Antagonize (the GM?!)


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 583 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

redward wrote:
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.

Thanks. The PRD is not updated yet. That is why I was incorrect with my correction.


Arisps wrote:
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

Considering the fact the Vow of Poverty still exist I don't think the community will agree that the publication and existence of a rule means it is valid.

I have proved that 10+HD+wisdom modifier is very easy to break with skill checks. The bard(insert other class if you don't think a bard should/would do it) just did it with a 3. That is an 85% success rate. If I want to build a character around it then I take skill focus, and persuasive to get anywhere from a + 5 to a +10 depending on the level my character is. That means autosuccess even with the made will save. There is not one APL=CR creature than won't be antagonized unless it is mindless. You can probably go 5 above your APL and still get it to work every time.

I really don't know why you keep making false statements such as "it balances" at higher levels, and "considerably high DC".
Pathfinder got rid of things like death ward providing blank immunity against death effects because they thought auto-wins were bad for the game. Unless they have changed their mind dont expect for the auto-wins to stay.

It is also not a daze spell mechanically. You can't even find a spell to compare it to mechanically because no spell does what this does.

See this post again if you need to know the difference between being taunted into making a choice, and having the choice removed completely.

I am sure daze is not fluffed to give you a choice. It does not even tell you what to do in any shape or form.

Sczarni

You guys keep saying the same things on and on again without paying attention what we r suggesting...

"On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you." add to that "or lose its round"

Problem solved...if the dc is tested and proven too low maybe 15+HD+wis will do the job

THE EASY THING IS TO BAN A RULE...THE HARD IS TO MAKE IT WORK

and with that I abandon the pointless disputes...Errata has the next word


15 won't work either. That 3 was at level 10. By the time level 20 comes around it will be back to autosaves. Problem not solved.

Not everyone has time or the ability to correct rules. That is what Paizo gets paid for.

The best thing to do is to change it so that it provides a penalty. Nothing else really works RP-wise or mechanics-wise.

-----------
I hope Paizo is reading this and gets rid of the "aggro" mechanic.

Sczarni

wraithstrike wrote:


Not everyone has time or the ability to correct rules. That is what Paizo gets paid for.

About time

...but it seems everyone has time come here and flame the suggestions in this thread...

About ability

When Epimetheus a Titan was asked to give divine gifts to beasts he gave

speed to the rabbit, claws and teeth to the lion, agility to the monkey...
He was wise but he forgot man. But when he realized it he had run out of gifts.

Prometheus his brother who loved man stole the divine fire(wits and reason) from the gods and gave it to man.

Prometheus paid direly for his insolense...we might as well use it to honor his sacrifice at least...


redward wrote:

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.

See, to me this is a perfect example of why the rule as written doesn't work. In response to a ludicrous use of the ability your DM decided that insulting somebody was punishable by death.

Let's say that antagonize didn't exist at all in the game and the PC insulted an NPC. That NPC (without being forced to by game mechanics) decided to try and kill the PC as a matter of honour and was in turn killed by the PC. Would the PC in question then have been beheaded because he 'started it' and would that seem fair?

Now sure, there may be certain societies that would decide a serious enough insult should be punished my death, but I'm going to bet that there would be even more societies that didn't feel that way.

The use of antagonize complicates matters, but how does an observer tell the difference between an insult made without using antagonize (where any attack was therefore a pure choice and not forced) and an insult made using antagonize (where the person had no control over what they did)? There's certainly a difference in the situations, but no meaningful way to adjudicate such matters.

Would the PC in your game have been executed simply for insulting somebody else? Or did he only get executed because the person who he insulted attempted to murder him? It seems to me that there would be a lot of issues with a society where killing somebody was considered to be the fair and reasonable response to an insult. That might be a curious place to visit once or twice, but I couldn't imagine every location in a game world enacting such a law.


Arisps wrote:


About time

...but it seems everyone has time come here and flame the suggestions in this thread...

Not all gamers go online. Many of them hardly ever go to this site, so that is hardly everyone.

Quote:


About ability

When Epimetheus a Titan was asked to give divine gifts to beasts he gave

speed to the rabbit, claws and teeth to the lion, agility to the monkey...
He was wise but he forgot man. But when he realized it he had run out of gifts.

