| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was the point my paladin is not in control of himself so does not have free will. This means that I do not fall.
The feat DOESNT take away free wil. The Character makes a willful choice to attack the target. Nothing in the mechanics or fluff implies otherwise.
It takes away player agency, but thats not the same thing.
Isn't it? Then who decides what the free will of a character is? The player. So if the player has no choice, 'free will' has been taken from the character. At the same time, he has to bear the consequences as if he did have free will.
It's basically taking the player character out of the hands of the player in question. It's harking back to the early days of RPing when the DM used to say to a player: "No, your character doesn't think that, he should do this..." and you know what? It made the DMs that did it very unpopular and it was bad gaming, period.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Defendant: It's not my fault your honor! The barbarian used the Antagonize feat to take away my free will!
Judge: What do agonizing feet have to do with you choosing to slap the princess? Send him away!
It seems to me a great many people either don't understand, or are choosing to ignore, the difference between characters' in-game perceptions, and the players' out of game knowledge.
Out of game, we know the PLAYER didn't have a choice. In the game the characters (PCs and NPCs alike) have NO CONCEPT WHATSOEVER of the game's mechanics. None of them can say they had their free will taken away precisely because the feat SPECIFICALLY STATES that they were goaded into an act of violence.
How is saying that you need to use the right skill to get the right result GM fiat. So what you are saying I can use either skill to get either result. What I suggested is that the appropriate skill be used for the correct result. I think reasonable for the GM to want to know what the player using the feat says rather than just saying I use Antagonize.
I was speaking of the earlier idea of using the broadest version of the word "harm" as possible to get out of the feat. The book gives a clear example of harm.
As to your "willingly" statement he is doing it willingly according to this feat. That is the issue with it. The player is not in the game world so what the player chooses to do does not matter. It matters what the paladin chooses to do. Normally the player decides, but in this case he does not. That is why we keep mentioning in game justification. "Sir my player lost control of me", is not going to work.
I am glad you agree that it needs more help though.
That was the point my paladin is not in control of himself so does not have free will. This means that I do not fall.
What is the in-game justification? You can use OOC knowledge to justify an in-game action, not at most people's tables anyway. Saying a little girl insulted you is not going to help your case at all.
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).
Known Legal Trouble is a form of harm. harm need not neccessarily be physical, it can be emotional, spiritual or moral as well.
the paladin being antagonized by the little girl counts as under the latter 3 conditions.
and as an example, harm to one's reputation is still harm.
It would harm my sense of self to act according to the dictates of antagonise! Thus, I am immune to it.
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).
Known Legal Trouble is a form of harm. harm need not neccessarily be physical, it can be emotional, spiritual or moral as well.
the paladin being antagonized by the little girl counts as under the latter 3 conditions.
and as an example, harm to one's reputation is still harm.
The issue with this idea is that the feat still sucks, but because it will never work since anyone can think of a way to say the they will be harmed. Emotional guilt can be harm so attacking the antagonizer instead making a better decision can be avoided that way, especially if the action the player would like to take has a good chance at making sure the party wins the fight or saves a party member.
i would expect any emotional or moral aspects to be an established roleplayed part of the character. as examples.
a paladin who goes out of his way to spare and protect children, donate to orphanages and such (in game) for a decent amount of time has proven that a child can't antagonize him because of the extreme percieved moral offense and damage to his honor. an evil dragon or demon could still antagonize him just fine.
a bloodthirsty psychopath or sadomasochist would always be capable of being affected by this feat. such as a highly devout follower of Rovagug or Zon-Kuthon. it would take more than writing "Cleric" and "Rovagug" on your sheet.
if you roleplay your character as an innocent pacifist who wouldn't even harm a fly and has never commited an offensive action out of their own free will. (besides maybe a buff or nondamaging stun) you can consider yourself immune to this feat.
Even evil people can have loyalties. You can just be a jerk to everyone except your party/team.
Basically my point is that you can write your character in such a way as to shut this feat down if a broad definition of "harm" is used.
Even evil people can have loyalties. You can just be a jerk to everyone except your party/team.
Basically my point is that you can write your character in such a way as to shut this feat down if a broad definition of "harm" is used.
you can or you can slap the compulsion tag on this feat.
it would be easier to say that this feat replicates a supernatural compulsion effect.
I agree that an edited version would be better, but then you have to explain how any person can just gain access to magical powers. I think a version where you attack or suffer penalties is better. Maybe even having penalties that increase every round would work. That could represent how hard it is to not act on your emotions.
I would say that each round the antagonizer can use a swift action to continue the feat's results without having to reroll. Maybe a max of 5 rounds would be ok for the feat also.
