|
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.
What most of you were supporting was to blantantly ban the feat. At least that s what I understood.
If you plan to ban the feat only to make something better from scratch you have my full support. Banning the feat and leaving a gap is what I strongly oppose.
"Fight me nao bro" should be given mechanics too, because it is realistic and in life(ofc not with that quote)..."Pick someone at your own size" "Let s solve this man to man" etc
I wanted the feat banned in its current form, yes.
If they(Paizo) change it then I will have to look at the new form.
I think the idea behind the feat is nice so if myself or someone else comes up with something that is workable at my table then I would consider that.
I don't see it as gap, no more than if the feat had never been made.
When things like this and VoP are printed I wonder why they did not use the space for something else. I do respect Paizo. They put out very good stuff, but everyone makes mistakes sometimes.
When we were alpha- and beta-testing pfrpg, I was a big advocate for giving the fighter some battlefield control abilities, to make it less action-economic for enemies to attack anyone but him if he had engaged them. I think many of the ideas I presented later became feats like step up, stand still, etc. However, this feels just a bit too video-gamey in that it seems to try and mimic the "threat" mechanic of many popular MMORPG's. One of the things that make pathfinder exciting is that combat gets a bit chaotic with enemies attacking whichever party members they can reach/get line of site on. If one character can ensure that the enemy attacks only him, it becomes like a WoW raid, where you just stack healers to the level that they can combat heal the "tank" and keep him alive, and all the damage-focused characters just unload without repercussion to themselves. Just seems like a less exciting combat mechanic than how the game works without it.
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...
I don't know where you get the idea that NPCs all fight to the death like some poorly scripted video game (not that I don't like video games! I'm an avid gamer, but this doesn't belong here). Even in the adventure paths I have, there are usually listed conditions that will cause NPCs to flee the battle (such as falling below X hit points, another NPC being defeated, being outnumbered, etc).
Also, you can in fact make a request of a creature by spending 1 round of combat to make a Diplomacy check, and circumstances willing, they may just throw down their weapons and surrender. You can't force them to do so however. If they are fanatics, they may fight to the death. If they don't believe you will show them mercy, they may fight or flee for their lives, etc. At no point can you make a skill check and force an opponent to throw down their weapons and surrender.
Again, you need to get more familiar with the game it seems. You don't yet realize what actually can and does occur in the game, nor what is possible and why. You seem to have misunderstandings about the skills, and you have shown repeatedly that you have no understanding for mechanical balance or even sensible roleplaying or logical considerations.
"Fight me nao bro" should be given mechanics too, because it is realistic and in life(ofc not with that quote)..."Pick someone at your own size" "Let s solve this man to man" etc
Which simply doesn't work on people with a few brain cells. If I was in a battle situation, and there was a guy pelvic thrusting and making obscene comments at me, or telling me to pick on someone my own size, I'd promptly assume they were handicapped and wipe them up after I stabbed the guy throwing napalm from his fingertips.
You want to know what makes a good tank? Threat. Yes, your threat must be high enough to be a good tank. You have to be able to Aggro opponents. That does not mean a taunt mechanic at all. You have to instead have a battlefield presence. You have to make your opponents want to kill you because you're a threat.
See, wizards? They draw huge aggro. It doesn't take very long before everyone's trying to geek the mage. "KILL THAT GUY!!" is a common phrase used in reference to wizards, sorcerers, and people that matter in combat. Why? Because they matter. If they kill that guy, the battle will be easier for them without the napalm strikes and the armies of celestial superbeings beating down their door.
You want Fighters to draw aggro? Make 'em dangerous, or give them abilities that severely hinder people as long as they are alive. Anti-Paladins get their auras, for example, which naturally draw aggro, simply because having immunity to fear stripped and a cumulative -6 penalty vs fear effects sucks, and a -2 to all saves sucks, and the antipaladin hammering you sucks, and the fact he can touch you and inflict a further -4 to all your checks and saves sucks, or he can render you 50% likely to lose your turn, etc.