Prometheus his brother who loved man stole the divine fire(wits and reason) from the gods and gave it to man.

Prometheus paid direly for his insolense...we might as well use it to honor his sacrifice at least...

You just said a whole lot of nothing. Some myth written a long time ago does not mean one should dabble in things they don't understand.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
redward wrote:

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.

No, it's trivial from 1st level and stays there.

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

Thank you, but as mentioned this was basically said on page 1 of this thread.

The fundamental problem, though, as stated above, is that this feat does not control what your character does, it dictates what your character wants to do.

I have no major problem with Antagonize making the target angry or flustered (although the DC needs fixing, badly), I have a problem with it dictating what they then do about it. If I'm mad at somebody, I walk away from them. That's my conditioned response to being angry, it's what I choose to do rather then get involved in a violent confrontation.

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 would suggest a save DC of 10 + 1/2(Skill concerned). Hence our +33 skill at level 20 becomes a save DC of 26. Tough, but not insurmountable when you have at that level a good chance of a +15 Will save. If the Antagonizer gets a Sense Motive check to up the DC, the target gets to use Sense Motive to save with or detract the DC.


    Arisps wrote:

    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

    Probably the same thing my PCs would do. Not let it happen to them in the first place, or try to mitigate the loss. Carrying spare equipment is a big ward against sundering or having your items destroyed. It's not that cool for an orc to try and sunder weapon #1, when he can clearly see you have #2-5 ready to draw at a moment's notice.

    Humorously, I can't stand Antagonize, and yet I'm just as nasty and terrible as can be. :P

    Imagine this scene followed by our ill-treated hero suddenly pulling his weapon and gunning the old lady down in the street in front of everybody, of his own free will.

    Sczarni

    Ashiel wrote:
    Arisps wrote:

    Imagine this scene followed by our ill-treated hero suddenly pulling his weapon and gunning the old lady down in the street in front of everybody, of his own free will.

    Do you even bother to read what my suggestions are? or you cast yor flames no matter what I say?

    That ill treated hero looks to me like he stays staggered after being intimidated... EXACTLY as i have suggested.

    Not all people are black or white, yes or no, good or evil....etc

    or in case of antagonize supporters or critics....

    I ve said pleanty of times

    I like the general idea of the feat and I don t like how it works...
    but instead of ban I support change
    that s the big idea...but you(and others) just continue your one sided rants...


    Arisps wrote:
    Ashiel wrote:
    Arisps wrote:

    Imagine this scene followed by our ill-treated hero suddenly pulling his weapon and gunning the old lady down in the street in front of everybody, of his own free will.

    Do you even bother to read what my suggestions are? or you cast yor flames no matter what I say?

    That ill treated hero looks to me like he stays staggered after being intimidated... EXACTLY as i have suggested.

    Not all people are black or white, yes or no, good or evil....etc

    or in case of antagonize supporters or critics....

    I ve said pleanty of times

    I like the general idea of the feat and I don t like how it works...
    but instead of ban I support change
    that s the big idea...but you(and others) just continue your one sided rants...

    Hmmm...

    Considering that your suggestions basically involve re-writing the feat as something else, I don't see why you complain that I'm discussing the Antagonize feat as it exists. Do you even bother to read what your suggestions are? They're not about the Antagonize feat. They're about a new homebrew feat that you're suggesting we call Antagonize, because you don't think the Antagonize feat should be banned, because supposedly you like the feat as written and stuff, while trying to fix it in your posts so other people think it's not broken, despite it now being a different feat and no more official than us homebrewing our own stuff.

    There must be a ";" missing somewhere, because your logic does not compute. ಠ_ಠ


    As you can see Ashiel, Arisps is good for insults, but not much else especially when you don't agree with him/her.
    If you do not agree with him/her you are either a troll or you are ignoring her post.

    If Arisps had read your post she would have realized that you were asking what would his/her opinion be if the guy had assaulted the lady. You never said you wanted her interpretation of what did happen.