I do like the idea behind the feat. I just don't like the execution.
I agree that an edited version would be better, but then you have to explain how any person can just gain access to magical powers. I think a version where you attack or suffer penalties is better. Maybe even having penalties that increase every round would work. That could represent how hard it is to not act on your emotions.
I would say that each round the antagonizer can use a swift action to continue the feat's results without having to reroll. Maybe a max of 5 rounds would be ok for the feat also.
I do like the idea behind the feat. I just don't like the execution.
how can any person gain access to magical powers?
multiple easy cop outs
1; "it's fantasy"
2; "there are other supernatural talents besides magic, some of which can be learned outside of the arcane and divine spectrum. anyone can learn a few of these talents with time"
3; "the energies that power magic are akin to the electrical charge within the enviroment, by shaping this energy, which lies in every being, object and substance, one can, with a bit of training, perform minor supernatural deeds or activate lesser magical items."
Except it's not magic. It's a skill.
It works in anti-magic fields, it can't be dispelled, it can't be spell-crafted, it can't be detect magic'd, it can't be overcome by a higher level supernatural ability.
It's BETTER than magic.
Except it's not magic. It's a skill.
It works in anti-magic fields, it can't be dispelled, it can't be spell-crafted, it can't be detect magic'd, it can't be overcome by a higher level supernatural ability.
It's BETTER than magic.
better than magic?
it's limited in function
it has an extremely limited duration
it only works once per target per day, like a witches hex
all it's good for is two things
forcing a wizard to engage the barbarian in melee combat
stripping a paladin of their powers irrevocably. which only has benefit for adversarial DMs.
I agree that an edited version would be better, but then you have to explain how any person can just gain access to magical powers. I think a version where you attack or suffer penalties is better. Maybe even having penalties that increase every round would work. That could represent how hard it is to not act on your emotions.
I would say that each round the antagonizer can use a swift action to continue the feat's results without having to reroll. Maybe a max of 5 rounds would be ok for the feat also.
I do like the idea behind the feat. I just don't like the execution.
how can any person gain access to magical powers?
multiple easy cop outs
1; "it's fantasy"
2; "there are other supernatural talents besides magic, some of which can be learned outside of the arcane and divine spectrum. anyone can learn a few of these talents with time"
3; "the energies that power magic are akin to the electrical charge within the enviroment, by shaping this energy, which lies in every being, object and substance, one can, with a bit of training, perform minor supernatural deeds or activate lesser magical items."
I need a better in-game explanation than "1".
I see no in-game explanation for the others.
Except it's not magic. It's a skill.
It works in anti-magic fields, it can't be dispelled, it can't be spell-crafted, it can't be detect magic'd, it can't be overcome by a higher level supernatural ability.
It's BETTER than magic.
better than magic?
it's limited in function
So are spells other than wish. Buzzz, thanks for playing.
it has an extremely limited duration
Like many magic spells that only work for a round? But still don't work in anti-magic fields, have saves, and can be detected and dispelled?
it only works once per target per day, like a witches hex
Which are magic, don't work in anti-magic fields, and can be detect magic'd.
all it's good for is two thingsforcing a wizard to engage the barbarian in melee combat
stripping a paladin of their powers irrevocably. which only has benefit for adversarial DMs.
You should actually read the thread before commenting. Your first point is patently wrong, as the wizard is not forced to do anything with regards to melee.
Your second point is wrong, as again, if you read the thread, at least several dozen methods of using this feat in a broken way were pointed out.
Ah so we are back in the wonderful undefined world of harm a magic place that shuts down certain spells or feats because we can always list a harmful outcome of any circumstance ever.
Ah so we are back in the wonderful undefined world of harm a magic place that shuts down certain spells or feats because we can always list a harmful outcome of any circumstance ever.
"Harm" is overpowered I say, and I don't mean the spell. :)
I still want to know what the pregnant bard tells the fighter or what the paladin tells the judge in game, in character.
Because I know what they would say if they were dominated via a spell or spell like ability. But I have no idea what they would say in this instance.
Ronin the question keeps getting dodged or maybe the same silence we are getting is the same answer the judge would be getting. :)
Imagine the dexterity it takes to dodge such a question this frequently!
First of all, an evil character with the Antagonize feat who uses it on a paladin is attempting suicide -- that fact just might override his desire to make the paladin fall.
As for defending oneself in court after being the target of the the Antagonize feat, note that the use of this feat requires speech in a language that its target can understand. The target of the feat could repeat what was said to him and possibly gain some sympathy for the "fighting words" he was subjected to, since it is likely that those words would provoke an emotional reaction from people in the court. Depending on exactly what was said, the reaction could be along the lines of "He said WHAT to you? And you only hit him ONCE for it?" Since the Antagonize feat is non-magical in nature, it would actually be fairly easy to convey its impact on somebody in court testimony.
