Antagonize (the GM?!)


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
redward wrote:


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.

There is a difference between idiot proofing, and bad mechanical design that as written is broken.

Let me ask you this, would you say it would be wrong for the GM to use this feat against the PCs repeatedly, to say, force the archer to melee attack the bad guy? Or, here's another one, to force the rogue to stop flanking/sneak attacking and instead move to the frost giant instead of attacking the sorcerer? If the rogue was forced to attack by himself in every fight going forward the big bad guy in full armor with fortification because they all had this feat?

That's the equivalent of a PC having it, letting every NPC have the feat going forward.


The best mechanics take care of themselves. If they have to be houseruled.... A good feat works the same in every game so as to reduce the amount of adjudication a GM has to do.
In short if I have to get a "mother may I" before using a feat every time that says a lot about that feat.

Arbitrarily telling a player no makes for a bad GM to many people. Why allow a feat that forces you to do that.

Common sense is not a measurable variable, and is therefore not a valid defense except for in extreme cases like the dead condition.

PS:Good example MDT. :)


mdt wrote:


Let me ask you this, would you say it would be wrong for the GM to use this feat against the PCs repeatedly, to say, force the archer to melee attack the bad guy?

Yes, I would:

Antagonize wrote:


Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
mdt wrote:


Or, here's another one, to force the rogue to stop flanking/sneak attacking and instead move to the frost giant instead of attacking the sorcerer? If the rogue was forced to attack by himself in every fight going forward the big bad guy in full armor with fortification because they all had this feat?

I would also consider this wrong:

Antagonize wrote:


The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you.

If my GM gave this Feat to everything I fight, I would stop playing with that GM. As I would if every battle were stocked with countless casters Dominating my entire party into killing each other.

Again...where does common sense enter into this?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If a rule would cause you to stop playing a game, doesn't that make it a bad rule?


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

How do you have to police this anymore than you would any of the above examples? The only use I see that requires policing is when used out of combat to goad someone into a fight. And that's not policing. That's just playing the reality of the situation.

In combat, it's no different than taking 10:

Are you distracted? Yes, then no take 10.
Will walking into your Great Axe cause him harm? Yes? Then the effect ends.

This doesn't seem like it should take a lot of spare cycles to judge.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
If a rule would cause you to stop playing a game, doesn't that make it a bad rule?

It's not the rule.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to sunder my gear.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to put me to sleep.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM had me fight a guy wielding a shield and a sword.

None of those would be fun.

Are we only doing Feats?

I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to Trip me with Improved Trip.

These are patently ridiculous arguments:
"Someone might use it too much."
"Someone might find a way to be a jerk with it."
"I don't like the idea that it could be used against me."

You can apply those to EVERY RULE.


redward wrote:

If my GM gave this Feat to everything I fight, I would stop playing with that GM. As I would if every battle were stocked with countless casters Dominating my entire party into killing each other.

What about the GM giving all the melee NPCs the Power Attack feat?


Deciding when a feat can and can not be used at random is due to cause more issues than paladins not knowing what to do. At least they have guidelines. You are suggesting changing the feat by an amount that has no guidelines for every GM that runs it.

If the feat can not be used openly and as much as a a player wants due to it causing problems such as breaking a combat it is a bad feat. How many other feats cause these problems in combat or socially?


Caedwyr wrote:
redward wrote:

If my GM gave this Feat to everything I fight, I would stop playing with that GM. As I would if every battle were stocked with countless casters Dominating my entire party into killing each other.

What about the GM giving all the melee NPCs the Power Attack feat?

Conceded. I overreached in saying every single rule.

Although, would Antagonize-happy GMs also be giving every melee NPC high Intimidate and Charisma to use the Feat effectively?


wraithstrike wrote:

Deciding when a feat can and can not be used at random is due to cause more issues than paladins not knowing what to do. At least they have guidelines. You are suggesting changing the feat by an amount that has no guidelines for every GM that runs it.

