RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So the answer is nerf it to uselessness?
Rather, to nerf it so that it's useful without being stronger than all other feats.
Diego, if the target character attempts some skill, it is not attacking the intimidating character, and so she's shaken. A shaken character takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. So she's already taking a -2 penalty to the skill check.
So the answer is nerf it to uselessness?Rather, to nerf it so that it's useful without being stronger than all other feats.
Diego, if the target character attempts some skill, it is not attacking the intimidating character, and so she's shaken. A shaken character takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. So she's already taking a -2 penalty to the skill check.
In this way works similarly to a weaksauce barbarian feat in APG (weaksauce unless you use it in combination with other fear effects, but should not the intention behind a taunt).
Seriously people. -2 attack? 10% spell failure?
90% of casting the right spell vs the right target and win the encounter?
@TOZ: I've seen few nice buffs from devs part. Errataed Offensive Defense in an example.
I see your point but can be made.
|
Seriously people. -2 attack? 10% spell failure?
90% of casting the right spell vs the right target and win the encounter?
Seriously, Kai? I really can't see someone hurling insults at a caster as being much more disruptive to the spellcasting process than the caster wearing leather armor.
I'm honestly not at all sure why insults are supposed to make supremely intelligent persons fly into a homicidal rage.
Seriously people. -2 attack? 10% spell failure?
90% of casting the right spell vs the right target and win the encounter?Seriously, Kai? I really can't see someone hurling insults at a caster as being much more disruptive to the spellcasting process than the caster wearing leather armor.
I'm honestly not at all sure why insults are supposed to make supremely intelligent persons fly into a homicidal rage.
Because that's how the feat works. Hurling insults as intelligent people does NOT cause them to fly into a rage. If it was, it would be a normal ability of the intimidate skill. However, making people attack you by insulting them is a superhuman feat. Thus you need a feat
Because that's how the feat works. Hurling insults as intelligent people does NOT cause them to fly into a rage. If it was, it would be a normal ability of the intimidate skill. However, making people attack you by insulting them is a superhuman feat. Thus you need a featSeriously people. -2 attack? 10% spell failure?
90% of casting the right spell vs the right target and win the encounter?Seriously, Kai? I really can't see someone hurling insults at a caster as being much more disruptive to the spellcasting process than the caster wearing leather armor.
I'm honestly not at all sure why insults are supposed to make supremely intelligent persons fly into a homicidal rage.
What makes you believe that feats are meant to confer superhuman powers?
There are very few, if any feats that actually confer something other than what specialized training might accomplish. (Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Spell Focus, Armor Proficiency, Improved Unarmed Strike, all come to mind as being typical of feats representing specialized training.)
Most feats tend towards be extraordinary "not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training", rather than spell-like or supernatural.
Can you perhaps provide examples of other feats of similar power to the Antagonize feat that might justify your defense of it as balanced with other feats?
|
|
Because that's how the feat works. Hurling insults as intelligent people does NOT cause them to fly into a rage. If it was, it would be a normal ability of the intimidate skill. However, making people attack you by insulting them is a superhuman feat. Thus you need a featSeriously people. -2 attack? 10% spell failure?
90% of casting the right spell vs the right target and win the encounter?Seriously, Kai? I really can't see someone hurling insults at a caster as being much more disruptive to the spellcasting process than the caster wearing leather armor.
I'm honestly not at all sure why insults are supposed to make supremely intelligent persons fly into a homicidal rage.
So it exists as a feat because it needs to be a feat, otherwise it would do nothing? For someone who's been going on about circular logic, that's a pretty interesting argument.
What makes you believe that feats are meant to confer superhuman powers?
Regardless, feats confer capabilities that cannot be achieved by normal means or abilities.
Can you perhaps provide examples of other feats of similar power to the Antagonize feat that might justify your defense of it as balanced with other feats?
That has nothing to do with my argument.
The argument that "You shouldn't be able to insult people into attacking you" is invalid because you CAN'T. You have to take a feat to do it.Just like you can't suddenly decide you have a +1 bonus to AC. Or just suddenly decide you won't lay there and bleed to death when reduced to negative HP.
The feat does say this is a mind affecting ability. So this feat give you the ability to affect thier mind by having them fly into a rage and try to hit you. Just add 10 to the check and call it a day.
P.S. Has a dev popped in on this topic yet?
