Why do folks think Antagonize is a broken feat?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 636 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

So I think I can figure out ways around everything but a mother at her dying sons side. :/

Functionally I don't really have a problem with what it does I only have a problem with how it does it. So instead of a skill check with a dumb dc I'd make it a will save with a dc 10 + .5 ranks in intimidate + cha perhaps if they wanted you could still roll the dice and if you beat the old DC the person gets a negative one or maybe two to this save. Then like a witch's hex it matters not if you effect them or not you can only use it on someone once per day. Then I suppose tack on that it is a language dependent effect to limit it more.

Besides that I have a question related to this line, " 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)." So what happens if you would take an AoO by attacking this hypothetical antagonizer? Take for instance a man who is completely unarmed(he doesn't even have improved unarmed strike). Does the effect end immediately for him,does he have to walk up to the guy who did the antagonizing then it ends before he attacks, or does he have to take off his pants(or pick up a rock) and then throw it at the guy?

I apologize if this has been answered but I didn't see anyone mention it when I skimmed the thread


Are wrote:

I would have preferred it, I think, if this feat was an immediate action feat that made it so a target would have to attack/target/area-include you this turn, or else attack noone at all.

That would have made it more useful in a combat situation (which is desired), and completely useless in a non-combat situation (unless facing a brawler-type who would be interested in attacking).

Can I favorite this twice?

This would be sooooooo much simpler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

adventurers are clearly glorified bandits.

lots of people forget that orcs, gnolls and kobolds have needs too.

a lot of them are slaughtered in hordes without a care for their age or gender.

the starving orc tribe raiding a small town run by humans for provisions to sustain their kin is no different from a starving tribe of humans raiding a small town run by another group of humans for provisions to sustain their kin.


Since Shuriken has a poor perception I will say it again.

That is an issue with your group. Many of us don't run the "evil" races as if they are only statblock. I(and others) also never said a band of marauding humans should be treated better than a band of marauding orcs(insert other race as needed).

In many of these stories the attackers(pillagers) have other options. They just choose to live their life by preying on others. I have yet to see it be the norm where the attackers have a legit "woe is me" story.

As far as not caring about age for gender:
Most games don't have children being killed by the PC's. Children are not even present. I know that is not realistic to have a tribe with no kids around, but that is what is done.

As for the gender issue, an arrow shot by a male or female still does 1d8. Heck the leader of the Red Mantis Assassins is traditionally a female. Females don't get a free pass in fantasy land when you are in danger of dying.

edit:A correct phrase is that adventures in Shuriken's groups are a bunch of bandits. Don't try to put that on the rest of us.


This is a distraction. Instead of talking about how the feat works, or why it works they are just arguing that every instance of it being used is fine, and the problems that crop up can be dismissed because the action of the angtagonizee is some how justified in some version of every scenario and/or the scenario wouldn't happen because of X. Where X is some unrelated bit of trivia that ignores the point of the scenario put up.


I am glad that I am not in their groups if that is how they really play though. Their group would hate me as a GM if they think it is ok to just go around killing creatures because they believe are only walking stat blocks.


Indeed!


Gignere wrote:

It still a bad feat since it is a surefire way to make a paladin fall.

Antagonize a paladin in any city and bam he breaks the law and falls.

Since it isn't a magical effect, the paladin is attacking you on his own free will in game.

This is truly the eff with paladins feat.

1) Breaking the law does not cause one to fall. Performing evil makes you fall, breaking is something you have to atone for but you still keep your powers during atonement.

2) Coercion and other extenuating non-magic effects do not count as "of his own free will". This would fall under such an effect, similar to say Gawain being overtaken by his black rages in the stories of the round table. Did he have to do things to make up for such brazenly dangerous displays of emotion? Yes, but he wasn't disbarred from the court.

3) If the DM is that much of a dick you're going to fall anyways. He'll give you a "you have to rape this person to break mindcontrol" or "you have to eat babies to survive" or some other "you die or you fall" decision that is "of your own freewill".