Merely by existing and staying near enemies, the anti-paladin is causing them grief. Fighters need to cause grief, not use harsh language. If a Fighter had a feat that let them chose a target and get an AoO that target whenever they attacked someone besides the fighter, people would stop attacking people besides the fighter, or try to flee the Fighter, effectively wasting turns.
Currently the best warriors for generating aggro tends to come in the form of big dudes with big sticks, who have lots of reach and a large battlefield presence; who make it difficult to move around without getting slapped with that big ol' stick because you moved through their 20 ft. radius threatened area. Most of them get on opponents and then lock them into their reach. Moving forwards or backwards provokes, casting provokes, shooting provokes, etc. The warrior FORCES the opponent to pay attention to them or die. That's aggro at work, and it's natural.
The problem, of course, is holding aggro at high levels, when moving plus attacking becomes useless due to haste nerfs in 3.5 and Pathfinder (in 3.0, high level warriors would be hasted, allowing them to move + full attack), which considerably reduces their threat. There are some exceptions, however. The 2 handed Fighter at 19th-20th level causes lots of threat simply because he can move up to his full speed and 1-shot people, so he gets more attention.
I like what Ashiel says about threat BUT no matter how dangerous a fighter is I don't think they're ever going to be as dangerous as the enemy mage. Players know this which means that no npc mage I've ever run 'fairly' has got a third spell off. Players do tend to resent the monsters knowing this though and if all monsters always make a bee line for the PC mage (the way players do) you're likely to kill them within an encounter or two. The rules do need something to prevent the player's knowledge of the rules overpowering the character's perception that the iron clad mountain of fear and fury is a problem that needs to be dealt with before the snivelling weasel at the back with the glowing hands. From reading this (and other) boards, I agree that the feat as written is broken, but I think there is a gap to be filled.
Alternatively, the ref can just include with every wizard a six-pack of half-orc were-wolf barbarians with skill focus intimidate and antagonise. Give them all combat reflexes as well and watch the players howl at the multiple attacks of opportunity every round as they're pulled backwards and forwards across the battlefield.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like that encounter...
When I run a caster I try to have ways for him to know the party is coming. I might have an alarm spell or two setup. Maybe I have the bad guys close enough so that he can hear the combat when they try to prevent the PC's from getting to him.
He will also have barriers(terrain, minions, summons, etc) to stop the beeline.
To be fair, I do agree with Arisps to a degree that there is a slight lack of social (i.e. skill) rolling when it comes to combat and influnecing an encounter with such skills. Its either Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate, which doesn't leave a lot of middle ground. Antogonize is a step in the right direction, but it:
1) goes too far for what one feat does
2) changes the rules of the game for no reason (saving throws to resist compulsions, ability to resist with proper spells like Protection from Evil)
3) Allows for far more ridiculous scenarios than any magic spell in the game can rightfully duplicate with simple words. "Hey! Nascent Demon Lord! I'm 1st level, but I can Antogonize you on a 19! Come waste your turn instead of using a full attack, spell-like, etc...
Mages tend to do better behind warriors to hold the line. Mage behind warriors? +4 cover bonus to AC. Warrior between big-bad and mage? Cover, so big bad cannot AoO the mage. Lots of ranged attackers/archers? Have your AC bonuses up, and consider dropping prone (+4 cover, +4 mage armor, +4 prone = AC 22 before dex, deflection, natural, dodge, or other modifiers).
The point of a good tank warrior is to prevent enemies from trashing the mage, not to make them ignore the mage. Let me try to elaborate a bit.
Let's say I have a 6th level Paladin, and I want to protect my 6th level mage buddy in the back. I stick close to my mage buddy and either drink a potion of enlarge person (same cost as an antitoxin) or he cast enlarge person on me a bit ago, and the 600 round duration isn't up). I have my trusty pole-arm and a spiked gauntlet or armor spikes. My threatened space is a whopping 20 ft. I threaten in every direction. I'm providing my mage with a +4 cover bonus to AC. I slap the ever loving crap out of anyone who comes near me, while the mage harries them from a distance. If I move, the mage can move with me, since I'm not going to attack him. Anyone who gets in my 20 ft. is effectively locked down, as I can continue to full-attack them and they cannot effectively escape. To make this better, I could take Step-Up if I wanted, but that's not really needed in most cases. If the opportunity presents itself, I can even trip and disarm enemies.
