I'm not going to touch the fluff aspects of the feat and its implications. I am going to touch upon the tactical considerations of this feat. For that one guy, it's so-so at best. The real advantage/power is when it's used by multiple people at once, because the penalty is untyped. Get five people with the feat, and you've got a group effort that inflicts a -8 to all attacks and 40% arcane spell failure against any one of the taunters.
I'm not going to touch the fluff aspects of the feat and its implications. I am going to touch upon the tactical considerations of this feat. For that one guy, it's so-so at best. The real advantage/power is when it's used by multiple people at once, because the penalty is untyped. Get five people with the feat, and you've got a group effort that inflicts a -8 to all attacks and 40% arcane spell failure against any one of the taunters.
I thought even untyped bonuses didn't stack if they came from the same source? Like how you can't cast Enlarge Person twice to grow two size categories?
I'm not going to touch the fluff aspects of the feat and its implications. I am going to touch upon the tactical considerations of this feat. For that one guy, it's so-so at best. The real advantage/power is when it's used by multiple people at once, because the penalty is untyped. Get five people with the feat, and you've got a group effort that inflicts a -8 to all attacks and 40% arcane spell failure against any one of the taunters.I thought even untyped bonuses didn't stack if they came from the same source? Like how you can't cast Enlarge Person twice to grow two size categories?
That is correct, but multiple chances to make the enemy make bad tactical choices is still a good thing.
I'm not going to touch the fluff aspects of the feat and its implications. I am going to touch upon the tactical considerations of this feat. For that one guy, it's so-so at best. The real advantage/power is when it's used by multiple people at once, because the penalty is untyped. Get five people with the feat, and you've got a group effort that inflicts a -8 to all attacks and 40% arcane spell failure against any one of the taunters.I thought even untyped bonuses didn't stack if they came from the same source? Like how you can't cast Enlarge Person twice to grow two size categories?
It's not really the same source, as it's a separate application each time from a different person. Enlarge has text explicitly calling out that it doesn't stack with multiple castings.
The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Quoted for emphasis.
It depends on the person and the circumstance. This feat bypasses all of that.
Only if a GM doesn't apply appropriate circumstance modifiers on the skill check.
If the feat is bad because it depends on a skill check that needs to have appropriate circumstance modifiers judged and applied, every single mechanism in the game that involves skill checks is broken, because they all assume the GM is applying appropriate circumstance modifiers.
It would have been nice if there had been a table of typical circumstance modifiers attached, to make things easier on novice GMs, sure. That isn't actually a defect with the mechanic, it's merely a failure to include hand-holding.
I feel that it was designed to be used when the party is facing someone who is already intent on kicking their @$$es, and therefore is not making a decision that is out of character. It is meant to make a hostile creature so mad that it gets a little sloppy. When used on a pacifist or a scared npc it should only serve to make that person think you're a d**k. That's what I feel reason would dictate.
It's not really the same source, as it's a separate application each time from a different person. Enlarge has text explicitly calling out that it doesn't stack with multiple castings.
The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
Being from the same source trumps being untyped. And yes, it's the same source; you can hardly have two sources more "same" than the same feat. Enlarge Person was a bad example, but there are countless others without similar text and which still don't stack. You couldn't have two characters cast Bestow Curse to give one target a total of -8 to attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks - because it doesn't matter that the penalty is untyped or the casters are different when it's still the same spell.
I'm not going to touch the fluff aspects of the feat and its implications. I am going to touch upon the tactical considerations of this feat. For that one guy, it's so-so at best. The real advantage/power is when it's used by multiple people at once, because the penalty is untyped. Get five people with the feat, and you've got a group effort that inflicts a -8 to all attacks and 40% arcane spell failure against any one of the taunters.I thought even untyped bonuses didn't stack if they came from the same source? Like how you can't cast Enlarge Person twice to grow two size categories?It's not really the same source, as it's a separate application each time from a different person. Enlarge has text explicitly calling out that it doesn't stack with multiple castings.
