Even with the change(future change) I don't like since it can force bad tactics.
GUYS I AGGROED THE WIZARD BY CALLING HIM A DUMBY. THAT'LL MAKE HIM COME AT ME WITH A MELEE WEAPON.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Antagonize feat is the first Paizo published thing I have outright banned at in any game I will ever run. Beyond being poorly written and a terribly unbalanced mechanic which should have never existed in the first place; it's just too evil.
Imagine how angry your players would be if you slapped this feat on your NPCs. Just optimize some mooks for Antagonize, and then watch as your party keeps having to ignore the Big Bad to take out insulting goblins. It's very likely that if the GM bothered to use this feat even half-heartedly, it could result in some serious party deaths, and really annoy the PCs as the GM basically says "Ok, the goblin makes you mad, you cannot employ your strategy, you must try to hit the goblin, and ignore the mind-flayer/ogre-mage/evil wizard that is trying to kill you."
I banned it also when I first read it.
Same'd. Our entire group outright banned it as soon as we all saw it. Looking at it from both a GM and player perspective, having your characters hijacked by someone else's mechanics that technically force you to do something stupid and quite possibly grossly out of character without the justification of mind control is too much. It's essentially taking other folks' characters away from them with the explanation that they really are derping that hard of their own free will.
Even if it's Pacifict Pete, whose entire schtick is to never do harm. Hell, he might even have a Vow of Peace. So much for that, he got Antagonized in front of the city guard.
And then there's Paladin Pauline or Noble Ned getting Antagonized in the throne room, in front of their liege.
And they don't even get the comfort that it was magic that forced that upon them. The way Antagonize works, it's all their fault.
That's bad pool. GMs don't dictate to players what their characters do. Yes, dominate and such can come into play, but those are supernatural forces messing with the characters. With Antagonize, it's the characters themselves that are to blame.
Hence banning Antagonize as written. If a fighty type really wants something like Antagonize(and they should have a reasonable "aggro" option) in any game I'm running, I'm just going to rewrite it into a variation of the Come And Get Me rage power. The target would be given an incentive to go after the antagonizer: he's slapped with a morale penalty unless he attacks the guy taunting him. He can still do what he would normally do, but he's going to be operating with penalties until he goes after the Antagonist or the encounter ends. Personally, that is a much more reasonable approach to "aggro" mechanics, and it doesn't violate a player/GM's control of their characters.
It's less,
Fighter:
Wizard: GRARARRHARARARARAER
and more,
Fighter:
Wizard: Gods damn it I hate that jacka- GRARARRAARARARRR
Replace Wizard with any other class as needed.
One more for banned so hard that it makes Chixulub look like a mild slap to the dinosaurs.
If someone is compelled to do something stupid or evil by a spell, they have the defense that they were not able to act according to their own will.
If someone is antagonized into being an utter monster, what defense is there?
God: "Paladin, you have struck down an innocent man. You have fallen into evil and your powers are stripped from you."
Paladin: "But... the antagonizing jerk just made me so angry!"
Never noticed this bit of stinky cheese before. None of my players have expressed any interest in using it, but if they do, I'm going to tell them "no," and if they get mad about it, I'll have the next dozen NPCs use it against them.
|
To my mind this feat is to hold aggro and it s an awesome feat...The fighter/barbariancanuse this to tank. It s something like taunt. You can save allies with it...
Aggro, tanking, and taunting are all concepts that are foreign to tabletop gaming, at least in the sense they're used in an MMO, which is the sense this feat provides.
It s a great way to implement speach and communicating skills in combat, just as acrobatics,stealth,sleight of hand etcThere's already a mechanism for that in tabletop games which doesn't exist in a MMO. It's called speech and communication skills, as arbitrated by a GM. A feat which forces someone to behave in a very ineffective manner, as an entirely unmagical effect, just makes no sense. If I'm a fragile mage, and I know I'm a fragile mage, what can you possibly yell at me in combat that would make me run over and hit you over the head with my staff instead of casting magic missile at you?