If the feat can not be used openly and as much as a a player wants due to it causing problems such as breaking a combat it is a bad feat. How many other feats cause these problems in combat or socially?

That's the thing: in practice, I just don't see the type of overhead you guys are complaining about. And I'm not sure where I suggested a change. I posted SKR's "preview" of a possible errata, which I happen to agree with.

The feat can be used at any time. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. Just like Invisibility can be used in combat until you attack and the effect ends. Just like Power Attack can be used in a social situation, and it will just as likely end up with someone dead and someone in jail. If the player doesn't know how to use it effectively that's the player's problem.

So I'll update my list:

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
  • Overhead: Will require too much work for the GM to police
  • Trap: Player might take it thinking it's a Get Out of Jail Free Card


1 person marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:

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
  • Overhead: Will require too much work for the GM to police
  • Trap: Player might take it thinking it's a Get Out of Jail Free Card

The fact that it has that long of a list, probably says a lot.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
redward wrote:

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
  • Overhead: Will require too much work for the GM to police
  • Trap: Player might take it thinking it's a Get Out of Jail Free Card

The fact that it has that long of a list, probably says a lot.

I agree, if any of the arguments hold water.


redward wrote:


And I'm not sure where I suggested a change. on to absorb too much

When you said the GM can tell a player he can't use the feat. The feat as written has no such provisions. That is no different than telling a player when he and can not sunder.

Quote:
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.

If you meant something else by not letting him get away with it I apologize in advance, but if the idea is to a witness report the crime making sure there are no witnesses can be done in a variety of ways.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
redward wrote:
Caedwyr wrote:
redward wrote:

If my GM gave this Feat to everything I fight, I would stop playing with that GM. As I would if every battle were stocked with countless casters Dominating my entire party into killing each other.

What about the GM giving all the melee NPCs the Power Attack feat?

Conceded. I overreached in saying every single rule.

Although, would Antagonize-happy GMs also be giving every melee NPC high Intimidate and Charisma to use the Feat effectively?

If a feat is so broken, that the GM cannot give it to every NPC the players encounter, without ruining the game, then it's a broken piece of junk.

Your own arguments agree with this, you would quit a game in which every NPC had this feat, and yet, it's a feat every NPC should have. A five person group could control who their enemies attacked every round for 5 rounds of combat, forcing people to switch opponents every round using this feat. Since each could use it once per target per day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

[QUOTE="redward"
Again...where does common sense enter into this?

When the GM looks at a feat that forces any character to attack, at any time, regardless of personal codes of honor or beliefs, with no saves, no way to detect it's use, and no defense against it, and says 'Hell NO!'.

That is where common sense enters into this.

Where it leaves, is where people try to compare this to a spell that has defenses against it, saving throws, bonus saving throws if forced to act against your alignment, etc.

If I were a big bad guy, I'd kidnap orphans, teach them this ability, then force them to use it on Paladin's and other good characters. No saves, the Paladin just goes off the handle and kills a 5yo that says 'Eff You'.


wraithstrike wrote:
redward wrote:


And I'm not sure where I suggested a change. on to absorb too much

When you said the GM can tell a player he can't use the feat. The feat as written has no such provisions. That is no different than telling a player when he and can not sunder.

Quote:
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.
If you meant something else by not letting him get away with it I apologize in advance, but if the idea is to a witness report the crime making sure there are no witnesses can be done in a variety of ways.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Presumably a player using the feat to "defend themselves" against someone would want a witness. Why else use the feat? Why bother with the pretense?


mdt wrote:


When the GM looks at a feat that forces any character to attack, at any time, regardless of personal codes of honor or beliefs, with no saves, no way to detect it's use, and no defense against it, and says 'Hell NO!'.

That is where common sense enters into this.

Where it leaves, is where people try to compare this to a spell that has defenses against it, saving throws, bonus saving throws if forced to act against your alignment, etc.