Edit - Does the fact that putting a SU: infront of the feat would make everyone go " O , its magic. Nevermind thats ok." annoy anyone else.
Seriously people. -2 attack? 10% spell failure?
90% of casting the right spell vs the right target and win the encounter?Seriously, Kai? I really can't see someone hurling insults at a caster as being much more disruptive to the spellcasting process than the caster wearing leather armor.
I'm honestly not at all sure why insults are supposed to make supremely intelligent persons fly into a homicidal rage.
I don't mean the feat is good as is. As is the feat is terribad.
Just make the target forced to attack in the way he prefers.
or, at least, make penalties worse, or scaling with level.
Diego, if the target character attempts some skill, it is not attacking the intimidating character, and so she's shaken. A shaken character takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. So she's already taking a -2 penalty to the skill check.
Right the Intimidate version I suggested would cause someone to become shaken. However, he was addressing the Diplomacy version that was suggested.
FWIW, I tend to view development as an iterative process (hence my love of wikis), so I'm not expecting that a first try at a fix will necessarily git-'er-done. Hence asking for constructive feedback.
Rather than continuously reposting bits and pieces here, I have the current revision I'm working on visible on my wiki:
http://wiki.worldsunknown.com/wiki/Antagonize
Presently, the notable changes from the original version listed in UM are:
- ADD: DC adds the missing "10 +"
- ADD: DC targets the higher of 10 + HD + Wis mod OR 10 + Sense Motive mod.
- ADD: Target gets a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as an Immediate action to sense that their opponent is attempting to antagonize them. Success allows them to add their own Cha modifier to the DC as an Insight bonus.
- ADD: Diplomacy usage also applies the -2 penalty to skill checks.
- CHANGE: Diplomacy is a mind-affecting compulsion effect.
- REMOVE: Original Intimidate usage was taken out back and shot.
- CHANGE: Intimidate causes the same penalties as Diplomacy (-2 to attacks/skills, +10% SF) but on actions against yourself rather than others. If they don't attack on their next turn, they become shaken in addition to these penalties until they attack you or the ability expires.
- CHANGE: Intimidate is a mind-affecting fear effect.
- CHANGE: Clarified the 1/day/target text so that is applies to the feat as a whole.
IMO, this is a pretty good feat with applications in either combat or social encounters. Used in a debate, diplomacy would pretty much lock the target into focusing on you lest they suffer what is effectively the inverse of an Aid Another. In combat, it also now affects things like Acrobatics too.
The intimidate usage could really shake someone up in a debate. Not only are they penalized in attempts to interact with you, but if they ignore you (as they might very well have to) then they are shaken as well. Shaking like a leaf under the verbal assault of someone else could have pretty serious repercussions on the target's credibility. I find the dynamics of someone NOT attacking (for whatever reason) far more interesting and consistent with both RealLife™ and fiction than the original auto-attack version.
YMMV...
|
|
That's quite balanced for a feat, Laithoron - kudos.
You know, feats - the things that give you, for instance, +2's on two skills, or the ability to re-roll miss chance for concealment, or (at the very end of a four-feat-long chain, and at a time when the character would have to be 16th level) the ability to ignore armor and shield bonuses on one ranged attack in a round.
Not the things that give first level fighters compulsion abilities with no prerequisites and a very manageable DC.
Good work, sir. I just continue to be baffled as to how this made it in the book as it is. I'll wrap up by saying that I think UM is a very good and useful book. Unfortunately, every time I turn to page 143, I smell rotten eggs, that's all.
As to the "Nice things for fighters at whatever cost" crowd, don't worry. If this ability was in Ultimate Magic, just think what'll be in Ultimate Combat!
Belch:
By unleashing a mighty belch, you fling opposing spellcasters into a temporary interdimensional vortex as a free action. No save. On the other end of the vortex, the spellcaster is immediately eaten by a Tarrasque.
What makes you believe that feats are meant to confer superhuman powers?Regardless, feats confer capabilities that cannot be achieved by normal means or abilities.
Can you perhaps provide examples of other feats of similar power to the Antagonize feat that might justify your defense of it as balanced with other feats?That has nothing to do with my argument.
The argument that "You shouldn't be able to insult people into attacking you" is invalid because you CAN'T. You have to take a feat to do it.
Just like you can't suddenly decide you have a +1 bonus to AC. Or just suddenly decide you won't lay there and bleed to death when reduced to negative HP.
This is nonsense.
