Why do folks think Antagonize is a broken feat?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 636 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Yeah, agree.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wonder who the dev was who designed it. And how it survived the editing process. ^^


No dev is perfect, and neither is any editing process.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sympathetic to the person who devised it.

I know for a fact some things can actually get garbled in the editing process, and there may have been language in the original that was cut or changed.

Saying it is poorly designed (and I believe it is) is a reflection on the final product, not the original designer.

I'd actually rather not know who wrote it, because I am friends with some contributors. I would rather my critique be honest and without bias. Hopefully they can read what I've written and recognize the mistakes I perceive, and apply that to better designs in the future.

On that note, I would absolutely love if every feat and spell with a combat application were vetted for potential out-of-combat abuses.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'm sympathetic to the person who devised it.

I know for a fact some things can actually get garbled in the editing process, and there may have been language in the original that was cut or changed.

Saying it is poorly designed (and I believe it is) is a reflection on the final product, not the original designer.

I hear that.

On at least one occasion some design of mine came out the other end with no mechanics in common with the original submission.


Removed a few posts. Don't insult/bash other posters.


So any chance with a thread this big that we can get Developer feedback?

While I making requests, Any chance that my spelling error in the title can be fixed by a board mod?


What type of feedback are you asking for?


Intent of developers, Errata or rewording.
Response to the negative feedback surrounding the feat.

Also:

BltzKrg242 wrote:
While I making requests, Any chance that my spelling error in the title can be fixed by a board mod?

Thank you!


TheRonin wrote:

Okay but why does it need to be a feat? Can a character not insult an opponent with out a feat and a rule?

I agree, I'd simply embed the relevant text in the skills.


So all the people complaining about a FEAT that lets you do this are going to be OK with it as part of a SKILL?
Goodness...


BltzKrg242 wrote:

So all the people complaining about a FEAT that lets you do this are going to be OK with it as part of a SKILL?

Goodness...

Quote please?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
Ernest Hemingway


BltzKrg242 wrote:

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."

Ernest Hemingway

Well played sir, well played. :)

In all seriousness though we would not be ok with it being a skill either.


A skill use that allows you to attempt to get someones attention? yes

A skill that makes my character of their own free will decide to do something out of character or stupid? no.


BltzKrg242 wrote:

So all the people complaining about a FEAT that lets you do this are going to be OK with it as part of a SKILL?

Goodness...

If the skill use was like other skill uses - ie, it took account of circumstances and personality types just as they do - then that's not as big an issue. You can use Diplomacy on a PC, but the PC doesn't HAVE to be friendly to you if you succeed. You can use Bluff so he cannot be sure you are lying, but he doesn't HAVE to believe you. In the same way, you can use Diplomacy or Intimidate to insult him, but he doesn't HAVE to get angry and attack you.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Dabbler wrote:
You can use Diplomacy on a PC, but the PC doesn't HAVE to be friendly to you if you succeed.

Actually, you can't use Diplomacy on a PC at all:

The PRD wrote:
Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. [Emphasis mine.]


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah. In 3.5 you could, but whether or not the PC was affected was up to the player.


Not in 3.5 either: I had to let players know this when one tried to "mind control" as he put it another player.

3.5 SRD wrote:
You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

With that aside I wanted to make sure Mr.Blitz was taking one person's potential acceptance of allowing a skill to do something as everyone's acceptance of it.


I was not accepting that at all Wraith. I was questioning why anyone would.
So all the people complaining about a FEAT that lets you do this are going to be OK with it as part of a SKILL?

See that question mark at the end there? That means I'm questioning the validity of the idea. if people are having a difficult enough time with the idea of this, even as a feat, I don't see those persons being happy with it being part of a skill check.


BltzKrg242 wrote:

I was not accepting that at all Wraith. I was questioning why anyone would.

So all the people complaining about a FEAT that lets you do this are going to be OK with it as part of a SKILL?

