Iraq war, right? American troops blared insults over loudspeakers and Iraqi soldiers/insurgents would leave defensible cover in anger only to be cut down pretty much immediately.
(And that the feat itself states that if the Antagonizee would be harmed in moving to the Antagonizer they don't have to go, right?)
I did not get that version of the story. I remember a version saying Iraqi commanders telling them to run out or they would get shot if they did not.
I will also add that "dying for you cause" which would be represented by a circumstance modifier in game, is different than being insulted so greatly that common sense is wiped away.Once again the mindsets of the individuals have to be taken into account.
|
|
How does that address the fact that the feat allows you to make Ghandi attack you?
You r either not paying attentions to my suggestions or you r purposely ignoring them
I NEVER SAID i agree to it
i suggested giving the option to the targeted creature to lose its round
INSTEAD of attacking...
I do not agree with how the feat description was INTRODUCED INITIALY!!!
I just do not believe it s for the trash can...
Am I allowed to have an opinion that is not Black nor white???
Thanks...
How does that address the fact that the feat allows you to make Ghandi attack you?
She is either not reading our post or ignoring us.
She is also not doing the math since adding making the DC only 5 higher does not do much for the autosuccess(very high percentage) issue.
I think the issue is that in her games 80% chances of owning the enemy are common.
I will guestimate that the +5 means the success rate is about a 65%, but someone can just be a half-orc and now it is 75%, and that is before taking any additional feats or spells that might help into account.
|
Not to take anything away from this story or your point, but you do realize that nearly this same scenario played out in the Iraq war, right? American troops blared insults over loudspeakers and Iraqi soldiers/insurgents would leave defensible cover in anger only to be cut down pretty much immediately.
This is an example I wouldn't have brought up in this discussion... but since you've already gone there--
This didn't work the way you think it did on Iraqi soldiers (we were much better at convincing the trained troops, who didn't feel like sacrificing themselves for Saddam's glory, to come out and surrender; not come out and fight in the open).
This sort of thing worked, sometimes spectacularly well, on Iraqi insurgents... but there was a whole lot more going on in terms of knowing just which 'buttons' to push to get the desired reaction (also, most antagonists you'd be likely to face in and out of game aren't nearly so easy to provoke)-- and the fact that we were dealing with religious fanatics who were all too willing to martyr themselves anyway...
Not an example that actually supports this feat (as written) as being in any way tolerable or realistic in what you can do with it.
No, you're not. :P
Antagonize isn't a mind-affecting effect.How does that address the fact that the feat allows you to make Ghandi attack you?Given his nonviolence in the face of the British Empire's treatment, I always figured Ghandi was immune to mind-affecting effects.
I don't stay on top of errata to stake my soul on this, but it is here, in the last sentence of the benefit paragraph.
Don t make artificial rules... if you want just a higher DC and you are good with the effects. set the base value of the DC higher either to 15 or to 20 as done in many skills
1/2 of intimidate ranks makes no sense at all, since some max the skill not by ranks but by boosting ability or taking feats (feat bonus isn t a rank bonus so the 1/2 does nothing)
If you can t live with the effects even after the modifications suggested...well...I feel terribly sorry for you... :D(consider that as an antagonize check)
A good game designer or GM makes rules that work within the system. Dabbler's idea works within the system so far. If you have an idea that works then present it.
If you are not putting as many ranks into the skill as possible then you are not maxing the skills. Improving a skill and maxing it are not the same thing.
When I was in the military one of my bosses told me he is fine with us criticizing him, but we also better need come with a solution that is feasible otherwise we should just stay quiet.So I ask what is your solution that is not an auto-success? You know better than to suggest a base DC as 15 or 20 since you know it won't be accepted.
Ok name another skill check that the overall bonuses are divided by 2...
I gave you alternatives pleanty and very good ones, but you refused them all most of em without a solid arguement to the point...
Good alternatives, really?
Everyone one of your points I have refuted as not addressing the auto attack issue that ignores the person's personality, or the DC made it to easy.