The above Paladin commands acknowledgement from his enemies by his mere presence. He is doing his job. If you want an easy shot at the wizard, you gotta pop the Paladin. Paladin, being loaded with immunities and silly high saving throws, is very difficult to charm or dominate into killing the mage himself. Hurray.
This is how it should be. The Paladin isn't using harsh language, he's using his ability in combat and his martial training to lock down his foes and force them to face him. The fact he can generally survive the process and possibly even kill foes himself due to his damage is icing on the cake. In fact, his damage output can make it pretty hard to ignore him as well.
A wizard who crafts the Paladin an x/day item of giant form I or giant form II is protecting himself. Both increase the Paladin's battlefield presence, cause him to naturally generate more aggro, increase his reach (up to 30 feet with GF-II), and increases his ability to lock foes down.
If you want to make a mechanic that improves aggro, then do it mechanically. Add mechanics that punish enemies for ignoring the warrior. That does not mean determine their actions! If you are penalized but wish to attempt anyway, that is your prerogative, but after a certain point it's not going to look appealing anymore.
|
|
NPCs should be no less willing to escape death than PCs...In most GMs NPCs allways fight to the last man.That's because the overwhelming majority of PCs are, regardless of alignment or wealth, a gang of murderous hobos.
That s unfortunatelly true...I thought that in PFS this would be less issue because the xp is fixed whether the grp anhilates everything or not.
To my surprise even when we could easily bypass enemies, battle was the only option...
However I believe that both gms and players are going to that direction. Add to that that the game lacks a solid rule for either side to surrender without total anhilation...
NPCs should be no less willing to escape death than PCs...In most GMs NPCs allways fight to the last man.That's because the overwhelming majority of PCs are, regardless of alignment or wealth, a gang of murderous hobos.That s unfortunatelly true...I thought that in PFS this would be less issue because the xp is fixed whether the grp anhilates everything or not.
To my surprise even when we could easily bypass enemies, battle was the only option...
However I believe that both gms and players are going to that direction. Add to that that the game lacks a solid rule for either side to surrender without total anhilation...
That's because surrender being effective has nothing to do with experience points or rules.
|
If you plan to ban the feat only to make something better from scratch you have my full support. Banning the feat and leaving a gap is what I strongly oppose.
I don't see a lack of brain-dead, tactically useless, suicidal NPCs as being a 'gap' in the game.
I think you need to clarify what exactly, it is that you want.
In some posts, you bemoan the tendency of NPCs to be played as fighting to the death;
yet you defend an abstract mechanic, which forces those same NPCs to act in a foolish way, that will result in their (more likely, and earlier) death.
So which is it?
Do you want NPCs to behave, as sensibly, and with as much self-preservation, as if they were being played as a PC?
Or not?
I think a lot of people would change their tune on this if they just think of their GM making this feat a recurring theme among any of their burlier npc's. Players do not like having their actions dictated by the GM, especially when there is no defense: no spell, no countering feat, no class ability, no way to increase their resistance beyond +2 (owls wisdom). A vindictive GM could make every encounter a nightmare where the pc's are bounced back and forth between two high-DR enemies, while the rest of the enemies blithely slaughter them.
|
|
I think you need to clarify what exactly, it is that you want.
I have, had you read my suggestions you would see it
In some posts, you bemoan the tendency of NPCs to be played as fighting to the death;yet you defend an abstract mechanic, which forces those same NPCs to act in a foolish way, that will result in their (more likely, and earlier) death.
That s not true I don t defend the rule AS IT IS period.
I defend new rules that implement the fact that when someone is intimidated he can t act as witty as when he is not.but i ll add again NOT WITH THE CURRENT mechanics but with the ones I(and many others) have suggested. With these modifications everything would seem normal
So which is it?