See that question mark at the end there? That means I'm questioning the validity of the idea. if people are having a difficult enough time with the idea of this, even as a feat, I don't see those persons being happy with it being part of a skill check.

The simplest answer I can give is that there are multiple flaws with the feat.

A skill use would solve one problem (that the ability to command attention is locked off behind a feat when it is something anyone ought to be able to attempt).

That would not solve the problem that the "command attention" concept is poorly executed. It suffers from poor wording, an out-of-combat abuse, and a poorly scaled DC.

I would prefer that commanding the attention of an enemy would be a skill, but it would require a better DC and better wording for that to be the case.

Then again, as previously stated, I am not making the case that the feat is bad because it violates player agency. All sorts of PF powers violate player agency. It's amazing what a simple Will save will do to alleviate such complaints. People who really hate having their character taken away from them will engineer high Will saves. This feat, as written, changes that to needing VERY high Wisdom, will save be damned. That's not cool.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:

For the record, I have NO issues with player agency and the feat.

I have no problem with a feat that forces other characters to take certain actions.

Antagonize is still a badly designed feat. It has a badly scaled DC, and it is poorly worded leaving it open to ridiculous results far outside the expected application. It presumes the game is combat only. It completely lacks nuance, and assumes there is only one kind of target for the feat, and allows that target only one response.

It has many flaws which are not present in the vast majority of other feats.

Except for the part about the feat assuming that the game is combat only, I agree with most of what you say. Clearly this feat works quite well to derail otherwise peaceful negotiations -- and there is no reason to prevent it from having that effect. And I would vehemently reject the idea that a paladin would fall because this feat is used against him -- any DM who pulls that is being a dick. Impose atonement for a momentary loss of temper, yes -- but make him permanently fall? A DM who pulls that obviously had it in for the paladin to begin with.

The real problem seems to be that it introduces new mechanics that negate the usual protections that a character might have against a mind-affecting effect. The DC of the check is based on level and wisdom of the target and nothing else -- so bonuses to Will saves, whether general or specifically against mind-affecting effects, do not apply. The paladin's charisma bonus to all saves does not apply.

My first instinct would be to use an Intimidate check to set the DC of the Will save that the target must make, but that approach has the obvious problem of the target's Intimidate check scaling far faster than anyone's Will save would. An opposed Will save has the opposite problem of making the bonus of the skill used irrelevant.

How about setting the DC by having the user of the feat make a check using the lesser of his Will save bonus and his Intimadate bonus to set the Will save DC. Specify that the useage of this feat is mind-affecting and language dependent, as well as fear based for the Intimidate version (remember that there is a Diplomacy version as well that nobody seems to be bothered by). The target is then affected if he fails the Will save and is not otherwise immune to the effect. Then all of the factors that would make a character resistant to charm and fear effects would also kick in to protect him against this ability.


I'm okay with a feat that makes a physically confident character slap or otherwise attack someone in an inappropriate social setting — so long as the DC is appropriate. For the reasons you mention, it is not.

But one of the most egregious oversights here is that physically meek characters will do nigh suicidal things. That needs a rider. Many, many people, even most physically confident people, response to direct personal insult by being cowed. This could be easily modeled and mechanically useful to the feat-holder by simply denying an action to the target if it is not an aggressive action directed at the feat-holder. The target would just stand and blink.

That would fix a large problem with the feat. The low DC, the structure of the DC (as David discusses at length), and the fact that it is locking yet more logical options of skill use behind a feat, are all still at issue.


BltzKrg242 wrote:

I was not accepting that at all Wraith. I was questioning why anyone would.

So all the people complaining about a FEAT that lets you do this are going to be OK with it as part of a SKILL?

See that question mark at the end there? That means I'm questioning the validity of the idea. if people are having a difficult enough time with the idea of this, even as a feat, I don't see those persons being happy with it being part of a skill check.