My question is, can you find any other feat of similar power to this feat? If you cannot (and I can't, even though I've looked), then you can either conclude:
1) This feat is perfectly reasonable, even though it is more powerful than any other feat.
2) This feat has unreasonable amounts of power to it, and something went wrong in the design/develop/edit process.
There is nothing in the description of what feats were meant to do that says that they confer super-human powers. In fact, the PRD specifically states: "Feats represent a special trick or ability a character has acquired through training, luck, or as a quirk of his or her birth."
So yes, you can train yourself to gain a feat. You can stumble upon a feat (no pun intended). Or you can be born with a feat. None of this seems particularly magical.
Really, since just about everyone commenting on this thread, or any other regarding this feat seems to think it is way too powerful for what a feat is generally regarded as doing, and you are the only one saying that it's perfectly reasonable, then the onus is on you to provide a solid argument. Otherwise you just look obstinate, stubborn, and wrong.
I just wanted to say I actually love this feat.
I think that it works just fine and exactly as intended.
But i am probably the only person who does
What makes you believe that feats are meant to confer superhuman powers?Regardless, feats confer capabilities that cannot be achieved by normal means or abilities.
Can you perhaps provide examples of other feats of similar power to the Antagonize feat that might justify your defense of it as balanced with other feats?That has nothing to do with my argument.
The argument that "You shouldn't be able to insult people into attacking you" is invalid because you CAN'T. You have to take a feat to do it.
Just like you can't suddenly decide you have a +1 bonus to AC. Or just suddenly decide you won't lay there and bleed to death when reduced to negative HP.This is nonsense.
My question is, can you find any other feat of similar power to this feat?
That had nothing to do with what I was saying. And is not even the same argument I was refuting. I'm not saying the feat is good or balanced. I'm saying the argument "You can't make some one attack you by insulting them!" is bloody stupid. If you want to propose a DIFFERENT argument, then do so and stop pretending it is in refutation to my refutation.
|
I just wanted to say I actually love this feat.
I think that it works just fine and exactly as intended.
But i am probably the only person who does
You're not the only one northbrb.
I think the crux of the issue is as previously stated noncasters can't have nice things.
I used it all weekend at a con and it was no big deal. Quite handy actually to pull humanoid monsters from their shadowy concealment into our heavily lit defensive formations.
|
|
I'm saying the argument "You can't make some one attack you by insulting them!" is bloody stupid. If you want to propose a DIFFERENT argument, then do so and stop pretending it is in refutation to my refutation.
As soon as you stop pretending that "Argument X is stupid" is a refutation.
I think the crux of the issue is as previously stated noncasters can't have nice things.
I used it all weekend at a con and it was no big deal. Quite handy actually to pull monsters from their shadowy concealment into our heavily lit defensive formations.
You do realize that the problem does not come from the party using Antagonize against monsters, right? The problem comes from monsters (and particularly monsters with class levels) using it against the party. Just making sure you understand where the opposing viewpoint is coming from, because it seems like maybe you don't.
I have no problem with monsters or monsters with class levels pulling me into melee.
i don't see why that is such a big deal
I usually don't need to, i usually kill my enemies with buffing and flanking from allies, seeing as how i almost always play melee characters being pulled into melee doesn't bug me and i trust my party to have my back.
I'm saying the argument "You can't make some one attack you by insulting them!" is bloody stupid. If you want to propose a DIFFERENT argument, then do so and stop pretending it is in refutation to my refutation.As soon as you stop pretending that "Argument X is stupid" is a refutation.
I explained twice why it is both stupid and not a valid argument.
I think most people are opposed to the feat as written, but few of us are agreeing on how to fix the feat..
Nuke the feat from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
I think most people are opposed to the feat as written, but few of us are agreeing on how to fix the feat..
"Fixed!"
:)
I usually don't need to, i usually kill my enemies with buffing and flanking from allies, seeing as how i almost always play melee characters being pulled into melee doesn't bug me and i trust my party to have my back.
That's all well and good if you are expecting a fight, but to illustrate the problem some of us have with the original wording of the feat, it would be helpful to think like a GM for a moment...
A character's life is measured in hours and days, not merely rounds. If they have made enemies (whether they know of them or not), then those enemies would probably be aware of the fact that confronting the party when it is organized for a fight would be suicide. Otherwise, how would they have become important enough to care about? Thus they use their connections and informants to learn the party's schedule and where they take their rest, etc.
