Fix for Antagonize, Plus a New Combat Maneuver


Homebrew and House Rules

Contributor

So, I'm playing a Charisma-focused fighter in my current campaign (yes, it can be done!) and one of the things I've noticed is how ridiculous the Antagonize feat is. Based on its current wording, its either laughably broken or depressingly worthless; in nearly three levels of play, I've only had the opportunity to use it once.

I've seen many other people also complain about this feat, so I decided to sit down and take some time away from tinkering with my Pact Magic Unbound writings to bring you my musings on two new combat maneuvers; antagonize and parry.

Maybe I'll find a place to put these in print one day in the future, but for now? Enjoy.

Feel free to leave any feedback you might have, and I'll do what I can to update the document accordingly as I deem it necessary.


I think these are reasonable. It also illustrates a need for combat maneuvers based on other ability scores. Its one of the changes I hope see (possibly years and years from now) in a revised rule set.


Personal Opinions:

1) You really shouldn't refer to Antagonize as a combat maneuver. It doesn't involve those rules in any way. It should simply be a "special combat action" or something.

2) Given the nature of skill checks, higher level Antagonize builds using these rules could quickly be crushing the DC on any opponent hard enough that it becomes an easy task for the user to put the condition on anything on the first round and have it last the entire fight. Given the severity of the secondary effect when not targeting the user at higher levels, that is a serious concern.

3) You should probably clarify that every 5 points above the DC increases the duration of the secondary effect by 1 round. I believe that is what was intended based on your writing, but it isn't immediately obvious the way it is worded.

4) The AoE form of antagonize granted by Imp. Antagonize should be a full-round action, not a standard.

5) The Int requirements on Imp Parry and Greater Parry are mostly redundant. You have to have Int 13 to get Combat Expertise, so if you meet that requirement, you automatically meet the same requirement for these feats unless you got Combat Expertise from a class feature. In that case, the class is obviously defense focused in some way, so why deny them this?

6) Using attacks of opportunity to defend yourself is certainly an interesting idea, but I think that in the lower level ranges, a melee focused character with Parry could become near impossible to hit with melee attacks without much cost to himself in terms of action economy. All it takes is 3 feats and a decent Dex to get a chance to parry almost every melee attack targeting you. Maybe consider allowing Imp. and Greater Parry each granting one additional parry chance a round instead.

7) Might want to add something stating that a brilliant energy weapon can't be parried. It just seems like it would fit since it would pass through most manufactured weapons used to parry.

8) I think I would replace the Duelist's Parry ability to something that directly adds to the maneuver rather than replaces strength. Strength could already be replaced with Dex through Agile Maneuvers if the duelists strength is that bad. Adding 1/2 Duelist level to parry maneuvers would probably fit.

Verdant Wheel

Alexander Augunas, cool stuff!
my 2cp:

Antagonize - consider the paradigm:

Bluff - must be either Language-Dependent or Fear
Diplomacy - must be either Language-Dependent or Emotion
Intimidate - must be either Emotion or Fear

Emotion - if the antagonize succeeds by 5+, the foe is also -2 AC against your allies
Fear - if the antagonize succeeds by 5+, the foe is also -2 AC against you

also a little tidbit allowing those with bonuses to saving throws bearing those descriptors to see their Antagonize-CMDs likewise buffed

...

Parry

first i assume that you don't mind adding extra die-rolls to your combats. so no further comment there.

Improved Parry (non-action) seems strong, at the same time finally a nice use for Combat Expertise.

i like where you are going with making opportunity attacks (as well as the immediate action) part of the resource management. however, i feel Combat Reflexes is already a strong feat.

consider making AoOs and Parries mutually exclusive - that is, if you attempt one, you may not attempt the other until your next turn. If you went this route, you could have Greater Parry instead allow the mixing and matching of AoOs and Parries.

further, i would then propose the following for the 'redirect' thing:

Turnabout Parry (Combat)
Prerequisites: Improved Parry, Sneak Attack 3d6, Bluff 5 ranks
Benefit: A character with this feat may use her Bluff check in place of a Parry maneuver once per round against a single foe. If the Parry exceeds, she may redirect the attack she would have sustained to any creature that she threatens that is also within her foe's reach

maybe even!:

Lethal Turnabout Parry (Combat)
Prerequisites: Turnabout Parry, Sneak Attack 9d6, Bluff 10 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you successfully redirect an attack using Turnabout Parry, you may grant your sneak attack dice as bonus precision damage to the attack.

