Arisps's page

I think you need to clarify what exactly, it is that you want.

I have, had you read my suggestions you would see it

In some posts, you bemoan the tendency of NPCs to be played as fighting to the death;

yet you defend an abstract mechanic, which forces those same NPCs to act in a foolish way, that will result in their (more likely, and earlier) death.

That s not true I don t defend the rule AS IT IS period.

but i ll add again NOT WITH THE CURRENT mechanics but with the ones I(and many others) have suggested. With these modifications everything would seem normal

So which is it?

Do you want NPCs to behave, as sensibly, and with as much self-preservation, as if they were being played as a PC?
Or not?

Most certainly yeah but don t twist that and say that antagonize doesn t do that because I madeit so clear i don t support this antagonize

Okay, this is kind of an odd assertion to make. Two-weapon fighting is almost always seen as worse than two-handed when trying to be a "juggernaut of destruction," but okay. I'm interested in hearing more of your reasoning on this. What are you basing this off of?

It s worse at level 1, but it improves fast

if you compare a 2 shortsword fighter and a greatsword fighter.

Both short swords benefit from weapon specialization,and improved critical.
You can wield two magic weapons but only 1 two handed

ofc it s not that simple cause it gets complicated with reach weapons and high crit weapons as the falchion.

But the two weapon fighting pays off in the higher levels

A dual weapon fighter with weapon focus and specialization is the juggernaut of destruction.

Weapon specialization stacks with crit,naf said.

Consider weapon specialization as a constant rage without the penalties(but only in terms of damage)

Is your concern to create something balanced and viable for everyone or to make something artificial and overpowered?

Exotic weapons are not suppose to be so much better than martial, but only to give a little something better...

Arisps wrote:

NPCs should be no less willing to escape death than PCs...In most GMs NPCs allways fight to the last man.

That's because the overwhelming majority of PCs are, regardless of alignment or wealth, a gang of murderous hobos.

That s unfortunatelly true...I thought that in PFS this would be less issue because the xp is fixed whether the grp anhilates everything or not.

To my surprise even when we could easily bypass enemies, battle was the only option...

However I believe that both gms and players are going to that direction. Add to that that the game lacks a solid rule for either side to surrender without total anhilation...

Many good GM's do have bad guys try to escape. I do agree it is always silly to for an NPC to fight to the death.

You are getting mad again. Nobody is saying the skill DC's are bad overall. They are saying the way skills work does not go well with the antagonize feat. It is too easy to effect a creature that is well above your CR/APL range with the intimidate aspect of it.

That is why I suggested using diplomacy to make someone want to fight you, and intimidate to make them not want to fight you. That way the size bonus to intimidate makes sense since it is easier for a bigger foe to make someone think twice about attacking them.

What most of you were supporting was to blantantly ban the feat. At least that s what I understood.

If you plan to ban the feat only to make something better from scratch you have my full support. Banning the feat and leaving a gap is what I strongly oppose.

"Fight me nao bro" should be given mechanics too, because it is realistic and in life(ofc not with that quote)..."Pick someone at your own size" "Let s solve this man to man" etc

And another issue is this:

NPCs should be no less willing to escape death than PCs...In most GMs NPCs allways fight to the last man. That s not real. Badly beaten NPCs should be possible to be intimidated or diplomaticly surrender...At a high DC ofc.

But who would dare introduce such a thing with those skill so blatantly abused...

It is clear that intimidate and diplomacy bonuses should be considerably nerfed, and give the skill specific AND balanced solid mechanics for surrender,drop weapon,hold action etc...

The weapon specialization feat

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th.

give these hard prerequirements for exotic weapon proficiency and I may agree that exotic weapons should give average 2 points of damage.

Arisp from what I understand you want the feat to either force someone to attack or not do anything at all.

You also don't have anything in place to account for a person's personality which would actually determine if they would choose to attack.

As of right now most of your mathmatical solutions still lead to a very high 80% or higher success rate. Are you saying that success is something you are trying to promote?

If I have made any errors feel free to correct them.

Yes you r bad sorry, maybe i m not explaining well where you r bad...

Ok I d like to straighten out some things about the feat...