What happens when you are at rest in a tavern after a long day of adventuring, many of your spells and resources already consumed?
Suddenly the door is kicked open and someone antagonizes your mage or cleric by spouting off scandalous information. Whether or not it is true is irrelevant. Suddenly seeing red, your normally cool and collected caster leaps across the table, dagger or tankard in hand seeking to brutalize the lout.
No sooner do they clear the door than the bouncer slams it behind him. "Keep yer ruckus outside!"
Cursing like sailors, the rest of you get to your feet and run after your friend, the sound of a struggle coming from the other side.
By the time your fighter wrestles the bouncer out of the way, a simple task, true, you open the door to find your caster laying upon the ground in a pool of blood. There is a note pinned to their back with their own dagger: 'Consider yourselves antagonized.'
|
|
I explained twice why it is both stupid and not a valid argument.
As soon as you stop pretending that "Argument X is stupid" is a refutation.
You said that the investiture of a Feat warrants insults delivered by the feat-taker to cause mind control and subsequent forced movement over large distances and a forced action on top of that. You indicated that it is the Feat itself that elevates the power of the insult. You were asked to provide an example of a Feat that has a similar level of power - which, by the way, is a relevant question, since now we're getting into "what should feats even be able to do", a topic you yourself brought on. So far, you haven't provided any examples.
I usually don't need to, i usually kill my enemies with buffing and flanking from allies, seeing as how i almost always play melee characters being pulled into melee doesn't bug me and i trust my party to have my back.
Pretend you're not a melee character. Pretend you're a spellcaster, whose survival depends on staying as far away from melee as possible. Is the feat a cause for concern in that scenario? Your party will have your back - because they will be behind you - but can you actually survive the next two rounds?
|
|
You do realize that the problem does not come from the party using Antagonize against monsters, right? The problem comes from monsters (and particularly monsters with class levels) using it against the party. Just making sure you understand where the opposing viewpoint is coming from, because it seems like maybe you don't.
Of course, because every monster has that feat and is intimidate/diplomacy optimized. I expect it to come up like every combat.
My party also lets me run off into melee without trying to stop me all the time. I mean they say hey our wizard just got antagonized I guess we'll just let him run off into melee, because wizards are really hard to you know like restrain or talk down for like a round or two.
Let's cut the BS I know the REAL reasons you all don't like the feat.
1. You don't get a save. The effect is on the front end initiation not the back end save. (no save boosting spells, items)
2. It's similar to a spell like effect but it's not a spell so you can't use spell disruption or all your powerz (spelling mine) and items to stop it. (except for Wisdom boosting items of course.) See you're used to spells and how to defend against them, but curveball feats throw you off.
You'd rather nerf it into some cheesy version of Doom or demoralize, you know the thing I can already do without a feat.
Whatever I'm out of here. Jump up and down and scream all you want, it's legal, I'll continue to use it. I'm sure it'll be cleaned up for clarity but they're not going to nerf it they way you want. Getting into some thirty page nitpicky diatribe certainly isn't going to help your case.
I can't wait until Ultimate Combat comes out. Your heads are going to explode.
My party also lets me run off into melee without trying to stop me all the time. I mean they say hey our wizard just got antagonized I guess we'll just let him run off into melee, because wizards are really hard to you know like restrain or talk down for like a round or two.
Assuming you weren't flat footed (a distinct possibility in this scenario), you can trip on an AoO against your crazed friend but not grapple them — that requires a standard action.
Let's cut the BS I know the REAL reasons you all don't like the feat.
1. You don't get a save. The effect is on the front end initiation not the back end save. (no save boosting spells, items)
Yes. This is exactly right. I can build an NPC that is famed for his discipline and composure, that has a sense motive modifier and will save through the roof, that has a strong defense against any attempt to control or influence him. Or so I thought... Now with this feat any Joe Shmoe can beat a trivial intimidate DC (let's say a 15 in this instance) to make my extremely composed NPC fly into a rage and attack him.
2. It's similar to a spell like effect but it's not a spell so you can't use spell disruption or all your powerz (spelling mine) and items to stop it. (except for Wisdom boosting items of course.) See you're used to spells and how to defend against them, but curveball feats throw you off.