I am sure those are solid points, unless my math was off. Oh yeah it was off in your favor. The person who corrected me told me the success rate was 90%, and not 85%.
So until you post something that addresses both of those points you really won't get anywhere.
How does that address the fact that the feat allows you to make Ghandi attack you?You r either not paying attentions to my suggestions or you r purposely ignoring them
I NEVER SAID i agree to it
i suggested giving the option to the targeted creature to lose its round
INSTEAD of attacking...I do not agree with how the feat description was INTRODUCED INITIALY!!!
I just do not believe it s for the trash can...
Am I allowed to have an opinion that is not Black nor white???
Thanks...
Why would the opponent lose its round? If the feat is that good it should have prerequisites.
|
|
Wow. I don't think anyone can top Mikaze's example, but here's another.
Great Wyrm Dragon is hungry.
Great Wyrm has antagonize.
Great wyrm lands outside village.
One by one, it calls to each person it sees "Hey... Stupidface!.... you're stupid!"
Scared villager #1: "I hate you colossal dragon! Yahh!!!!(charging in)
Dragon: (Gulp)
Dragon: "hey stupid face #2... you saw what just happened to your friend! You're stupid too!"
Scared Villager #2: "No I'm not! Raaaa! (charging in)
Dragon: (Gulp)
Repeat x100
"They wanted to run and hide, but his insults were so bad that they had no choice but attack"
Villager #101: Man everyone's dead, I should just run and try to live through this. I.."
Dragon: "hey last snack! You're stupid too!"
Villager #101: "Oh well... Yaaah! (gulp)
...Seems as illogical as the above dialogue.
That actually depends on the village.
If that village was the village of Conan the barbarian that scenario could be true.If the village was the average peasant hamlet the dragon would have no chance of antagonizing because at its mere sight the peasants would be running away.
Also non-humanoids don t get to choose feats they only have predetermined special abilities... Unless things changed and i can roll a rogue Tarasque now
Not to take anything away from this story or your point, but you do realize that nearly this same scenario played out in the Iraq war, right? American troops blared insults over loudspeakers and Iraqi soldiers/insurgents would leave defensible cover in anger only to be cut down pretty much immediately.
This is an example I wouldn't have brought up in this discussion... but since you've already gone there--
This didn't work the way you think it did on Iraqi soldiers (we were much better at convincing the trained troops, who didn't feel like sacrificing themselves for Saddam's glory, to come out and surrender; not come out and fight in the open).
This sort of thing worked, sometimes spectacularly well, on Iraqi insurgents... but there was a whole lot more going on in terms of knowing just which 'buttons' to push to get the desired reaction (also, most antagonists you'd be likely to face in and out of game aren't nearly so easy to provoke)-- and the fact that we were dealing with religious fanatics who were all too willing to martyr themselves anyway...
Not an example that actually supports this feat (as written) as being in any way tolerable or realistic in what you can do with it.
I was about to get back to the surrendering thing once I realized that might have been what he was talking about. Thanks :)
|
|
How does that address the fact that the feat allows you to make Ghandi attack you?You r either not paying attentions to my suggestions or you r purposely ignoring them
I NEVER SAID i agree to it
i suggested giving the option to the targeted creature to lose its round
INSTEAD of attacking...I do not agree with how the feat description was INTRODUCED INITIALY!!!
I just do not believe it s for the trash can...
Am I allowed to have an opinion that is not Black nor white???
Thanks...
Why would the opponent lose its round? If the feat is that good it should have prerequisites.
OMG this thread should be named..."when english language fails"
It doesn t lose its round...it gets a choise, it either attacks OR loses its round...what it can t do is
a)continue watering the flowers
b)heal a nearby ally
c)attack someone else
why?
because it s DISTRUCTED by the INTIMIDATING insults of the charismatic skilled antagoniser....
Get it?
I read where you said it attacks or loses a round. I understood it. The issue is that the only people who you will try to get to attack you or those that do not want to. So most of the time losing a round is probably the better option for the victim.
With that said if the feat is good enough to make you attack or lose a round then why no prereqs?
