Aggro mechanics might work well for computer games, but they are seriously retarded for role playing games.
Why would a wizard beat you with a stick if he is provoked & angry with you?
That's like saying a mafia boss will punch you in the face and not shoot you dead if he gets really angry with your behaviour.
Really stupid and makes no sense.
While I might have phrased it more diplomatically, I have to add my +1. Aggro exists in computer games because there is no living, breathing, thinking GM who can decide what the opponents will logically do. Those opponents need to have code-driven instructions for what to do, and aggro is an imperfect but probably necessary work around for the limitations of games that have no GM.
I see zero need for this kind of mechanic in a pen and paper RPG with an actual human being fully capable of and rule-empowered to make all necessary decisions for NPC reactions. I'm not even going to bother to address whether the mechanic is poorly written or overpowered or whatever. It's just completely unnecessary.
Computer games have a lot of impact on pen and paper games these days, some of it good and some of it bad. Toss this one into the bad pile.
IMHO you can add the mechanic, but at least make it say "if the creature attacks, will attack you first at the best of his power" or something like that.
Otherwise, make with a range and limited to melee. "If the creature is attacks in melee must attack you if you are in her threatened area".
People asked for a "taunt". I would have appreciated the second one, personally.
|
My current house rule for the save is going to be 10 + HD + Will Save. And it will be a fear effect, so fighters get their bravery, and higher level paladins are immune.
At least this way, it requires some effort on the intimidator's part to succeed. Also, PCs actually have a way to boost their defense.
DC's would range from something like this for PCs:
5th level
16 - 27 DC10th level
25 - 37 DC15th level
33 - 44 DC20th level
51 - 65 DCA half-orc inquisitor still auto-succeeds against low will characters of equal level with modest investment, but he needs to heavily invest in quite a few feats, or hope for some lucky dice in order to succeed against higher will opponents.
I like this house rule...maybe the devs should look into it...
IMHO that is a very bad fix, sorry. You force to specialize and to make it an inquisitor only feat.
Make the DC slightly harder, and work on the effect and the wording instead.
Not to be harsh, but the gianormous DC raising is an example, IMHO, of how NOT fix things.
I agree that people can be swayed into doing stupid things, like attacking superior opponents, but what I have an issue with is that the feat dictates how you must attack. As others have already said I just can't see a 20th level wizard with a full selection of spells pulling out a dagger and charging the full plated, great sword wielding fighter, no matter what that fighter says.
I could accept it if it said something like:
"if the character fails their save they must attempt to attack you in some manner (physically, magically, mentally, socially, etc.) or become shaken while you are in their presence or until they attack you. If a character saves against this effect they are immune to it from you for 24 hours."
Now, that's not the best write up but I think you all get the gist.
I'll never use this feat and I hope that it never comes up in the games I play in as I fear I would have to tell the Dungeon Master "No" because I refuse to have my character's actions dictated to me.
Prehaps I'm a bit spoiled as far as games go, but in my experience character actions and decision are the only thing the player truly has control over and it should never be this easy to take that away.
IMHO that is a very bad fix, sorry. You force to specialize and to make it an inquisitor only feat.
Make the DC slightly harder, and work on the effect and the wording instead.
Not to be harsh, but the gianormous DC raising is an example, IMHO, of how NOT fix things.
Intimidation is one of the easiest skills to raise in the game. Intimidating Prowress can be a +10 to intimidate alone at higher levels. And the fact that a simple DC 20 Sense Motive check lets you double your Charisma modifier, means many, many people at least have a chance at making the check.
If I don't make the DCs so high, then any intimidate specialist will auto-succeed even against characters much higher level than they are.
IMHO that is a very bad fix, sorry. You force to specialize and to make it an inquisitor only feat.
Make the DC slightly harder, and work on the effect and the wording instead.
Not to be harsh, but the gianormous DC raising is an example, IMHO, of how NOT fix things.
Intimidation is one of the easiest skills to raise in the game. Intimidating Prowress can be a +10 to intimidate alone at higher levels. And the fact that a simple DC 20 Sense Motive check lets you double your Charisma modifier, means many, many people at least have a chance at making the check.
If I don't make the DCs so high, then any intimidate specialist will auto-succeed even against characters much higher level than they are.
OK but IMHO is still missing the point. Is the effect the wrong thing of the feat.
I LIKE the concept but it's poorly written.
Maybe make it -as a standard action goad a target to attacking you.
The foe must take only offensive actions against you for 1 round, be it casting a DD or Save or Lose spell, shooting at you or closing to melee.
Gtr Antagonize: Preq, Antagonise, Dazzling Display or Intimidating Glare rage power.
Benefit: When you use a standard action to use Dazzling Display, you accompany it with insults. All foes in 30ft who fail to save vs the check are shaken and must target you with an offensive action for the duration of the intimidate.
