| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I can't imagine anyone being able to say anything that would cause a committed pacifist to fly into such a rage. Being able to push buttons only works if people have those buttons to push. Some people just do not have them. Some people will just ignore you if they have more important things to attend to...it's just words, after all.
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.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.Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?
i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.
Another good aggro feat would be, they must attack or they waste the round in anger and not focusing their efforts. They would not be helpless of course, just too angry to move properly.
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?I can't imagine anyone being able to say anything that would cause a committed pacifist to fly into such a rage. Being able to push buttons only works if people have those buttons to push. Some people just do not have them. Some people will just ignore you if they have more important things to attend to...it's just words, after all.
just think of the circumstances that encouraged the pacifist to become one and dislike violence. i'm sure figuring out something like that could serve as a button to push.
i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.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.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.Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?
I am far more sure that she wouldn't even hear them.
i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.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.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.Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?
Are you REALLY sure? What would get you to leave the side of such a person?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see making a dedicated pacifist fly into a rage.
It would just be a very long project. You'd need to study your target carefully, learn everything there is to learn about them, then spend weeks manipulating their life in just the right way to maybe make them finally lose it. You could find a weak point, but it would take a lot of digging and you'd need to be very careful about it. And even then it would only have a chance of working.
Antagonize says screw that, you can make anyone flip out from six seconds of generic words even if they're a complete stranger. And with a simple Skill Focus [Intimidate], you can do it 100% of the time.
I am far more sure that she wouldn't even hear them.i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.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.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.Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?
DM;ruling
the bard is too distracted by the circumstance of her Dying lover to hear the insult.
Are you REALLY sure? What would get you to leave the side of such a person?
A little cardboard sign that says "magic" in big sparkly letters.
Another good aggro feat would be, they must attack or they waste the round in anger and not focusing their efforts. They would not be helpless of course, just too angry to move properly.
I'm more a fan of the ones that impose penalties for not dealing with the guy shouting out nasty insults. Hell even ones that might increase the concentration check for spell casting. Makes sense that particularly violent talk might make it hard to concentrate.
I am for these kind of mechanics existing, but theres many questions after that fact. Does it need to be a feat? Can it just be a mechanic? How do you prevent it from being to powerful? how to do take character differences and player agency into account?
Flippidy flip! Master of mother jokes special ability used.
Intimidate seems a bit off to me, that is about getting people to back away or back down, not come towards you. Dip and bluff are for luring them in. Weird choice paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the DM has to rule on it so much, it's broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am far more sure that she wouldn't even hear them.i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.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.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.Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?
DM;ruling
the bard is too distracted by the circumstance of her Dying lover to hear the insult.
I propose the feat is broken as it requires constant overruling by the DM not to break immersion.
Another good aggro feat would be, they must attack or they waste the round in anger and not focusing their efforts. They would not be helpless of course, just too angry to move properly.I'm more a fan of the ones that impose penalties for not dealing with the guy shouting out nasty insults. Hell even ones that might increase the concentration check for spell casting. Makes sense that particularly violent talk might make it hard to concentrate.
I am for these kind of mechanics existing, but theres many questions after that fact. Does it need to be a feat? Can it just be a mechanic? How do you prevent it from being to powerful? how to do take character differences and player agency into account?
Indeed. Does it need a feat tax, to do something cool?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. Does it need a feat tax, to do something cool?Another good aggro feat would be, they must attack or they waste the round in anger and not focusing their efforts. They would not be helpless of course, just too angry to move properly.I'm more a fan of the ones that impose penalties for not dealing with the guy shouting out nasty insults. Hell even ones that might increase the concentration check for spell casting. Makes sense that particularly violent talk might make it hard to concentrate.
I am for these kind of mechanics existing, but theres many questions after that fact. Does it need to be a feat? Can it just be a mechanic? How do you prevent it from being to powerful? how to do take character differences and player agency into account?
I mean with out the feat what would you do? Tell the GM you are going to shout out some insults, do your best to role play it, maybe back an intimidate or bluff check and if its high enough the GM could decide it works. That kind of mechanic or suggestions for it should probably exist. But a feat for using insults? come on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've all seen the movie scene where the hero calls out to the dragon to get its attention.
I don't think any of us have seen a movie where the hero specializes in calling out to dragons to get their attention.
An antagonize mechanic should be an alternate combat maneuver-type thing, like Feint, with maybe an Improved Antagonize feat - not something that requires a feat on its own just to use in its most basic form.
I propose the feat is broken as it requires constant overruling by the DM not to break immersion.I am far more sure that she wouldn't even hear them.i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.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.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.Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?