Being distracted is not a good answer for game balance. It is a fluff answer to describe how it works in game, not why it is made the way it is.
If you "get it" then give me the game balance answer.
Also non-humanoids don t get to choose feats they only have predetermined special abilities... Unless things changed and i can roll a rogue Tarasque now
This confirms my suspicions. You haven't been playing this game for very long, have you? You don't yet know how feats work it seems, and you seem to be under some sort of delusion about how NPCs work in general.
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the system more, before arguing it so fervently. For example, there is nothing special about humanoids nor their feat selection. A dragon, giant, ghoul, solar, or aboleth can choose different feats as well as anything else. The only creatures that cannot choose feats they would otherwise qualify for are mindless creatures, and that is because they get no feats from HD; and only get bonus feats (either from race or potentially class, though I know of little to no instances of mindless creatures with class levels).
OMG this thread should be named..."when english language fails"
It doesn t lose its round...it gets a choise, it either attacks OR loses its round...what it can t do is
a)continue watering the flowers
b)heal a nearby ally
c)attack someone elsewhy?
because it s DISTRUCTED by the INTIMIDATING insults of the charismatic skilled antagoniser....
Get it?
It seems to me the person rolling rather than the target would decide which skill is rolled on, which (all my snark aside) does bring up the issue of goading a buddhist monk into whipping a battery at you.
I don't think the feat is the game breaker that it's being painted as on this thread; I do think that the description could be written more clearly (like a lot more), and if you don't want to deal with it, it's your choice as a DM ban it at your table.
OMG this thread should be named..."when english language fails"
I prefer "when fails english language".
It doesn t lose its round...it gets a choise, it either attacks OR loses its round...what it can t do is
because it s DISTRUCTED by the INTIMIDATING insults of the charismatic skilled antagoniser....
You r either not paying attentions to my suggestions or you r purposely ignoring them
I NEVER SAID i agree to it
i suggested giving the option to the targeted creature to lose its round
INSTEAD of attacking...
I do not agree with how the feat description was INTRODUCED INITIALY!!!
I just do not believe it s for the trash can...
Now let's get back to the mathematics and logical inconsistencies, hm?
Also non-humanoids don t get to choose feats they only have predetermined special abilities... Unless things changed and i can roll a rogue Tarasque nowThis confirms my suspicions. You haven't been playing this game for very long, have you? You don't yet know how feats work it seems, and you seem to be under some sort of delusion about how NPCs work in general.
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the system more, before arguing it so fervently. For example, there is nothing special about humanoids nor their feat selection. A dragon, giant, ghoul, solar, or aboleth can choose different feats as well as anything else. The only creatures that cannot choose feats they would otherwise qualify for are mindless creatures, and that is because they get no feats from HD; and only get bonus feats (either from race or potentially class, though I know of little to no instances of mindless creatures with class levels).
As an example dragons have to be pretty much built by the GM. The book only gives you samples.
The book also tells you how to advance monsters by HD or class levels.
No let us remain to you confusing language with spelling
Now let's get back to the mathematics and logical inconsistencies, hm?
</case>
</case>No let us remain to you confusing language with spelling
Now let's get back to the mathematics and logical inconsistencies, hm?
LOL. Nothing else need be said. :)
|
|
Also non-humanoids don t get to choose feats they only have predetermined special abilities... Unless things changed and i can roll a rogue Tarasque nowThis confirms my suspicions. You haven't been playing this game for very long, have you? You don't yet know how feats work it seems, and you seem to be under some sort of delusion about how NPCs work in general.
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the system more, before arguing it so fervently. For example, there is nothing special about humanoids nor their feat selection. A dragon, giant, ghoul, solar, or aboleth can choose different feats as well as anything else. The only creatures that cannot choose feats they would otherwise qualify for are mindless creatures, and that is because they get no feats from HD; and only get bonus feats (either from race or potentially class, though I know of little to no instances of mindless creatures with class levels).
As an example dragons have to be pretty much built by the GM. The book only gives you samples.