Do you want NPCs to behave, as sensibly, and with as much self-preservation, as if they were being played as a PC?
Or not?
Most certainly yeah but don t twist that and say that antagonize doesn t do that because I madeit so clear i don t support this antagonize
|
|
only npcs can be controlled by a skill check.
so if a gm used this on my character i would say "no i flip him the bird as i shoot an arrow in his eye"
And that, right there, is why there will never be a workable mechanic for intimidation/antagonisation.
Or Bluff.
Or Diplomacy.
Or Knowledge skills.
Or anything the players can metagame.
It's absolutely ridiculous to allow players to simply opt out of being affected by things they don't feel like, while simultaneously spamming those same effects back at NPCs, who have to 'Sux it up l0s3rz, I pwn U, ROFL".
Why stop there? Fail a save vs dominate? "No way, you ain't the boss of me."
In fact, why don't we drop the pretence, and just remove all non-physical skills from the game?
Go back to the old-school style, where the GM directly challenged the ingenuity of the players themselves?
only npcs can be controlled by a skill check.
so if a gm used this on my character i would say "no i flip him the bird as i shoot an arrow in his eye"
And that, right there, is why there will never be a workable mechanic for intimidation/antagonisation.
Or Bluff.
Or Diplomacy.
Or Knowledge skills.
Or anything the players can metagame.
It's absolutely ridiculous to allow players to simply opt out of being affected by things they don't feel like, while simultaneously spamming those same effects back at NPCs, who have to 'Sux it up l0s3rz, I pwn U, ROFL".
Why stop there? Fail a save vs dominate? "No way, you ain't the boss of me."
In fact, why don't we drop the pretence, and just remove all non-physical skills from the game?
Go back to the old-school style, where the GM directly challenged the ingenuity of the players themselves?
Yep. This is what I was saying earlier. PCs are able to change the attitudes of NPCs with Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate. With good checks, you can turn someone from hostile to helpful. With bad checks, you can drop them the same way. Antagonize is just an extreme version of that. Maybe too extreme. But the mechanics by which it works are by no means novel to the Pathfinder rules.
Now NPCs don't have the ability to change a PC's attitude with skills. This Feat grants them that extreme ability to change attitude, which is maybe why it's so shocking on the surface.
I still don't think the Feat is fundamentally flawed. I also still think it needs some tweaks. And I also think--and I will say this one last time--that if your problem with this is what vindictive GMs might do with it, your problem is not this Feat.
There are no rules that will stop a bad GM from killing or ruining your character because the Gamemaster is the ultimate arbiter of the rules.
I removed some posts. If you're not going to respond to something, then don't. Posting to say so it just trying for the last word.
Yep. This is what I was saying earlier. PCs are able to change the attitudes of NPCs with Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate. With good checks, you can turn someone from hostile to helpful. With bad checks, you can drop them the same way. Antagonize is just an extreme version of that. Maybe too extreme. But the mechanics by which it works are by no means novel to the Pathfinder rules.
They are also discretionary - the DM can decide that certain NPCs are not affected by the PC's attempt to make them friendly under special circumstances. The PCs can feel free to ignore them as well.
Now NPCs don't have the ability to change a PC's attitude with skills. This Feat grants them that extreme ability to change attitude, which is maybe why it's so shocking on the surface.
It's also a case that nothing else - not even spells - change what your character WANTS to do. You can make them friendly to a person (charm person) but their choice of actions is their own. You can take control of them (dominate) but their own nature remains and resists.
With this Antagonise you are dictated what your character wants to do, and have no options. As has been said, you can make a Paladin fall with this ability, and nothing he can do about it.
I still don't think the Feat is fundamentally flawed. I also still think it needs some tweaks. And I also think--and I will say this one last time--that if your problem with this is what vindictive GMs might do with it, your problem is not this Feat.
No, the feat is fundamentally flawed in two ways - it's nearly infallible if you have maxed skill ranks, and the effect is both unprecedented and takes no account of the nature of the target. If you fix this, the feat becomes so weak that you may as well just add it as a paragraph in the skills section.
