Antagonize (the GM?!)


Rules Questions

551 to 583 of 583 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
Big M wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
The feat clearly says you are incited to a certain action . . . .
Grapple, punch, etc. is all an attack action. You are reading something into the rule text that is not there. No wonder you're frustrated.

Maybe you need to read the feat again. And the description of melee or ranged attacks.

PRD wrote:

Antagonize

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. 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). If it cannot attack 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 attacks you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
PRD wrote:
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
PRD wrote:
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.

Unarmed Attacks, Natural Attacks and Combat Maneuvers have separated descriptions. Combat maneuvers aren't even under the Attack heading.

So you can't give the target a noogie, slap him, grapple or whatever.
Your choices, by RAW, are hitting him with a melee weapon, hitting him with a ranged weapon, affect him with a spell.
The only way not to harm the target is to use some non damaging spell.

No. You wouldn't let someone with invisibility (not improved invisibility) get away with making unarmed strikes while remaining invisible would you? Or sundering? Or Disarming? Grappling? They're still all attacks.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:


That's being a jerk. And if you did that as a player/GM, my problem would not be "you can do that with Antagonize", my problem would be "you're a disruptive derp". Even if there was not Antagonize around, with a mindset like that you would find dozens of ways to go full out jerkass(hey, Wish and Limited Wish are just around the corner!).

So no, not broken.

This is really funny. Your argument that it isn't broken is because, not that it won't work, but that nobody should use it that way.

Isn't that kind of like saying it's ok for a new class to have a 10D6 ranged touch attack at first level at will, but it's not broken because we all have a gentleman's agreement not to use it in a way that hurts the game?

Anything you HAVE to have a gentleman's agreement not to abuse, because it's just that abuseable, is, by definition, borked beyond all recognition. What you're proposing is we houserule the feat to not be used in any way that anyone doesn't like.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
No. You wouldn't let someone with invisibility (not improved invisibility) get away with making unarmed strikes while remaining invisible would you? Or sundering? Or Disarming? Grappling? They're still all attacks.

Invalid argument. Apples vs Oranges.

Invisibility says 'if you attack someone'. It doesn't say 'if you make a melee attack against someone with your weapon'. Thus you're comparing two utterly different things.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mdt wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


That's being a jerk. And if you did that as a player/GM, my problem would not be "you can do that with Antagonize", my problem would be "you're a disruptive derp". Even if there was not Antagonize around, with a mindset like that you would find dozens of ways to go full out jerkass(hey, Wish and Limited Wish are just around the corner!).

So no, not broken.

This is really funny. Your argument that it isn't broken is because, not that it won't work, but that nobody should use it that way.

Isn't that kind of like saying it's ok for a new class to have a 10D6 ranged touch attack at first level at will, but it's not broken because we all have a gentleman's agreement not to use it in a way that hurts the game?

Anything you HAVE to have a gentleman's agreement not to abuse, because it's just that abuseable, is, by definition, borked beyond all recognition. What you're proposing is we houserule the feat to not be used in any way that anyone doesn't like.

The whole core is abusable. Dozens of spells work only if somebody isn't a jerk. The whole game works only if there's a gentleman's agreement on not being a douchebag. I can make you throw me out of your house using core only, I don't need Antagonize for that.

Again, the feat isn't a problem if it's not used for malicious purpose. Like anything else in the game.


ShadowcatX wrote:


No. You wouldn't let someone with invisibility (not improved invisibility) get away with making unarmed strikes while remaining invisible would you? Or sundering? Or Disarming? Grappling? They're still all attacks.

The point is that the subject of antagonize should use an attack that matters, has a real result.

PS:Please don't play semantics with "real result". If you don't really know what I mean give me examples.


Gorby are you saying an NPC should never use this outside of combat to provoke any PC to action or are you only saying it should never be used on paladins?

You don't really need kids to make the feat cost a paladin his powers. Some henchmen who is fanatically loyal could be ordered to use antagonize in the name of his deity, and it would be no different than people who commit suicide in the name of something they believe in.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm saying it should be used with common sense, like any other element of the game.

Liberty's Edge

mdt wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
No. You wouldn't let someone with invisibility (not improved invisibility) get away with making unarmed strikes while remaining invisible would you? Or sundering? Or Disarming? Grappling? They're still all attacks.

Invalid argument. Apples vs Oranges.

Invisibility says 'if you attack someone'. It doesn't say 'if you make a melee attack against someone with your weapon'. Thus you're comparing two utterly different things.

Neither does antagonize. It simply states melee strike, ranged strike, or spell.