Just because something exists in other games you don t consider as rich as PF doesn t mean it s bad...An intimidating fighter should be able to taunt enemies to attack him, same way a rogue can use bluff to break eye contact and stealth...and the rogue doesn t even have to waste a feat to do that...
It s perfectly clear how the DC to use acrobatics or jump is in every case...so why not intimidate as well?
The intimidated fragile mage would have to target his offensive spells to the intimidating person and not necessarilly charge...
What is not clear about it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is not clear about it?
It's clearly horrible. Not sure what else anyone expects from a skill check that strips people of their free will.
Also, as for Arips' comment about Bluff, Intimidate is strong-arm diplomacy plus the ability to Shaken enemies in combat. Since shaken is -2 to checks, and can force something to become frightened if fear-bombed, they already have a mechanic that could be used. If anything, the Antagonize feat could have been made to drastically improve the penalties for being shaken as long as you weren't facing the user directly (essentially like Mikaze suggested).
|
|
I don t think the feat is horrible it just needs some correction so instead of
"The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you."
it should say
"The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make any kind of attack against you at the best of its abilities."
That still does bizarre and horrific things.
That is still not good IMHO. No amount of taunting is going to get most people to make bad tactical decision when their life is on the line if they know it is a bad decision, especially trained combatants.
If the wizard is over there summoning monsters, and using death effects against the party his sidekick does not have priority unless he is equally dangerous.
Now the player taking penalties as long as the taunter(person using antagonize) is alive is cool. The could be fluffed like this.
Example follows:
You can berate your foe in combat making them want to being harm to you.
If they choose to not attack you the distraction weighs heavily on their mind causing them to take a ____ morale penalty to attack rolls and/or AC until as long as you are alive or conscious.
That way you can represent the feat having some effect without anyone losing control over a character.
|
|
I wonder if u guys even read the feat description before u banned this
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
so what u say allready exists in the core rulebook...
so this entire dispute is about the Intimidate effect of antagonize
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.
and i still see nothing wrong to it...
I don t think the feat is horrible it just needs some correction so instead of
"The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you."
it should say
"The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make any kind of attack against you at the best of its abilities."
Nope, still bad, it still strips any semblance of free will from the character with no save. I would say:
"The target must make a save against a DC equal to your your Intimidate or Diplomacy skill +10 using either Will or their Sense Motive or Diplomacy skill. If they fail, they are angry at you. How they resolve being angry at you is at their discretion and in accordance with their character, but in combat this would frequently be in the form of some kind of attack. Some personalities may not be effected if they are used to controlling their negative emotions."
I think that is the most you should be able to get out of a skill check. I'm not even sure that much should be possible with just a skill.
There are spells that work to make a foe advance on and attack you, and they aren't anything like this effective.
The intimidate version is what most of us really don't like. You need to take a creature out of combat for two rounds in order to tip the combat, and if a creature is doing something useless it is essentially out of combat.
The diplomacy version is a little better, but I don't like a skill check giving a 10% chance to fail since if someone were to focus on it, the skill can become an autosucceed.
|
|
The intimidate version is what most of us really don't like. You need to take a creature out of combat for two rounds in order to tip the combat, and if a creature is doing something useless it is essentially out of combat.
it s not useless it s a mellee attack... and don t neglect that the antagonizer also lost his turn in order to antagonize since it s a standard action...
The diplomacy version is a little better, but I don't like a skill check giving a 10% chance to fail since if someone were to focus on it, the skill can become an autosucceed.
when u focus on something normally what you r doing is you r not focusing in something else...so a fighter focused on intimidate will lack in other areas, for example if he boosts cha he will be forced to neglect str or con which are vital for any warrior.
I still think it s a great feat...and anyone who tells me it s banned in my games, I ll wave the core rulebook page on him...
If they can't get to the person they want to attack their actions for that round are wasted which means they were useless, and that was the point I was making in my last post.