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, good, instead of falling for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions, I only need to atone for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions.

The Paladin is a red herring. The uber-pacifist is a red herring. The core problem is that the feat turns my character into an NPC and tells me how my character will be roleplayed for me. Any side-effects of this, like loss of powers or legal trouble, are secondary compared to the fundamental problem that the feat wrecks the role-playing in a role-playing game.


Roberta Yang wrote:

Oh, good, instead of falling for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions, I only need to atone for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions.

The Paladin is a red herring. The uber-pacifist is a red herring. The core problem is that the feat turns my character into an NPC and tells me how my character will be roleplayed for me. Any side-effects of this, like loss of powers or legal trouble, are secondary compared to the fundamental problem that the feat wrecks the role-playing in a role-playing game.

So it's the same problem as charm person. Like the effects are damn near identical from a role-playing perspective. Lesson being "DMs don't take away control from players".


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:

Oh, good, instead of falling for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions, I only need to atone for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions.

The Paladin is a red herring. The uber-pacifist is a red herring. The core problem is that the feat turns my character into an NPC and tells me how my character will be roleplayed for me. Any side-effects of this, like loss of powers or legal trouble, are secondary compared to the fundamental problem that the feat wrecks the role-playing in a role-playing game.

So it's the same problem as charm person. Like the effects are damn near identical from a role-playing perspective. Lesson being "DMs don't take away control from players".

No, because Charm person is a very specific MAGICAL effect. the players can detect charms, they can figure out magic. Its not their fault. This makes the character (not the players) choice to act a certain way, no magic at all, no outside tampering. They just decide to. This changes the characters personality with out approval from the player. Charm Person does not do that.

Charm person ALSO takes into effect the characters personality and motivations and their build. As well as any thing else that helps resist such things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In-universe, Charm Person means my character was mind-controlled by a magician. And it STILL takes my actual personality into account to some degree!

In-universe, Antagonize means my character, of her own free will based on "her own personality" (read: the feat's interpretation of her personality), flipped out over six seconds of insults. There was no magic, no mind-control - nothing except the game telling me that no, I have been RPing wrong, this is what my character is really like.


And now we arrive at the crux of the matter. now IF Antagonize was merely an at-will "Command" spell, or spell like ability and a scaling DC and specifically a mind effecting compulsion effect, it would be pretty powerful for a feat but it would at least not change the character's personality its used on, Or make in character decisions for that player with out their opinion.


TheRonin wrote:


No, because Charm person is a very specific MAGICAL effect. the players can detect charms, they can figure out magic. Its not their fault. This makes the character (not the players) choice to act a certain way, no magic at all, no outside tampering. They just decide to. This changes the characters personality with out approval from the player. Charm Person does not do that.

Charm person ALSO takes into effect the characters personality and motivations and their build. As well as any thing else that helps resist such things.

It doesn't matter the effect is the same: you are a spectator to your PC being an NPC.

If you treat game mechanics as some sort black box you always have problems like this. It's just that right now you're okay with the black box of "this happens no explanation" as long as it is labelled magic.

When utilizing the antagonize feat a the person's intimidate should represent their ability to get under someone's skin and find what would drive them to violence. For instance on a paladin devoted to defending the weak antagonize could represent someone threatening to attack an orphanage or desecrate a temple to his god. Now of course there are some people this just should not work against at all the living saints and paragons of virtue, but because there is not specific category pre-built in the system for this, like there is for say acid damage, there is no pre-existing "immune to forced attack" special quality. Thus you need DM judgment calls on who and what it is impossible to drive to violence, otherwise you get similarly silly things like "fire elementals aren't immune to the heat death ability because it's a death effect rather than fire damage", that's sort of the core of a role-playing game you have someone to make calls on those corner cases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
The core problem is that the feat turns my character into an NPC and tells me how my character will be roleplayed for me. Any side-effects of this, like loss of powers or legal trouble, are secondary compared to the fundamental problem that the feat wrecks the role-playing in a role-playing game.

