Antagonize (the GM?!)


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
truesidekick wrote:
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 EXACTLYlike this feat right? is that spell banned as well?

What part of spells get a will save, are identifiable as spells, and don't work in anti-magic zones are you not comprehending?

The feat works in any environment you can be heard (IE: In anti-magic), is undetectable by any spell, and has no will save or other defense against short of popping your own ear drums and making yourself deaf.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


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.

The question you should seriously consider answering is

"Why it shouldn t?"

It s in fiction and whatever is in an epic fiction like the Mahabharata has a place in PF...

The example

Krishna (who is the incarnation of a god) is under vows of peace, yet in Mahabharata he slays Shishupala with his disk after a series of insults he received from him...


Personally, I find any non-symmetry in PC/NPC reactions to social skills incredibly stupid :-)
Taking as a basis that any creature CAN be intimidated, flustered, etc
(Fear/Emotion-manipulation Immune creatures barred, that's mostly covered by Mind Affecting immune)
I would say that being able to portary your character when Intimidated, etc, is a basic part of Role-Playing.
So having symmetry in crunch of social skills isn't a problem here, any more than symmetry of crunch as applied to acid damage.
I think the indicated direction of Errata is that ANY character SHOULD have some range of choice re: their course of action, to make that course of action appropriate to them and their capabilities.
/my2c


Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you <--- how in gods name could you use this on someone in a society? everyone who saw it would say "he started cussing at him and talking about his momma, then when he defended his honour, that group of adventurers jumped him"

in a mid fight ability a paladin could do so much better, and more often.

and its not limited to pallys like i thought. a summoner can force someone, using this spell, to attack its edilon tank.

"Compel Hostility

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 1, cleric 1, inquisitor 1, paladin 1, ranger 1, summoner 1, witch 1

CASTINGCasting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a drop of your blood)

EFFECTRange personal
Target you
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw see text; Spell Resistance see text

DESCRIPTIONWhenever a creature you can see that threatens you makes an attack against one of your allies, as an immediate action, you can compel that creature to attack you instead. When you compel a creature to attack you, you must first overcome that creature’s spell resistance, and the creature can attempt a Will saving throw to ignore the compulsion. A summoner casting this spell can choose his eidolon as the target of the spell."

^that seems more broken to me. this feat is awesome, but not the end of the world like some seem to think. i would let a player use this in my games, because if i needed to i could do MUCH better.

who cares if it works in an antimagic field? nothing else does, so your 800 ac +50 thousand to attack melee character with this feat gets one hit by the demon that walked up to him in the anitmagic field.

not to mention that a pally casts off cha, my god good luck making that will save on a standard out of the book npc. not to mention the save boosting feats he could use if he so chooses to.

mountian out of a mole hill


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Arisps wrote:

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

Intimidate becomes a supernatural ability

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

Arisps wrote:

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

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

DC varries.

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

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

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

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

Arisps wrote:

On success the target must either

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

Any of the above breaks the effect.

Retry impossible in the same day vs same target.

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

I still don't like the concept behind this feat - I think that you should be able to use Sense Motive or Diplomacy to insult somebody without a feat, and have the result of making somebody angry be determined at the time. However, if the feat is staying, this format is on the right track. This is something I could tolerate without wielding the banhammer.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

@TrueSideKick

Are you even reading the spell and the feat at the same time?

Will Save? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Spell Resistance? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Spellcraft Check (To identify it as a compulsion)? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Immunity to Mind Control? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Only usable in combat? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Detectable by Magic? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Target must already want to attack your ally? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

But you think the Spell is not only equal to the feat, but that the spell is the more broken of the two?

I have no words to convey how utterly insane that sounds.

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:
Skills like Bluff, Dimplomacy, and Intimidate do NOT grant you control over those characters.

I was under the impression that Antagonize was a feat, not a skill.

double-checks

Yup, it's a feat.

So why don't we stop beating the "It's only a skill!" strawman ?


Ashiel wrote:


An enemy deciding your actions always does you harm.

I'm not buying this. If the Mad Hatter dominates you into participating in his tea party, the only thing wounded is your pride.

Quote:


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.

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

What the skills do is force (yes force) someone to do something they're not inclined to do. I don't want to tell you the master's evil plan, and I don't want to tell you so bad the DC to beat it out of me is 35. You can still do it.

What the feat (which is supposed to be more powerful than a skill) does is force someone to do something much more severe in much less time. But mechanically both are still radically altering someone's attitude.

Quote:


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"....