The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.Quoted for emphasis.
I was in a debate this year about penalties stacking I still read it wrong.
...too many rules.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just realised we've been arguing about the wrong feat. Whatever antagonize's flaws, that's not the issue at hand.
Is antogonize a broken feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please stop your lies.Well, if this was ever a constructive conversation it has ceased to be. I'm out.The "pad the furniture" and "adult" statements did not go over well. I assumed you were trying to be insulting so I felt the need to defend myself. Oh well..
edit:to correct quotes.
Assuming the worst in people is a common theme in this thread.
--
All I'm trying to do is sort out what everyone actually has against this feat. I have heard lots of reasons. Few hold up.
1. "My pacifist character is now attacking this defenseless child of his own free will."
It is a mind-affecting effect. Are people not getting this? The character is not acting of his or her own free will. That's what that means.
2. "It removes player agency."
This feat does not remove player agency. It just limits it to one of four options. And guess what? Two of those options aren't even explicitly attacks. Kid taunting your paladin? Target him with Virtue. How's that for turning the other cheek? Don't have any spells? Use a trip or disarm "in place of a melee attack." Choose to do nonlethal damage (-4). Choose to attack defensively (-4). Drop prone first (-4). Do all three (-12).
3. "Anything that isn't hitting stuff should only be done with magic."
Yes, mind-affecting effects are usually the provenance of magic. However there is all kinds of precedent for extraordinary abilities achieving the same effect as supernatural and spell-like abilities or spells. And if it's that big a deal, just make it a supernatural mind-affecting effect. There's precedent for supernatural feats, too.
4. "I don't like this"
This is reasonable.
5. "I don't like this and no one else should have it"
This is, frankly, childish.
6. "It is mechanically flawed"
Also reasonable. And maybe even constructive! Once we've narrowed it down to a matter of implementation, we can try to fix it. Maybe it needs a Will save. Maybe the DC needs to scale. That's easy enough to tweak. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
What if we stop looking for ways the feat will ruin our fun and start looking for ways to have fun with the feat?
I probably could fix it, but the feat "as is" which is what this discussion is about is borked. It would not even be the same feat after I got done with it, most likely, except in name alone.
Now if the thread was about "how to fix antagonize" then I think the tone would have been different.
There were some decent ideas about how to fix it in the other thread.
For the diplomacy part, I would actually make decrease the duration but increase the effect. For the next 5 round the opponent would have the penalty to all spells and attack rolls directly against you. The flavor is that he is so agitated that he can't think straight.
This allows you to affect the opponent without the GM or player losing the ability to make decisions for the character.
For the intimidate section it would work like a fear affect. For the next 5 rounds the opponent would be so unnerved they find it hard to face you in combat. Their AC would drop by 2 against your attacks, and their attack rolls receive have to overcome a 20% miss chance since they don't really want to hit you. If the victim is a caster there is a 20% chance they target another opponent or an ineligible target. For this purpose of this feat targeting includes AoE's, and summon spells.
This would be because they don't want to make you more upset. It also lets the player choose if he will attack the person and risk wasting a resource or do something else.
PS:I might start it at 3 round and add another round for every 5 by which the DC is beat. That 20% might be a little high also.
PS2:This is just something I came up with quickly so it not be feasible in actual play .
1. "My pacifist character is now attacking this defenseless child of his own free will."
It is a mind-affecting effect. Are people not getting this? The character is not acting of his or her own free will. That's what that means.
That is what it normally means, but the way the feat is written the character is making an active choice.
2. "It removes player agency."
This feat does not remove player agency. It just limits it to one of four options. And guess what? Two of those options aren't even explicitly attacks. Kid taunting your paladin? Target him with Virtue. How's that for turning the other cheek? Don't have any spells? Use a trip or disarm "in place of a melee attack." Choose to do nonlethal damage (-4). Choose to attack defensively (-4). Drop prone first (-4). Do all three (-12).