You don't have to focus all of your resources on a skill to get really good at it, especially if you are not a fighter. The fighter could dump intelligence instead so he does not lose strength. If you are a class with more skills or that uses cha or an inquisitor that can use wisdom instead of charisma for social skill you can boost intimidate without that much effort at all.
If you are the GM nobody can tell you what is banned. If you are a player then the GM will probably open the book to the part where it says the GM is the final arbitrator of the rules.
when u focus on something normally what you r doing is you r not focusing in something else...so a fighter focused on intimidate will lack in other areas, for example if he boosts cha he will be forced to neglect str or con which are vital for any warrior.
Actually, fighters get to make the most of this feat the easiest. They have the most feats to burn, feats that let them use their Strength bonus for Intimidate and feats that hinge on Intimidate already, so extra feats and the skill-ranks aren't wasted just for Antagonise.
I still think it s a great feat...and anyone who tells me it s banned in my games, I ll wave the core rulebook page on him...
You can wave what you like at who you like. If a DM says "This has no place at my table" your voting implements are your feet, and waving the core rule book will just make you look like a jerk. It's a broken feat, unbalanced and unrealistic, and when I am DMing I reserve the right to ban anything I think will spoil the game for everyone at the table. This is one of those few things I would ban. Saving a seriously major re-write, I can't see that changing.
|
|
If they can't get to the person they want to attack their actions for that round are wasted which means they were useless, and that was the point I was making in my last post.
You don't have to focus all of your resources on a skill to get really good at it, especially if you are not a fighter. The fighter could dump intelligence instead so he does not lose strength. If you are a class with more skills or that uses cha or an inquisitor that can use wisdom instead of charisma for social skill you can boost intimidate without that much effort at all.
ANd what s the problem with that? Don t a rogue's acrobatics and stealth become autosuccess skills at advanced levels? inquisitors intimidate that s their role....
If you are the GM nobody can tell you what is banned. If you are a player then the GM will probably open the book to the part where it says the GM is the final arbitrator of the rules.
Banning a feat in CRB for no serious reason and not replacing with anything similar? that GM lost my interest and I would kindly leave his table and he can look for another player...
Yeah, still the worst POS mechanic Paizo has ever delivered. Even more than the few archetypes and feats which do nothing ( Prone Shooter, for example ), this feat actually makes the whole game worse by its existance.
Seriously, whomever wrote this feat should really consider his sense of game balance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when u focus on something normally what you r doing is you r not focusing in something else...so a fighter focused on intimidate will lack in other areas, for example if he boosts cha he will be forced to neglect str or con which are vital for any warrior.Actually, fighters get to make the most of this feat the easiest. They have the most feats to burn, feats that let them use their Strength bonus for Intimidate and feats that hinge on Intimidate already, so extra feats and the skill-ranks aren't wasted just for Antagonise.
I still think it s a great feat...and anyone who tells me it s banned in my games, I ll wave the core rulebook page on him...You can wave what you like at who you like. If a DM says "This has no place at my table" your voting implements are your feet, and waving the core rule book will just make you look like a jerk. It's a broken feat, unbalanced and unrealistic, and when I am DMing I reserve the right to ban anything I think will spoil the game for everyone at the table. This is one of those few things I would ban. Saving a seriously major re-write, I can't see that changing.
Magic is unrealistic so ban all spells, spellike abilities, magical items, magical beasts, extraplannar creatures...the catalogue is endless...
it s much more realistic to be intimidated by a charismatic fighter than to be commanded by a priest....
And maybe you should ban STR to intimidate skill that s what s unrealistic to me
|
|
What if instead of the antagonizer having to succeed in a skill check to use the feat, the target had to make a save (Will Save vs DC 10 + antagonizer's total bonus in Diplomacy/Intimidate) in order to avoid the effects? Would that appease any of you?
nah even i will bject to that that s worse...a 10 lvl char could have a DC 30 it s too much for will to save... the rule is fine just the description should give more chances for the ranged classes...
the only alternative i can think about mechaniics is
Antagoniser skill check vs
creature s will save(roll)+HD
but still i think 10+HD+wis gives a higher chanse for creature to evade...