When you typed "Goodness...", I read the question mark as being sarcastic

Example:
You are saying it is ok for the GM to just do whatever he pleases, no matter what?
Goodness...

In that(my example) context you are not really asking a question, but accusing the person of being unfair with regard to his views on GM'ing. Normally putting goodness at the end or "my goodness" is said with a bit of exasperation or surprise.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
BltzKrg242 wrote:

I was not accepting that at all Wraith. I was questioning why anyone would.

So all the people complaining about a FEAT that lets you do this are going to be OK with it as part of a SKILL?

See that question mark at the end there? That means I'm questioning the validity of the idea. if people are having a difficult enough time with the idea of this, even as a feat, I don't see those persons being happy with it being part of a skill check.

The simplest answer I can give is that there are multiple flaws with the feat.

A skill use would solve one problem (that the ability to command attention is locked off behind a feat when it is something anyone ought to be able to attempt).

That would not solve the problem that the "command attention" concept is poorly executed. It suffers from poor wording, an out-of-combat abuse, and a poorly scaled DC.

I would prefer that commanding the attention of an enemy would be a skill, but it would require a better DC and better wording for that to be the case.

Then again, as previously stated, I am not making the case that the feat is bad because it violates player agency. All sorts of PF powers violate player agency. It's amazing what a simple Will save will do to alleviate such complaints. People who really hate having their character taken away from them will engineer high Will saves. This feat, as written, changes that to needing VERY high Wisdom, will save be damned. That's not cool.

I don't think losing control of the character is the issue. Dominate does that. I think the issue is making your character volunteer to do something along with the way it is done.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
BltzKrg242 wrote:

I was not accepting that at all Wraith. I was questioning why anyone would.

So all the people complaining about a FEAT that lets you do this are going to be OK with it as part of a SKILL?

See that question mark at the end there? That means I'm questioning the validity of the idea. if people are having a difficult enough time with the idea of this, even as a feat, I don't see those persons being happy with it being part of a skill check.

The simplest answer I can give is that there are multiple flaws with the feat.

A skill use would solve one problem (that the ability to command attention is locked off behind a feat when it is something anyone ought to be able to attempt).

That would not solve the problem that the "command attention" concept is poorly executed. It suffers from poor wording, an out-of-combat abuse, and a poorly scaled DC.

I would prefer that commanding the attention of an enemy would be a skill, but it would require a better DC and better wording for that to be the case.

Then again, as previously stated, I am not making the case that the feat is bad because it violates player agency. All sorts of PF powers violate player agency. It's amazing what a simple Will save will do to alleviate such complaints. People who really hate having their character taken away from them will engineer high Will saves. This feat, as written, changes that to needing VERY high Wisdom, will save be damned. That's not cool.

As eloquently stated by Mr. Evil Lincoln this feat has a number of perceived issues. One of my issues is the idea that one needs a feat to attempt to goad someone. That is ridiculous and should be a normal use of one of the Charisma based skills.

That is unrelated to my issue with the feats ridiculously low DC, and unrelated to that is my issue with the feat taking control of my character. As stated, even diplomacy can't dictate how my character feels about someone.

So while the generalization that I think its to strong AND I want to make it easier to use, seems contradictory, once broken down into my actual statements it makes a lot of sense.


That's it, goad. What a perfect, presumably anglo-saxon word...

Expect my "Goad" skill application in the houserule forums soon, and thank you Ronin!


I look forward to reading it!


Evil Lincoln wrote:

That's it, goad. What a perfect, presumably anglo-saxon word...

Expect my "Goad" skill application in the houserule forums soon, and thank you Ronin!

Goad (Su)

Goad (Su) wrote:
A war master of 5th level or higher can use his tactics to force a foe into immediate action. He selects one foe he can see and has line of effect to within 60 feet. That target must make a Will save against a DC of (10 + ½ the war master’s class level + the war master’s Intelligence bonus). If the foe fails, it cannot ready or delay any actions. If it does not take its turn in the normal initiative order, it loses its action until the next round. The targeted foe is allowed a new saving throw against the goad at the beginning of every turn. Goad is an enchantment (compulsion), mind-affecting ability.