1) First of all about the DC. It s not the antagonize feat's fault that intimidate can be maxed out so easilly...there r so many feats,traits racial bonuses to intimidate unlike any other skill...persuasive, skill focus, intimidate prowess...basicly any feat that deals with intimidate is gonna be OP...What other skill gets 2 abilities to work with and 2 other skills as synergy?(bluff,diplomacy)

So how the max out intimidate is the antagonize's doing?
It s all those other feats and traits that are OP...one stand alone is not a big deal but all stack together is a major trouble...
But it s difficult to nerf all that suddenly

THEREFORE: Increase DC and problem solved...

2)Ranged should be able to attack at the best of their ability(bows or magic) so remove the melee from feat description.

3)A person should be given the pacifist option without effort since the effect is not magical...
THEREFORE: allow the target to be dazed for just a round...that s not too much and don t forget that the antagoniser ALSO kinda lost his round antagonising

And you keep saying I don t take account what you say...
I ve taken to account everything you guys have said and STILL...

opposition...well that s a bit frustrating...and sorry if i lost it.

Arisps, I certainly don't mean to attack you, but telling us english is your second language doesn't give you license to be mouthy; there are plenty of ways to disagree politely at any level of fluency. And yes, that goes for myself, and everyone else on the thread.

yeah sorry i just get frustrated when arguements I ve dealt with keep coming

And grammar.

wanna change the language to greek to see how many mistakes you will make?

Ashiel wrote:

Arisps wrote:

Also non-humanoids don t get to choose feats they only have predetermined special abilities... Unless things changed and i can roll a rogue Tarasque now

This confirms my suspicions. You haven't been playing this game for very long, have you? You don't yet know how feats work it seems, and you seem to be under some sort of delusion about how NPCs work in general.

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the system more, before arguing it so fervently. For example, there is nothing special about humanoids nor their feat selection. A dragon, giant, ghoul, solar, or aboleth can choose different feats as well as anything else. The only creatures that cannot choose feats they would otherwise qualify for are mindless creatures, and that is because they get no feats from HD; and only get bonus feats (either from race or potentially class, though I know of little to no instances of mindless creatures with class levels).

As an example dragons have to be pretty much built by the GM. The book only gives you samples.

The book also tells you how to advance monsters by HD or class levels.

Changing a feat to give flavour to a dragon encounter is one thing and taking antagonize with a dragon just to prove that the feat is broken is another...

Btw you gave me the idea to throw in a Red dragon with exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword as a gm...

Now let's get back to the mathematics and logical inconsistencies, hm?

No let us remain to you confusing language with spelling

Arisps wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

How does that address the fact that the feat allows you to make Ghandi attack you?

You r either not paying attentions to my suggestions or you r purposely ignoring them

I NEVER SAID i agree to it

i suggested giving the option to the targeted creature to lose its round
INSTEAD of attacking...

I do not agree with how the feat description was INTRODUCED INITIALY!!!

I just do not believe it s for the trash can...

Am I allowed to have an opinion that is not Black nor white???

Thanks...

Why would the opponent lose its round? If the feat is that good it should have prerequisites.

OMG this thread should be named..."when english language fails"

It doesn t lose its round...it gets a choise, it either attacks OR loses its round...what it can t do is

a)continue watering the flowers
b)heal a nearby ally
c)attack someone else

why?

because it s DISTRUCTED by the INTIMIDATING insults of the charismatic skilled antagoniser....

Get it?

Wow. I don't think anyone can top Mikaze's example, but here's another.

Great Wyrm Dragon is hungry.
Great Wyrm has antagonize.
Great wyrm lands outside village.
One by one, it calls to each person it sees "Hey... Stupidface!.... you're stupid!"
Scared villager #1: "I hate you colossal dragon! Yahh!!!!(charging in)
Dragon: (Gulp)
Dragon: "hey stupid face #2... you saw what just happened to your friend! You're stupid too!"
Scared Villager #2: "No I'm not! Raaaa! (charging in)
Dragon: (Gulp)
Repeat x100
"They wanted to run and hide, but his insults were so bad that they had no choice but attack"
Villager #101: Man everyone's dead, I should just run and try to live through this. I.."
Dragon: "hey last snack! You're stupid too!"
Villager #101: "Oh well... Yaaah! (gulp)
...Seems as illogical as the above dialogue.