There are no rules that will stop a bad GM from killing or ruining your character because the Gamemaster is the ultimate arbiter of the rules.
This is true, but bad rules do not help.
|
. There are no rules that will stop a bad GM from killing or ruining your character because the Gamemaster is the ultimate arbiter of the rules.
This feat does not require a bad GM in order to kill or ruin your character. It merely requires a GM willing to both employ the feat and carry it out to its logical and morose conclusion.
We don't say that about Power Attack. That's how you know that the feat is utterly, horribly borked - when compared to the feat that is almost unarguably the high-water mark for feat efficacy in the game (as judged by its frequency of employment), this feat simply creates too many game breaking scenarios. People are saying that it'd be fine if a character could just choose to lose their turn instead - if a kobold archer can make the party wizard or cleric or Druid lose its turn for the cost of one of its turns, parties will die more frequently. The game is balanced around certain core assumptions, and one of those is that the party will generally have spell casting resources of some kind available to it. If we start trying to change the core assumption at this late stage of the game, we're going to create a slew of problems.
Ashiel has very clearly detailed how melee types can make opponents pay attention to them. Trying to shoehorn an MMO aggro mechanic into the game at the eleventh hour is not the answer. Melee players educating themselves on how to control the battlefield is the answer - if, in fact, an answer is even needed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, this insanely exploding thread has made me wonder one thing. Who on earth was the author of this abomination?
Not that I expect we'll ever find out. If I was on the Paizo staff, I'd never tell. And if I was the author, I'd certainly never let on that I was the author of the single most reviled feat in all of 3.5 and Pathfinder history.
Just call it morbid curiosity :)
You know, this insanely exploding thread has made me wonder one thing. Who on earth was the author of this abomination?
Not that I expect we'll ever find out. If I was on the Paizo staff, I'd never tell. And if I was the author, I'd certainly never let on that I was the author of the single most reviled feat in all of 3.5 and Pathfinder history.
The worst thing is, not only did somebody write it, somebody else edited it, and somebody ELSE then approved it and put it in.
Guys, I love you for the awesomeness that is Pathfinder RPG in general, but you SERIOUSLY dropped the ball on this one! I think you broke just about all your own rules for feat creation and game-fun putting this little carbuncle in.
I think the "attempting to do so would harm it" thing leaves a loophole wide enough for the GM to crawl though.
If you use it against a target that wouldn't normally consider smacking the target around in melee it simply fails. Forcing the target to strike the user rather than striking one of his allies seems balanced enough.
Anyway that's how I plan to do it if anyone brings it up in PFS, which blessedly hasn't happened yet. I think/hope the ruling is within the Table GM's purview.
I think the "attempting to do so would harm it" thing leaves a loophole wide enough for the GM to crawl though.
Or an orc horde, as it were (I love the story, but I wouldn't run it that way).
This thread has gone places since I was here last.
My roommate is defending Antagonize for much the same reasons others here have been. My response to him was:
1. Place on the mat is critical to survival (since I nearly TPK'd the party today, and the one that survived dimension door'd out of the area, nobody would argue this point). Placing the enemies wherever you like is a death sentence for said enemies (they're supposed to die anyway, but this makes it much easier than a feat normally makes it).
2. Melee attacks are the preferred attack method of melee fighters, and nobody else. Since this game has a variety of combat styles, the idea of somebody dropping their bow and charging the guy instead of just making a pincushion out of him smells of silliness. Just rapid shot already.
It was never an argument over whether martials can have nice things (I love barbarians), but I couldn't articulate with him the idea of making a willful choice to bash somebody's head in being a bad thing. This thread has helped educate me. Thanks.
I think the "attempting to do so would harm it" thing leaves a loophole wide enough for the GM to crawl though.
It is, but it doesn't stop some exploitation. As soon as you point out that the wizard will not fist-fight with an armoured tank, said tank will just put on a hat of disguise.
I think the "attempting to do so would harm it" thing leaves a loophole wide enough for the GM to crawl though.