(final thought, these last two could instead be a pair of basic and advanced rogue talents...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stop making us look bad by putting your homebrew through Layout!


Alexander, as I'm sure you're aware, part of being a designer is to be able to defend and explain the reasonings behind your creations. What are your arguments for these being balanced?

Contributor

Geez, I can't even run to Home Depot without being yelled at to defend my design! Sorry, but I really needed some new super glue for my miniatures! 0_0 I also don't particularly feel the need to "defend" my choices considering that I mentioned in my opening post that I wasn't adverse to changing things when the change makes sense.

With that said, its look at people's comments.

Dominigo wrote:
1) You really shouldn't refer to Antagonize as a combat maneuver. It doesn't involve those rules in any way. It should simply be a "special combat action" or something.

Perhaps. One of my biggest pet peeves is that feint isn't listed as a combat maneuver, however. I was toying around with calling it a special action and I honestly will probably do so, because as you said it doesn't interact with the combat maneuver rules at all.

Dominigo wrote:
2) Given the nature of skill checks, higher level Antagonize builds using these rules could quickly be crushing the DC on any opponent hard enough that it becomes an easy task for the user to put the condition on anything on the first round and have it last the entire fight. Given the severity of the secondary effect when not targeting the user at higher levels, that is a serious concern.

I originally wanted it to be around the same DC as demoralizing a foe in combat, but it looks like I imported the errata'd DC rather than the demoralize action's DC, which is 10 + Hit Dice + Wisdom. Considering that

Dominigo wrote:
3) You should probably clarify that every 5 points above the DC increases the duration of the secondary effect by 1 round. I believe that is what was intended based on your writing, but it isn't immediately obvious the way it is worded.

Yeah, the wordage kinda sucks.

Dominigo wrote:
4) The AoE form of antagonize granted by Imp. Antagonize should be a full-round action, not a standard.

When was the last time you used Dazzling Display? Its one of the shiny new toys in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, but I honestly think Paizo dropped the ball leaving it a full-round action. Demoralize isn't a very popular in-combat action as it is, and having to spend your whole turn during nothing, not even moving, to perform Dazzling Display is silly. Its even worse when you realize that the feat requires its user to be wielding a weapon, but because its a standard action you have spend one turn drawing the weapon and then another turn actually using Dazzling Display. In my honest opinion, Dazzling Display is only worth it when you are an Order of the Cockatrice cavalier (like my aforementioned Charisma-based character) because that Order ability gives you Dazzling Display as a bonus feat AND lets you use it as a standard action. This was a case of

Dominigo wrote:
5) The Int requirements on Imp Parry and Greater Parry are mostly redundant. You have to have Int 13 to get Combat Expertise, so if you meet that requirement, you automatically meet the same requirement for these feats unless you got Combat Expertise from a class feature. In that case, the class is obviously defense focused in some way, so why deny them this?

Because that's how Paizo does their formatting.

Dominigo wrote:
6) Using attacks of opportunity to defend yourself is certainly an interesting idea, but I think that in the lower level ranges, a melee focused character with Parry could become near impossible to hit with melee attacks without much cost to himself in terms of action economy. All it takes is 3 feats and a decent Dex to get a chance to parry almost every melee attack targeting you. Maybe consider allowing Imp. and Greater Parry each granting one additional parry chance a round instead.

Note that you can't parry when you're denied your Dexterity bonus to armor class, which essentially means you can completely nullify your opponent's chance to parry by feinting, so a combat maneuver that is never used currently seldom is suddenly very attractive. Also note that you suffer huge penalties to parrying creatures larger than you. Both of which make perfect sense. Also, you can be shot to the Hells and magic'ed up the wazoo. Its honestly not too much different from a character who invests in a high Armor Class; it basically allows a Dexterity-focused character to actually make up for the sheer numbers that you can pull just from wearing a ridiculous amount of armor. I've seen characters.

Dominingo wrote:
7) Might want to add something stating that a brilliant energy weapon can't be parried. It just seems like it would fit since it would pass through most manufactured weapons used to parry.

That's not a bad idea, but at the same time I'm not entirely sure if I'm okay with an entire type of weapon countering an entire combat maneuver. If I decide to do this, I might add a rule that brilliant energy melee weapons can only be parried by other brilliant energy weapons, sort of like light saber duels.