If I were a big bad guy, I'd kidnap orphans, teach them this ability, then force them to use it on Paladin's and other good characters. No saves, the Paladin just goes off the handle and kills a 5yo that says 'Eff You'.

Here's the thing:

If you're in a game of Pathfinder Combat, where it's GM versus players and the only thing that matters is whether you can successfully start and win a fight, this feat might be a problem.

If you're in a game where people are pumping their Charisma and Intimidate so they can effectively use this feat, at the expense of any pretense of being anything more than a statted out bullying machine, then this feat might be a problem.

If you're in a game where the GM has so little respect for his player that he would exploit this feat to humiliate him and ruin his character, this feat will be a very big problem.

I readily acknowledge this. But I also suggest that if you are in any of those games, the feat is not your real problem.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

@redward

If you are in a game where nobody is going to cause issues by taking a broken feat and using it, and the GM is not going to use a feat that takes his player's will away without some defense...

...then this feat will not be used at all in that game.

So your argument basically is, the feat is not broken because nobody who's a good gamer will use it.


The real question is "Can this feat be used how it's intended without requiring metagaming and destroying verisimilitude?" if so, please provide the examples of which you claim to be so well acquainted with.


mdt wrote:

@redward

If you are in a game where nobody is going to cause issues by taking a broken feat and using it, and the GM is not going to use a feat that takes his player's will away without some defense...

...then this feat will not be used at all in that game.

So your argument basically is, the feat is not broken because nobody who's a good gamer will use it.

No, my argument is that I'm not convinced the feat is broken.

I laid out the arguments above because I'm more interested in getting to the bottom of what's "wrong" with this feat in the eyes of everyone. Because once that's resolved it can then be fixed. Or thrown out. Which is fine with me, by the way.

Examples don't do it for me. We can all come up with extreme examples on either end to prove our points. And your paladin bait waif is the best so far, and honestly the first example of a real abuse of this feat that I've seen.

You say the problem is no save. But there is a roll. Mechanically, that's the same thing. It's certainly a much easier roll to build for auto success than a save. So maybe the DC needs to be tweaked.

That's why I keep trying to steer the conversation back to what's wrong with it, rather than what someone can do with it.


If there are no examples of it working fine, not destroying player verisimilitude or requiring metagaming to not use, it is really hard to justify especially when there is a plethora of examples of where it doesn't work, doesn't get used, or just breaks down.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
redward wrote:

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)?

You missed:


  • Bad Mechanics The feat make it possible to give it a huge chance of success against a target at high level, takes no account of the targets ability to reason, remain calm, apply self-discipline, avoid acting completely out of character, or detect that they are being set up.

At 1st level, for example, a character could have an Intimidate or Diplomacy score of up to around +8; even with no charisma bonus, a conventional fighter would have +4. A 1st level wizard with a wisdom score of 10 would have a target DC of 1. As it is a skill check, rolling a 1 does not auto-fail.

At 20th level, a character could have a conservative Intimidate/Diplomacy bonus of +26 (class skill, +3 for charisma probably from a headband). Target number is hit dice + wisdom modifier so a target of 10th level needs a wisdom score of 24 or more for there to be even a 5% chance of failure.

Lets not forget that with a Sense Motive check they can gain an insight bonus on their check.

There are no other factors to take into account. You could use Antagonize to make a 20th level pacifist rabidly attack you, and he has no chance of resisting.

Arisps wrote:
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

No, it's not metagame. The whole POINT of Antagonize is that the character lures or incites the target to attack them. They have an ulterior motive for saying what they are saying, and if the target is aware of that ulterior motive, they should be able to avoid it. You use Sense Motive to detect ulterior motives.

Or are you arguing that characters using Antagonize are doing so merely in order to insult their foes and NOT because they want the foe to come over and attack them? The character KNOWS what they are doing it, and they know why.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
redward wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
If a rule would cause you to stop playing a game, doesn't that make it a bad rule?

It's not the rule.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to sunder my gear.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to put me to sleep.