    Arisp would also know that we had read her post, but her changes don't address the issue of forcing someone to want to do something outside of what their character would do.

    When she addresses that issue then maybe she can stop repeating herself. Right now the idea is broken mechanically and RP-wise.

    Now Dabbler's idea works a let better.
    His version would have allowed the bard to force the rakshasa to make an DC 18 will save. The rakshasa has a +8 so it would only need to roll a 10.


    wraithstrike wrote:

    As you can see Ashiel, Arisps is good for insults, but not much else especially when you don't agree with him/her.

    If you do not agree with him/her you are either a troll or you are ignoring her post.

    If Arisps had read your post she would have realized that you were asking what would his/her opinion be if the guy had assaulted the lady. You never said you wanted a her interpretation of what did happen.

    Arisp would also know that we had read her post, but her changes don't address the issue of forcing someone to want to do something outside of what their character would do.

    When she addresses that issue then maybe she can stop repeating herself. Right now the idea is broken mechanically and RP-wise.

    Now Dabbler's idea works a let better.
    His version would have allowed the bard to force the rakshasa to make an DC 18 will save. The rakshasa has a +8 so it would only need to roll a 10.

    *nods to Wraithstrike*

    Thank you for getting the point. ^-^

    Dabblers was nicer, wasn't it?


    What a strange coincidence that Ashiel has read Arisp's post, but just disagrees, just like I said she did.

    Boys and girls that just goes to show you that just because someone does not like your idea, it does not mean they did not read it.

    Dabbler's post also shows that you if you take the time to do math instead of put up random numbers you might get a formula that works.

    Speaking of reading post, Arisp's so called solutions did not address any of our concerns. Maybe she was not reading out post, just saying.


    Ashiel wrote:
    wraithstrike wrote:

    As you can see Ashiel, Arisps is good for insults, but not much else especially when you don't agree with him/her.

    If you do not agree with him/her you are either a troll or you are ignoring her post.

    If Arisps had read your post she would have realized that you were asking what would his/her opinion be if the guy had assaulted the lady. You never said you wanted a her interpretation of what did happen.

    Arisp would also know that we had read her post, but her changes don't address the issue of forcing someone to want to do something outside of what their character would do.

    When she addresses that issue then maybe she can stop repeating herself. Right now the idea is broken mechanically and RP-wise.

    Now Dabbler's idea works a let better.
    His version would have allowed the bard to force the rakshasa to make an DC 18 will save. The rakshasa has a +8 so it would only need to roll a 10.

    *nods to Wraithstrike*

    Thank you for getting the point. ^-^

    Dabblers was nicer, wasn't it?

    A lot nicer. :)

    Sczarni

    Ashiel your suggestion to ban the feat is equally(if not more) homebrew
    since antagonise is considered a valid feat.

    what changes is the approach

    You say ban I say fix


    Arisps wrote:

    Ashiel your suggestion to ban the feat is equally(if not more) homebrew

    since antagonise is considered a valid feat.

    what changes is the approach

    You say ban I say fix

    I never made a suggestion. I said I did ban it. I don't care what you do. I banned it because it's one of the most horrible feats I've ever seen in the 12 years that 3E has been brewing. So I banned it. I don't want to deal with the problems that it has.

    Would I allow a completely different feat that more successfully gave some sort of taunting mechanic? Maybe I would. However, homebrewing it does not make the feat more valid. If I have to re-create the feat, and then allow the newly created feat, I have still banned the first feat if it's not available as well.

    This is not difficult to comprehend, or should not be. You seem to be arguing that Antagonize remain, while appealing to have it radically changed into something that is no longer the Antagonize feat. Patch-fixing is common. I've patch-fixed a lot of stuff over the years. Homebrew can be nice. It doesn't change that the actual Antagonize feat is bad and should feel bad.

    By "fixing" it and disallowing the old version you have banned the old version, and thus the feat you are vehemently defending.


    Ashiel why not fix it? :)

    PS:Not a serious question. I just wanted to get a link in also.

    Sczarni

    When you ban something that s on the books you make your campaign homebrew.period

    and not even god can ban antagonize from PFS-games...