Until you commit assault or murder. Guess what I doubt any court will accept that you should be aquited because some one taunted you for 6 seconds
One thing to keep in mind when you are talking about a games legal system. The concept that all men are created equal and have the same rights did not happen until the birth of America. Prior to that peasants had almost no rights. A lord could pretty much do whatever they wanted to a peasant and nothing would be done. A peasant could be executed for raising his hand to a lord. The fact that the lord was beating him at the time made no difference. in some lands Japan to be specific a noble could kill a peasant for any reason he wanted no questions asked.
First of all, an evil character with the Antagonize feat who uses it on a paladin is attempting suicide -- that fact just might override his desire to make the paladin fall.
As for defending oneself in court after being the target of the the Antagonize feat, note that the use of this feat requires speech in a language that its target can understand. The target of the feat could repeat what was said to him and possibly gain some sympathy for the "fighting words" he was subjected to, since it is likely that those words would provoke an emotional reaction from people in the court. Depending on exactly what was said, the reaction could be along the lines of "He said WHAT to you? And you only hit him ONCE for it?" Since the Antagonize feat is non-magical in nature, it would actually be fairly easy to convey its impact on somebody in court testimony.
That might get you a lesser sentence if the GM is feeling bad about using it, after the fact, but it is not a clear cut way out. If it were just the words, that had that affect in the gameworld then the feat would not even be needed. Once again I see no in-game defense that is working.
One thing to keep in mind when you are talking about a games legal system. The concept that all men are created equal and have the same rights did not happen until the birth of America. Prior to that peasants had almost no rights. A lord could pretty much do whatever they wanted to a peasant and nothing would be done. A peasant could be executed for raising his hand to a lord. The fact that the lord was beating him at the time made no difference. in some lands Japan to be specific a noble could kill a peasant for any reason he wanted no questions asked.
That is all nice, but many GM's have been known to throw PC's in jail or worse. In ancient times martial law was more likely than a life time jail sentence. You did not just help your case. Being a PC does not make you a lord either. I am still waiting on that in game reasoning. It could have been the king's son/daughter who is a brat or spoiled teenager that delivered the insult.
In a world where the Antagonize feat works as written, people would know that, in fact, six seconds of goading by someone properly trained can produce such a reaction, whether they could explain how it worked or not.
("Your honor, to demonstrate the overwhelming nature of the urge, I've brought in Maxar "Taunter" Kleig. You can see that he's big, heavily muscled, and armed with a greataxe. Mr. Kleig, would you please slay that ox of mine there with a single blow. Thank you. Now, judge, we will demonstrate that, in fact, you, and any twenty common folk of this place you choose, are unable to resist the urge to attack Mr. Kleig if he goads you, even though it's obvious that he could cut you down as easily as he cut down that ox.")
A demonstrated fact of reality doesn't need "reasoning" to justify it. People in 1000 BC had no idea how gravity actually worked; this did not stop them from noticing that unsupported rocks do indeed fell. They even expected rocks to fall, even though they had no idea why.
Characters don't know what feats are, and in most games the GM will not allow the reasoning of "he insulted me", even if the GM used that feat, so in game reasoning is still needed.
Trying to say people know antagonize exist is just like saying they know skill focus exist. All they know is that someone is particularly good at something.
There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.
I don't know what you call real accounting but a high wisdome helps protect you from antagonize.
There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.I don't know what you call real accounting but a high wisdome helps protect you from antagonize.
That DC is rubbish. Do you realize how easy it is to get a skill bonus higher than that DC?
I almost never say things like this... the whole "oh it's easy to make the stats awesome and works every time" ... actually I hate that. In this case, it happens to be true.
The skill bonus can be reasonably guessed as around 5-10 points higher that the total hit dice of the creature, especially for a character with a feat dependent on said skill. Assuming class bonus, ability score, and an optional feat or two. That means, given two creatures of equal HD, you need a 20+ Wisdom to resist these mere words, on average.
It is predicated on the notion that you can fix a DC using the math normally intended for saving throws and then just roll a skill at it. Those two mechanics scale very differently.
There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.I don't know what you call real accounting but a high wisdome helps protect you from antagonize.
What about a high Will save? That also represents strength of will, where is that factored in? The only difference in the feat between a pacifistic monk with a Vow Of Peace and a psychopathic barbarian is that wisdom score. That just doesn't hang for me.
forcing a wizard to engage the barbarian in melee combat
I like it when people discuss without knowing about what they discuss.