The DC isn't the issue. The effect is.
What if instead of the antagonizer having to succeed in a skill check to use the feat, the target had to make a save (Will Save vs DC 10 + antagonizer's total bonus in Diplomacy/Intimidate) in order to avoid the effects? Would that appease any of you?
The problem with this feat is two-fold:
1) The 'attack' is at a DC that is very low compared to the possible skill level, and takes no account of the nature of the adversary or their ability to ignore an insult. I mean seriously, you could goad, say, an ascetic monk like that as easily as a rabid orc?
2) The effect is way out of proportion to the investment. You can take this feat at first level, and it causes a character to lose all control of their actions. Even a domination spell allows a saving throw if it tries to force a character to act against their nature, but this feat does it automatically.
I would suggest that:
1) The DC be 10+ either level/hit dice plus Wisdom bonus plus Intelligence bonus, or 10+ Sense Motive Skill.
2) Either the effect be that you get angry with the user of the feat and it is up to the target how they react to being angry, or the target gets a save vs the Intimidate/Diplomacy skill of the target with either an appropriate skill (Sense Motive, Diplomacy etc) or with a Will save if the actions you are trying to get them to take are against their nature, or that it CANNOT make a subject act completely against it's nature.
Alternatively, just make taunting an option under the skill, where it lowers the standing of the creature to you.
Personally, though, I think it's a dumb idea and should just be scrapped.
|
|
Adjusting the DC according to range between the antagoniser and the creature should fix everything and problem solved.
I suggest +2 for every 10 ft between them which makes sense(battle noise, unwilling to leave a guarded position etc)
Anyone with silence spell can cast silence on the antagoniser instead of attacking
Ranged attacks also break the effect.
But so it really worths it make it a move equivelant instead of standard action
I can't say I've used it against my players or had it used against me when I was playing, but it doesn't look at that terrible to me. The feat's only usable once in 24 hours against any given character, which is weaksauce in terms of a player losing all control of their character.
I will say I think the feat description's example of "...prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it..." is a bad one; they're talking about walls of fire, while I'd say (DM/rules lawyer hat on) you can't use the feat on a character who's is combat.
Just my 2cp; you don't like the feat, don't use the feat at your table, right?
The DC isn't the issue. The effect is.The only problem i see is every1 s obsession that fear/command should be only magical
Magic has limits. It has limited uses per day. It has descriptors and such things that make many monsters resistant or immune to effects like this.
This feat has a result that is nonsensical for many characters and NPCs to pull off in any circumstance, has no descriptors to speak of, and is way too easy to succeed every single time.
Find magic this reliable. I'll tell you right now, it doesn't exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if u guys even read the feat description before u banned thisWonder no more. Because we totally did.
Read it.
Reread it.
Came back to it a few days later and read it again.
Posted on the forum to find out what we had missed when reading it the first 3 times.
Found out we didn't miss anything, it was exactly as we read it.
Banned it.
|
Magic has limits. It has limited uses per day. It has descriptors and such things that make many monsters resistant or immune to effects like this.
Hexes are no more restricted than is this, since most offensive hexes also have the "once per day on a particular creature" limit. As for limits/descriptors:
You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.
This is a mind-affecting effect. Mind-Affecting: Mindless creatures (those with an Intelligence score of “—”) and undead are immune to mind-affecting effects.
So right there, we have three groups that are immune to this effect:
1) Anything that can't understand the antagonizer.2) Anything dumb or mindless (INT 3 or lower, or "-").
3) The undead.
I might consider allowing it in its revised form IF the player can come up with a hilarious insult tailored to the target that makes the entire party laugh. No laugh, or non-specific insult, no aggro.
That makes it a role-playing rule! Hoorah!