Many GM's would see this as gaming the system. An attack is assumed to be to the best of your ability. If I dominate someone and tell them to kill a party member, I don't expect for them to drop the greatsword, and use a table leg instead. I know this feat is not dominate, but the game assumes lethal attacks or made. A GM could turn a blind eye, but that is GM Fiat again.
3. "Anything that isn't hitting stuff should only be done with magic."
Yes, mind-affecting effects are usually the provenance of magic. However there is all kinds of precedent for extraordinary abilities achieving the same effect as supernatural and spell-like abilities or spells. And if it's that big a deal, just make it a supernatural mind-affecting effect. There's precedent for supernatural feats, too.
Some extraordinary affects make sense this way. Others do not. I do think it should be supernatural as written, but that involves changing the feat, meaning it is not the one in the book, which is being discussed.
5. "I don't like this and no one else should have it"
This is, frankly, childish.
A more accurate quote is "It should never have been made.", at least in its current form.
6. "It is mechanically flawed"
Also reasonable. And maybe even constructive! Once we've narrowed it down to a matter of implementation, we can try to fix it. Maybe it needs a Will save. Maybe...
My previous post answered this.
PS:Many of us don't have 8 hours a day to fix rules. I will also add that many GM's that are great story tellers are really bad with balancing things. That is why Paizo is in business. Some of the others don't have the ability, at least not yet. Some never will. That is another reason why "The GM should fix it", in any of its various forms is not an acceptable notion.
I like the idea of the feat and really don't see any of the problems.
1: Would only happen if this defenceless child targeted him with this feat. So what?
2: Depends on the situation. If in lethal combat it calls for a lethal response. If a child throws some stone at you and antagonizes you after that, just pick up a pebble too and throw it.
3: Don't see that as a problem
4: I do like it
5: If it's the GMs opinion that he can forbid it. Else, bad luck
6: I don't see the flaw. At all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, would a civil court accept the statement "Your honour, I was antagonized." as a valid defence against assault charges? Would the neighbours understand if the local fishmonger flew into a rage against a verbally abusive passer-by and flipped his stall?
|
I hate it because it it makes a character do something whilst making the character responsible for that action.
This is what I mean. I go through life and occasionally I feel the urge to punch someone in the face because he's being a jerk. I don't do this because I am a civilised person, not a caveman. If I did go round punching people in the face I would be quite rightly held responsible for those assaults.
Now if I had been hypnotised into hitting people by an unscrupulous hypnotist (and such a situation was common knowledge) I would not be seen as the perpetrator but as an additional victim.
That is what we have here. If you fly into a rage and hit people then you are the perpetrator, not the victim. If however your will was taken by a dominate spell or similar you are not at fault.
If the feat made you redirect an attack to yourself that had already been declared then fine, if the feat imposed penalties to your actions if you attack someone else then again fine. The fact is though that it makes you forcably lose your cool and attack someone. Worse, you have to then take responsibility for an action that you were forced to do.
That sucks.
The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it
I'd say if everything is peaceful, then someone antagonizes you so that it could be harmful to you to attack him that part above triggers and the effect ends.
The feat is ok, you just have to use it as written.
Example: You are at a duke's court when the duke's son antagonizes you. It would clearly be harmful to attack him. As that's the case the effect ends.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Broaden the definition of "harmful" enough and the feat becomes worthless.
Sure. But definitions like that come up often in pathfinder.
Same with char person and the like.
I'm sure asking a charmed person to attack the duke's son during a peaceful celebration would count as asking him to do something that endangers him/her for sure. Because in most cases it would make you dead.
It's the GM's job to judge what counts as harmful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All uses of Antagonize are harmful. If it's not going to put the victim in some danger, direct or indirect, it's not worth using. If you're going to count such indirect sources of danger as harmful, then most of its already-limited standard combat uses will be turned off as well.