DM;ruling
the bard is too distracted by the circumstance of her Dying lover to hear the insult.
every ability requires the application of DM interpretation
or else other silly stuff happens like fire elementals dying from heatstroke, snakes being tripped, or flight being an i win button.
Agreed. Earlier in the thread there are a host of proposals for better feats. Perhaps when this thread is done we can start a new thread focused on how to create such a mechanic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I propose the feat is broken as it requires constant overruling by the DM not to break immersion.I am far more sure that she wouldn't even hear them.i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.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.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.Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?
DM;ruling
the bard is too distracted by the circumstance of her Dying lover to hear the insult.
every ability requires the application of DM interpretation
or else other silly stuff happens like fire elementals dying from heatstroke, snakes being tripped, or flight being an i win button.
Actually I am pretty certain both Fire creatures and heat damage and Snakes being tripped are addressed in the rules.
or flight being an i win button.
Don't tell me you're really going to revive the whole "Fighters should gain at-will flight automatically at tenth level" thing?
Also: FFS, you play with a ten-person party and not a single one of you thinks to bring a bow???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. Earlier in the thread there are a host of proposals for better feats. Perhaps when this thread is done we can start a new thread focused on how to create such a mechanic.
I think antagonize could itself be saved if you simply made the DC scale with enemy willpower, and say that "any damaging effects made this round by the target must be directed at the antagonizer" rather than "they must attack the antagonizer". Give the option for them to not attack at all and do something like care for their wounded, but if they are going to attack they have to hit the wisecracking dude with the feat.
Actually I am pretty certain both Fire creatures and heat damage and Snakes being tripped are addressed in the rules.
Heatdeath never was, but most snakes and legless creatures have a (can't be tripped) next to their CMD.
Heatdeath never was, but most snakes and legless creatures have a (can't be tripped) next to their CMD.Actually I am pretty certain both Fire creatures and heat damage and Snakes being tripped are addressed in the rules.
Ah well I suspect the best fix for Heatdeath would be a small note under the environmental rules in a future printing, as opposed to introducing an unrelated feat that requires GM approval to be used properly.
Actually I am pretty certain both Fire creatures and heat damage and Snakes being tripped are addressed in the rules.I propose the feat is broken as it requires constant overruling by the DM not to break immersion.I am far more sure that she wouldn't even hear them.i really don't know at the moment, but i am sure they exist.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.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.Ahuh, and what words exactly would pull the pregnant woman who can save her dying lover with a mere touch away from him ?
DM;ruling
the bard is too distracted by the circumstance of her Dying lover to hear the insult.
every ability requires the application of DM interpretation
or else other silly stuff happens like fire elementals dying from heatstroke, snakes being tripped, or flight being an i win button.
fire elementals can still implode. and i am one of the few out of 10 players whom is actually smart enough to pick up a bow.
Agreed. Earlier in the thread there are a host of proposals for better feats. Perhaps when this thread is done we can start a new thread focused on how to create such a mechanic.I think antagonize could itself be saved if you simply made the DC scale with enemy willpower, and say that "any damaging effects made this round by the target must be directed at the antagonizer" rather than "they must attack the antagonizer". Give the option for them to not attack at all and do something like care for their wounded, but if they are going to attack they have to hit the wisecracking dude with the feat.
I would have significantly less issue, perhaps none, with this version of the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
fire elementals can still implode. and i am one of the few out of 10 players whom is actually smart enough to pick up a bow.
I think we are just getting back into the "Your group being... 'special' should not dictate what feats and features are good or bad." thing again.
it's not my fault that 7 out of 10 people focus on melee combat to the exclusion of ranged. i'm tired of having to be the arcane caster, healer, or rogue or hybrid of two of the three in a group with 7 poorly built one trick pony martials. my group is "special" and not in a good way.
I would have significantly less issue, perhaps none, with this version of the feat.Agreed. Earlier in the thread there are a host of proposals for better feats. Perhaps when this thread is done we can start a new thread focused on how to create such a mechanic.I think antagonize could itself be saved if you simply made the DC scale with enemy willpower, and say that "any damaging effects made this round by the target must be directed at the antagonizer" rather than "they must attack the antagonizer". Give the option for them to not attack at all and do something like care for their wounded, but if they are going to attack they have to hit the wisecracking dude with the feat.
Then I don;t think we have any conflict. Conceptually the feat is pretty close to working, it's just that the execution is really bad.
every PF group is a special snowflake, no two are the same. what works for one group wouldn't work for another. we don't even have much to compare among any group but the rulebooks. which themselves can betray you because every group is different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then Shuriken I suggest you start a thread in the advice forum "Help! My group is 'special'!" and stop referring to them in this one.