^ This ^

Alex Smith 908 wrote:
So it's the same problem as charm person. Like the effects are damn near identical from a role-playing perspective. Lesson being "DMs don't take away control from players".

No, quite the opposite. Charm person just makes you treat one person as your friend. How you choose to interpret that is up to you. It does not force any specific course of action on you, except perhaps that you don't attack them. You do not have to betray party members, abandon dying allies, act opposite to any code of behaviour you follow.

Even domination gives you additional saving throws if you are compelled to act against your nature. If you fail, yes you do things but your character does not want to, they are forced to.

Antagonize is busted because it dictates not what your character is forced to do, but what they WANT to do and how they respond to that desire.

It's also busted because it relies on a skill check vs a low bar, and there is no real protection against it. You can take Iron Will to boost a will save, but Iron Will has no effect in Antagonize even though I cannot think for a moment why it shouldn't.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
TheRonin wrote:


No, because Charm person is a very specific MAGICAL effect. the players can detect charms, they can figure out magic. Its not their fault. This makes the character (not the players) choice to act a certain way, no magic at all, no outside tampering. They just decide to. This changes the characters personality with out approval from the player. Charm Person does not do that.

Charm person ALSO takes into effect the characters personality and motivations and their build. As well as any thing else that helps resist such things.

It doesn't matter the effect is the same: you are a spectator to your PC being an NPC.

If you don't care what your character decides to do of their own free will then the effect is the same. However, especially given some of the examples provided I care, I care a lot and so will a lot of players.

There is a HUGE difference to me, between my character was dominated and forced via magic to leave the side of their dying comrade instead of healing them versus my character heard some nasty words and decided the best thing to do was attack the person using the words instead of healing their dying comrade. Especially when the later is not my call.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If my character is Dominated and forced to leave a dying ally's side instead of saving them, then my character hasn't made any choices against her personality; she's just fallen victim to hostile magic.

If my character decides on her own to leave a dying ally's side instead of saving them because someone was rude to her, then wow, my character's a terrible person at heart and apparently her personality is completely different from the one I envisioned but I don't get a say in the matter because the game is telling me what my character would do for me.

(And remember, the DC is trivial. If you put max ranks and Skill Focus in Intimidate, and your Cha mod is one point higher than my Wis mod, and we're both tenth level, you autopass your skill check. So Antagonize is pretty much impossible to resist.)

Honestly, is it that hard to tell why I'll accept "Your character was magically manipulated" but not "Your character was insulted and that one insult instantly overrode her entire personality"?


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Gignere wrote:

It still a bad feat since it is a surefire way to make a paladin fall.

Antagonize a paladin in any city and bam he breaks the law and falls.

Since it isn't a magical effect, the paladin is attacking you on his own free will in game.

This is truly the eff with paladins feat.

1) Breaking the law does not cause one to fall. Performing evil makes you fall, breaking is something you have to atone for but you still keep your powers during atonement.

2) Coercion and other extenuating non-magic effects do not count as "of his own free will". This would fall under such an effect, similar to say Gawain being overtaken by his black rages in the stories of the round table. Did he have to do things to make up for such brazenly dangerous displays of emotion? Yes, but he wasn't disbarred from the court.

3) If the DM is that much of a dick you're going to fall anyways. He'll give you a "you have to rape this person to break mindcontrol" or "you have to eat babies to survive" or some other "you die or you fall" decision that is "of your own freewill".

If you are coerced it is still of your own free will. Just because someone gets you to agree to something that does not mean you did not actively make a decision. If I am coereced into an evil act(s) by a party member my deity is not going to say "Don't worry about it, he talked you into it", if I am a cleric.