That actually depends on the village.

If the village was the average peasant hamlet the dragon would have no chance of antagonizing because at its mere sight the peasants would be running away.

Also non-humanoids don t get to choose feats they only have predetermined special abilities... Unless things changed and i can roll a rogue Tarasque now

How does that address the fact that the feat allows you to make Ghandi attack you?

You r either not paying attentions to my suggestions or you r purposely ignoring them

I NEVER SAID i agree to it

i suggested giving the option to the targeted creature to lose its round
INSTEAD of attacking...

I do not agree with how the feat description was INTRODUCED INITIALY!!!

I just do not believe it s for the trash can...

Am I allowed to have an opinion that is not Black nor white???

Thanks...

Arisps wrote:

Don t make artificial rules... if you want just a higher DC and you are good with the effects. set the base value of the DC higher either to 15 or to 20 as done in many skills

1/2 of intimidate ranks makes no sense at all, since some max the skill not by ranks but by boosting ability or taking feats (feat bonus isn t a rank bonus so the 1/2 does nothing)

If you can t live with the effects even after the modifications suggested...well...I feel terribly sorry for you... :D(consider that as an antagonize check)

A good game designer or GM makes rules that work within the system. Dabbler's idea works within the system so far. If you have an idea that works then present it.

If you are not putting as many ranks into the skill as possible then you are not maxing the skills. Improving a skill and maxing it are not the same thing.
When I was in the military one of my bosses told me he is fine with us criticizing him, but we also better need come with a solution that is feasible otherwise we should just stay quiet.

So I ask what is your solution that is not an auto-success? You know better than to suggest a base DC as 15 or 20 since you know it won't be accepted.

Ok name another skill check that the overall bonuses are divided by 2...

I gave you alternatives pleanty and very good ones, but you refused them all most of em without a solid arguement to the point...

Artificial rules? Do you mean setting the DC to be equivalent to virtually every other non-spell save DC?

Also, what is "maxing" a skill if not putting the maximum ranks into it?

Finally, skill checks never work as save DCs, and the math you project is terrible, because it's entirely linear. To get DCs that aren't insane at high levels, you are nerfing people at low levels. DC = check result - 15 or -20? So you need to hit DC 35 to 40 just go get a DC 20 Will save? Do you even think about what you say before you say it, Arisps?

Meanwhile, a feat that grants two new options which have power based on the amount of investment you have put from your character into two skills which already have their own game mechanics and rules, is more reasonable, and plenty fair.

All of course is assuming that the antagonize feat's effect burns in the nine, and is replaced by something like Dazing and Cowering, instead of the pile of stupid it is now.

PS: Your check must have failed, 'cause I didn't stop what I was doing and run out of my room to try and find you to make a melee attack against you.

I m sorry i don t understand what you r saying i was refering to change the DC to 15+HD+wis modifier instead of 10+HD+wis...

Antagonize doesn t give 2 new options it enhances allready achieved ones(check intimidate skill)

so PS means antagonize is not auto success...

Thank you, Foghammer. I agree with Arisps that my proposed weapons are better than many of the current exotic weapons, but pretty much none of the current exotic weapons are any good, in my opinion. That said, here is a little insight on the design process of each of the above weapons:

elven Bow. You say "19-20 1d10 is weak without justifeing weak. Is it weak because you feel so? don t forget that with a feat or keen option it would go to 17-20, and 15-20 with 18-20. that s too much. if u want to boost it by a little give it an effective range increment... So elven longbow i visioned it more like

1d10 x3 120 ft effective range(+10 then the composite)

Blade: seriously needs the boost i don t think disarm is what it needs.
1d10 19/20x3 looks better to me. It suprises me there isn t a weapon with that properties since there.
Dagger:The elven dagger should be 1d4 18-20x2

when making race weapons it only makes sence for the fighter classes if they r martial, since only these guys would get em. the other classes could get them anyway when their BaB improves with exotic weapon prof. It matters so if they take martial prof or exotic prof?