So if I follow the logic of many of the Nay-sayers, nothing short of magic should influence your character.
Lets say that the GM has an orphan who seems a little off for some reason you can't put your finger on tell you a tale about how there are bad guys in the sewers and he needs help to rescue his little sister. The GM rolls the kids bluff against your sense motive and you fail. "The kid seems to be on the up and up" says the GM.
Have you not just had your free will changed? you wouldn't have followed this kid maybe as a player but your character believes this kid. Wouldn't a paladin then be a BAD paladin for not helping?
If an NPC uses diplomacy on you to have you pay more than is reasonable for items, do you as a player then decline to follow that ruling because you know enough about this item to not too? if you get swindled out of a gem for a drastically lower price than you might have otherwise, aren't you loosing free will to tell him to F'off? of course you've just meta-gamed the living hell out of the game.. but you retained free will didn't you?
No social skills should ever effect characters. Is that the consensus? If my players played that way, so would my NPCs.
So if I follow the logic of many of the Nay-sayers, nothing short of magic should influence your character.
Lets say that the GM has an orphan who seems a little off for some reason you can't put your finger on tell you a tale about how there are bad guys in the sewers and he needs help to rescue his little sister. The GM rolls the kids bluff against your sense motive and you fail. "The kid seems to be on the up and up" says the GM.
Have you not just had your free will changed? you wouldn't have followed this kid maybe as a player but your character believes this kid. Wouldn't a paladin then be a BAD paladin for not helping?If an NPC uses diplomacy on you to have you pay more than is reasonable for items, do you as a player then decline to follow that ruling because you know enough about this item to not too? if you get swindled out of a gem for a drastically lower price than you might have otherwise, aren't you loosing free will to tell him to F'off? of course you've just meta-gamed the living hell out of the game.. but you retained free will didn't you?
No social skills should ever effect characters. Is that the consensus? If my players played that way, so would my NPCs.
Thats not even close to what any of us have said. And no believing an orphan does not change your free will. I don't even...
So if I follow the logic of many of the Nay-sayers, nothing short of magic should influence your character.
Lets say that the GM has an orphan who seems a little off for some reason you can't put your finger on tell you a tale about how there are bad guys in the sewers and he needs help to rescue his little sister. The GM rolls the kids bluff against your sense motive and you fail. "The kid seems to be on the up and up" says the GM.
Have you not just had your free will changed? you wouldn't have followed this kid maybe as a player but your character believes this kid. Wouldn't a paladin then be a BAD paladin for not helping?If an NPC uses diplomacy on you to have you pay more than is reasonable for items, do you as a player then decline to follow that ruling because you know enough about this item to not too? if you get swindled out of a gem for a drastically lower price than you might have otherwise, aren't you loosing free will to tell him to F'off? of course you've just meta-gamed the living hell out of the game.. but you retained free will didn't you?
No social skills should ever effect characters. Is that the consensus? If my players played that way, so would my NPCs.
I can't think of a single character whose fundamental personality would be completely ruined if they were bluffed into paying slightly more than strictly necessary for an item. But there are plenty whose fundamental personalities would be completely and irrevocably altered if six seconds of words could make them fly into a murderous rage regardless of the situation.
This is a straw man and you know it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In runelords, you can also kill goblin kiddies. I put them out of their misery, since we killed all their parents and they...
But that is your group's choice to do it that way. Others argued as if it was the norm for all groups as a part of their defense. Depending on your GM, you could have taken them to town. Goblins don't have the evil subtype so it is not like they are going to grow up to hate reading and love fire, if they are raised by humans. I know it is beyond the scope of the AP, but reading your past post you seem to be RP oriented. I would like to assume that your GM would have helped you out.
How about something like this?
Antagonize (Mystic Voice Feat) (Su)
You have focused your inner power to gain the ability to shout a supernatural command that demands your opponent fights you at the exclusion of all else.
Benefit: As a standard action, you may compel a creature into attacking you. This functions as murderous command with a DC equal to 10 plus half your BAB plus your Charisma modifier, and that the creature affected must target you instead of an ally. You may use antagonize as a move action with a -5 penalty to the DC.
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.
I think we have to be reasonable also. If I tell someone to have sex with me at gunpoint that is not free will to most people. If I just say pretty words to get them to cooperate they really has no excuse.
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.
That sucks. I would start looking for a new group. I am not saying the GM has to give people 30 minute solo's but I think he should try to accommodate everyone within reason.
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.