The examples of what count as harmful in the text - a wall of fire or chasm in the way - make it clear to me that the designers define "harmful" for the purposes of Antagonize as the presence of some physical obstacle in the way that will damage the antagonized person if they run into it to go after the antagonizer. "It would clearly be smarter to attack someone else instead", "You're a pacifist and shouldn't attack", and "The duke will be mad" are an entirely different type of harm that doesn't seem to be covered.
I see a few people posting about it not having a saving throw. Is it really much different to have a set DC rather than a saving throw.
I mean look at how it scales.
The DC is 10+ HD + Wis Modifier.
The Intimidate check is 1D20+ Rank + Charisma Modifier + 3(if class skill)
I assume that on the average its around 50/50 chance of working.
Also keep in mind this rule i don't think anyone took into account.
In Diplomacy it reads;
You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier.
The Feat changes Attitude to Hostile for a round.
In the Intimidate skill you can demoralize or Influence Attitude. The Feat influence's attitude.
I'd assume that this feat cannot be used upon Player Characters.
Also, it mentions in Influencing Attitudes(Diplomacy) that it is up to GM discretion if it can work in certain situations.
So maybe it's not as broken as you think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's "broken" because the intended use for the feat (taunting a bad guy into attacking you) should not even need a feat in the first place. That should be achieved through roleplaying.
It's all the unintentional uses this feat can produce that are problematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's "broken" because the intended use for the feat (taunting a bad guy into attacking you) should not even need a feat in the first place. That should be achieved through roleplaying.
It's all the unintentional uses this feat can produce that are problematic.
That would be true if we all had reasonable Game-masters who allowed such a thing to happen. Not every Game-master would let it happen unless there is a mechanic sadly.
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.
A Paladin is not going to fall just for punching someone who provoked him, that is complete BS. Punching someone who is insulting you deity is not an evil act. The feat allows you to roll sense motive to gain a bonus to the roll. This means you are tailoring your words to the opponents weak spots. The Obvious way to anger a paladin is to insult his deity. A paladin of Sarenrae that hears you yell that Sarenrae F**k goats is not going to fall for punching your lights out.
It also takes a willing EVIL act to cause a paladin to fall, not a chaotic one. I would also say that insulting a paladins responding to an insult to his deity is acting in a lawful manner. This is not a modern setting until very recently defending your honor was your right. Even using lethal force when doing so was acceptable.
That is what it normally means, but the way the feat is written the character is making an active choice.1. "My pacifist character is now attacking this defenseless child of his own free will."
It is a mind-affecting effect. Are people not getting this? The character is not acting of his or her own free will. That's what that means.
"The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell."
Must. They don't get a choice. There is no free will involved there.
Many GM's would see this as gaming the system. An attack is assumed to be to the best of your ability. If I dominate someone and tell them to kill a party member, I don't expect for them to drop the greatsword, and use a table leg instead. I know this feat is not dominate, but the game assumes lethal attacks or made. A GM could turn a blind eye, but that is GM Fiat again.2. "It removes player agency."
This feat does not remove player agency. It just limits it to one of four options. And guess what? Two of those options aren't even explicitly attacks. Kid taunting your paladin? Target him with Virtue. How's that for turning the other cheek? Don't have any spells? Use a trip or disarm "in place of a melee attack." Choose to do nonlethal damage (-4). Choose to attack defensively (-4). Drop prone first (-4). Do all three (-12).
Why can't this be role-playing? Your pacifist monk struggles to fight the rage growing inside him. He falls to the ground and lashes out weakly, desperately trying to temper the blow to avoid harming the Evil-GM-Character-breaking-Inexplicably-Trained-in-Intimidate-Homeless-Begg ar Boy.
Weren't people complaining about how this feat kills role-playing?
PS:Many of us don't have 8 hours a day to fix rules. I will also add that many GM's that are great story tellers are really bad with balancing things. That is why Paizo is in business. Some of the others don't have the ability, at least not yet. Some never will. That is another reason why "The GM should fix it", in any of its various forms is not an acceptable notion.