The fact that there is no way to defend against this is a problem. Don't like your character being dominated? You can invest in feats, traits, class abilities, items, spells, etc... But for this feat, what can you do? Increase your Wisdom? Yeah right. The difference between a first level character with a 10 Wisdom and one with an 18 Wisdom is the difference in an Intimidate DC of 1 and 5. Better known as no difference whatsoever (+1 rank +3 class skill +1 Charisma mod +1 minimum die roll =5 final intimidate =100% success against both).
A simple observation: it is apparently 10 times easier to antagonize a first level character with average wisdom than it is to swim in calm water. I find this stupid. If you don't, I really don't know what to say.
A simple observation: it is apparently 10 times easier to antagonize a first level character with average wisdom than it is to swim in calm water. I find this stupid. If you don't, I really don't know what to say.
To be fair, it is harder than it looks.
I think most people are opposed to the feat as written, but few of us are agreeing on how to fix the feat..
"Fixed!"
:)
I'm even considering getting PDFpen so I can completely redact it from the PDF. Totally remove the actual text and any associated meta-data. :P
I explained twice why it is both stupid and not a valid argument.
As soon as you stop pretending that "Argument X is stupid" is a refutation.You said that the investiture of a Feat warrants insults delivered by the feat-taker to cause mind control and subsequent forced movement over large distances and a forced action on top of that. You indicated that it is the Feat itself that elevates the power of the insult. You were asked to provide an example of a Feat that has a similar level of power - which, by the way, is a relevant question, since now we're getting into "what should feats even be able to do", a topic you yourself brought on. So far, you haven't provided any examples.
I usually don't need to, i usually kill my enemies with buffing and flanking from allies, seeing as how i almost always play melee characters being pulled into melee doesn't bug me and i trust my party to have my back.Pretend you're not a melee character. Pretend you're a spellcaster, whose survival depends on staying as far away from melee as possible. Is the feat a cause for concern in that scenario? Your party will have your back - because they will be behind you - but can you actually survive the next two rounds?
i would be no more worried about having this happen to my spellcaster than my melee character being dominated, stunned, charmed, ability drained, ranged touch attacked. honestly i don't care about the lack of a save, the complaint about this feat comes from people who don't fight in melee being forced to get into dangerous situations. any DM who uses this to just plain kill the parties spellcaster shouldn't be DMing. i love this feat, i love how it works. i love that i can force an enemy spellcaster to come to me. and i don't think that there is anything wrong with it.
i would be no more worried about having this happen to my spellcaster than my melee character being dominated, stunned, charmed, ability drained, ranged touch attacked. honestly i don't care about the lack of a save, the complaint about this feat comes from people who don't fight in melee being forced to get into dangerous situations. any DM who uses this to just plain kill the parties spellcaster shouldn't be DMing. i love this feat, i love how it works. i love that i can force an enemy spellcaster to come to me. and i don't think that there is anything wrong with it.
As a player you love being able to force an enemy spellcaster to come at you with no save in order to kill him. But you think a DM is absolutely horrible if he uses this feat in the exact same way against party spellcasters?
Talk about double standards...
i would be no more worried about having this happen to my spellcaster than my melee character being dominated, stunned, charmed, ability drained, ranged touch attacked. honestly i don't care about the lack of a save, the complaint about this feat comes from people who don't fight in melee being forced to get into dangerous situations. any DM who uses this to just plain kill the parties spellcaster shouldn't be DMing. i love this feat, i love how it works. i love that i can force an enemy spellcaster to come to me. and i don't think that there is anything wrong with it.As a player you love being able to force an enemy spellcaster to come at you with no save in order to kill him. But you think a DM is absolutely horrible if he uses this feat in the exact same way against party spellcasters?
Talk about double standards...
i don't mind a DM doing this to a player as long as he doesn't set up the encounter just to kill him, NPC's monsters or otherwise are expendable to DM's a PC really isn't.
i don't mind a DM doing this to a player as long as he doesn't set up the encounter just to kill him, NPC's monsters or otherwise are expendable to DM's a PC really isn't.
As a player you love being able to force an enemy spellcaster to come at you with no save in order to kill him. But you think a DM is absolutely horrible if he uses this feat in the exact same way against party spellcasters?Talk about double standards...
There is nothing more special about a PC then anyone else in a campaign, if your DM treats it as such then yeah antagonize is fine, your probably rolling over every encounter anyway.
You PC is set up to use this to kill enemy mages and yet you call bad dming if another warrior thought, yeah I should use this nigh unbeatable tactic against every mage I meet.