I believe the whole endevaur to give martial weapons to races is broken...So i prefer the normal Longswords rapiers to elves

Don t make artificial rules... if you want just a higher DC and you are good with the effects. set the base value of the DC higher either to 15 or to 20 as done in many skills

1/2 of intimidate ranks makes no sense at all, since some max the skill not by ranks but by boosting ability or taking feats (feat bonus isn t a rank bonus so the 1/2 does nothing)

If you can t live with the effects even after the modifications suggested...well...I feel terribly sorry for you... :D(consider that as an antagonize check)

Well, a couple of things jump out at me right off....

The Elven Curveblade seems badly overpowered to me, at the very least it's far to cheap for what it does. I'd even go so far as to suggest that it be a masterwork-only weapon to reflect the difficulty in manufacturing such a weapon.

It s only slightly better than a falchion which is martial so yeah i don t think it worths it as any other but an elf...however if u plan to play someone with a falchion u could consider taking elf with CEB...

I suppose by mwr u mean its +1 to attack is exchanged with properties...

But the consider masterwork CEB will remain balanced as long as it remains mwr...but a mwr weapon can be turned to +1 so eventually it s gonna be overpowered cause it +1 outweigh

The rule is simple u can trade weapon properties but not add new cause that shakes the balance...
We don t wanna play in a world that every elf would carry a CEB that sux...

What does Pathfinder Society have to do with with player expectations of individual DMs?

Organized play is a completely different animal from private campaigns.

I don t care about private campaigns at all. At the moment i only play PFS

1)Choose the GM carefully
2)Work with the GM to find a sollution that satisfies all parties...

Craft isn t banned from PFS it is modified.

The only thing the players should expect to be available is the CRB. Any additional books are just the GM being nice, so not allowing the APG, UM, UC, or any other book is not homebrewing.

Read what Pathfinder society allows before you say your....whatever

A good GM can certainly sanitize the feat's use - and jerk players that call "that's not what its supposed to do" get to experience the GM's cold stare.

But i m not those men! I m Salahuddin! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdu0v8ZvlDs

I can live with any modification a GOOD gm will conjure...

However, jerk gms that would try to pacify my feat

selection without any reason, will be reported

Hah! i knew it I m the best!

Check book of vile darkness...chapter 2 it s 3.5 but most 3.5 rules can be adjusted to pathfinder...your gm is probably doing that...R you sure it was undead and not demon?

I don t think that GM of urs played the encounter correct...I think he is using either homebrew rules or has a very specific book...I ll later look on Book of vile darkness if that has anything...

IDK of any undead with ability to possess...but i m sure if there are such there would be info in the bestiary, but usually demons possess not undead...
here s the closest i got

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/demon-possessed -creature-template

When you ban something that s on the books you make your campaign homebrew.period

and not even god can ban antagonize from PFS-games...

Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

HappyDaze wrote:

Son of the Veterinarian wrote:

Elf: Katana/Bows - I see no need to mess with the classics here.

Wait. When the hell did the katana become a 'classic' elf weapon?

The rapier has never really made sense to me as an Elf weapon, and I agree that just saying "longsword" isn't flavorful enough.

So since the "classic" D&D Tolkien elf is supposed to be an extremely conservative traditionalist. One who uses somewhat out-of-date weaponry, but who's weapons are of such high quality and has so much experience that it more than makes up the difference, I thought that the Katana (given it's reputation in pop culture) was a good choice.

Why does the rapier - a weapon that is lighter and more elegant (and that can utilize weapon finesse) - not make sense for elves?

what u say is totaly true but i think that the scimitar fits better to the way we picture elves and their weapons...Rapier looks more man-made.

Ashiel your suggestion to ban the feat is equally(if not more) homebrew
since antagonise is considered a valid feat.

what changes is the approach

You say ban I say fix

Arisps wrote:

Imagine this scene followed by our ill-treated hero suddenly pulling his weapon and gunning the old lady down in the street in front of everybody, of his own free will.

Do you even bother to read what my suggestions are? or you cast yor flames no matter what I say?

That ill treated hero looks to me like he stays staggered after being intimidated... EXACTLY as i have suggested.