When you antagonize a mage he can just cast a ray of frost at you or pick up a stone from the street and throw it.
What about a high Will save? That also represents strength of will, where is that factored in? The only difference in the feat between a pacifistic monk with a Vow Of Peace and a psychopathic barbarian is that wisdom score. That just doesn't hang for me.There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.I don't know what you call real accounting but a high wisdome helps protect you from antagonize.
My point was that a lot of people here just throw arguments into the room that are just wrong. And saying that wisdome makes not difference with antagonize is wrong.
Besides, you could argue that the barbarian is used to being angry so it doesn't affect him as much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
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).
This also would have made for a simpler resolution in general, and is a brilliant idea.
You could add the following options for tankybusiness without breaking verisimilitude:
Interpose
Anyone may use a ready action to prepare to interpose (a standard action usable only in response to an attack) against an incoming attack that you are aware of. When you ready to interpose, you do not have to declare what kind of attack you will interpose or which attacker you will interpose against; merely that you wish to interpose.
While readied to interpose, if an ally is attacked and before the attack is resolved, you may interpose to make yourself the target instead. This functions only if you are adjacent to the ally and are also a legal target of the attack. The attack is resolved against you instead. If the effect would attack your ally and you simultaneously, you cannot interpose against the part of the attack targeting your ally.
Improved Interpose (Combat Feat)
Benefit: You may interpose as an immediate action, even if you have not readied to interpose. This allows you to interpose twice in one round if you ready to interpose.
There! The beefy fighter wearing tons of metal can soak attacks without crazy mind control violations of self and will!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a world where the Antagonize feat works as written, people would know that, in fact, six seconds of goading by someone properly trained can produce such a reaction, whether they could explain how it worked or not.
("Your honor, to demonstrate the overwhelming nature of the urge, I've brought in Maxar "Taunter" Kleig. You can see that he's big, heavily muscled, and armed with a greataxe. Mr. Kleig, would you please slay that ox of mine there with a single blow. Thank you. Now, judge, we will demonstrate that, in fact, you, and any twenty common folk of this place you choose, are unable to resist the urge to attack Mr. Kleig if he goads you, even though it's obvious that he could cut you down as easily as he cut down that ox.")
A demonstrated fact of reality doesn't need "reasoning" to justify it. People in 1000 BC had no idea how gravity actually worked; this did not stop them from noticing that unsupported rocks do indeed fell. They even expected rocks to fall, even though they had no idea why.
I think this post aptly demonstrates just how absurd the feat is.
There! The beefy fighter wearing tons of metal can soak attacks without crazy mind control violations of self and will!
GMs: Combine this with crazy mind control violations of self and will for extra fun as the party fighter interposes on behalf of the BBEG!
(not a case against it, just amusing myself)
So long as we agree that the fighter isn't defending the BBEG of his own volition and is being subverted by mental control, thus not being responsible for his actions.
My point was that a lot of people here just throw arguments into the room that are just wrong. And saying that wisdom makes not difference with antagonize is wrong.What about a high Will save? That also represents strength of will, where is that factored in? The only difference in the feat between a pacifistic monk with a Vow Of Peace and a psychopathic barbarian is that wisdom score. That just doesn't hang for me.There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.I don't know what you call real accounting but a high wisdome helps protect you from antagonize.
No, it just doesn't make much difference.
Besides, you could argue that the barbarian is used to being angry so it doesn't affect him as much.
Doesn't change the fact that there are some people in this world all the insults you can imagine will not make them bat an eyelid, and some that will always lose their rag. This feat makes no distinctions between the two, and that's wrong. It takes control of the what the player wants the character to do away from the player, and that's very wrong.
Kthulu: Check out what I wrote above. That version would be more effective at its intended purpose, still not being magic, while removing virtually all of the shenanigans.
The people who are anti-antagonize-as-written aren't always against fighters-having-nice-things.
Because it's semi-effective and NOT magic. Which is BADWRONGFUN.
Dude. Kthu. You're better than that.
There might have been a discussion upthread, right?
This keeps getting lost in the conversation.
The people who are anti-antagonize-as-written aren't always against fighters-having-nice-things.
Almost like there are efforts being made to pervert our message.
Pregnant Bard: "You don't understand I had to let him die and attack that Orc he said this to me! badwordsandinsultsinorc "
Fighter: "I Don't understand, just hearing those words didn't make me fly into a rage."
Pregnant Bard "S!!&, I didn't take the antagonize feat. But next level I will take it and then you will understand."
Fighter: "Okay that makes sense, lets discuss this no more. Also I guess bury the rogue before he smells."