Dominingo wrote:
8) I think I would replace the Duelist's Parry ability to something that directly adds to the maneuver rather than replaces strength. Strength could already be replaced with Dex through Agile Maneuvers if the duelists strength is that bad. Adding 1/2 Duelist level to parry maneuvers would probably fit.

I had a couple different passes on this ability, and I agree that this is the "safest" of them in terms of effects. Originally I just flat-out added Intelligence to checks in addition to everything else, so I think I might revert the change to that. I don't want to do a scaling number since I feel the Int bonus thing fits better with the overall feel of the class (see Canny Dodge).

Contributor

Rainzax wrote:

Antagonize - consider the paradigm:

Bluff - must be either Language-Dependent or Fear
Diplomacy - must be either Language-Dependent or Emotion
Intimidate - must be either Emotion or Fear

Emotion - if the antagonize succeeds by 5+, the foe is also -2 AC against your allies
Fear - if the antagonize succeeds by 5+, the foe is also -2 AC against you

also a little tidbit allowing those with bonuses to saving throws bearing those descriptors to see their Antagonize-CMDs likewise buffed

I want Antagonize to be like Dirty Tricks, because I honestly don't expect any two characters to goad / taunt / jeer their enemies in the exact same way. I think specific conditions based on the descriptor is too complicated, personally. I wouldn't expect myself or my players to remember what bonus applies to what little quirk.

In your skill "requirements," you don't have language-dependent listed under Intimidate, which seems foolish to me considering that 99% of the time if I enrage you, I'm probably going to do it through my words. Same with Bluff; why can't I piss you off via an emotion effect with Bluff? PCs and GMs adjucating the descriptors based on the RP (minimum 1 descriptor) is the best bet in my mind because of this.

Rainzax wrote:
Improved Parry (non-action) seems strong, at the same time finally a nice use for Combat Expertise.

Exactly. Its sort of a feat trap, because while a no-action parry is nice, you're not REALLY going to get your money out of it without the Combat Expertise feat. Which means investing a minimum of three feats into parrying.

[Quote="Rainzax"i like where you are going with making opportunity attacks (as well as the immediate action) part of the resource management. however, i feel Combat Reflexes is already a strong feat.

consider making AoOs and Parries mutually exclusive - that is, if you attempt one, you may not attempt the other until your next turn. If you went this route, you could have Greater Parry instead allow the mixing and matching of AoOs and Parries.

Personally, I see parrying as an opportunity. You're timing your blows just right to block an enemy attack. And if you're blocking an enemy attack, if you're devoting that much focus to one creature, you're less focused on what is going on around you, so you have less "opportunity" as it were to spend worrying about what your other enemies are doing.

I think the system is cleaner and more streamlined using the attacks of opportunity mechanic and it makes parrying and making attacks of opportunity an interesting choice of tactics rather than something you just mindlessly do. Attacks of opportunity are criminally underused in the game as it is.

Rainzax wrote:

further, i would then propose the following for the 'redirect' thing:

Turnabout Parry (Combat)
Prerequisites: Improved Parry, Sneak Attack 3d6, Bluff 5 ranks
Benefit: A character with this feat may use her Bluff check in place of a Parry maneuver once per round against a single foe. If the Parry exceeds, she may redirect the attack she would have sustained to any creature that she threatens that is also within her foe's reach

maybe even!:

Lethal Turnabout Parry (Combat)
Prerequisites: Turnabout Parry, Sneak Attack 9d6, Bluff 10 ranks
Benefit: Whenever you successfully redirect an attack using Turnabout Parry, you may grant your sneak attack dice as bonus precision damage to the attack.

(final thought, these last two could instead be a pair of basic and advanced rogue talents...)

Those two feats don't look like something I'd want to be a feat. Too specific, and I like being able to reflect an enemy's attacks around being something anyone can obtain (not just rogues).

Verdant Wheel

I would still consider allowing Bluff to be used to Antagonize in addition to Diplomacy and Intimidate.

The rest looks good.

Contributor

rainzax wrote:

I would still consider allowing Bluff to be used to Antagonize in addition to Diplomacy and Intimidate.

The rest looks good.

I did reconsider that. I'm working on cleaning up the wordages now; hopefully I'll have the next version up later this afternoon.


Actually, if you check the PRD, being the source that Paizo personally runs, all of the redundant stat requirements you mentioned are removed with the exception of furious focus. The SRD, while useful and larger, is not run by Paizo and may contain outdated information, so you should always double check when you can.

