Antagonize (the GM?!)


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sczarni

Noone is commenting my suggestion...I ll re-re summarized it and abandon the thread...so here is my suggestion and opinion.

The DC should remain as it is but apply the below modification.

Add +2 to the DC for every 10 ft away from the antagoniser
Target must leave a fortified position +4
Target is stealthed +4
Target has means to attack from a distance +2

The effect
Target must attack the antagoniser at the best of its abilities or flee.
If the target has means to stop the antagoniser from speaking he is allowed to do so (silence,paralyze,dominate person etc), if however this attempt fails the effect is postoponed 1 round

Using this feat is a move equivelant action


Arisps wrote:


Target must attack the antagoniser at the best of its abilities or flee.

This one sentence is the one part of your suggestion that actually addresses the issue. It allows for a wizard to cast spells instead of charging up and slapping, and it allows for someone non-violent to run away instead of attacking. And it gives the player a choice.

With this change, it would be a much less broken feat.


Arisps wrote:

Noone is commenting my suggestion...I ll re-re summarized it and abandon the thread...so here is my suggestion and opinion.

The DC should remain as it is but apply the below modification.

Add +2 to the DC for every 10 ft away from the antagoniser
Target must leave a fortified position +4
Target is stealthed +4
Target has means to attack from a distance +2

The effect
Target must attack the antagoniser at the best of its abilities or flee.
If the target has means to stop the antagoniser from speaking he is allowed to do so (silence,paralyze,dominate person etc), if however this attempt fails the effect is postoponed 1 round

Using this feat is a move equivelant action

1. No clear reason for the +2 for distance. Can't see the whites of his eyes?

2. Define fortified position.
3. Define stealthed. After all, if the target is hidden, how is he/she being targeted?
4. Why add to the DC for having a ranged weapon/spell? Is it harder to insult someone who is holding a crossbow? Why not just force the target option instead of still forcing the melee attack?
5. I'm not sure where you're going with the silence/paralyze stuff. Wouldn't any of those things be considered an attack of some sort, but since it's not a melee attack, it's not the next action performed as described by the feat? This is getting very complicated.


Bobson wrote:
Arisps wrote:


Target must attack the antagoniser at the best of its abilities or flee.

This one sentence is the one part of your suggestion that actually addresses the issue. It allows for a wizard to cast spells instead of charging up and slapping, and it allows for someone non-violent to run away instead of attacking. And it gives the player a choice.

With this change, it would be a much less broken feat.

+1

Agreed. This is the best part for sure.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hah! Arisps successfully antagonized a few of you...

Sczarni

Swivl wrote:


1. No clear reason for the +2 for distance. Can't see the whites of his eyes?
2. Define fortified position.
3. Define stealthed. After all, if the target is hidden, how is he/she being targeted?
4. Why add to the DC for having a ranged weapon/spell? Is it harder to insult someone who is holding a crossbow? Why not just force the target option instead of still forcing the melee attack?
5. I'm not sure where you're going with the silence/paralyze stuff. Wouldn't any of those things be considered an attack of some sort, but since it's not a melee attack, it's not the next action performed as described by the feat? This is getting very complicated.

1. there is...first of all battle noises that prevent or hamper communication, and ok it s far more easier to convince someone that s next to you to hit you than call him from the distance to charge.

2. Cover. period
3. Stealth skill or invisibility...Antagoniser must be aware of the stealthy person(either by hearing or the vanish happen at his knowledge)
4. this isn t an insult check it s a check to make someone attack u in melee...
5.That s not that important... I just like the flavour of antagonising succeeding and the response would be...SILENCE!


Sorry. I just had to. I'm quite sleepy, and about to go to bed, but I thought this was a bit funny.

OT, I just learned how to linkify.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Swivl, +2 to the saving throw DC makes it easier to insult someone, not harder, because they fail the save more often.


Swivl wrote:
Arisps wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


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.

More or less the same here. I allow more shenanigans than most GMs on these boards simply because they can be done in the rules and I don't care because I'm the GM and it's not going to mess my game up. I could care less about people getting wishes from efreeti, or barbarians riding flying mounts hitting things like the fist of an angry god and 1-shotting ancient dragons; but this feat goes to far.

Let's not forget out of combat purposes.
Guard: "Don't start any trouble or you're out of here/in jail/will be executed."
Person: "Yo mamma's a ho!"
Pacifist Priest: "Raaaaaaaaaaaaaggggghhh!!"

Sczarni

Swivl wrote:

Sorry. I just had to. I'm quite sleepy, and about to go to bed, but I thought this was a bit funny.

OT, I just learned how to linkify.

. this isn t an insult check it s a check to make someone attack u in melee...

that answers to ur silly image...


Arisps wrote:


1. there is...first of all battle noises that prevent or hamper communication, and ok it s far more easier to convince someone that s next to you to hit you than call him from the distance to charge.
2. Cover. period
3. Stealth skill or invisibility...Antagoniser must be aware of the stealthy person(either by hearing or the vanish happen at his knowledge)
4. this isn t an insult check it s a check to make someone attack u in melee...
5.That s not that important... I just like the flavour of antagonising succeeding and the response would be...SILENCE!

1. If that was a factor, taken into account, then most talking wouldn't go through, either, much less the specific ends being sought after here.

2. Then say cover.
3. So someone who was detected but not currently in view. Once again, if they're not visible, how are they targeted? Simply by being in earshot? I suppose that can work.
4. By doing what? How are you forcing the melee attack? It's not magic, so how?
5. Good, because that's just too much for one feat.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Swivl, +2 to the saving throw DC makes it easier to insult someone, not harder, because they fail the save more often.

It's not a saving throw if it's Antagonize. I was referring to one of my own posts with this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

Let's not forget out of combat purposes.

Guard: "Don't start any trouble or you're out of here/in jail/will be executed."
Person: "Yo mamma's a ho!"
Pacifist Priest: "Raaaaaaaaaaaaaggggghhh!!"

For my part, this is the most outrageous aspect of the whole thing. I understand that combat is really central to the Pathfinder experience, but it is just sloppy to overlook non-combat in the design. You wouldn't do it with a spell, so don't do it with a feat!

Some of us still roleplay a couple of scenes in between initiative counts now and then.

Sczarni

Convising you guys...is not my aim anyway...
Me and my GM like this feat and have ways to use it effectivelly and balancing...

As long as they don t remove it from CRB i m all well and done here...
In case they decide to ban it from CRB I made my stand...and maybe before they do they read my views...

IN other words...

I shake the dust off my feet...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arisps wrote:
Convising you guys...is not my aim anyway...

Listening to you wasn't our aim either, so we're even.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Hah! Arisps successfully antagonized a few of you...

Lol I suppose you can say that of back-and-forth things like this. I guess that means me, too (maybe most of all). But you know, I'm not even slightly heated over any of this, despite the term. I realize I play a different game at a different table, and most of the time these discussions merely point out that fact in a very bright light.

OTOH, I think a reasonable consensus can and will be reached with official , additional errata. I'm still a bit worried about non-combat applications and lack of prerequisites, but not so much as to lose sleep over.

And on that note, I hope to get some sleep.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Arisps wrote:
As long as they don t remove it from CRB i m all well and done here...

Good news. They won't be removing it from the Core Rule Book under any circumstances.

Remember the thing about "did you guys even read it before banning it"?

Well, we did. And when we did, it wasn't in the CRB.

Dramatic pause.

I'm not being pedantic. You keep telling us how you'd quit a game if the DM banned a feat and how you'd wave the Core at them. Well... this rule isn't Core. Also, if your players can't live without one particular feat, that feat is very, very likely broken. We're not even talking about Weapon Focus, which is a prerequisite for a lot of other ones.

It's a broken feat. It's getting fixed. Relax.


Dabbler wrote:
Swivl wrote:
{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."

The following has nothing to do with Antagonize so feel free to ignore it. I'll spoiler it to make it easier.

Spoiler:
This is an attitude I dislike from players. People that storm off when something bad happens to their precious characters. As a player, I understand that bad things will happen to my character. I could fall down a pit into spikes, or get caught on fire, or get turned into a frog, or worse of all, die. But, I understand that this is the life of an adventurer and along with the bad stuff comes the awesome things. Gold, adventure, saving the world, and killing Orcus and ruling over his demon host are just some of the things I've had characters do at the end of the campaign. I've also been killed via death effect, turned into a vampire and killed by my teammates (only to be resurrected), polymorphed into an octopus on dry land, and have been mind controlled into attacking my party. But, I don't sweat it because usually, me and my teammate can get out of those situations and become better heroes for it. To me and some of my friends, walking out of a game just because something bad happened to your character is a sign of a petulant child and someone we probably do not want to play with.

Now, I have been on the other end of the spectrum. As someone that predominately plays martial characters, I am always the target of mind control at later levels. I once had a GM that'd mind control me every game we had. It wasn't very fun and I spoke to him about it later, asking to lay off a bit with the Dominate Person. He kind of had a hard on for making non-casters feel useless, so he told me to deal with it. But boy was in for a surprise when my fighter suddenly had a CLoak of resistence and a headband of wisdom AND Iron Will... Suddenly, the GM had to inflate Will Saves just to try and mind control me. In the end, it wasn't a fun game. I can understand people not liking mind control because nobody likes losing control over their character. Players get very attached to them and many GMs lack the creativity to do more than say "You attack your caster! huehuehuehue". That's why as a GM, I use mind control very sparingly.

An example was about a year ago. I was running a Pathfinder game and everyone was really enjoying it. Everyone was level 8 before I did my first mind control on the party rogue. I was going to simply have him pretend to look down a hallway for traps and give an all clear, then have everyone walk into the pitfall trap (which lead into a closing walls traps below). At that point the mind control would wear off (the bbg wizard is a prick and likes messing with people) and the rogue would still be able to disable this trap. The pitfall trap did mediocre damage but was just meant to get the party active in stopping this trap. I didn't think it was that bad and after talking with the other players, neither did they. But, after the rogue failed his will save and I slipped him a card that gave a general outline of what to do, he threw his character sheet at me and said "Go ahead and play my f---ing character, why don'tcha!?!" then stormed off to play Mass Effect 2. Now, we were all shocked at the outburst. But, the other four carried on, beat the trap, and ended up defeating the evil wizard and getting lots of gold and treasure. When the rogue player came back, he grabbed his sheet and tried to play again with us. However, the other four players agreed that he shouldn't get any XP or gold that they earned that fight and that they didn't want to play with him any more. The rogue player got very mad but my cleric player stood up and said, "We don't like playing with brats that leave when we need them the most. You don't get s--- today."

Luckily, after that session, we took a week break, talked everything out, and got back to playing with the rogue player. He apologized for the way he acted and everything was cool again. But, it was a lesson to me, and hopefully to others, to not get worked up over something like mind control.


Arisps wrote:
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....

<smiles> Actually acrobatics gets harder at higher levels, not easier.

Quote:
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...

What is serious is a matter of opinion. As you can see many of us see this feat's actions as a serious consequence.


I don't think that I'd have a problem with Antagonize if the below three changes were made to it.

1) Adjust the ability so that it gives a saving throw rather than requires a skill check, setting the saving throw at a point where it isn't an auto fail.
2) Simply require that the person being taunted has to attack their tormentor, but it's their option as to what kind of attack is made.
3) The ability can only be used on those already involved in combat with you or your allies. Although this is a bit vague the idea is to stop some of the crazier out of combat ideas, or drawing in the one party member who is a complete pacifist.

Even still it forces bad tactics onto a group and could be potentially abused in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't find it terribly objectionable. As it stands there are just too many crazy situations that come out of using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arisps wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


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?

For most of us a feat is in or a feat is out. There are no PC or NPC only feats. The "PC's are special" only goes so far.


Arisps wrote:

Noone is commenting my suggestion...I ll re-re summarized it and abandon the thread...so here is my suggestion and opinion.

The DC should remain as it is but apply the below modification.

Add +2 to the DC for every 10 ft away from the antagoniser
Target must leave a fortified position +4
Target is stealthed +4
Target has means to attack from a distance +2

The effect
Target must attack the antagoniser at the best of its abilities or flee.
If the target has means to stop the antagoniser from speaking he is allowed to do so (silence,paralyze,dominate person etc), if however this attempt fails the effect is postoponed 1 round

Using this feat is a move equivelant action

Why does attacking or fleeing make sense? The issue of forcing me to attack the character when it makes no sense to do so is still not resolved.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arisps wrote:

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...

Maybe little things like the fact that more intimidating the guy using Antagonise is, the more able he is to force you to attack him physically?

A dragon trying to force a human wizard to attack him physically will will have a easier time than a halfling, thanks to his +4 bonus for being larger instead of the -4 for being smaller.
Things like using a mechanic based for frightening someone with your physical prowess to force him to get in meele with you?

If meet Ivan Drago and he say "I will break you" I will try to flee or be reduced at cowering in a corner. For sure I will not assault him with my fists.

This feat make possible "hilarious" things like forcing Feiya fox familiar to attack with his "powerful" bite a ready fighter or the Divine bonded mount of a Paladin to move toward the wrong opponent.

"Aggro" is a mechanic for computer moderated games, not for those that are human moderated.

Sczarni

wraithstrike wrote:
Arisps wrote:
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....

<smiles> Actually acrobatics gets harder at higher levels, not easier.

Quote:
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...
What is serious is a matter of opinion. As you can see many of us see this feat's actions as a serious consequence.

There is always some way to abuse... instead of banning something think how to use it effectively...and there are more crazy feats then this one that noone talks about...

eg: a rogue with exotic weapon prof sneak attack flanking from 10 ft with a two handed Fauchard!!! but i don t see anyone complainning about sneak attack..

And i can bring 100 examples like this one...A GM is there to effectively enforce and balance the rules and not ban rules that players abuse...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

A GM is allowed to ban rules as part of his enforcement and balancing of them.

Antagonize produces an unfavorable result for a number of DMs. They are perfectly justified in their banning of it.

And I can link you to DMs complaining about Sneak Attack if you like.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Odraude wrote:
Dabbler wrote:


Any DM pulling antagonise on any of my PCs will get handed the character sheet and told "You play him then, I'm off."

The following has nothing to do with Antagonize so feel free to ignore it. I'll spoiler it to make it easier.

** spoiler omitted **
This is an attitude I dislike from players. People that storm off when something bad happens to their precious characters.

I think that Dabbler point isn't "something bad has happened to my character" but "if you want to use something as broken as this feat once, it is sure you will want to use it again and again".

At that point that game is something that don't interest him, or me.

I had that kind of problem with a Ars Magica narrator. He fell that spells that affect the mind are "mild" and spells that deliver physical damage is "strong". So he was constantly nerfing every spell dealing physical damage, while making mental spells easier to use or stronger.
His idea of where the game balance lie was very different from mine, so after a time I voted with my feet and left the game.

I think Dabbler position is very similar.


Anguish wrote:

<snip>

Also, if your players can't live without one particular feat, that feat is very, very likely broken...

Wait, when did we start talking about Natural Spell??


Arisps wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arisps wrote:
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....

<smiles> Actually acrobatics gets harder at higher levels, not easier.

Quote:
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...
What is serious is a matter of opinion. As you can see many of us see this feat's actions as a serious consequence.

There is always some way to abuse... instead of banning something think how to use it effectively...and there are more crazy feats then this one that noone talks about...

eg: a rogue with exotic weapon prof sneak attack flanking from 10 ft with a two handed Fauchard!!! but i don t see anyone complainning about sneak attack..

And i can bring 100 examples like this one...A GM is there to effectively enforce and balance the rules and not ban rules that players abuse...

I don't see anything wrong with that example. Sneak attacks are not necessarily sneaky. The image is a bit weird, but it's mechanically no different than standing next to them with a bastard sword. I fail to see the comparison between "A character uses his class ability in a moderately effective manner" and "A character forces another character to behave in a totally inappropriate manner."

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arisps wrote:

there are more crazy feats then this one that noone talks about...

eg: a rogue with exotic weapon prof sneak attack flanking from 10 ft with a two handed Fauchard!!! but i don t see anyone complainning about sneak attack..

Is this...wha...how...who?

<head explodes>

Sczarni

Bobson wrote:
Arisps wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arisps wrote:
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....

<smiles> Actually acrobatics gets harder at higher levels, not easier.

Quote:
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...
What is serious is a matter of opinion. As you can see many of us see this feat's actions as a serious consequence.

There is always some way to abuse... instead of banning something think how to use it effectively...and there are more crazy feats then this one that noone talks about...

eg: a rogue with exotic weapon prof sneak attack flanking from 10 ft with a two handed Fauchard!!! but i don t see anyone complainning about sneak attack..

And i can bring 100 examples like this one...A GM is there to effectively enforce and balance the rules and not ban rules that players abuse...

I don't see anything wrong with that example. Sneak attacks are not necessarily sneaky. The image is a bit weird, but it's mechanically no different than standing next to them with a bastard sword. I fail to see the comparison between "A character uses his class ability in a moderately effective manner" and "A character forces another character to behave in a totally inappropriate manner."

sure it s not bad mechanics...only if a rogue/mage with quick invisibility can flank at 10 feet then be invisible wo even provoking Aoo and then flank again next round and then invisible again...sure go ahead and allow that in your campaigns...and when the players get tired of this because u fail to prevent it....

YEAH WE ALL KNOW THE SOLUTION BY NOW....ban multiclass....

that s not the way...a simple "percision attacks must be made with a light weapon would solve many problems"

It s not that i can t play without antagonize... it s just that charisma skills need a more dramatic effect in combat...all other abilities have that...Spellcraft,knowledges(u can learn weaknesses of monsters u r not familiar with) Perception and heal, acrobatis steath,swim,climb....all do something very usefull...while charisma ones are a bit awkward during combat time...they most certainly need a boost...antagonize offers that...

I m not saying that antagonize is perfect, but it s far better than leaving a gap there...

Maybe we ll see a better version of it in the future. But until then it would be best to keep it as it is, ad if u really want to ban it, ban only the intimidate version of it...there is nothing wrong to the diplomacy one,it s rather usefull and very nice...and ofc allow the player to use his intimidate modifier instead of diplomacy if better...


Arisps wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arisps wrote:
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....

<smiles> Actually acrobatics gets harder at higher levels, not easier.

Quote:
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...
What is serious is a matter of opinion. As you can see many of us see this feat's actions as a serious consequence.

There is always some way to abuse... instead of banning something think how to use it effectively...and there are more crazy feats then this one that noone talks about...

eg: a rogue with exotic weapon prof sneak attack flanking from 10 ft with a two handed Fauchard!!! but i don t see anyone complainning about sneak attack..

And i can bring 100 examples like this one...A GM is there to effectively enforce and balance the rules and not ban rules that players abuse...

There is a difference between something that can be abused, and something that is abusive by its very nature.

I can make an OP caster and abuse it, but this feat is abusive by its design.
Sneak attack is not broken, nor is sneak attacking from 10 feet away.
What feats are crazier than this one that nobody talks about?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sure, a multiclassed character that will use quickened invisibility to get 1 sneak attack in every round.
Really broken.

Maybe he can find something more useful to do with his 6th level spells than cast quickened invisibility?

Or maybe he greater invisibility will work better?

Unless he is a gestalt rogue/wizard or rogue/sorcerer I don't see how he could get enough d6 of sneak damage to make this tactic even vaguely worth using.

Remember that if you attack from invisibility you become visible with the first attack and deliver sneak damage only with the first attack.

Sczarni

it s not abusive by its nature u just fail to implement it in a balancing way because u don t understand what is its meaning...

u want to name just 1 or all the 100 i promised?

Sczarni

Diego Rossi wrote:

Sure, a multiclassed character that will use quickened invisibility to get 1 sneak attack in every round.

Really broken.

Maybe he can find something more useful to do with his 6th level spells than cast quickened invisibility?

Or maybe he greater invisibility will work better?

Unless he is a gestalt rogue/wizard or rogue/sorcerer I don't see how he could get enough d6 of sneak damage to make this tactic even vaguely worth using.

Remember that if you attack from invisibility you become visible with the first attack and deliver sneak damage only with the first attack.

a 7 rogue/7 wiz can use it effectively u don t need quickened inv u can scribe a scroll and cast a quickened read magic. which for instance is an abuse of metamagic feats


It is abusive for reasons already mentioned, but I would like for you to tell me how to implement it in a balancing way.

You can name 1 or 100 example, but at least name 10. I will probably skip corner cases though, since antagonize is not considered to be abusive in corner cases, but in its general use.

edit:The rogue example was not abusive at all.


Arisps wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Sure, a multiclassed character that will use quickened invisibility to get 1 sneak attack in every round.

Really broken.

Maybe he can find something more useful to do with his 6th level spells than cast quickened invisibility?

Or maybe he greater invisibility will work better?

Unless he is a gestalt rogue/wizard or rogue/sorcerer I don't see how he could get enough d6 of sneak damage to make this tactic even vaguely worth using.

Remember that if you attack from invisibility you become visible with the first attack and deliver sneak damage only with the first attack.

a 7 rogue/7 wiz can use it effectively u don t need quickened inv u can scribe a scroll and cast a quickened read magic. which for instance is an abuse of metamagic feats

I am not seeing how this is abusing metamagic. How is casting a quickened read magic an issue? Explain in detail.


Why does this seem like a semi civil troll topic?

Silver Crusade

Arisps wrote:
YEAH WE ALL KNOW THE SOLUTION BY NOW....ban multiclass....

1) Multiclass characters are very poor in comparison to single class characters.

2) Using sneak attack as an example of what is supposedly broken is wrong. Check the DPR Olympics posts, a 2H fighter does more average damage than a rogue of the same level. Sneak attack isn't broken.
3) Invisibility also isn't broken. There are half a dozen spells that can easily get round it many at very low levels.
4) Exotic Weapon proficiency barely gets you a single extra point of damage per blow. Hardly powerful.

Antagonise can't be got round by any spell of effect and enforces a course of action beyond the power of spells at a much higher level. All this without a Will save and with a intimidate skill check so ridiculously easy that Pee Wee Herman could make it in his sleep.

Another thing that you said is that every option should be available for players, that a GM should never ban anything. My only comment on this is that I would never play in any game where the GM did not consider banning things he did not agree with.

Sczarni

wraithstrike wrote:

It is abusive for reasons already mentioned, but I would like for you to tell me how to implement it in a balancing way.

I did allready u just failed to read probably

Robespierre wrote:
Why does this seem like a semi civil troll topic?

u r right and i allready said i m leaving this but they keep asking same things...well i won t be the troll anymore

*drinks an invisibility potion*


Quote:
I m not saying that antagonize is perfect, but it s far better than leaving a gap there...

That reminds of people who feel like they are better off in a bad relationship than being alone with the justification that something is better than nothing, which is not always the case.


Arisps wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

It is abusive for reasons already mentioned, but I would like for you to tell me how to implement it in a balancing way.

I did allready u just failed to read probably

Robespierre wrote:
Why does this seem like a semi civil troll topic?

u r right and i allready said i m leaving this but they keep asking same things...well i won t be the troll anymore

*drinks an invisibility potion*

If you mean the houserule changes then I read that, but making houserule changes, and implementing the feat as written are two different things.

If we are going to use houserules then the idea of applying penalties is something that I think will work since it was already mentioned, which is why I said the diplomacy version was not that bad.