Magic has limits. It has limited uses per day. It has descriptors and such things that make many monsters resistant or immune to effects like this.Hexes are no more restricted than is this, since most offensive hexes also have the "once per day on a particular creature" limit.
I'm just as aware of hexes as anyone. Some are quite brutal, too, and in effect the result is the same. The difference, however, lies in how they're pulled off. Hexes rely on saves that are hard to boost, while Antagonize relies on a skill check that's very easy to boost.
As for limits/descriptors:
You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.
This is a mind-affecting effect. Mind-Affecting: Mindless creatures (those with an Intelligence score of “—”) and undead are immune to mind-affecting effects.
So right there, we have three groups that are immune to this effect:
1) Anything that can't understand the antagonizer.
Who doesn't know common? Actually, probably more than I think, but this seems like hardly a point.
2) Anything dumb or mindless (INT 3 or lower, or "-").
So... oozes, and swarms. And perhaps some things that would do what the feat describes anyway. Considering you're trying to get in the way of a dumb monster, I don't see that as all that hard to do.
3) The undead.
The only good distinction made if you ask me.
This still doesn't address the resulting effect, though. How do you reconcile making anyone throw a punch for an insult, no matter who it is?
Adjusting the DC according to range between the antagoniser and the creature should fix everything and problem solved.
Problem not even acknowledged.
There are two major issues, the DC not taking into account the Antagonized character's ability to see that they are being set up is half of it - you have not addressed this.
The problem with the effect being to blanketing is the other. You haven't even considered this seriously yet, but I suspect because you want to (ab)use it.
{sensible stuff}
Any DM pulling antagonise on any of my PCs will get handed the character sheet and told "You play him then, I'm off."
|
|
Any DM pulling antagonise on any of my PCs will get handed the character sheet and told "You play him then, I'm off."
Just wondering, do you also take all your toys and go home if a evil wizard successfully casts Charm Person on you? After all, Antagonize works for a single rounds worth of you losing control of your character. Charm Person has a SUBSTANTIALLY longer duration.
The main problem with Antagonise as i see it is that the intimidate version is most effective against those who a) should be least vulnerable and b) suffer the most from its effects: magic users. full arcane casters get one good save, will, which is supposed to make them less vulnerable to control. this feat simply ignores that completely, along with feats like iron will and improved iron will. so you can shrug off a succubus's charms, ignore an enchanters mightiest domination effect, but some guy shouting at you is enough to make you forget years, decades or even centuries of training and run up and slap the guy.
i don't mind that it's unrealistic. seriously, if i wanted realism i'd go outside. it's the lack of internal consistancy that hurts this feat fluff wise. make it a save of something like DC 10+1/2 intimidate, and allow the target to substitute their sense motive if they want (you're trained at reading people. this guy is obviously trying to goad you into coming to him. WHY would any sane being do exactly what their enemy wanted?)
the fact is that as written this feat isn't even entirely broken, but it makes no sense within the world. (hey, a wizard can disintergrate or dominate a fighter as a standard action. something that costs the enemy one round's freedom to act as they choose isn't broken if it allows a fair save against it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wondering, do you also take all your toys and go home if a evil wizard successfully casts Charm Person on you? After all, Antagonize works for a single rounds worth of you losing control of your character. Charm Person has a SUBSTANTIALLY longer duration.
Any DM pulling antagonise on any of my PCs will get handed the character sheet and told "You play him then, I'm off."
No, because Charm Person allows a decent saving throw and does not force you to act out of character - in fact it grants you a bonus to saves if you would be out of character to be charmed.
Antagonise, by the RAW, could force an unarmed, highly intellectual, octogenarian pacifist in a wheelchair to go fly into a rage and try and attack an armoured hulk. It can do it based on a very easy skill-check which takes no account of the target's nature, or their implied self-control.
That's my problem: this feat is B-R-O-K-E-N and it breaks the cardinal rule of "Never take control of a player's character away from them."
|
|
Just wondering, do you also take all your toys and go home if a evil wizard successfully casts Charm Person on you? After all, Antagonize works for a single rounds worth of you losing control of your character. Charm Person has a SUBSTANTIALLY longer duration.