Honestly there is a big difference between melee guy switching sides for a few rounds and spellcaster dies no save.
|
|
I yearn for the days of late last week when Cartigan was putting forth cohesive points that actually warranted discussion. Oh, the days of yore!
The old problem: Caster edition! Fighters can't have nice things, because they're always being thwarted by those pesky magic-users who can fly about and warp the laws of the universe.
The new problem: Insult edition! Casters are prevented from flying about and warping the laws of the universe because, as they are informed by a one-feat-invested lug with a sword, they are ugly and their momma dresses them funny.
Pretty good feat. Better than power attack, for my money. Guess some people don't see "better than power attack" as being a bad thing to shoehorn into a book about casters. I do. There seem to be a few others who do. I'll go ahead and sleep secure in that knowledge, and take some advice that was wisely offered to me a few days ago:
All you can do is leave the thread such that almost all rational people viewing it will come to the correct conclusion.
Solid advice. Should have taken it then.
any DM who uses this to just plain kill the parties spellcaster shouldn't be DMing. i love this feat, i love how it works. i love that i can force an enemy spellcaster to come to me. and i don't think that there is anything wrong with it.
Actually I believe that in order to limit the cheese and maintain the sanity in a game, it is imperative that the bad guys have access to the exact level of cheese, min-maxing, and loopholes that the players are intent upon bringing to the game. Internal consistency is needed or else it's just a farce. After all, heroes are defined by the villains they oppose. If every enemy is reduced to a joke then so too is the hero.
You are free to feel like I shouldn't be GMing for using the same tricks as the players. Of course, I'm inclined to think that someone with that mentality shouldn't be GMing either. Good thing we'll never be at the same table I guess, huh? ;)
On a completely different point, I'd say Jeremiziah's point about the power level of a stand-alone feat, one with no high-level pre-requisites nor one at the end of a lengthy chain, must be held up against other feats with a similar difficulty of entry. If a 1st level spell was strictly more effective than every other 1st level spell, it would either get brought-in-line or it would be increased to 2nd level. This sort of thing happens all the time, we just normally don't see it because usually that sort of thing is caught during iterations of the development/playtesting cycle.
The precedent for basic feats with low entry requirements is a +2 bonus (all the CMB feats, the 2-skill feats, the save feats, etc), not giving out Win the Game™ tokens.
The game is not GM vs Players so no i don't think a GM should use this to just out and out kill the parties spellcaster but that being said i don't have a problem with the GM using this feat on the parties spellcaster for purposes of the story and to bring the spellcaster into a dangerious situation with the thought in mind that the party will be there to help.
I mean a GM who forces the parties Spellcaster into this situation just to kill them would be no different than a GM who decides to Coup de gras a player in their sleep.
players die, i get that but a GM who puts players into a situation where they cant survive seems like they are just playing against the players.
The game is not GM vs Players so no i don't think a GM should use this to just out and out kill the parties spellcaster but that being said i don't have a problem with the GM using this feat on the parties spellcaster for purposes of the story and to bring the spellcaster into a dangerious situation with the thought in mind that the party will be there to help.
I mean a GM who forces the parties Spellcaster into this situation just to kill them would be no different than a GM who decides to Coup de gras a player in their sleep.
players die, i get that but a GM who puts players into a situation where they cant survive seems like they are just playing against the players.
So what your saying is, This one feat can be used to make an unsurvivable situation.
|
|
I usually don't need to, i usually kill my enemies with buffing and flanking from allies, seeing as how i almost always play melee characters being pulled into melee doesn't bug me and i trust my party to have my back.
Pretend that your enemy has half a brain and this feat.
You trust your party to have your back and to flank your enemy, when the enemy call you out ant force you to rush to them stead on stay in your "well lit" area.
Then who is doing the flanking and the be at your back? Your enemies. When it is their turn your party should chose between rushing to your aid (and so leaving their favourable position) or leave you alone to be slaughtered.
Unless your GM is very soft and the encounters your party meet are always several CR below your level it is a great way to kill 1-2 character every encounter.
So what your saying is, This one feat can be used to make an unsurvivable situation.The game is not GM vs Players so no i don't think a GM should use this to just out and out kill the parties spellcaster but that being said i don't have a problem with the GM using this feat on the parties spellcaster for purposes of the story and to bring the spellcaster into a dangerious situation with the thought in mind that the party will be there to help.