I would quit a game where every battle the GM had me fight a guy wielding a shield and a sword.

None of those would be fun.

Are you serious? Those are all tactics players and DMs can employ and can avoid too. Sundering gear? Use adamantine, boost up your CMD, cary spare gear and sunder them right back. You can DO SOMETHING about sundering, it's not hard.

Same is true of most other tactics - but there is nothing you can do about Antagonize as it stands. The DC for the intimidate is way, way too low, as I demonstrated above, and the result is unrealistic: A wizard who can blast houses apart with lightning is not going to attack an armoured tank with his fists, he's going to smite him at range, or just ignore him as irrelevant.


Dabbler wrote:


Are you serious? Those are all tactics players and DMs can employ and can avoid too. Sundering gear? Use adamantine, boost up your CMD, cary spare gear and sunder them right back. You can DO SOMETHING about sundering, it's not hard.

Same is true of most other tactics - but there is nothing you can do about Antagonize as it stands. The DC for the intimidate is way, way too low, as I demonstrated above, and the result is unrealistic: A wizard who can blast houses apart with lightning is not going to attack an armoured tank with his fists, he's going to smite him at range, or just ignore him as irrelevant.

Agreed. And so, too, does SKR according to his post in the UM errata thread. So ranged attacks and spells will likely soon become valid options for a target of Antagonize.

I also agree that the DC for this becomes trivial very early. I'd probably want to see that addressed somehow as well.

This is exactly the kind of constructive feedback I was hoping for.

Liberty's Edge

redward wrote:

This is exactly the kind of constructive feeedback I was hoping for.

How fortunate that that point has been made for like six straight pages, then.


Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
If there are no examples of it working fine, not destroying player verisimilitude or requiring metagaming to not use, it is really hard to justify especially when there is a plethora of examples of where it doesn't work, doesn't get used, or just breaks down.

The examples I cited earlier were from upthread, and are from real world applications of the Feat in-game, rather than hypothetical.

The first was of a player doing what many have stated is the potential abuse of the feat: goading an NPC into a "self defense" kill. The character was caught and executed.

That, to me, is a perfect example of the system working. Same as if he'd tried to Dominate for the same effect.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shah Jahan the King of Kings wrote:


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.

You, sir, are confusing the American legal system with backwoods redneck justice. I actually understand the confusion, but for what you're suggesting to be true, the defense would need to establish a long history of mental and verbal abuse on the part of the victim, and likely the partial or full insanity of their own client as a result. And even then, it'd be a tough sell.

If a dude says to me, "yomommasofat" and I say "them's fightin' words!" and then beat him senseless, I will end up in jail for battery. He will not wind up in jail for anything. That's the reality of the situation.

Silver Crusade

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?

As has been repeated repeatedly:

Dominate and Charm Person take into account the personality of the target, give them saves, and are outside forces forcing the target to behave unusually.

Antagonize forces targets to act OOC of their own free will, with no outside force being to blame.

Post below nails it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do some people keep missing this crucial fact? Are they ignoring it deliberately?

It doesn't just control your character does. Dominate and such do that. Your actions are controlled while your will is overridden.

It controls what your character wants to do. Nothing else in the game can do that, short of the 9th level spell in the Book of Vile Darkness called mind rape.

To adjust that list of reasons:

Loss of Agency: It takes away the player's choice of what their character's free will would have them do and says their character would prefer, of their own unimpeded liberty, to do something the player disagrees with.


IMO the way it should have worked: Once the character taunts as a swift action, if the target has failed it's will save (Intimidate check -10) on the target's next turn, with the exception of moving towards and/or attacking the aggressor they can only make a standard action and receive a -2 to all rolls.

  • It should hamper the target, but not control them.
  • It should get a will save to ignore
  • It should still be effective, the target should not completely ignore it just because there is someone with AoO around; because it shouldn't control the target in the first place.

  • Sczarni

    redward wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    If a rule would cause you to stop playing a game, doesn't that make it a bad rule?