    You can use the feat(either version) in your games. We can ban it in ours until Paizo fixes it. What happens in one game won't hurt the other.
    As for PFS, I don't have a horse in that race.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Arisps wrote:
    and not even god can ban antagonize from PFS-games...

    But there's quite a bit of lee-way in how a GM interprets a feat in PFS.

    A good GM can certainly sanitize the feat's use - and jerk players that call "that's not what its supposed to do" get to experience the GM's cold stare.

    Not even god can withstand the cold stare of the GM.


    Banning Content is not homebrewing.

    If you have to fix something, that means it's broken.


    Arisps wrote:

    When you ban something that s on the books you make your campaign homebrew.period

    and not even god can ban antagonize from PFS-games...

    I don't make a habit of challenging cosmic forces on what they can and cannot do. I'm pretty sure they said God couldn't sink the titanic, and it went down from something as mundane as a block of ice. :P

    Also, Arisps, you have a funny concept of what is homebrew and what isn't. You could play a core-only game and not a darn thing would be homebrew, but effectively every splatbook released would be banned. Homebrew? Not at all.

    Pathfinder Society has a variety of house rules, including outright banning lots of stuff that's "on the books" as you put it. This is one of the reasons I have little care for playing Pathfinder society, because I could just play in a good game without all the extra baggage.

    Also, on a note of humorous points, it actually would be in character to kill this guy but he'd eat a prison term for it.

    Incidentally, the video I linked actually shows what antagonizing might entail if it wasn't a steaming pile. He's obviously reducing his modifiers to successfully achieving his goals. :P

    =======================================================================

    Wraithstrike wrote:
    Ashiel why not fix it? :)

    Why not make it a standard action to affect a target a set range (say general perception, 30 ft., etc), mind affecting, doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, and allows you to attempt 2 effects. Daze or Cower the opponent for 1 round. Set the Will save DC to 10 + 1/2 their ranks in the appropriate skill + Charisma modifier. The feat that allows you to apply Strength to Intimdate could allow you to trade Charisma for Strength for the intimidate one.

    The result is a nicely scaling DC based on skill ranks, cannot be easily broken, but grants significant and powerful benefits when it succeeds (virtually nothing is immune to dazing, cowering is like a daze-fear effect that makes you more vulnerable). DC would cap out around 32-33 at 20th, and wouldn't be that bad on NPCs since NPC abilities already scale at 10 + 1/2 HD + relevant modifier.

    It never takes control away from your PC, forces them to do weird or terrible things. It just either distracts them with monologue or scares them. It has far less room for abuse, and you could even allow it to be used at-will instead of only 1/day per enemy, since your goal is to trade your action to debilitate them with a saving throw to resist (so failure is neither assured nor particularly good).


    The only thing the players should expect to be available is the CRB. Any additional books are just the GM being nice, so not allowing the APG, UM, UC, or any other book is not homebrewing.

    Sczarni

    LoreKeeper wrote:


    A good GM can certainly sanitize the feat's use - and jerk players that call "that's not what its supposed to do" get to experience the GM's cold stare.

    But i m not those men! I m Salahuddin! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdu0v8ZvlDs

    I can live with any modification a GOOD gm will conjure...

    However, jerk gms that would try to pacify my feat

    selection without any reason, will be reported


    Does anyone out there know any PFS GMs that have actually encountered a player whose character had Antagonize?

    Sczarni

    wraithstrike wrote:

    The only thing the players should expect to be available is the CRB. Any additional books are just the GM being nice, so not allowing the APG, UM, UC, or any other book is not homebrewing.

    Read what Pathfinder society allows before you say your....whatever

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    What does Pathfinder Society have to do with with player expectations of individual DMs?

    Organized play is a completely different animal from private campaigns.


    Arisps wrote:
    wraithstrike wrote:

    The only thing the players should expect to be available is the CRB. Any additional books are just the GM being nice, so not allowing the APG, UM, UC, or any other book is not homebrewing.

    Read what Pathfinder society allows before you say your....whatever

    PFS bans crafting feats so am I homebrewing if I allow crafting?

    PFS is not the official rules. It is just official sanctioned play, meaning that Paizo runs the organization as opposed to any of use starting our own Pathfinder based organization.