And as a GM, you have the latitude to play that out: this happens in a public place? The instigator (antagonizer) is arrested and put on trial. Sure, the self-defense plea will probably get him off, but due process and all. Hope that "legal" kill was worth all the trouble.

As a player, if a GM uses this to force your character into a career-ending combat then he's a bad GM.

But as far as all that is concerned, is it any different than being dominated from someone hiding in the crowd? You can claim you were mind-controlled in either case. One happens to be true, but either way unless you can prove it you're still on the hook for the assault.


As someone said before treating it like 4E marked is a better idea.

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

The fluff could be you are so upset/scared that the distraction gives you X penalties.

Now since shaken already gives you penalties, and this is a feat maybe all of your attention can be on the person trying to intimidate you. that causes you to lose dex against others while you are within a certain range of the person using the feat. That is just a suggestion though.

PS:These are just general drafts I thought of in about 30 seconds. Improve or take away as needed.


mdt wrote:

@TrueSideKick

Are you even reading the spell and the feat at the same time?

Will Save? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Spell Resistance? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Spellcraft Check (To identify it as a compulsion)? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Immunity to Mind Control? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Only usable in combat? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Detectable by Magic? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

Target must already want to attack your ally? Spell, Yes. Feat, No.

But you think the Spell is not only equal to the feat, but that the spell is the more broken of the two?

I have no words to convey how utterly insane that sounds.

ok... give me one example of how this woul effect anything about the functionality of the spell vrs the feat.

detectable by magic
spell craft

not to mention that with greater spell pen you can beat a cr appropriate
SR 90% of the time or even that both spell and feat are subject to mindcontrol limitations. the only honest advantage the feat has over the spell ison the rare chance you fight something with an enormous will save you wont be able to auto assume sucess, it would be more like 75% success, unless fighting something end game.

as previously stated goading someone into a fight would get you head chopped off in a society if it resulted in death,UNLESS it was an honourable duel which in that case the feat would be useless.any dm with half a brain would have the constibles office chasing that pc through the streets.

Sczarni

Dabbler wrote:
Arisps wrote:

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

Intimidate becomes a supernatural ability

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

Arisps wrote:

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

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

DC varries.

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

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

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

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

Arisps wrote:

On success the target must either

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

Any of the above breaks the effect.

Retry impossible in the same day vs same target.

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

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

I like how alignment is implemented...

+5 for code of conduct is alot imo +2 is better

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

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

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

Shadow Lodge

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

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

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


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

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

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


wraithstrike wrote:

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

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

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

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


redward wrote:

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

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

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

i was told it is not PFS legal, and i have only been able to play PFS since it released. but i have a friend lol who used this irresponcibly... lets just say it didnt end well.

he used it to force a npc to strike him thinking it was a "free pass" to kill npc legaly. its not, you have to cuss shout insult or tell your momma jokes until the npc gets mad enough to attack you. long story short he was jailed, his items were sold for the true res spell on the npc, then beheadded.

which is a very realistic outcome for misuse of this feat.

Sczarni

redward wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Arisps wrote:
Sense motive shouldn t be effective this isn t a bluff it s real intimidation.

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

I do not think it needs to be supernatural to require a saving throw. If it's going to be a supernatural effect, then it needs a magical pre-requisite, such as being able to cast spells from the Enchantment school.

truesidekick wrote:
as previously stated goading someone into a fight would get you head chopped off in a society if it resulted in death,UNLESS it was an honourable duel which in that case the feat would be useless.any dm with half a brain would have the constibles office chasing that pc through the streets.

I doubt it. It's usually considered a contributing factor, but the underlying principal is that you are responsible for your own actions - which of course you aren't with this feat about in it's current form.

Sczarni

Quandary wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

it s not a fear effect it s being provocative

fear effect is allready introduced by normal intimidating check


truesidekick wrote:


c
spell craft

not to mention that with greater spell pen you can beat a cr appropriate
SR 90% of the time or even that both spell and feat are subject to mindcontrol limitations. the only honest advantage the feat has over the spell ison the rare chance you fight something with an enormous will save you wont be able to auto assume sucess, it would be more like 75% success, unless fighting something end game.

as previously stated goading someone into a fight would get you head chopped off in a society if it resulted in death,UNLESS it was an honourable duel which in that case the feat would be useless.any dm with half a brain would have the constibles office chasing that pc through the streets.

90%, really?

The issue of how it affect PC's is still not solved, and no NPC that is level appropriate is getting a spell to work on a PC 90% of the time.