    It's not the rule.

    I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to sunder my gear.

    I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to put me to sleep.

    I would quit a game where every battle the GM had me fight a guy wielding a shield and a sword.

    None of those would be fun.

    Are we only doing Feats?

    I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to Trip me with Improved Trip.

    These are patently ridiculous arguments:
    "Someone might use it too much."
    "Someone might find a way to be a jerk with it."
    "I don't like the idea that it could be used against me."

    You can apply those to EVERY RULE.

    hahaha that s a good answer...

    I wonder what he d do if he buys an expencive plate only to be devoured by a rust monster...

    GG QQ

    Sczarni

    Mikaze wrote:
    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?

    As has been repeated repeatedly:

    Dominate and Charm Person take into account the personality of the target, give them saves, and are outside forces forcing the target to behave unusually.

    Antagonize forces targets to act OOC of their own free will, with no outside force being to blame.

    Post below nails it.

    that arguement is entirely false the resistance of the target is determined by target s personality and power...What part of DC=HD+wis did u miss?

    You simply condemn antagonize because there is some inner belief in you that says
    "Only casters can dominate a person"
    which is entirely false,both in real life and in fiction...

    And if you ask me we need another mechanics charm being able to be used by charismatic characters who have no access to spellcasting...

    Charm, command, and the like should be skills that can be trainned
    maybe introduce new mechanics that the corresponding spells give devastating bonuses to the skill.

    Why should an ungly smelly fat dwarf sorcerer be able to charm someone and a beautiful and charismatic elf ranger can t?


    redward wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    If a rule would cause you to stop playing a game, doesn't that make it a bad rule?

    It's not the rule.

    I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to sunder my gear.

    I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to put me to sleep.

    I would quit a game where every battle the GM had me fight a guy wielding a shield and a sword.

    None of those would be fun.

    Are we only doing Feats?

    I would quit a game where every battle the GM attempted to Trip me with Improved Trip.

    These are patently ridiculous arguments:
    "Someone might use it too much."
    "Someone might find a way to be a jerk with it."
    "I don't like the idea that it could be used against me."

    You can apply those to EVERY RULE.

    There's a difference between something that could kill a game used every battle and something that could kill a game every time it's used (once a game, because it would break the game and piss off the players right there).


    Arisps wrote:
    Why should an ungly smelly fat dwarf sorcerer be able to charm someone and a beautiful and charismatic elf ranger can t?

    We aren't talking about charming someone; we aren't even talking about controlling someone's desires with a straight DC that's not even difficult to make. As much as I think the mundane need more love, this is not the way to do it. I mean we might as well just have a feat that turns swords into AoE, because it makes just as much sense as this feat and the same excuse can be used.

    Sczarni

    Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
    Arisps wrote:
    Why should an ungly smelly fat dwarf sorcerer be able to charm someone and a beautiful and charismatic elf ranger can t?
    We aren't talking about charming someone; we aren't even talking about controlling someone's desires with a straight DC that's not even difficult to make. As much as I think the mundane need more love, this is not the way to do it. I mean we might as well just have a feat that turns swords into AoE, because it makes just as much sense as this feat and the same excuse can be used.

    This debade is not about numbers really...

    This is a debade about social skills and how they effect combat.

    The easiest part is to make the numbers work, since we can do anything.

    The issue is this:

    Should Cha based skills Bluff,diplomacy,intimidate play an equally dramatic role as climb,stealth,spellcraft and perception in PF-combat?

    My answer is yes what s yours?
    The mechanics can be discovered there were quite a few suggestions from various posters in this thread allready...

    And btw with the cleave feat it is like having an aoe with a sword


    Ragnarok Aeon wrote:

    IMO the way it should have worked: Once the character taunts as a swift action, if the target has failed it's will save (Intimidate check -10) on the target's next turn, with the exception of moving towards and/or attacking the aggressor they can only make a standard action and receive a -2 to all rolls.