I mean a GM who forces the parties Spellcaster into this situation just to kill them would be no different than a GM who decides to Coup de gras a player in their sleep.
players die, i get that but a GM who puts players into a situation where they cant survive seems like they are just playing against the players.
it can be, it would take a little planing, i think that if a Gm is aware of this feat being used by a player he can plan around it when necessary and even prevent an unsurvivable event from happening but it is even easier for the same GM to create an unsurvivable event for players.
i am well aware that this feat is pretty powerful and if the dev's decided to increase the level on it i wouldn't have a problem with that within reason but i like the way the feat works and would not want it to be changed.
I think arguing over how easy it is for a GM to abuse this feat is sort of a moot point. the GM doesn't need this feat to screw with or kill the party, he has plenty of ways to do that on his own so no i don't see this feat as being too powerful just because a Gm can kill players with it.
I see this feat as one thing. it is a way for melee characters to screw with ranged/caster characters.
that goes for both players and GM's.
I think arguing over how easy it is for a GM to abuse this feat is sort of a moot point. the GM doesn't need this feat to screw with or kill the party, he has plenty of ways to do that on his own so no i don't see this feat as being too powerful just because a Gm can kill players with it.
I see this feat as one thing. it is a way for melee characters to screw over ranged/caster characters.
that goes for both players and GM's.
Fixed that.
screwing with means it helps them win, this is auto-win. No point in even using casters, what fighter in his right mind wouldn't learn this skill?
I think arguing over how easy it is for a GM to abuse this feat is sort of a moot point. the GM doesn't need this feat to screw with or kill the party, he has plenty of ways to do that on his own so no i don't see this feat as being too powerful just because a Gm can kill players with it.
I see this feat as one thing. it is a way for melee characters to screw with ranged/caster characters.
that goes for both players and GM's.
Well the feat isn't melee characters only... So everyone can use it to lure someone in a trap or an ambush...
If this feat goes as it says now no one in the world can consider fleeing a viable solution, 'cause, you know, if you try to flee you know someone will antagonize you and you'll be forced to rush to be butchered.As a GM I always try to be consistent... Sinc magic exist most of the more wealthy merchant are protected against it, the laws of most realm takes magical capabilities into account, the investigator use magic to find culprit, the watch use magic to tell if a culprit lie or not etc.
You have to take into account that, if this feat exist, a lot of very clever people will use it to their advantage... On a battlefield this feat is a very huge advantage that no general in his right mind will dismiss.
With this feat you can force diplomatic incident, force someone to attack you even if he lock himself behind the thickest door existing, if you want to kill someone who is heavily guarded you can too, by forcing him to come to you instead of having to get pass his guards.
Everyone can take this feat, there's no class pre-requisite.
Make it a end-chain feat with a strong pre-requisite and it would not change the face of the world. As it is now it change everything...
|
|
The second group is more hardcore. We just reached level 11, started at one, and we have had seven character deaths(all though to be fair one was when the group beat down a pc) and all the players are ok with that. They understand it is high risk and high reward campaign. Certain players(ok, its me) somewhat unbalance the rest of the group. I pretty much do as much damage per round as the rest of the group combined on average, while avoiding most attention(alchemist) because I created a more powerful build. I basically single handedly ruined an epic battle he had planned- not taking into account my fly-bomb. If he needed to kill me to balance me to the rest of the party to increase their fun- well I'd be pissed but no problem. He does not purposefully try to kill us, but certainly puts us in more situations where you could potentially die, and might suffer a casualty or a TPK.So I would say- if you don't want that kind of play- ban it from everyone. If you don't mind/want that feat yourself- expect the GM to use it on your squishy and try to kill him. It really comes more down to how you want the game to flow, IMO. That's what house rules are for.
Just suppose your GM decide to defuse your capability to "wreak" an encounter without killing your character.
Round one: NPC goon Antagonize you. He is at 40 ft from you and there is no possibility to do a charge. You spend all the action next round to get in range of him.
Round two: he maintain the Antagonize feat active with a free action, swing against you once (he is a weak NPC), then move 6 ft.
When it is your time to act you move 5', do a full attack and your turn end.
Round three and four another NPC do the same thing.
For 4 rounds you get to do 2 full melee attacks against 2 goons instead of using the main powers of your class. As your GM seem fairly lenient almost certainly you will not run the risk to die, but I doubt you would find much pleasure playing your character.
That is the kins of power this feat has.