Not all people are black or white, yes or no, good or evil....etc

or in case of antagonize supporters or critics....

I ve said pleanty of times

I like the general idea of the feat and I don t like how it works...
but instead of ban I support change
that s the big idea...but you(and others) just continue your one sided rants...

Most weapons suggested are broken even if they r counted for exotic. giving a 18-20 crit to a weapon that isn t supposed to have that means you must either reduce its damage potential or its bonus to critical...

Elven swords don t look nowhere near katanas...

Back to the original thread
You can do that quite easily.

take a martial weapon eg the longsword.
Give it 1 additional property
eg
18-20 or x3 or reach or 1d10 or a medium to light weapon etc

and you have the exotic elven longsword.

or you can add 2 or 3 properties and remove 1-2

so the elven Rapier might be

18-20x3 1d4 damage light weapon (reduced weight can be held offhand, added x3 crit reduced dmg)

yeah the melee word needs to go as well

I think paladins are very easily intimidated...a blashphemy at their god and they will be furious...
Saying to a chaotic person something about his mom he may answer, oh she is dead...even if this is a lie...

Not everyone has time or the ability to correct rules. That is what Paizo gets paid for.

About time

...but it seems everyone has time come here and flame the suggestions in this thread...

About ability

When Epimetheus a Titan was asked to give divine gifts to beasts he gave

speed to the rabbit, claws and teeth to the lion, agility to the monkey...
He was wise but he forgot man. But when he realized it he had run out of gifts.

Prometheus his brother who loved man stole the divine fire(wits and reason) from the gods and gave it to man.

Prometheus paid direly for his insolense...we might as well use it to honor his sacrifice at least...

The antagonize feat is a bit problematic.

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching 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). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

I suggest add to the above bold text:

,or lose its round actions as if dazed.

as intimidate can be viedin 2 ways
1)fear 2)cause rage

How the affected creature should respond to intimidations is something better left to its choosing

There r also some complains about intimidate is easily maxed out
so consider making the DC harder
either 15 + HD or 20 + HD

Lawfull creatures should be easily intimidated, so a -1 penalty to the DC makes sense
Chaotic on the other hand having less moral values should be given a bonus of +1 to the DC

You guys keep saying the same things on and on again without paying attention what we r suggesting...

"On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you." add to that "or lose its round"

Problem solved...if the dc is tested and proven too low maybe 15+HD+wis will do the job

THE EASY THING IS TO BAN A RULE...THE HARD IS TO MAKE IT WORK

and with that I abandon the pointless disputes...Errata has the next word

Rofl... Must screw self over utterly with no saving throw or auto-lose a round. Its worse than the unspeakable UM spell...

I think i'm going to have to exercise greater discipline and ignore this thread. Arisps you are fundamentally wrong on so many points here and yet still arguing for Antagonise that I think further effort to try and convince you is simply wasted effort on everyones part.

If you and your DM think the feat and its effects are fine and your group makes it work for you, good for you :).

we ll see who s right and who wrong on a future errata or a future version of pf...

Up till then noone can prevent anyone from using...I strongly doubt it would be ever banned from the rulebooks

Oh and btw there may be not a will save but there is a considerably high DC(10+HD+an ability is of the highest that are applied in game)

And if a person spends 2-3 feats and 5-10 skill points just to have an autosuccess daze spell 0 lvl .... well i don t suppose it s that serious at all

I hold shares on a caravan and thus i m using intimidating check as a dailly.

I have also the Masterfull Demenaor(human) trait that adds +3 to non-human humanoids.

The question is can I add the bonus of the trait to the dailly roll?

Arisps wrote:

the simple addition of
target must make a melee attack vs antagoniser or lose a round, fixes everything

Yeah, that would work for me.

yes that the easiest and simplest modification

NOTE to cover noobs: A dazed creature doesn t have the option of making a melee attack vs the caster so it s balanced

PROBLEM SOLVED!

Sense Motive because you're seeing through their bluff/ulterior motive for getting you to attack them. And also so it's an opposed skill roll rather than a skill vs. save so the bonuses have a chance of staying in the same ballpark.

Ok check this...