    Not following PFS rules does not mean that you are not following official rules for the game and/or any deviation is homebrew. If that were the case using certain published rules would be homebrew. Ashiel pointed that out already. Did you not read Ashiel's posts?

    edit:correction

    Liberty's Edge

    Shah Jahan the King of Kings wrote:
    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.

    False. The person who said the "fighting" words was fined. The person who committed battery in response to those words would be jailed.

    The expectation would be for the person receiving the verbal abuse to notify law enforcement and watch the abuser get taken into custody. The expectation would not be for a subsequent physical assault on the person doing the attacking.

    Your initial quote indicated that there is precedent in the American legal system for assault being justifiable due to words spoken against a person. That is, and remains, patently false.

    Shadow Lodge

    Arisps wrote:

    When you ban something that s on the books you make your campaign homebrew.period

    and not even god can ban antagonize from PFS-games...

    1. If you want to take that wide of a view of what constitutes "making a campaign homebrew", then pretty much EVERY campaign is homebrew.

    2. Why are you acting like homebrew is a dirty work, or something to be avoided at all costs? Any campaign that DOESN'T contain homebrew (especially with as wide and nebulous of a definition of homebrew as you seem to use) would be rather boring and bland. And I doubt ANYONE plays in such a game, even the Paizo employees themselves.

    3. You do realize that there ARE things from the RPG line of books that are already banned in PFS play, don't you? Maybe God can't ban antagonize from PFS, but Pazio's PFS Coordinator sure can. Hell, I had thought it already WAS banned.

    Personally, I think they should make the following changes:

    1) Get rid of the skill check in order to make it work, replaced with...
    2) Add a Will Save to avoid the effect, [DC = 10 + Antagonizer's ranks in Diplomacy/Bluff + Charisma modifier] (Bluff makes more sense to me than Intimidate)
    3) Only works against a target that is already engaging your group in combat. No using Antagonize at the King's Feast in order to get some nobleman you don't like to attack you in front of witnesses.

    Sczarni

    TriOmegaZero wrote:

    What does Pathfinder Society have to do with with player expectations of individual DMs?

    Organized play is a completely different animal from private campaigns.

    I don t care about private campaigns at all. At the moment i only play PFS

    If someday i ll play on a private campaign I will

    1)Choose the GM carefully
    2)Work with the GM to find a sollution that satisfies all parties...

    Craft isn t banned from PFS it is modified.


    The crafting feats for magic items are banned. That is what we were talking about.

    Shadow Lodge

    Arisps wrote:


    Craft isn t banned from PFS it is modified.

    That means PFS is homebrew.


    PFS is houseruled.

    Homebrew refers to content and rules that are created. There's a difference between created, modified, and banned.

    *shakes head*


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    wraithstrike wrote:
    Dabblers was nicer, wasn't it?
    A lot nicer. :)

    Aw, thanks guys!

    BTW, I made the DC 10 + 1/2 ranks in {skill} without any stat bonuses, because stat bonuses are already factored into the skill. This does half the stat bonus, but it means you can gain from skill focus or the like.

    I have to say, though, that I will still ban this feat from any game I play until an errata comes out that addresses:

    1) the appalling ease of use.
    2) that it dictates what the character wants to do with no options.

    I'm not adverse to the use of a skill to goad enemies, to taunt them - I just don't think it should have this level of control and this magnitude of effect.

    I'd call it a Diplomacy check, and if you succeed you have insulted the person and lowered their status toward you. What they do about it is their decision.

    Arisps wrote:
    When you ban something that s on the books you make your campaign homebrew.period

    All games are to agreater or lesser extent, homebrew. For example, I don't change much, but I do change "save-or-die" to "save or reduce to -{spell level} hit points and dying."

    Even PFS games have DM adjudication, and this makes them 'homebrew'.

    Shadow Lodge

    Dabbler wrote:
    BTW, I made the DC 10 + 1/2 ranks in {skill} without any stat bonuses, because stat bonuses are already factored into the skill. This does half the stat bonus, but it means you can gain from skill focus or the like.

