|
Hey everyone - I realise this discussion has been had a fair few times, but they all seem to be about 4 years ago. Antagonize fits one of my characters really well, and I was wondering what people's opinions on it are nowadays - it was considered horribly broken on release (as far as I can tell, because it specified melee attack, so archers + ranged and the like were severely weakened), but people still were saying it's ridiculous after that change. So, some questions:
1: Is it still ridiculously broken? I don't plan on abusing it, or using it to stop story-critical moments for the most part, just so I can get people to focus on me rather than my allies, especially when they're in danger (I'd rather the BBEG attack me, no matter my HP, than the squishy rogue with 5 HP left).
2: The 'in danger' clause really is very easily interpreted in many ways. Would most of you say that receiving an AoO would count as sufficient danger to not move in? It sounds like it's meaning major dangers - huge falling damage, walking through fire, and the like.
3: Is the diplomacy version worth it? The character has high intimidate and diplomacy, so should easily be able to make the DC on almost any character, just seems like the only important bit there is the 10% AFC, not sure if that's enough to justify the feat expenditure (Oracle, so not a huge amount of feats to go around).
Thanks! :)
|
|
1) I wouldn't consider it ridiculously broken (at least not after the change that you noted happened), but it's pretty much guaranteed to work if you've at all put effort into your Diplomacy or Intimidate.
2) I'd personally consider certain provocations to trigger that clause, but not others. The big guy who cut a mook in half in one go? Danger. The scrawny guy with a dagger who can't hit the broad side of a barn? Probably no danger.
3) If they're immune to fear effects but not mind affecting in general it's probably worth it (this FAQ states that ALL uses of the Intimidate skill are fear effects, not just the ones listed in the core book. Expect some table variation on that one.), otherwise no, the Intimidate one is probably always better.
1: Yeah, it is an issue that it's so easy to break the DC, but I think as long as you aren't fragrantly abusing it, it should be fine with most GMs. I know I would be OK with someone using it in combat, but in non-combat situations it's... tricky.
2: Yeah, seems like it's kind of pointless as a feat if a GM rules it as danger for lots of things, but I'd rule it subjectively. If you Antagonize the barbarian with the greataxe, he's fine to go toe-to-toe with you, but if you do it to the squishy rogue, they'll try to shoot you with a bow or throw a dagger. Most characters I'd think the feat would still have an effect, they'd just be smart enough not to charge the scythe-wielding insane lizard.
3: Good to know - I'd forgotten that all intimidate checks counted as fear mechanically, so will keep it in mind. I guess diplomacy may be useful if you're facing a blaster mage (fireballs and the like) where targeting you won't change much, but a 10% failure chance would :)
|
|
Unfortunately the diplomacy one probably won't help against a blaster mage either, because the spell failure only applies if they don't include you as a target or within the area. So fireballing you and everyone around you still works fine.
Yeah, it does, just misremembered it. Oops - move action away from party then intimidate, I guess :P
Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg
|
And don't forget the intimidate option only works once per creature. So no locking opponents to you. That's also a good reason for considering the dimplomacy option. First use intimidate to have the opponent focus on you for a round, then follow up with diplomacy to give them penalties.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Unfortunately the diplomacy one probably won't help against a blaster mage either, because the spell failure only applies if they don't include you as a target or within the area. So fireballing you and everyone around you still works fine.
Well in theory once you get into higher levels you can trigger it rather easily with the Ninja or Mesmerist because those classes can gain swift action invisibility.
Antagonize->Swift Action Invisibility->Move
Unfortunately the diplomacy one probably won't help against a blaster mage either, because the spell failure only applies if they don't include you as a target or within the area. So fireballing you and everyone around you still works fine.Well in theory once you get into higher levels you can trigger it rather easily with the Ninja or Mesmerist because those classes can gain swift action invisibility.
Antagonize->Swift Action Invisibility->Move
That would not work at all.
The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you
Once you turn invisible, unless you turn invisible so poorly that the enemy can locate your spot (your +20 to stealth from invisibility + regular stealth modifier < perception check) he is "prevented form attacking you" and thus you would have wasted your turn.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Unfortunately the diplomacy one probably won't help against a blaster mage either, because the spell failure only applies if they don't include you as a target or within the area. So fireballing you and everyone around you still works fine.Well in theory once you get into higher levels you can trigger it rather easily with the Ninja or Mesmerist because those classes can gain swift action invisibility.
Antagonize->Swift Action Invisibility->MoveThat would not work at all.
The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking youOnce you turn invisible, unless you turn invisible so poorly that the enemy can locate your spot (your +20 to stealth from invisibility + regular stealth modifier < perception check) he is "prevented form attacking you" and thus you would have wasted your turn.
Given the way its written and even someone else pointed out above the rider you cited isn't for the Diplomacy maneuver but the Intimidate. Not saying your wrong but still that is weirdly written.