Antagoniser: I will bathe in your blood whimp...
Antagonised: I m mad about it but I m sensing you want to take an attack of oportunity so I m not falling for it.
Antagoniser: But I AM gonna bathe in your blood
Antagonised:Akakaka... i sensed u rolled a 20...

Post above nails it.

Arisps wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

redward wrote:

Neither does Antagonize. It's incredibly specific in what action you must take (in fact, too specific, according to SKR). Must attack you. That's it. Nor does Command for that matter: you get a choice of one of five words. Neither is carte blanche to wave you around like a marionette.

Exactly. Dominate or Charm Person or similar spells give the caster a MUCH higher degree of "control" over the affected target, and for a MUCH longer time-period.

Of course, they're restricted to spellcasters, so they're allowed to be flashy, effective, and powerful; amiright?

As has been repeated repeatedly:

Dominate and Charm Person take into account the personality of the target, give them saves, and are outside forces forcing the target to behave unusually.

Antagonize forces targets to act OOC of their own free will, with no outside force being to blame.

Post below nails it.

that arguement is entirely false the resistance of the target is determined by target s personality and power...What part of DC=HD+wis did u miss?

You simply condemn antagonize because there is some inner belief in you that says
"Only casters can dominate a person"
which is entirely false,both in real life and in fiction...

And if you ask me we need another mechanics charm being able to be used by charismatic characters who have no access to spellcasting...

:|

No. Non-casters could get those results through other methods. Like hypnotism and mind-altering drugs.* Purely mundane means. And they're still outside forces acting on the target. They may force the target to do something they wouldn't normally do, but at least it doesn't steal the player's character by making them do it of their own free will.

That is the distinction.

Also, HD is not personality and Wisdom is by no means enough of a facet of one's personality to sum them up entirely. Low WIS-guy could...

I told you many times that this exists with the diplomacy version ...

We just need something a bit more dramatic for intimidate...
maybe

the simple addition of
target must make a melee attack vs antagoniser or lose a round, fixes everything

Rather than an Intimidate or a Save, make it an opposed roll Intimidate vs. Sense Motive

LOL how sense motive helps versus intimidate? The sense motive result should be:

You sense that your enemy is trying to insult you...

Don t make artificial rules make something that makes sense...

You wanna sense motive this out because you know that the other person is intimidating to get some benefits...That s totally metagame thinking

also
If ur character feels he is in danger he doesn t need sense motive...the effect breaks as he would be moving into danger...

Arisps wrote:

Why should an ungly smelly fat dwarf sorcerer be able to charm someone and a beautiful and charismatic elf ranger can t?

We aren't talking about charming someone; we aren't even talking about controlling someone's desires with a straight DC that's not even difficult to make. As much as I think the mundane need more love, this is not the way to do it. I mean we might as well just have a feat that turns swords into AoE, because it makes just as much sense as this feat and the same excuse can be used.

This debade is not about numbers really...

This is a debade about social skills and how they effect combat.

The easiest part is to make the numbers work, since we can do anything.

The issue is this:

Should Cha based skills Bluff,diplomacy,intimidate play an equally dramatic role as climb,stealth,spellcraft and perception in PF-combat?

My answer is yes what s yours?
The mechanics can be discovered there were quite a few suggestions from various posters in this thread allready...

And btw with the cleave feat it is like having an aoe with a sword

Kthulhu wrote:

redward wrote:

Neither does Antagonize. It's incredibly specific in what action you must take (in fact, too specific, according to SKR). Must attack you. That's it. Nor does Command for that matter: you get a choice of one of five words. Neither is carte blanche to wave you around like a marionette.

Exactly. Dominate or Charm Person or similar spells give the caster a MUCH higher degree of "control" over the affected target, and for a MUCH longer time-period.

Of course, they're restricted to spellcasters, so they're allowed to be flashy, effective, and powerful; amiright?

As has been repeated repeatedly:

Dominate and Charm Person take into account the personality of the target, give them saves, and are outside forces forcing the target to behave unusually.

Antagonize forces targets to act OOC of their own free will, with no outside force being to blame.