Goading someone into a fight will not get your head chopped in most societies. The goading also does not have to be obvious. Whispering to someone can work so nobody can prove that you instigated the incident.


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

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

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

You skipped few post I see.

Those spell take the person's personality into account because if you try to do something they would not normally do they get a 2nd save or you have to make an opposed charisma check. This feat does not do that.
Command like the others has fluff behind it. You are not doing it under your own power.
A feat not only has to work mechanically it has to make sense.

Sczarni

Dabbler wrote:
Arisps wrote:
Sense motive shouldn t be effective this isn t a bluff it s real intimidation.

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

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


Arisps wrote:
redward wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Intimidate is supposed to make people afraid of you. I am failing to see how this makes sense.

NPC/PC:"I am so afraid I am going to punch you in the face."


again, scaling of intimidate DCs is really the biggest issue here IMHO,
it's just that nobody care's as much when at most it's a minor debuff (in combat),
but as soon as there is a signifigant effect, yeah it's important.


Dabbler wrote:


I doubt it. It's usually considered a contributing factor, but the underlying principal is that you are responsible for your own actions - which of course you aren't with this feat about in it's current form.

in our society i would agree with you. you would be jailed for man slaughter.

in pathfinder? i wouldnt agree with you only because of the diversity of cultures. not to mention i havent seen a list of laws in absalom so it would be a gm call.

wraithstrike wrote:

Intimidate is supposed to make people afraid of you. I am failing to see how this makes sense.

NPC/PC:"I am so afraid I am going to punch you in the face."

intimidate is a moral effecting skill. so i think intimidate is the best skill for the check. the definition of intimidate would agree with you, but remember this isnt a literal interpertation of the word, just like how they treat the alignment system (lawful dosent mean "lawful")

anyway i could see how Antagonize could be used in real life.

story time. the year was 1995 and i was playing basket ball with my friends and a few people i never met. someone got fouled and said something like your mom is a "female dog". that started a fist fight.

it wasn to the death, so it wasnt REALLY like the instance in the game, but i see how this could work.

Sczarni

wraithstrike wrote:
Arisps wrote:
redward wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


wraithstrike wrote:

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

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

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

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

Sczarni

redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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

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

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

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

Exact and into the point!

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

who can take a lot of damage

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


truesidekick wrote:


i was told it is not PFS legal, and i have only been able to play PFS since it released. but i have a friend lol who used this irresponcibly... lets just say it didnt end well.

he used it to force a npc to strike him thinking it was a "free pass" to kill npc legaly. its not, you have to cuss shout insult or tell your momma jokes until the npc gets mad enough to attack you. long story short he was jailed, his items were sold for the true res spell on the npc, then beheadded.

which is a very realistic outcome for misuse of this feat.

And that's pretty much exactly how I anticipated it would go down if the GM has any kind of sense.

In a populated area with any kind of justice system in place, goading someone into a fight and then killing them "in self defense" is not something you can just walk away from. And even if you're released, you're going to have some downtime while the authorities sort everything out.

In a remote area with no legal system to speak of...why are you even bothering with the pretense? Just kill the guy.

Like I said, I do see potential for abuse, but reasonable groups shouldn't have a problem and unreasonable groups have bigger problems to deal with. I just don't see how this is such a threat to the institution of Pathfinder.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM having a good way to punish a character with imprisonment or death in response to creating a ridiculous and impossible situation with a game mechanic does not mean it is not a badly executed feat design. Just the opposite, in fact.

GMs being forced into punitive behavior is the biggest possible sign that something is very, very wrong in the game design.


Arisps wrote:

Exact and into the point!

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

who can take a lot of damage

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

I'd actually say Paladins and Cavaliers make the most sense. This would dovetail nicely with a Challenge or a Smite.

Of course, the Paladins and most Cavaliers are also bound by codes which would restrict them from using this for any dishonorable purpose.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

The GM having a good way to punish a character with imprisonment or death in response to creating a ridiculous and impossible situation with a game mechanic does not mean it is not a badly executed feat design. Just the opposite, in fact.

GMs being forced into punitive behavior is the biggest possible sign that something is very, very wrong in the game design.

If I Dominate someone into attacking me (or someone else) is it any more ridiculous or impossible? Would not the proper response (if caught) be my imprisonment or death? I'm not sure I understand the difference other than the Spellcraft expert witness testifying at my trial.