Still you may be right, most maneuvers are, by RAW, something you do in place of a melee strike aren't they?

wraithstrike wrote:

The point is that the subject of antagonize should use an attack that matters, has a real result.

PS:Please don't play semantics with "real result". If you don't really know what I mean give me examples.

I've already said, in this thread, that any feat where you have to game the system to get it to work needs to be redone.

Gorbacz wrote:
I'm saying it should be used with common sense, like any other element of the game.

And most of us say that the common sense use of this feat is to throw it out.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
I'm saying it should be used with common sense, like any other element of the game.

AHA!

What Gorbacz is saying is that gun control is hitting your target.

And just like that argument, we're never going to come to an agreement.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I'm saying it should be used with common sense, like any other element of the game.

AHA!

What Gorbacz is saying is that gun control is hitting your target.

And just like that argument, we're never going to come to an agreement.

Finally, somebody with some common sense! ;P


Gorby you know how that common sense thing goes. ; A poster just tried to say a wet willy was a legitimate attack.

I get what you are saying, but there are things some people just won't do willingly, and that is a big issue with the feat. It forces you to do them anway. I still think that mechanically/mathmatically the feat is too easy to make work also.

With regard to brokenness many things take some effort to break. This one is pretty easy which is why it is so disliked.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:

Gorby you know how that common sense thing goes. ; A poster just tried to say a wet willy was a legitimate attack.

I get what you are saying, but there are things some people just won't do willingly, and that is a big issue with the feat. It forces you to do them anway. I still think that mechanically/mathmatically the feat is too easy to make work also.

With regard to brokenness many things take some effort to break. This one is pretty easy which is why it is so disliked.

Oh, I understand, but since that's that's not an issue in my games, I'd rather much have developers take my money and fix things that actually don't work as intended (Prone Shooter and missing Tetori feats, I am oh so looking at you) instead of poring over how to word the feat so it cuts out corner cases of jerkoholism in Somewheresville, Neverfornia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, I understand, but since that's that's not an issue in my games, I'd rather much have developers take my money and fix things that actually don't work as intended (Prone Shooter and missing Tetori feats, I am oh so looking at you) instead of poring over how to word the feat so it cuts out corner cases of jerkoholism in Somewheresville, Neverfornia.

So basically, you are saying that it is broken, but at your table that isn't a problem. That's fine for you, but what about the people who play in PFS games? Just because you don't play with jerks doesn't mean that those that have no fixed group are going to be as lucky.

A lot of people will act like jerks if they think they can get away with it, or act like jerks and think they are being funny when in fact they are just annoying.

Me, I want the game to work not just for me and my group, and for you and your group, but for everybody. Know why? Because then the game stays popular, sells more and Paizo stay in business, and they make more games for me to enjoy. Call it enlightened self-interest!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, I understand, but since that's that's not an issue in my games, I'd rather much have developers take my money and fix things that actually don't work as intended (Prone Shooter and missing Tetori feats, I am oh so looking at you) instead of poring over how to word the feat so it cuts out corner cases of jerkoholism in Somewheresville, Neverfornia.

So basically, you are saying that it is broken, but at your table that isn't a problem. That's fine for you, but what about the people who play in PFS games? Just because you don't play with jerks doesn't mean that those that have no fixed group are going to be as lucky.

A lot of people will act like jerks if they think they can get away with it, or act like jerks and think they are being funny when in fact they are just annoying.

Me, I want the game to work not just for me and my group, and for you and your group, but for everybody. Know why? Because then the game stays popular, sells more and Paizo stay in business, and they make more games for me to enjoy. Call it enlightened self-interest!

At no point did I say that it is broken. In fact, I did re-iterate that it's not, several times. Words, my mouth, putting, stop, in.

I can see that somebody comes from the position "it is broken, because I'm afraid that jerks in my group will use it to blow up my game". What I say is that jerks are a problem, not the feat itself. Still not broken.

And I really don't care about any gaming groups other than mine. As far as helping Paizo goes, they get my money and my praise for solid products. I'm not going to trouble myself with folks who can't play the game in a civilized manner, with folks who think that Clerics are weak, folks who think Thri-kreen should be a core race etc. etc. etc. And I don't think that Pathfinder is going to collapse just because a bunch of folks think that some feat is broken. Sorry, you're not that of a special snowflake.


I know a good way to start a war/major diplomatic incident. Insult the king/ambassador. King/ambassador attacks you in full view of other witnesses, diplomatic hijinks ensue.

Other fun things to do can be using ventriloquism to cause otherwise sane people to start attempting to murder each other. That seems like a pretty good way to do an assassination, and best of all the assassin's part is minimal.