Post below nails it.

that arguement is entirely false the resistance of the target is determined by target s personality and power...What part of DC=HD+wis did u miss?

You simply condemn antagonize because there is some inner belief in you that says
"Only casters can dominate a person"
which is entirely false,both in real life and in fiction...

And if you ask me we need another mechanics charm being able to be used by charismatic characters who have no access to spellcasting...

Charm, command, and the like should be skills that can be trainned
maybe introduce new mechanics that the corresponding spells give devastating bonuses to the skill.

Why should an ungly smelly fat dwarf sorcerer be able to charm someone and a beautiful and charismatic elf ranger can t?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

If a rule would cause you to stop playing a game, doesn't that make it a bad rule?

It's not the rule.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to sunder my gear.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to put me to sleep.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM had me fight a guy wielding a shield and a sword.

None of those would be fun.

Are we only doing Feats?

I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to Trip me with Improved Trip.

These are patently ridiculous arguments:
"Someone might use it too much."
"Someone might find a way to be a jerk with it."
"I don't like the idea that it could be used against me."

You can apply those to EVERY RULE.

hahaha that s a good answer...

I wonder what he d do if he buys an expencive plate only to be devoured by a rust monster...

GG QQ

Arisps wrote:

Why would a bard in leather and a d8 die would want to draw fire from a Raksasa on him in the first place?

You haven t tried it ever I have, you are out of your field...so stop trolling...

I am not trolling. I am disproving false statements.

Rakshaka are not good in melee combat. They are pretty bad at it. They just have really good defenses. I don't remember saying the bard had leather armor on. If I did give me a quote.

You can replace bard with another class and get the same result. I could have said paladin or summoner.

The truth is that as you level up antagonize gets easier to make work. If the bard is a half-orc it is an autosuccess.

Stop this really you make no sense at all....Bard is only proficient in light armor as is summoner. They r both hit dice d8 which means low HP and bad armor. This feat would suck on them...

You are just obsessed proving that it can be autosuccess...well it can t play a char with it and you ll see that if you go for autosuccess that would be all your char can do...

Your theories are totally artificial since you never played anything like it...

wraithstrike wrote:

level 10 bard
10 ranks +3 class skill +6 cha mod=19
Rakshasa
10+11 HD+ 1 wisdom=22

The bard only needs a 3 on the dice. Ok so 3 is not an autosuccess, but is an 85 percent chance to succeed.

Don't forget the additional insight Charisma bonus if they make their Sense Motive check.

But even assuming autosuccess, is the Bard going to one-shot the Rakshasa after that initial melee attack?

Exact and into the point!

The feat makes sense only for 3 classes imo...
Paladins Rangers and Battle oracles

who can take a lot of damage

Clerics and Inquisitors not really, for they will need an extra feat for heavy armor

Arisps wrote:

redward wrote:

I do see a lot of ways that this feat could be abused, and I can see a lot of things that would improve the implementation while retaining the intent.

And until it's hit with (further) errata, I also think there's enough room for interpretation in the RAW for the GM or Player to effectively curb the extreme usage.

But I'll ask again: has anyone actually tried using this in a game?

yes me... on 2 campaigns diplomcy is really nice since u can make enemies attack you and not weaker allies...Gm's usually go for the hardest to kill anyway(but this is metagame they do it because if the grp is wiped it s game over) using this feat just gives them the excuse to do it

What is really annoying is that usually it is much better to charge and hit with a weapon than RP with this feat...which is lame...It really needs be made a move equivelant or noone will use it

Autosuccess problem arises but only at beginner levels, later it kinda balances.

That is not true at all. Command which works a lot less than this would can be annoying. If command was as easy to make work as this it would get frowned upon also.

level 10 bard
10 ranks +3 class skill +6 cha mod=19
Rakshasa
10+11 HD+ 1 wisdom=22

The bard only needs a 3 on the dice. Ok so 3 is not an autosuccess, but is an 85 percent chance to succeed.

Why would a bard in leather and a d8 die would want to draw fire from a Raksasa on him in the first place?

You haven t tried it ever I have, you are out of your field...so stop trolling...

Arisps wrote:

Sense motive shouldn t be effective this isn t a bluff it s real intimidation.