EDIT:
I'm also not disputing that the Feat is flawed as written. It's been indicated that a change is coming to include spells and ranged attacks as appropriate for the antagonized. I'm just not convinced that the Feat is fundamentally game-breaking.


Arisps wrote:


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

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

I am not trolling. I am disproving false statements.

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

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

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


redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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

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

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

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

Stop trying to move the goalpost. The statement was "...later it kinda balances".

That statement was shown to be false.

You don't have to one-shot something to get it into a bad position, just saying.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

The GM having a good way to punish a character with imprisonment or death in response to creating a ridiculous and impossible situation with a game mechanic does not mean it is not a badly executed feat design. Just the opposite, in fact.

GMs being forced into punitive behavior is the biggest possible sign that something is very, very wrong in the game design.

what?? by that logic wish, mericle, command, dominate animal, dominate person, dominate monster, etc... should all be banned.

by your own admission anything that creats a necessity for a gm resposce should removed or changed?

the gm is responsible for that EXACT position. thats whats hes there for, a story teller who should be neutral and unbiased in his responces to what a player does, good bad or otherwise.

sorry if i sound like im trolling, im not trying to.


Every class can make good use of this feat. A one-shot is not needed. Even if you don't die one the first round you will be most likely dead on the second round. Inquistors are good in melee, and while heavy armor is nice it is not needed. This inquisitor kills the Rakshasa in two rounds after antagonizing him. Even with the Rakshasa's DR he still dies in two round.

We all know fighter can take intimidating prowess, and so can barbarian.
No matter what class you name I name make this feat work for them.

Quote:

3rd Round Judgements maximise

+21x2/+21/+16
1d8+17 + 2d6
1d8+17 +2d6

DPR= 106.305

3rd round Judgments + prebuff Divine power (For giggles)
25x2/+25/+25/+20
1d8+20 + 2d6

DPR= 161.4375


redward wrote:
I'm just not convinced that the Feat is fundamentally game-breaking.

It is hard to prove anything is fundamentally game-breaking, but I agree it is definitely flawed.

It is flawed to the point that most people don't like it, and when most of the fan-base unite against one feat or spell that is telling fact.

Sczarni

wraithstrike wrote:
Arisps wrote:


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

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

I am not trolling. I am disproving false statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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


wraithstrike wrote:


Stop trying to move the goalpost. The statement was "...later it kinda balances".

That statement was shown to be false.

You don't have to one-shot something to get it into a bad position, just saying.

And I might argue that the Bard or Sorcerer positioning someone directly in front of them is the one getting into a bad position.

And I would likely further argue that if the position is as bad as you suggest, it might be considered putting the antagonized in harm's way, thus ending the effect.

Look, we can throw hypotheticals back and forth all day. The bottom line for me is that the two real-world examples presented so far have produced the following results:
a) PC jailed and beheaded
b) "Meh, it's okay, but it's rarely worth the standard action it takes"

And neither of those scream game changer to me.

Dark Archive

My nightmare, Synthesist, uses it rarely in society to draw fire away from the squishies (bards, casters, etc).
I don't care how the enemy attacks me as long as they're attacking me and giving others time to buff, heal, or fall back behind the defensive line seeking safety.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok,
So, let me understand this correctly.

The feat is balanced because if you use it, the GM should behead your character for using?

That's honestly the response?

Then it's broken because it's an unusable feat. How about that? It's like taking a feat that let's you unleash a dervish dance attack, but only by self immolating.


wraithstrike wrote:
redward wrote:
I'm just not convinced that the Feat is fundamentally game-breaking.

It is hard to prove anything is fundamentally game-breaking, but I agree it is definitely flawed.

It is flawed to the point that most people don't like it, and when most of the fan-base unite against one feat or spell that is telling fact.

I agree that with the response so far, it's certainly worthy of review. But it's also not a democracy. And it seems silly to me to discard something out of hand without good reason and preferably some testing.

These seem to be the popular arguments against the feat:


  • The Bad Precedent: It is a Feat with a spell-like effect, but without the spell mechanics (SR, Saves, etc.)
  • OOC Abuse: It can be used to provoke NPCs into slaughter
  • Loss of Agency: It removes a PC's (or NPCs) control over their own character
  • Imbalance: It puts the target into a position to absorb too much damage/round

Am I missing any (not snark, I'm trying to break this down so we can talk to the same points)?


mdt wrote:

Ok,

So, let me understand this correctly.

The feat is balanced because if you use it, the GM should behead your character for using?

That's honestly the response?

Then it's broken because it's an unusable feat. How about that? It's like taking a feat that let's you unleash a dervish dance attack, but only by self immolating.