Caedwyr wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:

That's it, goad. What a perfect, presumably anglo-saxon word...

Expect my "Goad" skill application in the houserule forums soon, and thank you Ronin!

Goad (Su)

Goad (Su) wrote:
A war master of 5th level or higher can use his tactics to force a foe into immediate action. He selects one foe he can see and has line of effect to within 60 feet. That target must make a Will save against a DC of (10 + ½ the war master’s class level + the war master’s Intelligence bonus). If the foe fails, it cannot ready or delay any actions. If it does not take its turn in the normal initiative order, it loses its action until the next round. The targeted foe is allowed a new saving throw against the goad at the beginning of every turn. Goad is an enchantment (compulsion), mind-affecting ability.

Thread derail, but why is that is that (Su) rather than (Ex), exactly?


Supernatural compulsion effect.


Caedwyr wrote:
Supernatural compulsion effect.

Indeed, let me state my question better: Why must a mind-affecting, compulsion ability be supernatural rather than extraordinary?

Goad looks like an interesting class feature, but I see no reason for it to be supernatural rather than extraordinary. I guess I'm also asking why it's an enchantment; That is, does the war master have powers like a paladin, or is it a prestige class that any Martial BAB class can take?

EDIT: Okay, so I just followed the link to the class entry, and personally, I don't think anything but the cleric spells should be anything but extraordinary abilities.


I'm guessing Owen made it supernatural for flavour purposes, but I'm sure you could make the argument that the ability would work just as well as an Extraordinary (Ex) mind-affecting, compulsion ability.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think anything non-magical can force "anyone no matter who they are" to lose their cool in such a short amount of time. That is probably why it is SU.


Does anyone have a problem with NPCs using Intimidate to Demoralize their PCs?


I doubt anyone would have a problem with that, redward. It's a simple -2 to all rolls. That's a fine effect.

Antagonize would be fine, too, if what it did was force the target of an already-selected attack or spell to be the antagonizer.


Are wrote:

I doubt anyone would have a problem with that, redward. It's a simple -2 to all rolls. That's a fine effect.

Antagonize would be fine, too, if what it did was force the target of an already-selected attack or spell to be the antagonizer.

The reason I ask is not because I think they're equatable. It's because they are both affecting the state of mind of your character without magic. If you are Demoralized you are Shaken. You have been put into a mild state of fear.

One of the objections to Antagonize that I keep seeing is the loss of control of your character, particularly the idea that a pacifist character could be driven to violence.

So you can say:
"My character would never get angry (unless magically compelled)"

But you cannot say:
"My character is not afraid of anything (unless magically feared)."

Because there are non-magical mechanical effects that can strike fear into a character.

I'm not sure players have a right to one of those concepts and not the other.


Actually, some of my players do have issues with player agency and fear effects. I handle it with kid gloves. If I really have to get rough with it, I let them "override" fear with very very stiff penalties.

Personally, I'm okay with it when I'm a player, and I'd be okay with an antagonize-like effect so long as it didn't create nonsensical results.


Redward, if Antagonize gave a character a -2 distraction penalty to whatever they are doing for one round if they do not attack the antagonizer, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it, save that it should just be a skill use and not a feat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a difference between "My character would never get angry at someone for being rude" and "My character would never fly into a rage and punch someone for being rude".

If Intimidate could induce higher states of fear than Shaken and force my character to turn and flee, then yes, I would have a problem with that.


As before, I'd much prefer if antagonise was an immediate action that redirected an attack already incoming.

An enemy makes an attack or charges an ally! You use antagonise as an immediate action to put yourself in the way of the attack!

It achieves what people want from an 'aggro' mechanic without making the world insane.