Or an orc horde, as it were (I love the story, but I wouldn't run it that way).
This thread has gone places since I was here last.
My roommate is defending Antagonize for much the same reasons others here have been. My response to him was:
1. Place on the mat is critical to survival (since I nearly TPK'd the party today, and the one that survived dimension door'd out of the area, nobody would argue this point). Placing the enemies wherever you like is a death sentence for said enemies (they're supposed to die anyway, but this makes it much easier than a feat normally makes it).
2. Melee attacks are the preferred attack method of melee fighters, and nobody else. Since this game has a variety of combat styles, the idea of somebody dropping their bow and charging the guy instead of just making a pincushion out of him smells of silliness. Just rapid shot already.
It was never an argument over whether martials can have nice things (I love barbarians), but I couldn't articulate with him the idea of making a willful choice to bash somebody's head in being a bad thing. This thread has helped educate me. Thanks.
Assuming this Feat survives, errata will almost certainly change it to allow targets to use spell and melee (at least according to SKR). Its intent is to draw fire, not funnel someone into an abattoir. If you also added some kind of in-combat-only stipulation, I'd be fine with it.
Assuming this Feat survives, errata will almost certainly change it to allow targets to use spell and melee (at least according to SKR). Its intent is to draw fire, not funnel someone into an abattoir. If you also added some kind of in-combat-only stipulation, I'd be fine with it.I think the "attempting to do so would harm it" thing leaves a loophole wide enough for the GM to crawl though.
Or an orc horde, as it were (I love the story, but I wouldn't run it that way).
This thread has gone places since I was here last.
My roommate is defending Antagonize for much the same reasons others here have been. My response to him was:
1. Place on the mat is critical to survival (since I nearly TPK'd the party today, and the one that survived dimension door'd out of the area, nobody would argue this point). Placing the enemies wherever you like is a death sentence for said enemies (they're supposed to die anyway, but this makes it much easier than a feat normally makes it).
2. Melee attacks are the preferred attack method of melee fighters, and nobody else. Since this game has a variety of combat styles, the idea of somebody dropping their bow and charging the guy instead of just making a pincushion out of him smells of silliness. Just rapid shot already.
It was never an argument over whether martials can have nice things (I love barbarians), but I couldn't articulate with him the idea of making a willful choice to bash somebody's head in being a bad thing. This thread has helped educate me. Thanks.
I still wouldn't like the fact that this feat can turn Ghandi into a homicidal maniac. It just don't work for me.
I still wouldn't like the fact that this feat can turn Ghandi into a homicidal maniac. It just don't work for me.
There have been a few suggestions for what to do with it if it is kept. However, none of the decent ones resemble the original in the slightest, so the better solution is more like ripping out the old feat and replacing it with a new one, not fixing the old one.
Agreed Dabbler now if it simply forces you to act against said person i could totally see Ghandi using something like suggestion and telling you to go away.
|
You know, this insanely exploding thread has made me wonder one thing. Who on earth was the author of this abomination?
Not that I expect we'll ever find out. If I was on the Paizo staff, I'd never tell. And if I was the author, I'd certainly never let on that I was the author of the single most reviled feat in all of 3.5 and Pathfinder history.
Just call it morbid curiosity :)
Eh, I'd rather not get into singling out devs and shaming them, directly or not. That never leads to anything good.
I'd just like to see stuff like this avoided in the future.* Martials need nice things, that's for certain. But they need options that don't ruin whatever character they're targetting.
I mean, if I'm playing Nice Guy and I'm antagonized into letting someone die when I could have saved them rather than running into melee of my own free will, that character isn't the one I wanted to play anymore.
*Well, that and I'd like to see Antagonize-as-written ripped out of the rules and replaced with something that doesn't break the game's social contract.**
**Ripping out Vow of Poverty and replacing it with something good for monks would be fine too.
I still wouldn't like the fact that this feat can turn Ghandi into a homicidal maniac. It just don't work for me.There have been a few suggestions for what to do with it if it is kept. However, none of the decent ones resemble the original in the slightest, so the better solution is more like ripping out the old feat and replacing it with a new one, not fixing the old one.