Now to be fair, if you play your characters are murderous bandits which some seem to (Hey I have a psychotic evil character in an evil campaign I get it) then you won't care about the difference.

But I would.


when you have a group with 8-10 players, not counting the DM, of which 7 are into mindless hack and slash. you really don't have a lot of room for roleplay, or for characterization beyond the statblock, even with a 5 hour gaming session at a regular preplanned scheduled time at a specific preplanned location. this is even more exxaggerated when the DM himself is a member of 10 different groups, 3 of which game on the same day as yours.


TheRonin wrote:


There is a HUGE difference to me, between my character was dominated and forced via magic to leave the side of their dying comrade instead of healing them versus my character heard some nasty words and decided the best thing to do was attack the person using the words instead of healing their dying comrade. Especially when the later is not my call.

To me it doesn't seem that silly to assume that there are times when a character's emotions can overcome their rational thought. Same reason feint works and I can't just say "well I was focusing on someone else". Or at least it seems no more silly to me than the idea that even the most amateur of wizards (level 1) can 5% of the time overcome even the most heroic and determined of wills and be convinced that a cannibalistic murderer is a-okay.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:

Oh, good, instead of falling for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions, I only need to atone for the thing my character decided to do against her personality and my decisions.

The Paladin is a red herring. The uber-pacifist is a red herring. The core problem is that the feat turns my character into an NPC and tells me how my character will be roleplayed for me. Any side-effects of this, like loss of powers or legal trouble, are secondary compared to the fundamental problem that the feat wrecks the role-playing in a role-playing game.

So it's the same problem as charm person. Like the effects are damn near identical from a role-playing perspective. Lesson being "DMs don't take away control from players".

You might want to read the thread. We have explained several times already why spells such as dominate and charm person don't apply.


Are there time when a characters emotions can over come their rational thoughts?

YES. But I decide that.

I decide if shes leaving the side of her baby daddy whose bleeding out instead of healing him.

The Paladin's player decides if he's heard enough lip from this kid to take the back of his gauntlet to his face.

The Chaotic Neutral player decides if their greed gets the better of them as they pass the valuable statue on the way to see their employeer.

Not a NPC or another player who took a feat.


TheRonin wrote:

Are there time when a characters emotions can over come their rational thoughts?

YES. But I decide that.

I decide if shes leaving the side of her baby daddy whose bleeding out instead of healing him.

The Paladin's player decides if he's heard enough lip from this kid to take the back of his gauntlet to his face.

The Chaotic Neutral player decides if their greed gets the better of them as they pass the valuable statue on the way to see their employeer.

Not a NPC or another player who took a feat.

And I'd like it not to be some random NPC or player who took a spell. I have less of a problem with things like say dominate monster and the like because they are 9th level spells the domain of archmages. Charm person however is a mind-control ability that is available from the word go. If everything single apprentice mage can break your will 1 time out of 20, why can't amateur bards who take a feat?


So your argument is you don't like a somewhat similar effect, so you should allow more of the same for, revenge?


wraithstrike wrote:

Since Shuriken has a poor perception I will say it again.

That is an issue with your group. Many of us don't run the "evil" races as if they are only statblock. I(and others) also never said a band of marauding humans should be treated better than a band of marauding orcs(insert other race as needed).

In many of these stories the attackers(pillagers) have other options. They just choose to live their life by preying on others. I have yet to see it be the norm where the attackers have a legit "woe is me" story.

As far as not caring about age for gender:
Most games don't have children being killed by the PC's. Children are not even present. I know that is not realistic to have a tribe with no kids around, but that is what is done.

As for the gender issue, an arrow shot by a male or female still does 1d8. Heck the leader of the Red Mantis Assassins is traditionally a female. Females don't get a free pass in fantasy land when you are in danger of dying.

edit:A correct phrase is that adventures in Shuriken's groups are a bunch of bandits. Don't try to put that on the rest of us.