The book also tells you how to advance monsters by HD or class levels.
Changing a feat to give flavour to a dragon encounter is one thing and taking antagonize with a dragon just to prove that the feat is broken is another...
Btw you gave me the idea to throw in a Red dragon with exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword as a gm...
Also non-humanoids don t get to choose feats they only have predetermined special abilities... Unless things changed and i can roll a rogue Tarasque nowThis confirms my suspicions. You haven't been playing this game for very long, have you? You don't yet know how feats work it seems, and you seem to be under some sort of delusion about how NPCs work in general.
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the system more, before arguing it so fervently. For example, there is nothing special about humanoids nor their feat selection. A dragon, giant, ghoul, solar, or aboleth can choose different feats as well as anything else. The only creatures that cannot choose feats they would otherwise qualify for are mindless creatures, and that is because they get no feats from HD; and only get bonus feats (either from race or potentially class, though I know of little to no instances of mindless creatures with class levels).
As an example dragons have to be pretty much built by the GM. The book only gives you samples.
The book also tells you how to advance monsters by HD or class levels.
Changing a feat to give flavour to a dragon encounter is one thing and taking antagonize with a dragon just to prove that the feat is broken is another...
Btw you gave me the idea to throw in a Red dragon with exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword as a gm...
The dragon can do that, but it will probably end up doing less damage overall since all the natural attacks will then become secondary natural attacks.
Arisps, I certainly don't mean to attack you, but telling us english is your second language doesn't give you license to be mouthy; there are plenty of ways to disagree politely at any level of fluency. And yes, that goes for myself, and everyone else on the thread.
Stupid feat even with errata. Who wrote this? I'll pretend it doesn't exist going forward.
|
|
Arisps, I certainly don't mean to attack you, but telling us english is your second language doesn't give you license to be mouthy; there are plenty of ways to disagree politely at any level of fluency. And yes, that goes for myself, and everyone else on the thread.
yeah sorry i just get frustrated when arguements I ve dealt with keep coming
Honestly, I don't know why they didn't make it a bluff check vs a save to take penalties/attack; on the other hand, given how often I run social encounters I do sorta love a "DUEL ME NAO!" type feat.
Arisp from what I understand you want the feat to either force someone to attack or not do anything at all.
You also don't have anything in place to account for a person's personality which would actually determine if they would choose to attack.
As of right now most of your mathmatical solutions still lead to a very high 80% or higher success rate. Are you saying that success is something you are trying to promote?
If I have made any errors feel free to correct them.
Honestly, I don't know why they didn't make it a bluff check vs a save to take penalties/attack; on the other hand, given how often I run social encounters I do sorta love a "DUEL ME NAO!" type feat.
I think that glibness is the reason they did not use bluff, but they could have just said found a way to say glibness could not be used.
|
|
Arisp from what I understand you want the feat to either force someone to attack or not do anything at all.
You also don't have anything in place to account for a person's personality which would actually determine if they would choose to attack.
As of right now most of your mathmatical solutions still lead to a very high 80% or higher success rate. Are you saying that success is something you are trying to promote?
If I have made any errors feel free to correct them.
Yes you r bad sorry, maybe i m not explaining well where you r bad...
Ok I d like to straighten out some things about the feat...
1) First of all about the DC. It s not the antagonize feat's fault that intimidate can be maxed out so easilly...there r so many feats,traits racial bonuses to intimidate unlike any other skill...persuasive, skill focus, intimidate prowess...basicly any feat that deals with intimidate is gonna be OP...What other skill gets 2 abilities to work with and 2 other skills as synergy?(bluff,diplomacy)
So how the max out intimidate is the antagonize's doing?
It s all those other feats and traits that are OP...one stand alone is not a big deal but all stack together is a major trouble...
But it s difficult to nerf all that suddenly
THEREFORE: Increase DC and problem solved...
2)Ranged should be able to attack at the best of their ability(bows or magic) so remove the melee from feat description.
3)A person should be given the pacifist option without effort since the effect is not magical...