  • It should hamper the target, but not control them.
  • It should get a will save to ignore
  • It should still be effective, the target should not completely ignore it just because there is someone with AoO around; because it shouldn't control the target in the first place.
  • I think this is a really good approach. It keeps the spirit of the Feat, which is you're enraged and incited into a melee attack, while still allowing you to stop short of a suicidal action.

    I'd make a few tweaks:

  • Up the penalty and include a nasty concentration check if they try to cast a spell as their action.
  • Include an equally large bonus to attack (and maybe damage) if they choose to attack
  • Rather than an Intimidate or a Save, make it an opposed roll Intimidate vs. Sense Motive

    And with those changes, I'd keep it melee rather than allowing spells or ranged attacks.


  • 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.

    I just realized I did the formula wrong.

    I thought it was 10+HD+wis mod. It is only HD+wis mod. So even with an extra 10 the bard(insert other class as needed) still only needed a 3. Using the correct formula it is an autosuccess, and that is assuming the sense motive check is made.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    Let says I am playing in a game, and I am a monk/cleric. Let's also say I am a pacifist to such an extent that I take the monk vow of peace just to emphasize this. I take it to such a point that even when party members are about to die I refuse to use any spell that could be considered an attack. All I do is heal and buff. I feel as though my only goal is to help those who are willing to fight preserve the life of those who can't fight. I have refused to fight even when it almost meant certain doom for the party because I believe in my philosophy that strongly.

    The situation comes up to where a party member is down and bleeding out. I double move over to where he is. Before my next turn I fall victim to antagonize and only break my vow which I refused to do under and other situation, I leave my friend there to die despite my conviction to preserve life, which is as strong as my conviction to not fight.

    That makes no sense to me all. There is nothing you can say to someone in such a small span of time as 6 seconds that is going to make them act so out of character as long as they are still strong in their beliefs.

    Now if I can resist fighting even if means the death of my friends and myself, and I am proud of being able to maintain my stance in such dire situations then how is it reasonable that I can't maintain that composure just because someone said something I did not like?

    At least with a dominate spell the GM should be giving you a save, and even if you fail the 2nd save you did not take the action by choice. The spell basically basically takes over your body, since dominate says the person actively resist control.

    The feat is basically ignoring your characters motivations, personality and so on, and no matter your level of conviction he throws it all away in 6 seconds. That is far from realistic, and far from good RP.

    As someone demonstrated above the fact that a level 1 character can do this to a level 20 character. They are a step below nascent demon lords(CR 21 to 25), and some expert(NPC class) who fluffed up as a con artist who gets people to attack him so the can sue them can make them ignore all their years of dedication in a span of 6 seconds. Really?

    Silver Crusade

    Post above nails it.

    Arisps wrote:
    Mikaze wrote:
    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?

    As has been repeated repeatedly:

    Dominate and Charm Person take into account the personality of the target, give them saves, and are outside forces forcing the target to behave unusually.

    Antagonize forces targets to act OOC of their own free will, with no outside force being to blame.

    Post below nails it.

    that arguement is entirely false the resistance of the target is determined by target s personality and power...What part of DC=HD+wis did u miss?

    You simply condemn antagonize because there is some inner belief in you that says
    "Only casters can dominate a person"
    which is entirely false,both in real life and in fiction...

    And if you ask me we need another mechanics charm being able to be used by charismatic characters who have no access to spellcasting...

    :|

    No. Non-casters could get those results through other methods. Like hypnotism and mind-altering drugs.* Purely mundane means. And they're still outside forces acting on the target. They may force the target to do something they wouldn't normally do, but at least it doesn't steal the player's character by making them do it of their own free will.

    That is the distinction.

    Also, HD is not personality and Wisdom is by no means enough of a facet of one's personality to sum them up entirely. Low WIS-guy could easily be a complete pacifist as he could a complete berserker. And Antagonize would affect both possibilities equally.