I did know one dm that pushed us into killing kobold children. Kobs had been raiding, killing folk, stealing s##+. We raid their hive, the deeper levels are protected by mothers and children. They get narky and protective, we cut them up (hard battle actually, because the noncombatants were made into swarms). Then the dm plays the poor kobolds card. Eyes are rolled, I laugh and say "well maybe the tribe shouldn't have f***ing killed everyone around them. The poor poor kobolds." Then we found a child sorcerer, and killed that one too, after it hit my char with burning hands. Funny, I'm pretty sure the rules on maturity say you can't cast a spell when you a small boy without a sorcerer level, but hey. So yeah, dm tried to put in tragedy, we sighed and collected xp.

In runelords, you can also kill goblin kiddies. I put them out of their misery, since we killed all their parents and they were starving and killing eachother in their growth room. Char was made chaotic evil for it. Refused to play the char as chaotic evil, because he did it out of pity while crying.


wraithstrike wrote:
If you are coerced it is still of your own free will. Just because someone gets you to agree to something that does not mean you did not actively make a decision. If I am coereced into an evil act(s) by a party member my deity is not going to say "Don't worry about it, he talked you into it", if I am a cleric.

I actually agree, but I'm not sure that's how "free will" is commonly interpreted.

For example, one could say that me shoving a gun up your mouth and telling you to give me your money or I'll shoot is forcing you to give me money - or you could say that it's a conscious choice of you whether you feel like it or not, aka free will. You CAN choose not to do it.

Personally, I think that if we want to be consistent in this "free will" deal at all, it has to include such things. But that's for another topic.


TheRonin wrote:
So your argument is you don't like a somewhat similar effect, so you should allow more of the same for, revenge?

I'd probably make the DC scale as something like Intimidate vs Will Save + certain bonuses dependant on alignment and other factors. I'd also get rid of charm person or bump it up a few levels. I was just trying to say earlier why it wasn't wrong on a conceptual level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you have an issue with the spell "Charm Person" it might be best settled in its own thread.


i didn't intend to brag. i wouldn't mind antagonize in a mindless hack and slash group. i wouldn't recommend it for a more story oriented group. i tried to get some roleplaying done in the past and it didn't work.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
If everything single apprentice mage can break your will 1 time out of 20, why can't amateur bards who take a feat?

They certainly can! ...assuming that the feat in question is the Major Magic Rogue Talent used to select Charm Person.

There's a huge difference between my possibly being charmed by someone as a result of their dabbling in otherworldly arcane forces and my personality being overridden by someone being rude to me. And even then, Charm Person just makes me view the caster in a more friendly light; it doesn't make me abandon dying friends or otherwise act against my nature (and the more the caster tries to make me do that I wouldn't normally do, the more saves I get).

Seriously the Charm Person thing was answered like ten times on this page of the thread alone, this is becoming a broken record.


Now if you really want to compare and contrast to a level 1 spell "Charm Person" isn't a good example. You want "Command"

Command


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
If everything single apprentice mage can break your will 1 time out of 20, why can't amateur bards who take a feat?

They certainly can! ...assuming that the feat in question is the Major Magic Rogue Talent used to select Charm Person.

There's a huge difference between my possibly being charmed by someone as a result of their dabbling in otherworldly arcane forces and my personality being overridden by someone being rude to me. And even then, Charm Person just makes me view the caster in a more friendly light; it doesn't make me abandon dying friends or otherwise act against my nature (and the more the caster tries to make me do that I wouldn't normally do, the more saves I get).

Seriously the Charm Person thing was answered like ten times on this page of the thread alone, this is becoming a broken record.

so i can chant mathematical cyphers and dominate your mind if i am a wizard, but as a bard who mastered instigation, i can't use my training to make a pacifist fly into a rage and attack me beyond all rational thought?