Any DM pulling antagonise on any of my PCs will get handed the character sheet and told "You play him then, I'm off."
Maybe he prefers a charge attack from a raging barbarian wielding a keen Fauchard and improved critical on same weapon...
Luckilly those GMs that ban this can t do it in PFS...
Problem not even acknowledged.There are two major issues, the DC not taking into account the Antagonized character's ability to see that they are being set up is half of it - you have not addressed this.
The problem with the effect being to blanketing is the other. You haven't even considered this seriously yet, but I suspect because you want to (ab)use it.
If i was trying to abuse it i wouldn t be suggesting nerfs like +2 for every 10 ft... ur assumprions are nowhere near reality
Also, as for Arips' comment about Bluff, Intimidate is strong-arm diplomacy plus the ability to Shaken enemies in combat. Since shaken is -2 to checks, and can force something to become frightened if fear-bombed, they already have a mechanic that could be used.
Intimidate doesn't stack with anything to produce a greater fear effect.
I pretty much agreed that this feat as written is cheese, until they banned fear-stacking with Intimidate. Now it's almost the only reason to bother with Intimidate anymore. Almost.
That's my problem: this feat is B-R-O-K-E-N and it breaks the cardinal rule of "Never take control of a player's character away from them."Then don t take it as GM M-A-Y-B-E?????
but why prevent players from taking it? so they don t take control of your precious minions?
Have you ever been a GM? Minions are the furthest from precious they can possibly be. They are meant to die in the end. The point is to make the game fun, interesting, and sometimes challenging, and this feat serves none of these things IMO.
The worst crime a game can commit is to make itself boring, and Antagonize is working its way into that sort of territory (e.g. "I antagonize. Success. Roll him on up here. We surround him aaaaaannd Full attack. Is he dead yet?"). That's why it's so easy to speak against it. And people can check my post history, there's not too many things I oppose, as my interest lies in a fun game. Period.
If i was trying to abuse it i wouldn t be suggesting nerfs like +2 for every 10 ft... ur assumprions are nowhere near reality
No, you have not applied a 'nerf' - when an ability has a 95% success chance, taking off 10% here or there is not addressing the problem, and the fact that you wanted to apply distance showed that you are unable or unwilling to understand what the problem actually IS.
The problem is that not only is the check too easy, it takes no account of nature of the target (pacifist, honourable, completely not bothered by what some lout says under any circumstances) or the circumstances (nobody in their right mind will charge a plate-armoured knight with a tooth-pick), or any choice in how they react. By RAW, it's easier to get a first level monk (ascetic, calm, disciplined) to attack you than it is to get a hungry ogre to do so (violent, aggressive, and chaotic).
The problem with the effect is it denies any control on the part of the being affected.
Then don t take it as GM M-A-Y-B-E?????
That's my problem: this feat is B-R-O-K-E-N and it breaks the cardinal rule of "Never take control of a player's character away from them."
So only players should have access to certain feats? I can see why some players may like that idea.
but why prevent players from taking it? so they don t take control of your precious minions?
Do they? Look at dominate, charm, turning or the like.
Turning: Extremely limited to affecting undead only, or another specific creature type.Charm: does not control actions, merely attitudes. A minion who is charmed does not lose his loyalty to his boss, he merely views the character that charmed him in a positive light.
Dominate: Controls actions, but allows an extra save - and bonuses to it - if commanded to act against their fundamental nature.
Of course the main problem is that it won't be the minions. The Enemy wizard is safe behind his army of mooks casting spells, but one insult and he inexplicably throws his plans out of the window, charges through his own allies and tries to attack a fully armoured fighter with his pocketknife. Don't buy it.
Going back to the 20th level question, Dominate could have a DC27 save, but a 20th level fighter could have +15 on his check (basic plus cloak of resistance plus headband of wisdom), making it only a 55% chance of success.