    There's a difference between skill RANKS and the total skill BONUS. Ranks cannot exceed your character level.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    wraithstrike wrote:
    I have proved that 10+HD+wisdom modifier is very easy to break with skill checks. The bard(insert other class if you don't think a bard should/would do it) just did it with a 3. That is an 85% success rate.

    Wraith this pain me every time I read it. :D

    A success on a roll of 3 is a 90% chance of success.
    To have a 85% chance of success you must fail with a roll of 3.

    Just for the guys that say "it is an insult, not threatening someone", it sill get the +4 for being larger of the target bonus. The more threatening you appear and the easier it is to get a guy to attack you in melee. "Perfectly logic"


    I don't know, I like the daze option, if it is presented as the choice of the antagonized.

    In RP terms, this would show up as an insult or threat so grave that it forces the opponent to think about it. Something like a paladin wouldn't try to murder someone over it, but still the seething remark makes them unable to focus. They are using their round to supress their anger, and thus act as though they are dazed.

    Of course, there should be a passable save as well.

    Liberty's Edge

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

    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.

    No, it's trivial from 1st level and stays there.

    And that fix don't remove the problem of "the guy at the bar glowered at me so I had to attack him".

    It still is a perfect way to break any negotiation, get to start a fight without being the aggressor and not giving any way for the target to defend himself from the feat (beside only speaking only some obscure dialect no one know).

    Better ST? Useless.
    Iron will? useless.
    Vow of Pacifism? No, you will fight the same.
    Mind blank? Useless.
    Magic circle against alignment, a spell that block all form of domination (if the spell caster is of the right alignment)? Useless.

    You are a Paladin? well, you have harmed someone of your free will. Guess what? You powers are out till you atone.

    The best you can do is to get a +3 to the DC using a +6 wisdom enhancing item.


    Diego Rossi wrote:
    wraithstrike wrote:
    I have proved that 10+HD+wisdom modifier is very easy to break with skill checks. The bard(insert other class if you don't think a bard should/would do it) just did it with a 3. That is an 85% success rate.

    Wraith this pain me every time I read it. :D

    A success on a roll of 3 is a 90% chance of success.
    To have a 85% chance of success you must fail with a roll of 3.

    Just for the guys that say "it is an insult, not threatening someone", it sill get the +4 for being larger of the target bonus. The more threatening you appear and the easier it is to get a guy to attack you in melee. "Perfectly logic"

    Stop correcting my math. :)

    Seriously that is another strange thing. Being bigger does not make someone more likely to attack you, but with this feat it does.
    Once again SMH.

    Silver Crusade

    83 people marked this as a favorite.

    I try not to think about that night.

    We were hired to defend this small village on the border from this warlord that had been tearing across human and orc territory alike. We were expecting trouble, eventually, but we had handled petty orc warlords before.

    The villagers were as ready as they could be as well. They had lived their entire lives near the border, they knew the risks. And they did everything we suggested to bolster their defenses.

    But then they actually came. Everything went to hell.

    These hulking brutes just stomped forth out of the night, shouting vile insults and horrific threats. They made no attempt to hide themselves. They practically announced their presense.

    We might have actually been able to halt their advance, but the villagers...gods.

    They started to run towards the buildings we had prepared as shelter. But as they ran, as they heard the calls of those orcs....I swear most of them were half-orcs...they stopped in their tracks. Men. Women. Children. The old. They all just turned around and charged towards their own deaths.

    Most of them didn't have any weapons. Those that did were hardly of any real quality. But still they turned and charged right into the midst of the enemy to be cut down.

    There was an old woman...I never even learned her name....she always seemed to be bringing us food and thanking us for our work. So sweet natured and I never learned her name. I remember calling out to her to run towards safety. She just turned and ran into some orc's axe.

    Faris, our mage....he couldn't do anything. Everything he had planned fell apart in an instant when the villagers ran into the orcs' midst. Almost everything he could have done would have killed the people were were there to protect. So he ran.

    He didn't get very far. An orc stepped out from behind a house, holding a struggling child in one arm. The brute shouted that he would use Faris' skull as a bowl.