    As it's been said a hundred times already in the thread: Make it a meaningful penalty that the target will have to decide to bear or shake off by doing exactly what the Antagonizer wants, and that violation of roleplaying disappears.

    *Now there's a possibility, some sort of bloodrage poison.

    Sczarni

    redward wrote:


  • Rather than an Intimidate or a Save, make it an opposed roll Intimidate vs. Sense Motive
  • LOL how sense motive helps versus intimidate? The sense motive result should be:

    You sense that your enemy is trying to insult you...

    Don t make artificial rules make something that makes sense...

    You wanna sense motive this out because you know that the other person is intimidating to get some benefits...That s totally metagame thinking

    also
    If ur character feels he is in danger he doesn t need sense motive...the effect breaks as he would be moving into danger...

    Sczarni

    Mikaze wrote:

    Post above nails it.

    Arisps wrote:
    Mikaze wrote:
    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?

    As has been repeated repeatedly:

    Dominate and Charm Person take into account the personality of the target, give them saves, and are outside forces forcing the target to behave unusually.

    Antagonize forces targets to act OOC of their own free will, with no outside force being to blame.

    Post below nails it.

    that arguement is entirely false the resistance of the target is determined by target s personality and power...What part of DC=HD+wis did u miss?

    You simply condemn antagonize because there is some inner belief in you that says
    "Only casters can dominate a person"
    which is entirely false,both in real life and in fiction...

    And if you ask me we need another mechanics charm being able to be used by charismatic characters who have no access to spellcasting...

    :|

    No. Non-casters could get those results through other methods. Like hypnotism and mind-altering drugs.* Purely mundane means. And they're still outside forces acting on the target. They may force the target to do something they wouldn't normally do, but at least it doesn't steal the player's character by making them do it of their own free will.

    That is the distinction.

    Also, HD is not personality and Wisdom is by no means enough of a facet of one's personality to sum them up entirely. Low WIS-guy could...

    I told you many times that this exists with the diplomacy version ...

    We just need something a bit more dramatic for intimidate...
    maybe

    the simple addition of
    target must make a melee attack vs antagoniser or lose a round, fixes everything


    Arisps wrote:
    redward wrote:


  • Rather than an Intimidate or a Save, make it an opposed roll Intimidate vs. Sense Motive
  • LOL how sense motive helps versus intimidate? The sense motive result should be:

    You sense that your enemy is trying to insult you...

    Don t make artificial rules make something that makes sense...

    You wanna sense motive this out because you know that the other person is intimidating to get some benefits...That s totally metagame thinking

    also
    If ur character feels he is in danger he doesn t need sense motive...the effect breaks as he would be moving into danger...

    Sense Motive because you're seeing through their bluff/ulterior motive for getting you to attack them. And also so it's an opposed skill roll rather than a skill vs. save so the bonuses have a chance of staying in the same ballpark.


    Jeremiziah wrote:

    You, sir, are confusing the American legal system with backwoods redneck justice. I actually understand the confusion, but for what you're suggesting to be true, the defense would need to establish a long history of mental and verbal abuse on the part of the victim, and likely the partial or full insanity of their own client as a result. And even then, it'd be a tough sell.

    If a dude says to me, "yomommasofat" and I say "them's fightin' words!" and then beat him senseless, I will end up in jail for battery. He will not wind up in jail for anything. That's the reality of the situation.

    I am not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

    Well, to the extent that such acts are illegal. Assault is still assault. However, both parties would be legally at fault. And keep in mind, this is in America. A shire run by Grimbald the Hoary might well side with the reputable stablehand who claims this newcomer insulted his family name.

    However, on some reflection I've thought of a hotfix. What if, instead of attacking the antagonizer, the text reads something like "The target does all in her power to hinder, harm, or kill the user of this feat. Targets already in combat focus solely on the user. Targets outside of combat react in a negative way conducive to their alignment. For example, Lawful and Good targets may attempt to arrest or detain the user."