Caedwyr wrote:

I know a good way to start a war/major diplomatic incident. Insult the king/ambassador. King/ambassador attacks you in full view of other witnesses, diplomatic hijinks ensue.

Other fun things to do can be using ventriloquism to cause otherwise sane people to start attempting to murder each other. That seems like a pretty good way to do an assassination, and best of all the assassin's part is minimal.

Is the ability to delegate outrage an extraordinary or supernatural ability?

Oh, hang on.

I just noticed that Antagonize requires: melee attack, ranged attack or spell. No luck for critters that rely on Su or Sp abilities. Sp might come under spell, but not so easily for Su.


People are focusing too much on the wording of the ability rather than the intent...

For example, when they expanded the wording to say "melee attack, ranged attack, or spell" they obviously meant "he can do whatever he wants to attack the antagonizer". Allowing the entire wizard spell list, but not allowing combat maneuvers and special abilities is just silly.


I'm not sure how this helps melees vs casters... They can just use a spell and they have way more options than melees (They could even use black tentacles by RAW)

Take an intimidating barbarian that's been enlarged and has intimidating prowess (adds strength). He's a pretty scary dude.

Have the barbarian antagonize a king amongst his guards, king comes up and punches (because he has no other options) the big scary barbarian who can now kill him more easily because he left the safety of his guards.

Have the barbarian antagonize a wizard amongst his minions, wizard could do a million spells from evocation to mind control without even leaving the safety of his minions. Dominating this barbarian's mind would work pretty well.

Any reason you have that would justify the king not leaving the safety of his guards would very well justify the wizard not leaving the safety of his minions.


Gorbacz wrote:
The whole core is abusable. Dozens of spells work only if somebody isn't a jerk. The whole game works only if there's a gentleman's agreement on not being a douchebag. I can make you throw me out of your house using core only, I don't need Antagonize for that.

Can you provide an example or two? I'm curious.

Anything which is explicitly subject to GM approval (magic item creation, the "above and beyond" powers of wish and miriacle, etc) is out, obviously.


PFRPG Core Rules, p.199" wrote:
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

Many combat maueuvers are "attacks". So is doing non-lethal damage. Ghandi and Mother Teressa are safe.

The king could easily "attack" by throwing his crown at the barbarian. Or his sandwich. His guards would probably either restrain the king, or the king would not be able to get to the barbarian as every available square would be taken by guards pounding the barbarian into a pink mist.

The entire "this feat is designed to make paladins fall from grace!" is a very tired strawman. If a DM did this to my paladin, the feat is the least of my worries. The feat does, however, do a good job of letting one PC burn an action to get an NPC to burn one of his, once per day. The NPC doesn't even need to burn limited resources or put themselves out of tactical position to fulfill the requirements of taunt. The feat is fine, it won't make dogs and cats live together nor lions lay down with lambs. Hyperbole and a half, indeed.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bobson wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
The whole core is abusable. Dozens of spells work only if somebody isn't a jerk. The whole game works only if there's a gentleman's agreement on not being a douchebag. I can make you throw me out of your house using core only, I don't need Antagonize for that.

Can you provide an example or two? I'm curious.

Anything which is explicitly subject to GM approval (magic item creation, the "above and beyond" powers of wish and miriacle, etc) is out, obviously.

GMs can be jerks, too. So, GM approval stuff can't be ruled out, obviously.

Let's start with them obvious ones: gate and simulacrum.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TwoWolves wrote:
Many combat maueuvers are "attacks". So is doing non-lethal damage. Ghandi and Mother Teressa are safe.

Hardly:

CRB page 191 wrote:
If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.

So if your paladin hits the kid that Antagonized him (via magic jar possession) for 20 damage and the kid has a whopping 4hp and a Con of ten, the kid is still dead.

This feat is open to horrendous abuse. It is a broken feat.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
No. You wouldn't let someone with invisibility (not improved invisibility) get away with making unarmed strikes while remaining invisible would you? Or sundering? Or Disarming? Grappling? They're still all attacks.

The feat don't call for "an attack", the feat call for 3 specific forms of attacks.

Not all forms of attack are equal. As for you all the attack are equal and firing a bow is a attack you would use the unarmed attacks rules to resolve its attacks?

Invisibility isn't broken by an Attack Action, it is broken by attacking, lover case.

ShadowcatX wrote:
mdt wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
No. You wouldn't let someone with invisibility (not improved invisibility) get away with making unarmed strikes while remaining invisible would you? Or sundering? Or Disarming? Grappling? They're still all attacks.

Invalid argument. Apples vs Oranges.

Invisibility says 'if you attack someone'. It doesn't say 'if you make a melee attack against someone with your weapon'. Thus you're comparing two utterly different things.