    Faris seemed as if he was about to torch the orc right then and there. I saw him glance at the child. He just charged. Faris was a good man...he deserved better.

    It all happened so fast...we began to pull back. It wasn't a fight to protect the village anymore. We were all just running, to save as many lives as we could. I was carrying a man I had to knock unconcious to keep him from running towards his own death. He had been weeping, screaming for the wife and children cut down before his own eyes.

    I ran past Phaera. She was kneeling over Revik, trying to stop his bleeding. The man was dying, but she had never been one to leave behind those in need. A more loving soul I had never known. She was practically her goddess made flesh by my account.

    She was just about to whisper her prayers when one of the bastards called out to her, laughing at her attempts and promising as painful a death as those we had witnessed in the dozens already that hour.

    I screamed at her to cover her ears. To run with me.

    I don't know if it was fear or rage in her eyes as she stood and ran to her death.

    I try not to think about it.

    I hear the war's getting closer still. I really thought things would turn around once we started making those muffling helmets for our soldiers. That brought new problems all on its own, but then the bastards learned how to use body and sign language.

    Wizards're saying that whatever is happening, it isn't magic. People are just going crazy whenever that horde shows up.

    My advice? Keep moving west. Don't look back. Don't listen. Just keep running.

    Me? I'm going to stay right here and drink myself blind and deaf. At least then...I might be able to die as myself.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I wish I could favourite that post ten times over.


    Mikaze wrote:


    Nice story that tells of another issue with this feat.

    +10000000

    So we have descriptive reason made by myself, and an excellent story written by Mikaze showing just how silly this feat is.

    Once again, thanks.


    Congradulations Mikaze, you have won the thread.
    do you feel proud?

    Silver Crusade

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    FuelDrop wrote:

    Congradulations Mikaze, you have won the thread.

    do you feel proud?

    Hollow.

    For the chase was all we really had.


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Kthulhu wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    BTW, I made the DC 10 + 1/2 ranks in {skill} without any stat bonuses, because stat bonuses are already factored into the skill. This does half the stat bonus, but it means you can gain from skill focus or the like.
    There's a difference between skill RANKS and the total skill BONUS. Ranks cannot exceed your character level.

    My bad, it should have read bonus, not ranks.

    Diego Rossi wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    redward wrote:

    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.

    No, it's trivial from 1st level and stays there.

    And that fix don't remove the problem of "the guy at the bar glowered at me so I had to attack him".

    I absolutely agree. I have since page #1. This feat needs two fixes, one to the DC and one to the effect - the latter needs to have options other than: "When somebody says 'come over here so I can kill you', you do."


    Dabbler wrote:
    Kthulhu wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    BTW, I made the DC 10 + 1/2 ranks in {skill} without any stat bonuses, because stat bonuses are already factored into the skill. This does half the stat bonus, but it means you can gain from skill focus or the like.
    There's a difference between skill RANKS and the total skill BONUS. Ranks cannot exceed your character level.

    My bad, it should have read bonus, not ranks.

    Diego Rossi wrote:
    Dabbler wrote:
    redward wrote:

    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.

    No, it's trivial from 1st level and stays there.

    And that fix don't remove the problem of "the guy at the bar glowered at me so I had to attack him".
    I absolutely agree. I have since page #1. This feat needs two fixes, one to the DC and one to the effect - the latter needs to have options other than: "When somebody says 'come over here so I can kill you', you do."

    I would seriously advise against setting the DC based on the skill modifier instead of the ranks. I realize you might want to make it harder to resist for someone better at the skill, but in doing so you open up a lot of abusive potential. Masterwork items would be +1 DC, skill focus is +3 DC, an elixer is +5 DC, etc, etc, etc.

    Setting it at ranks/2 + key ability makes it work just like every other 10 + 1/2 HD + key ability save in the game. You can easily hit a DC 25-30 by 20th level. That's before counting Ability Focus (Antagonize).


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

    This true, Ashiel.

    Set it as 10 + 1/2 (skill ranks + cha modifier), then.

    Liberty's Edge

    Mikaze, I <3 you.

    301 to 350 of 583 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Antagonize (the GM?!) All Messageboards