I remember that feat. I don't really care for it either. I was more of slash and hack guy when it first came out so I kind of overlooked it. Reading it again, it was just very similar to antagonize, except that it offered a will save.
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.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.
Everyone may have a weakness, but not everyone's weakness is insults. Some people can be punched in the face and just walk away. People have had family members killed and not shown anger, instead choosing to forgive the attacker, while feeling sorry for them, and these people were not even really pacifist, so not not everyone has a bezerk button.
just think of the circumstances that encouraged the pacifist to become one and dislike violence. i'm sure figuring out something like that could serve as a button to push.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?I can't imagine anyone being able to say anything that would cause a committed pacifist to fly into such a rage. Being able to push buttons only works if people have those buttons to push. Some people just do not have them. Some people will just ignore you if they have more important things to attend to...it's just words, after all.
Nope. You are incorrect. Not everyone can be pushed into violent action. Some people would die before they attack someone. You are lucky to even get them to yell at you, much less attack you. Seeing someone that calm is quiet unnerving to be honest.
Maybe that could be a feat.
Fear of Calm:You have such a controlled demeanor that it is unsettling to others. If someone attempts to intimidate you, then you immediately get to make an intimidate check against them with a +2 bonus. The individual is confused at your placidness and is staggered(game term) for one round. In addition if your intimidate check is successful then the results of theirs is cancelled.
fire elementals can still implode. and i am one of the few out of 10 players whom is actually smart enough to pick up a bow.
Having a ranged weapon is common sense. Does your GM not used flyers, does he GM Fiat the victory to them, or do they just die and not adjust for what killed them or almost killed them?
every PF group is a special snowflake, no two are the same. what works for one group wouldn't work for another. we don't even have much to compare among any group but the rulebooks. which themselves can betray you because every group is different.
I think the point was that, most of us, even though we don't play the exact same way have some basic things in common that let us agree as to why this feat is no good.
In any event if your group has corner cases tendencies they won't be taken seriously in a debate or discussion. It would be like me saying power attack is broken because my GM allows it to do triple the damage that is in the book. Another example would be me saying archery sucks just because nobody bothers to take anything past point blank shot. That is not an archery issue. That is a group issue.
fire elementals can still implode. and i am one of the few out of 10 players whom is actually smart enough to pick up a bow.
Having a ranged weapon is common sense. Does your GM not used flyers, does he GM Fiat the victory to them, or do they just die and not adjust for what killed them or almost killed them?
he uses fliers, i normally have to tell the group to activate those boots i crafted for them.
he uses fliers, i normally have to tell the group to activate those boots i crafted for them.
fire elementals can still implode. and i am one of the few out of 10 players whom is actually smart enough to pick up a bow.
Having a ranged weapon is common sense. Does your GM not used flyers, does he GM Fiat the victory to them, or do they just die and not adjust for what killed them or almost killed them?
What would they have done otherwise?
I know this is off-topic, but I am curious.
he uses fliers, i normally have to tell the group to activate those boots i crafted for them.
fire elementals can still implode. and i am one of the few out of 10 players whom is actually smart enough to pick up a bow.
Having a ranged weapon is common sense. Does your GM not used flyers, does he GM Fiat the victory to them, or do they just die and not adjust for what killed them or almost killed them?
What would they have done otherwise?
I know this is off-topic, but I am curious.
expect me to cast fly on each one of them or something like that. or expect the optimizers to do the fighting.
expect me to cast fly on each one of them or something like that. or expect the optimizers to do the fighting.he uses fliers, i normally have to tell the group to activate those boots i crafted for them.
fire elementals can still implode. and i am one of the few out of 10 players whom is actually smart enough to pick up a bow.
Having a ranged weapon is common sense. Does your GM not used flyers, does he GM Fiat the victory to them, or do they just die and not adjust for what killed them or almost killed them?
What would they have done otherwise?
I know this is off-topic, but I am curious.
I think I would become pretty frustrated in your situation. I tip my hat to you.
But that is your group's choice to do it that way. Others argued as if it was the norm for all groups as a part of their defense. Depending on your GM, you could have taken them to town. Goblins don't have the evil subtype so it is not like they are going to grow up to hate reading and love fire, if they are raised by humans. I know it is beyond the scope of the AP, but reading your past post you seem to be RP oriented. I would like to assume that your GM would have helped you out.
In runelords, you can also kill goblin kiddies. I put them out of their misery, since we killed all their parents and they...
My group that found goblin kiddies in RotR founded the Bookworm tribe. In return for food from the town they ensure that caravans and travellers along the great coast road in their area are not attacked or molested.