This isn't a "GM should fix it" Feat. This is a "use responsibly" Feat. Which is a label that should be assumed for every aspect of the game. Because if someone is looking to abuse the system or ruin characters or break role-playing, the presence of this Feat is not going to change anything.
Complaining that "jerks will be jerks with this" is pointless, because "jerks will be jerks". We don't ban underwear just because bullies give us wedgies.
Keep in mind i said this is what i assume should work.
Read Diplomacy for changing Attitude. It states that it can only be done on non-player characters and the GM can decide if it couldn't work.
Intimidate uses the same thing for Influencing Attitude.
The Feat Antagonize allows the use of either to change a target's attitude to hostile for a round.
I think the fact that you are influencing the attitude of the target with this feat that it would make it not work on players.
Theres no freewill for the PLAYER because the mechanic is forcing them. The Character in game is making a conscious choice. Which is one of the reasons people have a problem with it.
If it was a super natural effect it would be one thing but its not. Character A insults Character B, Character B loses his cool and decides to fly into a rage. This is how the feat works.
In the whole feat description and write up I cannot find the words "Influence Attitude" at all.Keep in mind i said this is what i assume should work.
Read Diplomacy for changing Attitude. It states that it can only be done on non-player characters and the GM can decide if it couldn't work.
Intimidate uses the same thing for Influencing Attitude.
The Feat Antagonize allows the use of either to change a target's attitude to hostile for a round.
I think the fact that you are influencing the attitude of the target with this feat that it would make it not work on players.
I'm not sure if its correct i said this is what i'd assume. That's it just an assumption.
In the feat it says; You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility.
That's what i'm basing it all on.
Using that assumption makes the feat work fine without any s$~@. Since it would work the same way as Influencing Attitude in the Diplomacy skill.
Except Diplomacy takes a full minute to use and can at best move them up a few friendliness categories and is often not usable on characters that mean you harm. And certainly doesn't give you a 'command' like control over their actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theres no freewill for the PLAYER because the mechanic is forcing them. The Character in game is making a conscious choice. Which is one of the reasons people have a problem with it.
If it was a super natural effect it would be one thing but its not. Character A insults Character B, Character B loses his cool and decides to fly into a rage. This is how the feat works.
"Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility."
Make. Not convince. Not a choice. Creature == character. Creature != player.
"On its next turn, the target must attempt..."
Must. Not a choice. Target == character. Target != player.
The only choice, the only decision that the character gets to make is how to attack the Antagonizer. This is how the feat works.
So its a magical compulsion effect then?
Because in character "He used a feat on me I had no choice!" doesn't make any sense what so ever.
Except Diplomacy takes a full minute to use and can at best move them up a few friendliness categories and is often not usable on characters that mean you harm. And certainly doesn't give you a 'command' like control over their actions.
Does anyone actually read posts before firing off rules and copy/pastes.
I understand how Diplomacy works.
I said that if i assume that using Antagonize is kinda like using Diplomacy/Intimidate to Influence Attitude. Then you can't use it on player's and even use on NPCs would be at GM discretion to stop dumb things from happening like everyone is saying.
I'm not saying i'm right by RAW i'm saying this is how i would handle it in my game. Using it for what i think it was intended for.
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.Except Diplomacy takes a full minute to use and can at best move them up a few friendliness categories and is often not usable on characters that mean you harm. And certainly doesn't give you a 'command' like control over their actions.Does anyone actually read posts before firing off rules and copy/pastes.
I understand how Diplomacy works.
I said that if i assume that using Antagonize is kinda like using Diplomacy/Intimidate to Influence Attitude. Then you can't use it on player's and even use on NPCs would be at GM discretion to stop dumb things from happening like everyone is saying.
I'm not saying i'm right by RAW i'm saying this is how i would handle it in my game. Using it for what i think it was intended for.
Check again i was never arguing. I kept saying this might help the feat and that it was my assumption that it would work. You and others just kept arguing with me.
