Just wait sorcerers learn to use it in combo with pit spells and who knows what else.
Funny how people think this is a melee only feat.
It is primarily a melee feat. Sure, there might arise conditions under which sorcerers might use it. Those will not be the feat's most common or most gamebreaking applications, though.
1 out of 10 sorcerers might take this.
10 out of 10 fighters should take it as early as possible.
The problem is that it will become just a well planned initiative rush.
So, winned by diviner wizards ^__^
This book is full of fun. But not in the way I expected when announced :D
|
The problem is that it will become just a well planned initiative rush.So, winned by diviner wizards ^__^
This book is full of fun. But not in the way I expected when announced :D
I was going to point out that Divination Wizards don't have Intimidate as a class skill. Then I realized that doesn't even matter.
|
To save me reading 10 pages of posts...
Have any of the Paizo folk commented on this thread??
I do not believe so. And it's not going to happen anytime soon.
I believe they did not realize what they did exactly when they wrote this thing, and now their own internal debate along with their usual work is causing a lack of immediate response. They probably want to make sure whatever their response is correct before saying anything.
Vow of Poverty got a response pretty quickly because they knew it wasn't a good option and was prepared for it.
I'm not sure if they said anything about Echoing Spell yet, but I know they commented on Terrible Remorse.
|
So, there's errata for Antagonize! And it says:
The DC to use the Antagonize feat (page 143) is listed as being equal to the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. Is this correct?
No. The DC to use the Antagonize feat should be 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier.
Update: Page 143, in the Antagonize feat, in the benefits section, in the first paragraph, second sentence, change "DC equal to the target's Hit Dice" to "DC equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice".
—Jason Bulmahn, yesterday
Any caster fan wants a kleenex?
|
|
So, there's errata for Antagonize! And it says:
The DC to use the Antagonize feat (page 143) is listed as being equal to the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. Is this correct?
No. The DC to use the Antagonize feat should be 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier.
Update: Page 143, in the Antagonize feat, in the benefits section, in the first paragraph, second sentence, change "DC equal to the target's Hit Dice" to "DC equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice".
—Jason Bulmahn, yesterday
Any caster fan wants a kleenex?
Yes, thank. The archers builds have already used all of mine.
I don't get the point of erratas like this. It's like the errata'ed Cockatrice Strike, the other way around.
The most controversial part of Antagozie was the effect, not the DC. In my humble opinion, it misses the point.
Again, Gorbacz, let's wait to see this feat used by casters. Expecially Cha-based ones, in a creative manner.
let's wait to see this feat used by casters. Expecially Cha-based ones, in a creative manner.
Well the DC was more like an error of omission. The real errata that was needed was clarifying the effect.
The way I see it, left like this a bard with the right combination of skill focus and versatile performance can now pretty much taunt anything without fail. This a great for all those GMs who have ever wanted to have a bard as the BBEG I guess. IMO it still falls squarely within the realm of cheese if not run with a heaping tablespoon of GM mediation on what is[n't] possible with it.
Pretty big return-on-investment for a single feat with no demanding prerequisites.
An adventuring party (level 10) ventures into the s
sanctum of a powerful wizard (lvl 16, 14 wis). Collecting several of his (low level) minions to the main hall, the Wizard confronts the party, and just as he is about to rain down death and destruction on the party, the barbarian throws an insult his way. "I bet you're too chicken to come fight us like a man." Luckily, the barbarian rolled a 2 on the die, narrowly beating the DC to provoke the wizard by a mere 12 points. Rather than inflicting mass hold person on the party as he had originally planned, which would have allowed his minions to deliver coups de grace that might end some of the party's lives swiftly, he pulls out his quarterstaff and sets his sights on the hulking brute. "Nobody," he says, "nobody calls me chicken!" He makes a flying charge against the barbarian, and strikes a solid blow dealing 3 damage, which gets reduced to 1 thanks to the barbarian's thick skin. Snapping out of his madness, he realizes how poorly he has reacted. Within the next six seconds, the wizard who is now in direct melee combat with an adventuring party six levels lower than him learns several new definitions of the word "pain," regret overtaking him as swiftly as the hemorrhaging wounds.The party then breaks out in a well-choreographed song and dance routine, with the barbarian repeatedly proclaiming his high level of badassery, and the minions of the former wizard join in as their first show of loyalty to their new masters.
That works in the movies exactly like that.
Remeber back to the future?"Marty, you a chicken?"
"No one, calls me chicken."
Back to the Future did have this feat.
|
|
So, there's errata for Antagonize! And it says:
The DC to use the Antagonize feat (page 143) is listed as being equal to the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. Is this correct?