Seriously?

I would expect the same response (beheading) if you used a Fireball on an NPC in the middle of the town square.

Or Dominate.

Or a Greatsword.

Which of the above are also broken and/or unusable?


Arisps wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Arisps wrote:


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

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

I am not trolling. I am disproving false statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you saying a bard can't be made that can fight well in melee? Before you answer there is proof that says other wise.

The summoner can use the synthesis archetype. :)


redward wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Stop trying to move the goalpost. The statement was "...later it kinda balances".

That statement was shown to be false.

You don't have to one-shot something to get it into a bad position, just saying.

And I might argue that the Bard or Sorcerer positioning someone directly in front of them is the one getting into a bad position.

And I would likely further argue that if the position is as bad as you suggest, it might be considered putting the antagonized in harm's way, thus ending the effect.

Look, we can throw hypotheticals back and forth all day. The bottom line for me is that the two real-world examples presented so far have produced the following results:
a) PC jailed and beheaded
b) "Meh, it's okay, but it's rarely worth the standard action it takes"

And neither of those scream game changer to me.

The sorcerer would draw you in so summoned or called monsters can deal with you. Of course a low BAB caster is not going into melee with anyone.

I said the idea would work. I never suggest the person using it is the one doing the actual fighting once you get there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Wow, this exploded since I last looked.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
redward wrote:
mdt wrote:

Ok,

So, let me understand this correctly.

The feat is balanced because if you use it, the GM should behead your character for using?

That's honestly the response?

Then it's broken because it's an unusable feat. How about that? It's like taking a feat that let's you unleash a dervish dance attack, but only by self immolating.

Seriously?

I would expect the same response (beheading) if you used a Fireball on an NPC in the middle of the town square.

Or Dominate.

Or a Greatsword.

Which of the above are also broken and/or unusable?

You're arguing apples and wingnuts here.

Fireball : Save for half damage, visible, easily noticeable, can tell exactly who did it.

Dominate : Save to avoid, detectable as magic, victim knows who did it, and knows they got dominated by a magic spell.

Greatsword : Visible, requires an AC based attack roll, everyone can see who did it.

Antagonize : The most pacifist character get's called a ninny by two people, one with antagonize and one without. The one without is ignored, the one with get's attacked like a rabid animal. Where's the difference? How can people tell which was which?

Look at it the other way, you can use this feat as an excuse to kill anyone that mouths off at you. "Oh! He antagonized me! I had no choice!"


Varthanna wrote:

Is it true this is a feat that works like Demoralize and makes someone attack you? I have a jerk character that would love this feat so he could coax people into taking the first swing (and provoke from his reach).

I can see this creating all sorts of problems, though, as far as campaigns are concerned! The ability to incite people to assault you has quite the ability to derail a campaign, I'd imagine.

I didn't read the whole thread, but keep in mind- This isn't Skyrim. Not taking the first swing doesn't always make you immune in a court of law. Even in American legal systems, there is something called "fighting words", in which saying certain things can be considered grounds for a physical rebuttal. Let alone a fantasy setting, which may well include strong ideals of ancestry, for example.

"He dared to insult my mother! By Cuthbert, I couldn't allow this disgrace to pass!"

Even if the player doesn't take a physical swing, if he's a verbal aggressor he could still well be considered at fault depending on the laws and rules of a given society.


mdt wrote:


You're arguing apples and wingnuts here.

Fireball : Save for half damage, visible, easily noticeable, can tell exactly who did it.

Dominate : Save to avoid, detectable as magic, victim knows who did it, and knows they got dominated by a magic spell.

Greatsword : Visible, requires an AC based attack roll, everyone can see who did it.

Antagonize : The most pacifist character get's called a ninny by two people, one with antagonize and one without. The one without is ignored, the one with get's attacked like a rabid animal. Where's the difference? How can people tell which was which?

Look at it the other way, you can use this feat as an excuse to kill anyone that mouths off at you. "Oh! He antagonized me! I had no choice!"

And if you're interested in roleplaying the ensuing arrest and trial, that's up to you.

Why is this the only ability whose responsible use isn't adjudicated by common sense? Is it because it's a Feat and not a Spell?

If you show me a game where a player uses Antagonize in the scenario you've laid out and the GM lets him get away with it, then I will show you a bad player and a bad GM. I don't think we need to be idiot-proofing Feats.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If I have to police every use of a feat, I'm going to ban it. That's all.

201 to 250 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