    This would maintain its combat effectiveness, and would prevent paladins from killing someone because of an insult. It also allows for GM interpretation, so a Lawful Evil character may do something sneaky. The point is, out of combat it enrages the target but not to the point of turning them stupid.


    Arisps wrote:


    the simple addition of
    target must make a melee attack vs antagoniser or lose a round, fixes everything

    Yeah, that would work for me.


    wraithstrike wrote:


    I just realized I did the formula wrong.
    I thought it was 10+HD+wis mod. It is only HD+wis mod. So even with an extra 10 the bard(insert other class as needed) still only needed a 3. Using the correct formula it is an autosuccess, and that is assuming the sense motive check is made.

    Your original calculation was correct. The 10+HD+Wis is the corrected DC in the current errata.

    Sczarni

    redward wrote:


    Sense Motive because you're seeing through their bluff/ulterior motive for getting you to attack them. And also so it's an opposed skill roll rather than a skill vs. save so the bonuses have a chance of staying in the same ballpark.

    Ok check this...

    Antagoniser: I will bathe in your blood whimp...
    Antagonised: I m mad about it but I m sensing you want to take an attack of oportunity so I m not falling for it.
    Antagoniser: But I AM gonna bathe in your blood
    Antagonised:Akakaka... i sensed u rolled a 20...

    Sczarni

    redward wrote:
    Arisps wrote:


    the simple addition of
    target must make a melee attack vs antagoniser or lose a round, fixes everything
    Yeah, that would work for me.

    yes that the easiest and simplest modification

    works like daze a 0 lvl at will spell should cover even the greatest opposition...

    NOTE to cover noobs: A dazed creature doesn t have the option of making a melee attack vs the caster so it s balanced

    PROBLEM SOLVED!

    Sovereign Court

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Rofl... Must screw self over utterly with no saving throw or auto-lose a round. Its worse than the unspeakable UM spell...

    I think i'm going to have to exercise greater discipline and ignore this thread. Arisps you are fundamentally wrong on so many points here and yet still arguing for Antagonise that I think further effort to try and convince you is simply wasted effort on everyones part.

    If you and your DM think the feat and its effects are fine and your group makes it work for you, good for you :).


    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.

    One of my favorite repeat characters to play is my Social Skill Rogue into Master Spy.

    I made excellent use out of Antagonize. But it didn't USUALLY come up much in an RP situation. It was normally used as a very DM annoying combat feat.

    Basically, what I did with it, was control the battlefield. If our tank or one of our squishier targets were getting mauled or about to get killed by some terrible beast. I would simply FORCE that beast to attack me. Didn't matter what it was, it doesn't get a saving throw. I'd take one attack, withdraw, and hopefully in that time, my teammates were able to recover the situation.

    Me and my DM agreed that the target should get a will save (we suggested that it be against the diplomacy or intimidate check) rather than just a static HD based number to resist Antagonize. Because, let's face it, if you're going to take a feat like Antagonize, you're going to put a lot of stock into diplomacy and intimidate. And those are relatively easy to boost, especially diplomacy.

    Sczarni

    Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

    Rofl... Must screw self over utterly with no saving throw or auto-lose a round. Its worse than the unspeakable UM spell...

    I think i'm going to have to exercise greater discipline and ignore this thread. Arisps you are fundamentally wrong on so many points here and yet still arguing for Antagonise that I think further effort to try and convince you is simply wasted effort on everyones part.

    If you and your DM think the feat and its effects are fine and your group makes it work for you, good for you :).

    we ll see who s right and who wrong on a future errata or a future version of pf...

    Up till then noone can prevent anyone from using...I strongly doubt it would be ever banned from the rulebooks

    Oh and btw there may be not a will save but there is a considerably high DC(10+HD+an ability is of the highest that are applied in game)

    And if a person spends 2-3 feats and 5-10 skill points just to have an autosuccess daze spell 0 lvl .... well i don t suppose it s that serious at all

    251 to 300 of 583 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Antagonize (the GM?!) All Messageboards