THEREFORE: allow the target to be dazed for just a round...that s not too much and don t forget that the antagoniser ALSO kinda lost his round antagonising
And you keep saying I don t take account what you say...
I ve taken to account everything you guys have said and STILL...
opposition...well that s a bit frustrating...and sorry if i lost it.
Don t make artificial rules... if you want just a higher DC and you are good with the effects. set the base value of the DC higher either to 15 or to 20 as done in many skills
I don't, the difficulty or lack thereof is only one factor I and many others feel is unbalanced.
Not to take anything away from this story or your point, but you do realize that nearly this same scenario played out in the Iraq war, right? American troops blared insults over loudspeakers and Iraqi soldiers/insurgents would leave defensible cover in anger only to be cut down pretty much immediately.
Goading has been used in warfare since time immemorial; however, it's rarely that effective. In WWII both US and Japanese troops would scream insults to try and goad one another into revealing their positions.
As I have said before, this should be a use of a social skill, with the same results as other social skills.
On the basis of 'actions speak louder than words' consider this: would hitting the target with a missile attack cause them to react in this manor? And if it wouldn't, why would mere words do more to enrage somebody?
how's this sound:
Target must make a will save equal to Dc 10+1/2 ranks + cha modifier or be staggered. the staggered condition can be mitigated by making an attack (same definition as invisibility) against the antagoniser. these effects last for one round.
what do you all think of the concept? use RAI rather than RAW as i probably didn't think everything through fully.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great Wyrm Dragon is hungry.
Great Wyrm has antagonize.
Great wyrm lands outside village.
One by one, it calls to each person it sees "Hey... Stupidface!.... you're stupid!"
Scared villager #1: "I hate you colossal dragon! Yahh!!!!(charging in)
Dragon: (Gulp)
Dragon: "hey stupid face #2... you saw what just happened to your friend! You're stupid too!"
Scared Villager #2: "No I'm not! Raaaa! (charging in)
Dragon: (Gulp)
Repeat x100
"They wanted to run and hide, but his insults were so bad that they had no choice but attack"
Villager #101: Man everyone's dead, I should just run and try to live through this. I.."
Dragon: "hey last snack! You're stupid too!"
Villager #101: "Oh well... Yaaah! (gulp)
...Seems as illogical as the above dialogue.
Oh man I forgot about size coming into play.
That has me thinking about some sort of large intelligent carnivorous plant that preys on fairies. Basic idea is solid, right?
If the plant lures in its prey with magic, like a sympathy effect, it's neat and makes sense.
If the plant uses intoxicating and euphoric pheromones to lure its prey, it's neat and makes sense.
If the plant uses threats and its prey just goes nuts and suicidal of their own free will, it gets goofy pretty quick.
Since intimidate improves with size; the larger a creature is relatively, the harder it is to resist attacking it, am I right? (or is that only with demoralize?)
Who the what about size now? Size category may have have an effect on CMB/CMD, but not on skill rolls, right? (Seriously, tell me if I'm wrong.)
You get a +4 bonus to intimidate creatures that are smaller than you.
|
|
And another issue is this:
NPCs should be no less willing to escape death than PCs...In most GMs NPCs allways fight to the last man. That s not real. Badly beaten NPCs should be possible to be intimidated or diplomaticly surrender...At a high DC ofc.
But who would dare introduce such a thing with those skill so blatantly abused...
It is clear that intimidate and diplomacy bonuses should be considerably nerfed, and give the skill specific AND balanced solid mechanics for surrender,drop weapon,hold action etc...
Many good GM's do have bad guys try to escape. I do agree it is always silly to for an NPC to fight to the death.
You are getting mad again. Nobody is saying the skill DC's are bad overall. They are saying the way skills work does not go well with the antagonize feat. It is too easy to effect a creature that is well above your CR/APL range with the intimidate aspect of it.
That is why I suggested using diplomacy to make someone want to fight you, and intimidate to make them not want to fight you. That way the size bonus to intimidate makes sense since it is easier for a bigger foe to make someone think twice about attacking them.