That said, these are your rules, so you can do whatever you want with them. Just thought I would give you my thoughts. Overall, they do look pretty good.

Contributor

The link in the first post has been updated.

Some changes:

Antagonize
--Major rewording for clarity.
--The penalties to the antagonized creature are now bonuses for other creatures (except the antagonizer; this means you.) They are +2 to AC, +2 on Reflex saves, and a 20% spell failure for the antagonized creature. These bonuses are applied on the first turn and last for subsequent turns, but they are also fixed and cannot be increased or decreased by feats.
--Removed the rules regarding the emotion and fear descriptor; it was getting too complicated.
--Added a rule about non-verbally antagonizing opponents instead. It functions very similarly to feinting non-humanoids or creatures of animal intelligence.
--Bluff can now be used to antagonize opponents. There is a shiny-new side bar that gives ideas on how to RP antagonize.

Parry
--Some rewording for clarity.
--You cannot parry a natural 20 unless you possess the Improved Parry feat. This was to combat grumpiness around my table about natural 20s being negated.
--Brilliant energy weapons can only be parried by other brilliant energy weapons.

Feats
--Most old feats have been reworked.
--Many new feats added, including feats that work with demoralize (woefully under supported in Pathfinder).

Enjoy and leave any feedback you might have!

Verdant Wheel

i like most of what you got.

the wonky bit for me is the 'natural 20' being un-parry-able. i would think that this would instead be a 'confirmed critical hit' that couldn't be parried. OR, that a confirmed critical hit that was parried instead had a multiplier reduction of 1x? (how would you word that? merely canceling the crit would be unfair to x3 and x4 weapons which are already left behind with the critical feats) - except of course with Greater Parry? whatever the case, i would change that to be more consistent with critical hits.

also, i think the tactical requirements for Redirecting Parry should include both you and your foe to threaten the recipient of the redirection. if this is your intent it is unclear.

finally there is a typo in the sidebar first sentence under 'diplomacy' you wrote 'cam' instead of 'can'

cheers!

Contributor

rainzax wrote:

i like most of what you got.

the wonky bit for me is the 'natural 20' being un-parry-able. i would think that this would instead be a 'confirmed critical hit' that couldn't be parried. OR, that a confirmed critical hit that was parried instead had a multiplier reduction of 1x? (how would you word that? merely canceling the crit would be unfair to x3 and x4 weapons which are already left behind with the critical feats) - except of course with Greater Parry? whatever the case, i would change that to be more consistent with critical hits.

also, i think the tactical requirements for Redirecting Parry should include both you and your foe to threaten the recipient of the redirection. if this is your intent it is unclear.

finally there is a typo in the sidebar first sentence under 'diplomacy' you wrote 'cam' instead of 'can'

cheers!

The "natural 20 cannot be parried" rule stems from the fact that the rules say a natural 20 automatically hits. It has nothing to do with the critical hit rules. Just because you threaten a critical hit on a 19 with a longsword doesn't mean that it will automatically hit your opponent.

For Redirecting Parry, I foresee wonky problems with this feat no matter which wordage I use. I'm planning on taking it back to the drawing board, but I'm not convinced that using both attacker and parrier reach is the right way to go; problems with things like reach weapons, increased size, and so on could come into play.

Crap. I need to add a rule that states you can't parry a creature that you couldn't make a melee attack against (such as parrying an adjacent creature with a reach weapon).


Should using Diplomacy for Antagonize be language dependant?


For what it is worth, because of the CMB and CMD rules, a maneuver is best defined as "an attack-like action for which the attacker's size is a benefit rather than a hindrance."

That's what it is mathematically, and I really hate when rules (official or house) deviate from that, because it belies a lack of understanding of what it being modeled. I'm with Dominigo, it's a special action.

Liberty's Edge

Off Topic:
What software did you use for this? I have some custom content of my own and making it look nice is something I would like to do. Obviously whatever you were using worked out.

I'll have to look through the content when I have more time, so I'll use this post to "dot" it for later perusal.

Contributor

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Should using Diplomacy for Antagonize be language dependant?

Diplomacy is sort of the catch-all category for antagonize, as mentioned in its side bar. You could totally use physical gags and humor to justify a non-verbal Diplomacy check made to antagonize.