Roberta Yang wrote:

There's a difference between "My character would never get angry at someone for being rude" and "My character would never fly into a rage and punch someone for being rude".

If Intimidate could induce higher states of fear than Shaken and force my character to turn and flee, then yes, I would have a problem with that.

Of course there's a difference. That's why I said they're not equatable. But they're only different by degrees.

Would you still have a problem with Intimidate inducing higher states of fear than Shaken if it required a Feat?


redward wrote:
Would you still have a problem with Intimidate inducing higher states of fear than Shaken if it required a Feat?

Yes. "He used a feat on me!" doesn't break verisimilitude any less than "He used a skill on me!"


redward wrote:
Are wrote:

I doubt anyone would have a problem with that, redward. It's a simple -2 to all rolls. That's a fine effect.

Antagonize would be fine, too, if what it did was force the target of an already-selected attack or spell to be the antagonizer.

The reason I ask is not because I think they're equatable. It's because they are both affecting the state of mind of your character without magic. If you are Demoralized you are Shaken. You have been put into a mild state of fear.

One of the objections to Antagonize that I keep seeing is the loss of control of your character, particularly the idea that a pacifist character could be driven to violence.

So you can say:
"My character would never get angry (unless magically compelled)"

But you cannot say:
"My character is not afraid of anything (unless magically feared)."

Because there are non-magical mechanical effects that can strike fear into a character.

I'm not sure players have a right to one of those concepts and not the other.

That is not a good argument. The pacifist being upset, and being upset enough to attack someone, thereby violating his core belief is not even close. It is also a strawman since not being willing to attack, not being able to become angry or two different things. Now if your example had someone who did not beleive in backing down from a fight and antagonize make him do that, then you would have a valid comparion. Someone not willing to back down from a fight, and someone not being afraid however are not the same things. There is also the big difference of one of them forces the character into a "willing" action. The other just provides a penalty which is what was argued antagonize should do if the person does not attack.


redward wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:

There's a difference between "My character would never get angry at someone for being rude" and "My character would never fly into a rage and punch someone for being rude".

If Intimidate could induce higher states of fear than Shaken and force my character to turn and flee, then yes, I would have a problem with that.

Of course there's a difference. That's why I said they're not equatable. But they're only different by degrees.

Would you still have a problem with Intimidate inducing higher states of fear than Shaken if it required a Feat?

Yes it is still an issue even if it uses a feat. The degree matters a lot. I am sure that if I punch a police officer, and a I stab him with a katana the katana attack will be considered to be a different degree of attacking. I can't go into court and say "just pretend I only used my fist".


How would the anti-antagonize crowd feel if the Intimidate effect was based on a Bluff roll? (I mean, you still have to take the feat to be able to do it, not just a feature of the skill.) Still not worth it?


Hitdice wrote:
How would the anti-antagonize crowd feel if the Intimidate effect was based on a Bluff roll? (I mean, you still have to take the feat to be able to do it, not just a feature of the skill.) Still not worth it?

That solves one of its problems. It does not solve the many other problems.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
How would the anti-antagonize crowd feel if the Intimidate effect was based on a Bluff roll? (I mean, you still have to take the feat to be able to do it, not just a feature of the skill.) Still not worth it?
That solves one of its problems. It does not solve the many other problems.

So, just asking, but how many problems are there, in your opinion? I mean, there are only like 3 paragraphs in the feat entry, there can't be too many problems with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Intimidate is a poor choice of skill for making enemies attack you; it just doesn't make sense. That's one issue. The others are:

1) My character's personality is overridden.

2) A "taunt" option that should be universally available is locked behind a feat.

3) The DC is trivial.


Hitdice wrote:
How would the anti-antagonize crowd feel if the Intimidate effect was based on a Bluff roll? (I mean, you still have to take the feat to be able to do it, not just a feature of the skill.) Still not worth it?

I don't see how that helps. You still have to convince the person to attack which they may be against in principle.

551 to 600 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.