If they'd flavored Antagonize as giving you a bit of Eldritch Heritage-style access to minor sorcerer powers and let you use Command as a SLA (or something similar to Command as a Su), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:


so i can chant mathematical cyphers and dominate your mind if i am a wizard, but as a bard who mastered instigation, i can't use my training to make a pacifist fly into a rage and attack me beyond all rational thought?

Bards have spells. And magical songs. Use those.


Well guys, if the feat is so bad, and I think it is, there is goad from 3.5.

It is a little vague in parts, and I think an or should be in the place of an and when it describes it further, but basically:

Make a move to goad, force a will save 10+ 1/2 level + cha mod.

If they fail, they must target you with any of their melee attacks. They can still move, cast spells, make ranged attacks or perform other actions normally, but melee they have to direct towards you and no others. Lasts 1 round.

Now they might hit you with spells or ranged, or whatever, but any melee attacks they make that round have to go towards you, because you are so insulting and they want to mace your face.

Doesn't seize total control of a goaded person, they have to melee you if they use melee. It doesn't make archers or spellcasters into foolish puppets.


Roberta Yang wrote:

If they'd flavored Antagonize as giving you a bit of Eldritch Heritage-style access to minor sorcerer powers and let you use Command as a SLA (or something similar to Command as a Su), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:


so i can chant mathematical cyphers and dominate your mind if i am a wizard, but as a bard who mastered instigation, i can't use my training to make a pacifist fly into a rage and attack me beyond all rational thought?
Bards have spells. And magical songs. Use those.

in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?

Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.


Roberta Yang wrote:

If they'd flavored Antagonize as giving you a bit of Eldritch Heritage-style access to minor sorcerer powers and let you use Command as a SLA (or something similar to Command as a Su), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:


so i can chant mathematical cyphers and dominate your mind if i am a wizard, but as a bard who mastered instigation, i can't use my training to make a pacifist fly into a rage and attack me beyond all rational thought?
Bards have spells. And magical songs. Use those.

Indeed and when his bard hits level 10 he can learn Dominate Person. Far more useful spell, but hes going to find its much harder to get off.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?
Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.

This is why I used the pregnant bard/baby daddy example Because a character with a real semi-human personality would have to be completely dominated to leave the side of such a person. And no amount of mean words, no mater how good you are at it is going to convince that character not heal their dying lover.


Roberta Yang wrote:

If they'd flavored Antagonize as giving you a bit of Eldritch Heritage-style access to minor sorcerer powers and let you use Command as a SLA (or something similar to Command as a Su), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:


so i can chant mathematical cyphers and dominate your mind if i am a wizard, but as a bard who mastered instigation, i can't use my training to make a pacifist fly into a rage and attack me beyond all rational thought?
Bards have spells. And magical songs. Use those.

Fine it is my rogue's word magicks. Right there along with my other might spells such as "stab", "reduce purse weight", and "run from angry mob".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The difference between Command and similar magic, and Antagonize, is that the former has an in-game observable effect. Not only is it easier to defend against, you can PROVE to the world around your character that you weren't acting out of personal desire, but were forced to do it by an outside influence.

With Antagonize though? Not only is there no real way to defend against it, you can't justifiably explain your actions to the rest of the in-game world beyond "he upset me to the point of violence." (Which isn't really a defense at all.)


Roberta Yang wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?
Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.

just because you have a personality doesn't mean you are immune to insults. a character sufficiently trained in the art of instigation should have the possibility of rousing hostility from pacifists. even a pacifist has a berserk button. in the case of said pacifist, it would likely involve whatever circumstances lead them to disliking violence.


TheRonin wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?
Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.
This is why I used the pregnant bard/baby daddy example Because a character with a real semi-human personality would have to be completely dominated to leave the side of such a person. And no amount of mean words, no mater how good you are at it is going to convince that character not heal their dying lover.