Exactly - just make taunting a RP-aspect of the social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate and leave it at that.
|
|
Bump!
Here's the errata'd text. Better, in my opinion. Short of nuking it from orbit (as it's the only way to be sure), this was about as good as they could have done. A tactical nuke would have been a better option, but this is still, I don't know, it's passable. IMO.
Antagonize
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
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.
Even changed as that is, it still creates Mikaze's dreadful scenario. The peasants have no spells or ranged attacks, so they charge the marauders suicidally.
Where do you see this errata?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still banned in my game.
Ooooh. Thanks.
Now the peasants can pick up a pebble (move action) and throw it. And the feat is still either useless or overpowered depending on the GM.
The issue with the intimidate version is still not fixed. I do like the idea of the feat so I might make a version similar to what someone posted here, and put it in the houserule section.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The foundation's still cracked. It's still committing the RPG sin of stealing other peoples' characters and making them act OOC.
It's still turning pacifists into attempted murderers. It's still making medics abandon their patients. It's still making people charge into the mouths of scary dragons.
Adventurers are still letting go of their trusted comrades hanging from cliffsides. People are still leaving loved ones to die in burning buildings. Even-tempered and tactically minded warriors are still dropping their previous behavior at the drop of a hat. It still makes the most calm and collected paladins or Vow of Peace monks completely lose their @#$%.
It still turns the game into a nihilistic black comedy where however the players or GM wanted to play their characters no longer matters.
It is still poisonous to roleplaying.
It is still banned in our games.
|
|
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”.
Antagonize
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching 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 reach 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 makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a
creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
Amended version:
Antagonize
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to the target’s 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target
takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
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.
- - -
So now the target can keep a dagger, stone, club or anything he can throw on his person and, when he is antagonized, throw it at the antagonizer.
Mikaze scenario can be avoided as the peasants can throw any kind of improvised weapon against the antagonizing monsters. non proficiency or low chance of hitting don't negate the fact that they have attacked.
So now the intimidate part has 2 effects:
- it shift the target of the attacks for 1 round
- it help the party with a better action economy (you trade 1 action from one group to seriously restrict the options of 1 member of the other group).
There are several corollaries, most of them negatives:
- a dedicate healer/buffer can be forced not to heal/buff but instead to attack (it can be very bad for a group of players build around that in combat healing or buffing).
- a weapon and shield or TWF build will be forced to choose between dropping/sheathing a weapon and then throwing some kind of ammunition (with possible AoO if he is in the threatened area of an enemy) or attacking the antagonizer.
- a pacifist can be forced into attacking.
- someone attempting to retreat can be scared into attacking. -_^
And the problem of what count for "attempting to do so would harm it" hasn't been resolved. A guy in melee antagonized by someone 30 feet away will move or use a ranged attack, so taking a AoO or he is immune?
Now this feat is a little less bad, but still disagreeable.
PFS adversaries should always keep a easy to throw weapon on themselves to lessen the problem with antagonize.
There are several corollaries, most of them negatives:
- a dedicate healer/buffer can be forced not to heal/buff but instead to attack (it can be very bad for a group of players build around that in combat healing or buffing).
- a weapon and shield or TWF build will be forced to choose between dropping/sheathing a weapon and then throwing some kind of ammunition (with possible AoO if he is in the threatened area of an enemy) or attacking the antagonizer.
- a pacifist can be forced into attacking.
- someone attempting to retreat can be scared into attacking. -_^And the problem of what count for "attempting to do so would harm it" hasn't been resolved. A guy in melee antagonized by someone 30 feet away will move or use a ranged attack, so taking a AoO or he is immune?
Now this feat is a little less bad, but still disagreeable.
Yep, they tinkered with the symptoms, but they haven't cured the disease. This is still a broken feat even if it is no longer as broken in the majority of cases as it was.
Still using it to make people cry at my table. One of best feats ever.
If someone is crying, they aren't having fun. A feat that means the rest of the table aren't having fun is NOT a good thing.