Neither does antagonize. It simply states melee strike, ranged strike, or spell.

Still you may be right, most maneuvers are, by RAW, something you do in place of a melee strike aren't they?

Wrong ShadowcatX, it say "make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell". They are all specific kinds of attack. Paraphrasing rules and using the paraphraser to adjudicate what they do is the perfect way to distort them.

You are doing it on purpose?


Dabbler wrote:
TwoWolves wrote:
Many combat maueuvers are "attacks". So is doing non-lethal damage. Ghandi and Mother Teressa are safe.

Hardly:

CRB page 191 wrote:
If a creature’s nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage.

So if your paladin hits the kid that Antagonized him (via magic jar possession) for 20 damage and the kid has a whopping 4hp and a Con of ten, the kid is still dead.

This feat is open to horrendous abuse. It is a broken feat.

If a bard uses a light spell cast on the back of his head and a high bluff skill to convince a low wisdom pally that he's an angel and the way to enlightenment is kicking cute little puppies from down to dusk, does that mean light (a cantrip with no save or SR!) is broken? Your business whether you use the feat at your table, but that's the sort of example you're using.


I'm really not sure why there are so many people using exaggerated paladin examples when there are perfectly legitimate examples that can actually happen in game of how the feat falls apart.

In game, it actually screws over non magical melees the most. Rogues and fighters are the ones that get pushed around in the mud with this kind of feat. In the hands of a player, commoners are the most easy to abuse. It also doesn't make sense that being nightmare inducing causes enemies to have the urge to come out and attack. Apparently it makes it targets brave mofos.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:

I know a good way to start a war/major diplomatic incident. Insult the king/ambassador. King/ambassador attacks you in full view of other witnesses, diplomatic hijinks ensue.

Other fun things to do can be using ventriloquism to cause otherwise sane people to start attempting to murder each other. That seems like a pretty good way to do an assassination, and best of all the assassin's part is minimal.

Is the ability to delegate outrage an extraordinary or supernatural ability?

Oh, hang on.

I just noticed that Antagonize requires: melee attack, ranged attack or spell. No luck for critters that rely on Su or Sp abilities. Sp might come under spell, but not so easily for Su.

The "fun" part of the continual brokeness of the feat is that a behir will be affected by it but incapable to do the required actions. A melee attack require a weapon. A behir can make only a natural attack.

Instead of trying to patch up a broken text Paizo would have a better time rewriting it from the ground up.

Matrixryu wrote:

People are focusing too much on the wording of the ability rather than the intent...

For example, when they expanded the wording to say "melee attack, ranged attack, or spell" they obviously meant "he can do whatever he wants to attack the antagonizer". Allowing the entire wizard spell list, but not allowing combat maneuvers and special abilities is just silly.

"Obviously"?

I don't agree. I think that "obviously" they meant that the target of antagonize should use one of his best damaging attacks, so a some kind of meelee strike that deal hit point of damage, lethal hit point if possible, some kind of ranged attack that deal damage or physical harm (so a breath weapon or a disintegrate spell will be ok, charm person wouldn't) and so on.

A few people instead claim that the ROI will be "obviously" satisfied by a form of attack that don't deal any hit point of damage or deal only non lethal damage.

Then the text of the spell say something completely different, requiring the use of 3 specific kinds of attack, but allowing the use of no lethal damage.

So I see nothing obvious in the intent.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:
If a bard uses a light spell cast on the back of his head and a high bluff skill to convince a low wisdom pally that he's an angel and the way to enlightenment is kicking cute little puppies from down to dusk, does that mean light (a cantrip with no save or SR!) is broken? Your business whether you use the feat at your table, but that's the sort of example you're using.

Ohhhh! Strawmen!

If you can find a paladin that dumb, good luck to you.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

I'm really not sure why there are so many people using exaggerated paladin examples when there are perfectly legitimate examples that can actually happen in game of how the feat falls apart.

In game, it actually screws over non magical melees the most. Rogues and fighters are the ones that get pushed around in the mud with this kind of feat. In the hands of a player, commoners are the most easy to abuse. It also doesn't make sense that being nightmare inducing causes enemies to have the urge to come out and attack. Apparently it makes it targets brave mofos.

This is sadly true. The feat is least effective on casters because they do not need to endanger themselves, but it's great for pulling the party's melee characters out of position.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. There's too much condescension in this thread.

Also, I'm going to go ahead and lock this up. After nearly 600 posts for a rules question, it's either answered and being buried or won't be answered. If you want to debate power-level or actualy gaming at the table, instead of rules, please make a new thread in the appropriate forum.

551 to 583 of 583 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Antagonize (the GM?!) All Messageboards