Yes, but it's intimidation with a purpose behind it: to get somebody to attack you. As such, it's seeing that insulting you is not the actual objective of the insulter, goading you to doing something is the true - concealed - objective; hence it is a deception, hence Sense Motive should see through it. If you can see somebody wants you to do something, it;s easy to refuse.

No you r actually thinking metagame...The purpose is to make the other peson attack period. There is no lie behind this to be sensed. insulting is the actual intention, he is being provocative

wraithstrike wrote:

The diplomacy part of the feat should make you try to fight them.

The intimidate part should make you try to move away from them.
If you do not attack/flee the person you are forced to take penalties.

this is actually my main quibble with it, flavor-wise, the skills/effects are the reverse of how they should be.

if somebody is intimidated, why should they WANT to fight you?
as-is, the given penalties are WAY too weak (such that nobody discusses that optino, because eating the penalties isn't a big deal)
Intimidate should trigger 2nd if not 3rd degree Fear, Diplomacy/FightMe should trigger serious Concentration checks to pull off any action that ISN'T directly fighting the Antagonizer.

diplomacy needs not change it s very good...this is like saying "Pick on someone at your own size)

intimidate is like saying "I could kill you singlehanded" enemy flies to rage...

it s not a fear effect it s being provocative

fear effect is allready introduced by normal intimidating check

I do see a lot of ways that this feat could be abused, and I can see a lot of things that would improve the implementation while retaining the intent.

And until it's hit with (further) errata, I also think there's enough room for interpretation in the RAW for the GM or Player to effectively curb the extreme usage.

But I'll ask again: has anyone actually tried using this in a game?

yes me... on 2 campaigns diplomcy is really nice since u can make enemies attack you and not weaker allies...Gm's usually go for the hardest to kill anyway(but this is metagame they do it because if the grp is wiped it s game over) using this feat just gives them the excuse to do it

What is really annoying is that usually it is much better to charge and hit with a weapon than RP with this feat...which is lame...It really needs be made a move equivelant or noone will use it

Autosuccess problem arises but only at beginner levels, later it kinda balances.

Arisps wrote:

I came up with a brilliant way to balance this and it will look like command...

Intimidate becomes a supernatural ability

But it's not, it's a skill. I assume you mean the Antagonize feat, rather than Intimidation. I am not sure it needs to be supernatural, given your changes below.

Arisps wrote:

1)Target is entitled a will save. Vs DC=10+antagonizer's cha modifier + level of intimidation(LoI)

2)Level of intimidation is determined by Antagoniser's intimidate check

DC varries.

Empty threats DC = 0 LoI=1
Insult DC = 15 LoI=2
Serious Insult DC = 20 LoI=3
Severe personality insult DC=25 LoI=4

OK, so to get this clear, you make an Intimidate or a Diplomacy check to decide theLoI? That looks much more reasonable so far. I would add that there should be modifiers to this as well:

Target is Lawful: -1 (Lawful characters are more disciplined)
Target is Chaotic: +1 (Chaotic characters are supposed to be more emotional)
Target follows a code of conduct or vow of some sort: -5 (people with vows or CoCs have to have a lot of self-control).

Targets should be allowed to make the check with Sense Motive instead of a Will save, to see that they are being set up.

Arisps wrote:

On success the target must either

a)make an attack(ranged melee or magical) against the antagoniser at the best of his/her abilities
b)Move at his max speed towards the antagoniser
c)Lose his/her standard action for this round.

Any of the above breaks the effect.

Retry impossible in the same day vs same target.

That's a more reasonable set of actions, as you have the option of 'attack at once' OR 'get control of yourself'. Losing a standard action sucks, but at the end of the day, it's an annoyance, not a game-breaker where a character could be forced into a course of action with a heap of bad consequences.

I still don't like the concept behind this feat - I think that you should be able to use Sense Motive or Diplomacy to insult somebody without a feat,...

I like how alignment is implemented...

Sense motive shouldn t be effective this isn t a bluff it s real intimidation.

It needs to be at least spell-like ability or the will saves makes no sense at all.

I think we gave it too many penalties to balance this maybe change from standard action to move equivelant action