It's a really simply assumption. Normally as per Diplomacy and Intimidate you can't influence the attitude of a player character.
So if you use that logic with this feat it influences attitude of its target and thus can't be used on a player. That's all i was trying to say.
So its a magical compulsion effect then?
Because in character "He used a feat on me I had no choice!" doesn't make any sense what so ever.
Do you have the same objection to Deceptive Exchange?
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Feint.
Benefit: If you successfully feint an opponent, you can trick that opponent into accepting a one-handed object you are holding instead of denying that opponent its Dexterity bonus to AC against your next attack. The opponent must have appendages capable of holding the object you offer, and it must have one such appendage free to take the object.
And to avoid a derail, my point there is that there seems to be this weird ideological divide that anything that makes you "act out of character" must be magic. Which is silly, because people act out of character all the time, due to circumstances.
For instance, I'm usually a really nice guy. But I turn into a jerk when I'm hungry. I don't want to be a jerk. I don't choose to be a jerk. But I'm really unpleasant until I get some sugar in my blood ("redward, have you been hungry this whole thread?").
Haven't you ever said or done something out of anger that you instantly regretted? Was it a choice, or did it just slip out?
People can be tricked. People can be provoked. It doesn't take magic to do it.
That feat is also goofy as hell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to see how this goes down in game in character.
Fighter: "Dude... What the hell... You could of saved him, our rogue, you could of saved our rogue. you had spells left, he just needed a cure light wounds. But... but... you let him bleed out... you let him die. You just abandoned him and let him die to go fight the Orc, You loved the rogue! You are carrying his child!."
Bard: "I had no choice! You heard the orc! You heard what the orc said about my lousy drunken father! I had to just charge him and make him pay, I had no choice!."
Fighter: "That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, you weren't even armed! And he died begging you to help him! Besides you insult your father all the time."
Bard: "Yes I do, but hes an orc, so I had to attack. Not my fault though, I had no choice."
Fighter: "It's totally your Fault! You don't even have any issues with Orcs normally."
Bard: "No way man, you heard those insults. I HAD to do it. That green bastard was going down."
Bard: "No way man, you heard those insults. I HAD to do it. That green bastard was going down."
Except nonlethal isn't restricted by the feat.
So you don't have to kill.
Bard: "No way man, you heard those insults. I HAD to do it. That green bastard was going down."Except nonlethal isn't restricted by the feat.
So you don't have to kill.
Eh, okay amend that line to "No way man, you heard those insults. I Had to do it! That green bastard was going down... non-lethally!"
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.
Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:
1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.
I want to see how this goes down in game in character.
Fighter: "Dude... What the hell... You could of saved him, you had spells left, he just needed a cure light wounds. But... but... you let him bleed out... you let him die. You just abandoned him and let him die, You loved him! You are carrying his child!."
Bard: "I had no choice! You heard him! You heard what the orc said about my lousy drunken father! I had to just charge him and make him pay, I had no choice!."
Fighter: "That is the stupidest thing I ever heard, you weren't even armed! And he died begging you to help him! Besides you insult your father all the time."
Bard: "Yes I do, but hes an orc, so I had to attack. Not my fault though, I had no choice."
Fighter: "Its totally your Fault!"
Bard: "No way man, you heard those insults. I HAD to do it."
Why is a pregnant Bard fighting an Orc?
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:
1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.
I would respectfully submit that 2 applies to every aspect of Pathfinder. The game begins and ends with a social contract to not be a jerk. Poker is not broken just because I can hide an ace up my sleeve.
I would respectfully submit that 2 applies to every aspect of Pathfinder. The game begins and ends with a social contract to not be a jerk. Poker is not broken just because I can hide an ace up my sleeve.Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:
1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.
Yes but in Poker if someone calls you a dick you aren't forced by the rules to toss down your straight and attack them from across the table.
Why is a pregnant Bard fighting an Orc?
Good point, I now see how viable and not-ridiculous this feat is!