And that's a case for the DM to say "it doesn't work because the emotional bond is too great". Just like your DM can say "killing a fire elemental by overheating him is stupid and doesn't work" despite the latter being "magic" and thus free from these apparent constraints of believability.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
TheRonin wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?
Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.
This is why I used the pregnant bard/baby daddy example Because a character with a real semi-human personality would have to be completely dominated to leave the side of such a person. And no amount of mean words, no mater how good you are at it is going to convince that character not heal their dying lover.
And that's a case for the DM to say "it doesn't work because the emotional bond is too great". Just like your DM can say "killing a fire elemental by overheating him is stupid and doesn't work" despite the latter being "magic" and thus free from these apparent constraints of believability.

this works far better than banning or changing the feat. and allows goading to still apply.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?
Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.
just because you have a personality doesn't mean you are immune to insults. a character sufficiently trained in the art of instigation should have the possibility of rousing hostility from pacifists. even a pacifist has a berserk button. in the case of said pacifist, it would likely involve whatever circumstances lead them to disliking violence.

Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not like Antagonize couldn't have been done better. There are loads of aggro mechanics that would be fine - in fact, the Diplomacy branch of Antagonize is a fine example of one! Some sort of feat to let you intercept attacks aimed against adjacent allies could work. Or even existing feats like Stand Still or Step Up & Strike that box the victim into facing you.

But Antagonize decided to go the one unacceptable route: the game telling me what my character does and how to roleplay her, ignoring her personality and pretty much all other aspects of her character in six seconds of mundane words.

This isn't about how aggro mechanics shouldn't exist. Or about how martials shouldn't be able to have nice things. Or about how Intimidate shouldn't be able to get opponents' attention. Or about the specifics of the Paladin's code. It's about the role-playing part of the role-playing game being overridden - and if that's gone, I could be playing much better games than Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like taunting special rules, I really do, but it is important they aren't op.

Take diplomacy checks, if you don't want to listen, you can just walk away or refuse to listen since it takes a while to get through to people. The check needs time. If they don't listen they don't listen. Insults are far more aggressive, but why can't an opponent go "meh", "oh that's a good one" or just walk off. A insult, even a really savage one hasn't put me into a berserker rage since high school. You just get over it with emotional control. I have a wisdom of maybe, MAYBE 12. I'm pretty sure the heroes that aren't emotional volatile wrecks can take some insults without losing it. Especially for classes of great mental discipline. I would like a tier of feats though, that activated a barbs rage or forced a spellcaster to use their worst spell upon you, or an archer to use every shot they have that round for your face, but that is for a tier of feats. Goad works for what it does, antagonize seems op and odd.

Now why I like goad is because it only takes a hold of melee. If you are a swordsman, heavy, tank, barb chopper and you want to do melee that round, well, they have convinced you there is only one target they want to take on (congratulations!). An archer doesn't suddenly decide to rush with his short sword and buckler into the fray though, that would be silly. He has a bow, he can just shoot you and feel smug from over here.

Antagonize represents the problem of power creep. Lets make a really strong goad feat that is better than before, oh, it took player choice away and doesn't use a spell slot, and can be used all day.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
TheRonin wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
in that case, swap bard for fighter, rogue, or barbarian. what's wrong with them being able to compel hostility through finding the proper insult to get deep under your skin?
Because my character has a personality. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but it's true.
This is why I used the pregnant bard/baby daddy example Because a character with a real semi-human personality would have to be completely dominated to leave the side of such a person. And no amount of mean words, no mater how good you are at it is going to convince that character not heal their dying lover.
And that's a case for the DM to say "it doesn't work because the emotional bond is too great". Just like your DM can say "killing a fire elemental by overheating him is stupid and doesn't work" despite the latter being "magic" and thus free from these apparent constraints of believability.
this works far better than banning or changing the feat. and allows goading to still apply.

I put forth the idea that if a feat requires this on a regular basis than the feat is indeed Broken as the title of the thread suggests. And the game could use a different mechanic for antagonizing people.

451 to 500 of 636 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do folks think Antagonize is a broken feat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.