No. The DC to use the Antagonize feat should be 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier.
Update: Page 143, in the Antagonize feat, in the benefits section, in the first paragraph, second sentence, change "DC equal to the target's Hit Dice" to "DC equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice".
—Jason Bulmahn, yesterday
Any caster fan wants a kleenex?
Can somebody post exactly which thread or PDF this is contain at? It's not a UM errata overall is it but just Antagonize errata? Because I don't see the UM errata in Downloads, only Core, APG, and other errata.
|
|
Don't worry, Antagonize may not be done yet! Or: Common sense is not dead!
Edit: Off to buy stock in Kleenex...
It's amazing how much the development of Pathfinder is like developing software.
There's an eternal tradeoff between fixing existing problems (which gains you no immediate financial gain, yet is a necessary activity) and producing new material (which does not fix any existing problems, and yet pays the bills).
No matter which you work on, someone is going to be unhappy that you didn't do what they wanted.
It's amazing how much the development of Pathfinder is like developing software.
There's an eternal tradeoff between fixing existing problems (which gains you no immediate financial gain, yet is a necessary activity) and producing new material (which does not fix any existing problems, and yet pays the bills).
No matter which you work on, someone is going to be unhappy that you didn't do what they wanted.
this particular feat was a.. singularity, we can say. nevertheless, the devs could have not finished the work yet.
|
|
I was just about to point out that the FAQ (even the "question" that introduces the errata) only addresses the DC; the ability isn't mentioned at all. So there's still room for modification. (One imagines that the DC was literally an oversight and just needed correcting - fixing the actual rules text is probably a slightly larger exercise.)
|
|
Seriously, click the link in my very last post. All's going to be well with the world again.
I have a feeling they won't define it very well. It's actually kind of advantageous for Paizo to leave it vague and let DMs rule on it themselves.
It saves them from answering the question with a specific locked-down question. And it gives an avenue for a lot of broad interpretation.
I still believe there needs to be a strict definition because without a defined mechanical benefit, it changes the power of the feat far too much. It's like saying Power Attack will do whatever is appropriate to strike the target. Does that mean hitting, doing damage, or what?
Antagonize will probably end up being something like "if the target fails, the target will attack, use an item, use a class ability, use a feat, or perform an action that will target the character using Antagonize". In theory, this will do what the feat was probably intended for, which is to buy the party 1 to 2 rounds where the target will use actions on the character using Antagonize. The party will have distracted the target essentially for 1 to 2 rounds, probably helping the party against the target.
That will make the feat into a bad to medium level feat. And when used at the right time, still be really good or timely at worse (you get attacked, instead of your -10 HP wizard friend who needs the cleric to HEAL him).
IMHO, with a well played party it would be a great feat anyway, but without problems.
And useful for the missing parts of "tanking", if one wants to develop a character in that direction.
I actually really like the "marking" mechanics of 4e. Giving a chain of feats or several different chain of feats that lets melee characters do something similar is a really good idea, actually.
In that sense I think the diplomacy mechanic of this feat might be ok. I might even consider making the diplomacy based part of the feat into a move or swift action, and even having some other feats after this (or even scaling the feat itself based on your Diplomacy check) provide enhanced penalties beyond -2 at later levels.
The intimidate one would NEVER see the light of day in anything I ever ran....and as a player in someone's campaign I would argue vehemently against its introduction...it's just going to lead to absolute absurdity if PCs and NPCs are using the Intimidate part of this feat. It would make anything except strong melee characters almost unplayable, really.
So between Fickle Winds (totally rendering archers ineffective) and Antagonize, ranged characters of almost any kind got absolutely killed in UM.
It's not like that IMO. If you built a guy who just stands there and shoots with no party to back him up then okay, maybe... but who does that? Having an animal companion/mount with some bull rush/overrun capability to get up on people is well within means at that level. You can dispel that or move them out of the radius of the spell if you have no other means of damage. Personally for my ranger I've found Lead Blades makes up for a LOT of what I would normally be missing on damage. Even if you have completely focused on archery a rangers spell selection can give you a world of options in this.
Edit: You can also enlarge yourself and carry a large size +1 bow of seeking. (drop bow, drink, pick up bow). It's a pain but this would completely dodge the spell for the cost of a level 1 spell (or a potion you can drink yourself) and a bow that is basically an always-on gravity bow. You could even have the large bow strung to your larger strength score to eek out a little more advantage from the situation.
Edit2: come to think of it you could just use your own bow and drop a quiver of large ammunition at your feet, or keep such a quiver on your animal companion. This way the ammo wouldnt be able to resize down once you fire it, and if your bow has seeking you negate the 30% miss chance for large projectiles.