In order words, in the new write up all antagonize attempts are assumed to be language-dependent unless you apply the penalties for a non-verbal antagonize attempt. Its up to you and your GM to determine if a use of antagonize makes sense or not in the same way that players and the GM work together when making dirty tricks maneuvers.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

For what it is worth, because of the CMB and CMD rules, a maneuver is best defined as "an attack-like action for which the attacker's size is a benefit rather than a hindrance."

That's what it is mathematically, and I really hate when rules (official or house) deviate from that, because it belies a lack of understanding of what it being modeled. I'm with Dominigo, it's a special action.

I agreed with Dominingo (and later you) on this as well. When I updated this to the second version, I tried to remove all reference of antagonize being a 'maneuver,' so if any still exist please point them out so I can fix it. Parry, however, falls soundly into your requirements because the bigger you are, the easier it is to parry your opponent. You just also get bonuses if you happen to be bigger than an opponent you're parrying.

StabbittyDoom wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

I'll have to look through the content when I have more time, so I'll use this post to "dot" it for later perusal.

I used Adobe InDesign. I personally use CS6, but CS5 is honestly just as good and I think CS7 is the top-of-the-line program. It takes a little bit of playing to get it to work and you're going to want to google tutorials and stuff, but I find its ultimately worth it. Plus I've started to help Dario with formatting the Pact Magic Unbound series, so formatting homebrew like this is sort of like warm-up for professional products.

Verdant Wheel

Alexander Augunas wrote:
...but I'm not convinced that using both attacker and parrier reach is the right way to go...

why not? and to clarify it's not 'reach' but 'threaten' that is the active verb there. and i think reach and size coming into play is a good, tactical thing to see happen. i feel the phrase "...against a third person whom you and your foe both currently threaten..." will get you some good mileage.


One of the major problems of antagonize is how hard it is to resist thanks to a low DC versus easy to boost Skill. A better solution is to make the check have about 50% chance of success like most other things and give minor bonuses if they have high intimidate RANKS. Something like +1 per 4 ranks.

I'm still a bit flabbergasted about parry to say anything about it.

Verdant Wheel

Cheapy wrote:
One of the major problems of antagonize is how hard it is to resist thanks to a low DC versus easy to boost Skill.

good point. maybe the antagonized can take a move action and be granted a Will save (DC 10+X+CHA) to shake off the effects?...

Contributor

rainzax wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
...but I'm not convinced that using both attacker and parrier reach is the right way to go...
why not? and to clarify it's not 'reach' but 'threaten' that is the active verb there. and i think reach and size coming into play is a good, tactical thing to see happen. i feel the phrase "...against a third person whom you and your foe both currently threaten..." will get you some good mileage.

Overall, its too technical. Stopping the game to figure out both combatant's reach, then determining who's reach is better and where the attack can go will bog the game down. This discussion is making me think the feat deserves to be axed, no matter how cool it is. Using the word person is a bad idea, because then people will explode wondering whether you can only redirect humanoids. :-P

Cheapy wrote:

One of the major problems of antagonize is how hard it is to resist thanks to a low DC versus easy to boost Skill. A better solution is to make the check have about 50% chance of success like most other things and give minor bonuses if they have high intimidate RANKS. Something like +1 per 4 ranks.

I'm still a bit flabbergasted about parry to say anything about it.

Dropping words like, "flabbergasted" and then providing no context for them doesn't really help a designer figure out what you like and don't like about the system.

Changing Antagonize to a Will save does not work for me. The point was to make Charisma-based skills important in combat, and defaulting onto a Will save is simply not enough.

You also have to remember that antagonize's penalty is nowhere near as harsh as it is in Ultimate Magic. The taunted target is basically restricted against taking hostile actions against the taunter, but the antagonized creature is allowed to do what she wants. If she wants to use her hostile action to move into a flanking position against you, she can do that. If she wants to use her hostile action to trip you onto your face, she can do that too. Even the most min-maxed character is going to have a hard time making a build that can counter every possible tactic a character can employ against you.

In short, its supposed to be on the easy side (10 + Hit Dice + Wis isn't THAT bad, after all) because its the only real way in the game for defensive players to really feel like their builds get to shine. Its not fun when you spec yourself out for DPS and the enemies refuse to actually attack you because "they don't have a good reason to." I would argue that a strong antagonize action would make people stop and wonder if its a good option in lieu of ridiculous high DPR builds, which are all the community seems to fixate on right now.

Dark Archive

Just a heads up: The PDF link for Parry is not currently working.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Fix for Antagonize, Plus a New Combat Maneuver All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules