Antagonize (the GM?!)


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Hah! Arisps successfully antagonized a few of you...

I think we can ascertain that she didn't. For example, I have not yet left my house and attempted to procure plane tickets, despite my being something of a homebody with an irrational fear of heights, in an attempt to find her and make a melee attack to her face, despite the fact I've never hit anyone in anger before.

We can obviously tell I wasn't antagonized. :)


Did you possibly move up to double your speed in her direction for 12 seconds? Remember it only works for up to 2 rounds.

Sovereign Court

ANTAGONIZE (THE PAIZO COMMUNITY?!)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
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.

She had already said that in post 101 at the top of the previous page, then Swivl successfully Antagonized her into returning. Now a different guy need to make his intimidate roll to get her back again.

:D


Mikaze wrote:
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 omitted **...

Sadly the original VoP was a trap for virtually everyone but druids, and its rule text in how to maintain your Vow essentially forces you to fall from grace; especially when you refuse to have potions on you that you could use to heal your dying allies. That puts yourself and your vows before others, causing you to fall and specifically never, ever, again, receive the benefits of the Vows.

It was still better than the PF vow by miles though. Mikaze is correct. It was an option that required you to go buttcheeks deep in optimizing to make your character somewhat playable, and often required your "single item" to be the most pimped out item ever, with lots of extra mods on it. Of course, you were still horribly unplayable, since one dispel magic and shatter later your entire WBL was down the drain.


Talonhawke wrote:
Did you possibly move up to double your speed in her direction for 12 seconds? Remember it only works for up to 2 rounds.

Like I said. I didn't even attempt to do so. I mean, surely I could have moved double my speed and at least making it to the front porch before going "haha, oh yeah, I'm ____" (Boondocks joke which may not be fully appropriate for the thread, despite being TV-14) and returning. I think I may have pondered playing some Red Dead Redemption, but that's nothing unusual. :P

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:
Sadly the original VoP was a trap for virtually everyone but druids, and its rule text in how to maintain your Vow essentially forces you to fall from grace; especially when you refuse to have potions on you that you could use to heal your dying allies. That puts yourself and your vows before others, causing you to fall and specifically never, ever, again, receive the benefits of the Vows.

Yep, those were some of the serious problems mentined above. That's also why I got excited when I first heard about UM having a Vow of Poverty in it. I really expected that it would be a fixed and cleaned up VoP, with tightened language both to prevent abuse and nonsensical situations. Didn't pan out.


A few of the other UM vows had similar problems actually, though a reasonable GM could easily adjust them. Stuff like the Vow of Celibacy preventing you from catching someone as they fall, dragging people to safety, or even offering a comforting hand on the shoulder of the mother whose children you stood by and let fall to their deaths or burn in that barn.

Also, sorry Odraude. Missed the PM note as I immediately saw red. :(


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:
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 omitted **...

The thing that especially cheesed me off was SKR claiming that it was perfectly okay for Paizo to design to what amounts basically to "trap options", i.e. bad mechanics, which could seriously cripple a character if someone would take them, who is too unexperienced to grasp how bad they are.

Oh, and him then saying some weeks later, after extensive protests, how Paizo would take a look at the Monk... and then nothing happening on that front, either.

What happened to the Stealth re-write, anyway?


Hiding until PF 1.5?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
Hiding until PF 1.5?

It was supposed to go into effect still during this life-cycle of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
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 omitted **...

The thing that especially cheesed me off was SKR claiming that it was perfectly okay for Paizo to design to what amounts basically to "trap options", i.e. bad mechanics, which could seriously cripple a character if someone would take them, who is too unexperienced to grasp how bad they are.

Oh, and him then saying some weeks later, after extensive protests, how Paizo would take a look at the Monk... and then nothing happening on that front, either.

What happened to the Stealth re-write, anyway?

Yeah, Sean K. Reynolds used to be someone I really looked up to. I have become disenchanted in recent years (also after learning some of the stuff he worked on during 3.5 that is balance-breaking). These days, I realize there are independents and home-brewers who understand more about the game and they don't even get paid for their contribution to the hobby. Heck, GitP is full of 'em.

To knowingly make a trap feat is inexcusable. To then say it's okay because "it's for roleplaying, not mechanics" (paraphrased) as a designer is horrible. If you were a police officer, now would be the time to hand over your badge and your nerf gun that was just for roleplaying.

In my experiences it's not the people that understand the rules and make effective characters that are the problem. It's the guy who can't seem to figure out that Strength 9 on your melee-emphasized Fighter is somehow a bad idea, and that Skill Focus (Linguistics) doesn't make you better understanding languages. The last thing I want to see is the new guy have to have even more help navigating through the pitfalls of bad combinations because a new feat was released that the devs know is terrible and they through it in anyway.

If we're paying for mechanics, then dangit we want good ones. We don't want mechanical ideas that we have to then scrap, house-rule, and re-create to make them viable. Unfortunately, that seems to be an increasing trend these days. Feels like Paizo has been dropping the ball on a lot of these sourcebooks, and in many ways I keep getting negative feelings from both the new splats and the playtests (during the ultimate combat playtests, it actually felt like some of the devs didn't care, which they probably did, but in some cases it felt like they didn't).

When we can go to Giant in the Playground and get better quality material from people more knowledgeable about the game, for free off the homebrew boards, it makes me a sad panda. ಠ_ಠ

Ultimate Combat has been the biggest letdown to me thus far, for the largest number of reasons.

/rant *wipes tears away*


YES! Let's talk about Vow of Poverty. That will certainly antagonize someone.

It's is just a game, and now it's a big 3,000-page game riddled with inconsistencies. 3.5 thrives indeed.

I don't know if it's possible to commercially develop and maintain a game that lives up to the standards you're expressing, Ashiel. Certainly I've never seen it in practice. If you have, can you please link me to some info on it?

Shadow Lodge

I feel angry, and I don't know why!


No no no, it's all good. all that we need is to talk this out like civilised people, not...

what did you say about my mother?!?

*hulks out*

NERD SMASH!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
FuelDrop wrote:
NERD SMASH!

That's, what, 1d3-2 damage?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
FuelDrop wrote:
NERD SMASH!
That's, what, 1d3-2 damage?

Much more when raging.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Kid Zangief is no nerd.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kid Zangief is no nerd.

True. I'd like that last remark stricken from the record.

Shadow Lodge

Bruce Banner, however, is. And I'm pretty sure that his punch does something like 8d6 + (anger ^ 2).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
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.

That's pretty much it, yes. After thirty-five years of playing and GMing, I know what I like and what I don't, and where my limits are. Naturally, I'd explain to a DM why I felt the feat should be excluded from the game first, but honestly, if he can't see it's busted, I doubt I will enjoy the rest of his game, so why stick around?

Good gaming beats no gaming, but no gaming beats bad gaming. Most bad DM's stay bad longer because players don't walk away from them. Most bad games happen because somebody should have walked away from the table.

Odraude wrote:
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.

There has been stuff like it out for ages, both class abilities and spells. Putting it in as a feat was just unnecessary, you could as easily describe being able to use Intimidate or Diplomacy to insult somebody and make them angry. What they do when insulted should be up to them, however. Some stuff in Ultimate Combat was good, but this feat was just a bad idea.


magnuskn wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
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 omitted **...

The thing that especially cheesed me off was SKR claiming that it was perfectly okay for Paizo to design to what amounts basically to "trap options", i.e. bad mechanics, which could seriously cripple a character if someone would take them, who is too unexperienced to grasp how bad they are.

Oh, and him then saying some weeks later, after extensive protests, how Paizo would take a look at the Monk... and then nothing happening on that front, either.

What happened to the Stealth re-write, anyway?

Not sure. I know JJ's general opinion is that stealth isn't broken and that he's tired of people constantly dragging him on either side of the argument to beat a long dead horse. I liked the changes they proposed, but I also think stealth is fine.

I also really liked Ultimate Combat. I liked the options and classes it presented. The main gripe I hear is "Why does Ultimate Combat have spells?". It makes sense to me since some of the martial characters are also casters. Rangers, paladins, the magus, and the bard... they are all classes that can smash/shoot things awesomely and cast spells. Giving them more combat oriented spells made sense to me. And believe it or not, there are melee oriented casters too like the synthesist, some sorcerers, etc. To me, I don't see it as an issue.

Also, let's not start attacking Paizo staff members. It just seems kind of rude to start making jabs at people we don't agree with.


Odraude wrote:
Also, let's not start attacking Paizo staff members. It just seems kind of rude to start making jabs at people we don't agree with.

I don't think that was a personal jab.

I think Sean's being quoted out of context here, but posters should be able to disagree with designers without being misconstrued as attacking them personally.

Sean did say that Vow of Poverty was fine (if I recall correctly) and I do disagree with him on that, amicably. Of course I disagree, I'm a ruleswonk and I have my own solution that I think is just grand.

Other thoughts:

This game is incredibly complicated, and I don't think that anyone can point to a single edition of any RPG ever that was flawlessly maintained. It is entirely possible that our personal experiences lead us to different conclusions than the designers, and vice-verse, and that both parties are correct.

When you have a call to action from the messageboards on stealth or monks or rogues or antagonize, "fixing" it is harder than it looks. A fix can easily introduce potential problems, which may in fact be worse than continuing to live with a flawed-but-known quantity.

And then, if you get in the habit of patching every seeming flaw in the rules, you do coddle the players into thinking that Paizo has the time and resources to maintain the literature at a level that they simply don't. If I had to choose between a 100% clear, sanitized rulebase with an extremely sparse release schedule on the one hand, and a somewhat sloppy, GM-reliant 3.5 like mess and a fecund release schedule, I'll take the latter. Heck, I have that choice — other games exist — and I made it in favor of Pathfinder as it is.

All that said I think Antagonize is as bad as anything I've seen in the game, and it needs to be made an example so that other rules don't misbehave.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place.
It is right there at the bottom. Just letting everybody know.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Evil Lincoln wrote:
All that said I think Antagonize is as bad as anything I've seen in the game, and it needs to be made an example so that other rules don't misbehave.

Agreed.


SKR, the man, the myth, the legend, women want him, men want to be him wrote:

I believe we're also changing it like this (new/revised text in bold):

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee 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. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

realistic, constructive criticism to above proposal for errata:

well, it doesn't hose casters... but it hoses anybody whose schtick isn't melee combat or spell casting.
i.e. archers/axe-throwers, su-ability users, breath weapon users, etc.
no 'directly attack the Antagonizer' method should be held above another, IMHO.
i get that melee combat is more ragin' in yo' face, but if spellcasters can cast ranged spells, why not archers? or dragons who can blow a load of fire in your face?

making more clear how to deal with situations like obvious reach advantages (which would draw an AoO) should be done. of course, Acrobatics CAN avoid it, but i don't know if that's enough. of course, if the Antagonized character has other options at their disposal (thrown /ranged weapons, spells, etc) they could switch to those if moving thru a threatening area would be dangerous. (that should also be clear: 'chasm inbetween us' shouldn't mean much to a wizard with a staff of fireballs, for example)

besides that, the main problem is the DC, which even if amended to the normal intimidate DC is still problematic,
but that's really an issue with intimidate itself, whose DC just doesn't scale appropriately.
...that itself could probably be at least SEMI fixed by just allowing a class of Will Save bonuses / Fear Bonuses to apply to the Intimidate DC.

that issue, independent of intimidate, is something that should really be fixed 110% in PRPG 2.0,
namely that all effects should scale well, and connect to the same array of bonus sources...
in other words, skills vs. attacks vs. saving throws / etc, should be more on the same page,
at least when they may interact with each other...

these sub-systems that are kind of cut-off from normal applications of bonuses, or only effectively let one side of the equation (intimidate) get bonuses (from various skill bonuses) is just straight broken... you don't even need to get crazy maxing out intimidate, by high level any moderate investment is practically auto-success.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
Also, let's not start attacking Paizo staff members. It just seems kind of rude to start making jabs at people we don't agree with.

I am not. I am pretty sure that SKR is a perfectly nice person in RL. But I am well within my right to criticise what I consider very questionable design decisions for their game.

I mean, I can ignore Prone Shooter doing exactly nothing, because its existance doesn't shut off an entire play direction for a class. Vow of Poverty basically does that for the Monk ( or any other class which one would prefer to play under that tenet ).


magnuskn wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Also, let's not start attacking Paizo staff members. It just seems kind of rude to start making jabs at people we don't agree with.

I am not. I am pretty sure that SKR is a perfectly nice person in RL. But I am well within my right to criticise what I consider very questionable design decisions for their game.

I mean, I can ignore Prone Shooter doing exactly nothing, because its existance doesn't shut off an entire play direction for a class. Vow of Poverty basically does that for the Monk ( or any other class which one would prefer to play under that tenet ).

Actually wasn't aimed at you, but Ashiel. Probably should have quoted that one instead. I just happened to quote yours about the Stealth remake. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


i'm not much good at coming up with balanced solutions on the fly, but if the feat was amended to be (insert favored text amendment here) and instead of an intimidate check it allowed a will save of dc 10+1/2 antagoniser's intimidate modifier, would that work?
the kind of dc's we're looking at are:
1st level: 10 + 2 (1 rank and 3 class skill, divided by two) + 2 (1 ability + 3 skill focus) or DC 14 for a fighter with a cha 12-13 and skill focus.
level 10: 10 + 6.5 (10 ranks and 3 class skill) + 5.5 ( +6 skill focus, +4 other feats, +1 cha) or DC 22.
can still be jacked up a lot, but if you do then you're throwing resources into it that could have gone into feats ect to improve your combat ability.


It still has the problem of forcing people to act - under their own will as far as in-character views are concerned - in incredibly unbelievable ways. Can a character say, after being affected by antagonize (and surviving), that he or she was supernaturally compelled? Is there any defense of those actions or must the character say 'I was just really stupid for a moment there'?

If its fluff was reworded as: "You have tapped a mystic potential within you to enhance your ability to goad enemies; this is a supernatural mind-affecting effect." Then it might be received better.

At least then, anyone that commits heinous or ridiculous deeds under its effects can use the 'I was magically controlled' defense.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:

It still has the problem of forcing people to act - under their own will as far as in-character views are concerned - in incredibly unbelievable ways. Can a character say, after being affected by antagonize (and surviving), that he or she was supernaturally compelled? Is there any defense of those actions or must the character say 'I was just really stupid for a moment there'?

If its fluff was reworded as: "You have tapped a mystic potential within you to enhance your ability to goad enemies; this is a supernatural mind-affecting effect." Then it might be received better.

At least then, anyone that commits heinous or ridiculous deeds under its effects can use the 'I was magically controlled' defense.

Yep. All balance issues aside, that is my beef with that particular feat.

Perfectly balancing Antagonize won't deal with the core wrongness of it. The whole concept has to be rebuilt from the ground up in a way that doesn't break a table's social contract. Right now, it's a feat that lets someone steal another person's character from them and do things they would never do.

Another classic example: PC's love interest is dying. All she needs is a Heal check to keep him/her from dying. The PC that has spent the entire campaign developing a tight bond with that character is right there, ready to save him/her. Then the GM has a villain use Antagonize on him.

That is not a good game.


Mikaze wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:

It still has the problem of forcing people to act - under their own will as far as in-character views are concerned - in incredibly unbelievable ways. Can a character say, after being affected by antagonize (and surviving), that he or she was supernaturally compelled? Is there any defense of those actions or must the character say 'I was just really stupid for a moment there'?

If its fluff was reworded as: "You have tapped a mystic potential within you to enhance your ability to goad enemies; this is a supernatural mind-affecting effect." Then it might be received better.

At least then, anyone that commits heinous or ridiculous deeds under its effects can use the 'I was magically controlled' defense.

Yep. All balance issues aside, that is my beef with that particular feat.

Perfectly balancing Antagonize won't deal with the core wrongness of it. The whole concept has to be rebuilt from the ground up in a way that doesn't break a table's social contract. Right now, it's a feat that lets someone steal another person's character from them and do things they would never do.

Another classic example: PC's love interest is dying. All she needs is a Heal check to keep him/her from dying. The PC that has spent the entire campaign developing a tight bond with that character is right there, ready to save him/her. Then the GM has a villain use Antagonize on him.

That is not a good game.

Not really a good comparison since a BBG could still use dominate person on that person. The mind control mechanics exist and no player like them when used on themselves. At that point, it's more a bad GM than bad mechanics.

But I understand the sentiment against antagonize. I'd really like something more like the fighter marks in 4e, perhaps a bit different.


No, the difference is not out of character but in character. A character forced by dominating magic to do something terrible can blame the dominator. A character antagonized into doing something terrible can only blame themselves, as the ability forced them to act of their own free will, as paradoxical as that sounds.

Silver Crusade

Odraude wrote:

Not really a good comparison since a BBG could still use dominate person on that person. The mind control mechanics exist and no player like them when used on themselves. At that point, it's more a bad GM than bad mechanics.

But I understand the sentiment against antagonize. I'd really like something more like the fighter marks in 4e, perhaps a bit different.

Even then, in-universe dominate person would at least be the villain's fault. With Antagonize, the fault for leaving that NPC to die is squarely on the PC acting of his own free will, if not the actual player's.

But yeah, 4E fighter marks would be a lot more fitting.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
A character antagonized into doing something terrible can only blame themselves, as the ability forced them to act of their own free will, as paradoxical as that sounds.

Doesn't seem much different than the normal function of Intimidate, forcing you to act Friendly temporarily.


Social skills can't force the actions of player characters. They only work on NPCs and are generally just 'strong suggestions' to PCs.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Social skills can't force the actions of player characters. They only work on NPCs and are generally just 'strong suggestions' to PCs.

Exactly, and Antagonize is effectively a social skill used to compel actions in others. That part needs to be seriously reconsidered, or else Antagonize needs to work the same way - which of course nerfs it into near-uselessness.

Sczarni

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

Intimidate becomes a supernatural ability

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

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

DC varries.

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

On success the target must either

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

Any of the above breaks the effect.

Retry impossible in the same day vs same target.

Sczarni

Quandary wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
A character antagonized into doing something terrible can only blame themselves, as the ability forced them to act of their own free will, as paradoxical as that sounds.
Doesn't seem much different than the normal function of Intimidate, forcing you to act Friendly temporarily.

"Using Intimidate to change an opponent’s attitude requires 1 minute of conversation."-taken from skill's disccription

this is the difference man...this prevents you from using it in battle...

However allowing it in battle isn t such a big issue...with the proper modifications

Most ppl are oversceptical about this...I too would hate it if it happen to my char but ok i guess *** happens


Using skills to change an opponent's attitude works on NPCs only. On PCs, their actions are still their own. They can be prompted by the GM (such as 'This guy makes a convincing argument') but that's as far as it goes.

Also, if you want people to take your arguments seriously at all, please use correct spelling.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Also, if you want people to take your arguments seriously at all, please use correct spelling.

This is true. I'd like to think I'm not that judgmental, but I totally am. I pay less heed to posts that use abbreviations like "ppl" and "u".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I too, associate bad grammar with internet trolls.

Sczarni

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
Also, if you want people to take your arguments seriously at all, please use correct spelling.
This is true. I'd like to think I'm not that judgmental, but I totally am. I pay less heed to posts that use abbreviations like "ppl" and "u".

How old YOU guys ARE? like 50+??? U is used as you since the band U2!!!

and when i m posting rule suggestions I don t use these abbreviations...

Excuse me for being non-english native I won t do it again I swear!!!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I apologize, but I built up the habit over time. Mostly, it has served me well, but on occasion it backfires. It is not an attack, so there is no need for harsh words. There is no way that anyone could have known you were a non-english native.

Sczarni

blackbloodtroll wrote:
I apologize, but I built up the habit over time. Mostly, it has served me well, but on occasion it backfires. It is not an attack, so there is no need for harsh words. There is no way that anyone could have known you were a non-english native.

Thanks, you are kind...:D

Now to the subject please...

Do you guys like my new modification?

I understand antagonize needs fixing, but I don t agree with it being bannned

An intimidating person should be able to force certain actions...and when the gm uses his minions to insult and the player ignores....that s totally metagame thiking.

Antagonize in fiction

Achilles and Agenoras in Trojan war
Krishna and sishupala in Mahabharata

Shadow Lodge

Eyes jus kent speel.


strange, strange thread this has evolved into...


I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious: has anyone who wants this feat struck from the records actually playtested it?

Would it be okay with most in the form that SKR has suggested it will take?

SKR said wrote:
Short answer: obviously this shouldn't allow you to force an archer or spellcaster to abandon their primary attack type and instead make a melee attack against you.

Even without that change (which I am in favor of) it seems like the "effect ends if...attempting to do so would harm it" clause leaves a lot of room for interpretation. For example, I'd certainly consider a gauntlet of AoOs a reasonable assumption of harm.

If the complaint is really just a loss of agency, I don't see that as valid. Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate can get an NPC to do something they wouldn't normally do.

If the concern is specifically the loss of agency for a PC, I'd just suggest that if used against your character, you ask the GM if your character would reasonably believe that making a melee attack would cause her harm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Also, let's not start attacking Paizo staff members. It just seems kind of rude to start making jabs at people we don't agree with.

I am not. I am pretty sure that SKR is a perfectly nice person in RL. But I am well within my right to criticise what I consider very questionable design decisions for their game.

I mean, I can ignore Prone Shooter doing exactly nothing, because its existance doesn't shut off an entire play direction for a class. Vow of Poverty basically does that for the Monk ( or any other class which one would prefer to play under that tenet ).

Actually wasn't aimed at you, but Ashiel. Probably should have quoted that one instead. I just happened to quote yours about the Stealth remake. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Since when did criticizing something professional mean a personal attack against the professional? If I said that "This exterminator did a really bad job, my house still has termites" or the more suitable "the exterminator I paid to ward my house dumped a box of termites in it and suggested it was for the betterment of my house", exactly how is that different?

Like I said. I used to be fairly enamored in the sense that I looked up to Sean K. Reynolds as a designer, which was my own fault for not actually doing much research on him and just knowing that he was a designer at WotC and such. However, in recent years, I realized my admiration was misplaced. Has he been in the business a while? Definitely. Does that mean he gets a blank check when it comes to evaluating his contribution? Not a chance.

I myself have dealt with criticism. I'm harder on myself than I am in my criticism of Sean K.'s work. Don't take my criticism of his influence on the game as a whole to be a personal attack against him. From reading his blog, I have little reason to believe that he's anything less than a pretty cool guy and probably a great person. That, however, has nothing to do with my criticism of his work in 3.5/Pathfinder.

Capiche?


redward wrote:

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious: has anyone who wants this feat struck from the records actually playtested it?

Would it be okay with most in the form that SKR has suggested it will take?

SKR said wrote:
Short answer: obviously this shouldn't allow you to force an archer or spellcaster to abandon their primary attack type and instead make a melee attack against you.

Even without that change (which I am in favor of) it seems like the "effect ends if...attempting to do so would harm it" clause leaves a lot of room for interpretation. For example, I'd certainly consider a gauntlet of AoOs a reasonable assumption of harm.

If the complaint is really just a loss of agency, I don't see that as valid. Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate can get an NPC to do something they wouldn't normally do.

If the concern is specifically the loss of agency for a PC, I'd just suggest that if used against your character, you ask the GM if your character would reasonably believe that making a melee attack would cause her harm.

An enemy deciding your actions always does you harm.

And once again...
Skills like Bluff, Dimplomacy, and Intimidate do NOT grant you control over those characters. It may color their opinions of you, inflict mechanical penalties, or determine what information they are or are not privy to; but at no point could you walk into a convent of pacifistic monks and use Diplomacy to make them slay someone. Diplomacy just doesn't work that way. You could however force them to do so via Antagonize.

Let's not forget the sheer abuse potential this has. It takes all of 6 seconds to antagonize someone into throwing the first blow. Picture this:

Character A is walking along and sees character B. Character A wants to legally kill character B. He walks past him and says "Up yours, dude" and makes a rude gesture. Character B, regardless of circumstances, flies off the handle and attacks character A, who then kills character B in "self-defense".

Alternatively, a character is told to not make trouble. Acts of violence will result in death because you're not in Kansas anymore son. No acts of violence of any sort in the thieves' guild, for example. "Up yours, dude". PC: "Oh dear god, nooooooo!!!" *tries to hold back as his arm whips his sword out on its own like Ashitaka's cursed arm in Princess Mononoke; and is then immediately put down by the various assassins protecting some dude.

Worst. Feat. Ever. I wouldn't even allow this feat if it was supernatural.


Ashiel wrote:

Alternatively, a character is told to not make trouble. Acts of violence will result in death because you're not in Kansas anymore son. No acts of violence of any sort in the thieves' guild, for example. "Up yours, dude". PC: "Oh dear god, nooooooo!!!" *tries to hold back as his arm whips his sword out on its own like Ashitaka's cursed arm in Princess Mononoke; and is then immediately put down by the various assassins protecting some dude.

Worst. Feat. Ever. I wouldn't even allow this feat if it was supernatural.

you do know that pallys, and i think inquisitors get a spell that functions like this feat right? is that spell banned as well?

*edit* its actually worse because it lasts rounds per level and isnt bound to melee actions. you can force a rangedcharacter/spell caster to provoke against you if you are holding a reach weapon.

151 to 200 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