You can't quicken read magic in order to help you with invisibility by the way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

By now I think I'm more antagonized by Arisps's spelling than by support of antagonize itself.

Silver Crusade

7th level wizard/7th level rogue?

+4d6 sneak attack damage? Wow... I'm quaking. This with an attack bonus of +16/+11 tops. At 14th level the average AC of a melee opponent will hover around 29 with about 170-200 hps. That means your terrifying multiclass character averages about 15-20 damage per strike and hits on a 13. I would expect a decent 2H fighter to be hitting the majority of the time for about 35 points of damage per strike.

Quickened read magic? That doesn't quicken the spell in the scroll. Using a scroll is a standard action:

Prd wrote:
Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.


I sent her a PM about that quoting the "read magic" spell as well. She said she won't be returning to this thread though.

Silver Crusade

For what it's worth, it is nice to see the forum relatively unified on a matter every once and a while.

Now to keep an eye out for a necro-ed UM Vow of Poverty thread.


That is the only option I considered banning because it was too weak.


I think it would show real integrity if Paizo errata'd Antagonize out of existence. It's possibly the one rule most universally recognised as bad for the game. It doesn't need to be fixed. It needs to be gone.


Mikaze wrote:

For what it's worth, it is nice to see the forum relatively unified on a matter every once and a while.

Now to keep an eye out for a necro-ed UM Vow of Poverty thread.

Dare I ask? You can PM it so it won't hijack the thread


Umbral Reaver wrote:
I think it would show real integrity if Paizo errata'd Antagonize out of existence. It's possibly the one rule most universally recognised as bad for the game. It doesn't need to be fixed. It needs to be gone.

I agree that the current execution of it is bad. However, I like the concept of Antagonize and I personally have been waiting for something like this for awhile now. Perhaps it could be something more akin to the Fighter's Combat Challenge mark in 4ed, where you at least have a choice to either attack the Antagonizer and take no penalty, or attack someone else but take a minus to something. It would be a lot more palatable than a mind control ability. Just my opinion.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

For what it's worth, it is nice to see the forum relatively unified on a matter every once and a while.

Now to keep an eye out for a necro-ed UM Vow of Poverty thread.

Dare I ask? You can PM it so it won't hijack the thread

Spoiler:
The original Vow of Poverty from Book of Exalted Deeds had some serious problems, but the basic idea did something very right for monks: It made gearless monks reasonably possible. It helpe those monks actually feel like legitimate msytically ascetic warriors, who were held up by their own enlightenment rather than a ton of expensive magical gear likely made by casters. It put forth an interesting inherent bonus-boost mechanic that could have been the backbone of a whole set of mechanics to support characters held up by their own skills rather than being overly gear dependant.

It helped people make monks that felt like monks that could keep up with the rest of hte party and contribute without being a burden to them. It helped make those monks live up to their own flavor.

UM VoP doesn't.

Everything the original VoP gave is gone, with a small ki-point increase in its place.

It isn't even a real Vow of Poverty when one considers the "one expensive piece of gear" caveat.

A 15-point buy UM VoP monk is not going to make it very far in a standard Pathfinder AP. A proper VoP should have made such a character possible, but that's not what we got.

What was really frustrating is that many of UM VoP's defenders claimed that those upset by it were just a bunch of min-maxing powergamers. Then when it came time to show that the UM VoP could work, the example was one of the most ungodly min-maxed abominations of a monk I've ever seen.

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I think it should be possible to build a reasonable ascetic monk without having to play a horribly dumpstatted dwarf.

There are so many things the Pathfinder Vow of Poverty could have been. It could have been a cool alternate system of inherent bonus options or supernatural powers, offering the monk inherent power at the cost of the flexibility magical gear brings.

We didn't get that.

What we got was something that mechanically would not carry a monk through an AP and failed ot live up to its own flavor.

This was especially frustrating as at that time the monk was the most ailing class in the game. Thankfully, Ultimate Combat actually came through for it. Still no viable options for gearless monks though within PF itself.

101 to 150 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Antagonize (the GM?!) All Messageboards