Ever see the Soprano's? Plenty of times Tony Soprano lost his cool a beat the hell out of someone. I have no problem with this feat thematically I think it can create some great RP, its the DC that bothers me. And honestly even if you succeed, its one round which is no auto win against a well buffed wizard in most cases
But Tony Soprano is the kind of guy who does occasionally beat the hell out of people with his bare hands.
Now swap in, say, a 10,000 year old lich for Tony Soprano.
It's just not logical that it would be so easy to taunt someone who's spent lifetimes learning to kill you with their mind to toss that aside and try with their fists that you literally could not fail to do it.
Edit: I do think it's broken, but to be clear, my real problem isn't its brokenness but that it's profoundly silly. It instantly takes an often-serious game and makes it slapstick. It's the kind of thing you'd expect in an Ultimate Three Stooges book.
After this feat and other things, my permission levels for my players for books have gone:
Core book: Take what you want. I'm not going to question it unless it's something absurd.
APG: Ask me first but it's generally assumed to be allowed.
Ultimate Magic: Nothing is allowed unless I permit it beforehand; players may petition for options.
This is a downward slope.
Yeah, there is something seriously wrong with my 32 Intelligence wizard being RETARDED enough to go into melee with fists and sticks. No non-magical effect should be capable of doing that.
Even if you take magic into consideration I would still consider this to be an exceptionally powerful as far as making a character do something. Looking at some of the common spells that could be used to duplicate this effect:
Charm Person: Allows a save, requires opposed charisma checks to get them to act against their nature, and cannot force subject to obey sucicidal or harmful orders. I would consider forcing a wizard to engage in melee combat with a fighter harmful.
Suggestion: Allows a save, actions suggested must sound reasonable to the person affected, and obviously harmful acts negate the spell. Again I would consider forcing a wizard to engage in melee combat with a fighter harmful.
Geas, Lesser: Allows a save, only works on lower level subjects, and and cannot be forced to perform acts that would result in certain death. Certain death is arguable, but there are ways to use this feat that would also certainly lead to death, such as the already meantioned attacking in the king's court.
Geas: 10 Minute casting time, has all the limitations of Lesser Geas save for the hit die limit.
Dominate Person: Allows a save, allows a new save if forced to take actions against the nature of the character, and self-destructive orders are not obeyed. So a wizard would not engage a fighter in melee combat even if Dominated.
So, to me, this feat is more powerful within it's limited scope than pretty much any magic because it can force a character to perform an act that is not only against its nature but also self-destructive, all without a save.
|
It is, um, poorly written.
One bright side is it is (mind affecting) so the 20th level cleric should have Mind blank up and running.
I prefer the 'attack the target' version people have suggested.
Beside needing a 15th level wizard or 16th sorcerer, what he would get?
Mind Blank
School abjuration; Level sorcerer/wizard 8
... This spell also grants a +8 resistance bonus on saving throws against all mind-affecting spells and effects. ...
No more blanket immunity to mental effects (so you get the bard morale bonus, but you are affected by all the mental effects) and a bonus to ST, while that feat has a skill success DC.
Agreed.This is disturbing. I haven't even read the book yet (I'll wait until the print version shows up) and already I know of more stuff that is just wrong than in any other book. Not stuff I don't agree on a flavour level, but stuff that should not be.
Disturbing might not be the right word. Disappointing.
I will wait for the second print before buying it or only buy the PDF until the printed version has been corrected and reprinted.
|
Yeah, there is something seriously wrong with my 32 Intelligence wizard being RETARDED enough to go into melee with fists and sticks. No non-magical effect should be capable of doing that.
True enough. But what if that rougue you're dealing with knows about the embarrassing story of how you "REALLY" got that limp of yours, or knows of your invalid brother, and takes his time poking and proding at you about his disablities. Maybe he knows about your failure as a wizard?
Even the smartest person can give into anger (doing some truly stupid and horriffic things) at the tiniest or largest of slights. Better beef up that Wisdom score a bit, and hope your opponent rolls low.
True enough. But what if that rougue you're dealing with knows about the embarrassing story of how you "REALLY" got that limp of yours, or knows of your invalid brother, and takes his time poking and proding at you about his disablities. Maybe he knows about your failure as a wizard?Even the smartest person can give into anger (doing some truly stupid and horriffic things) at the tiniest or largest of slights. Better beef up that Wisdom score a bit, and hope your opponent rolls low.
Really? Do you REALLY see anyone locked in a life threatening battle with an adversary capable of slicing his head off falling for such a retarded trick. This feat is not intended to be used in a bar brawl. If it was, I would be ok with it. This feat is applicable in legitimate life and death fight.
There is no one that would fall for it, no matter his wisdom score or whatever.
Do you think that archer shooting his arrows for the whole life who is already intending to kill you anyway will suddenly drop his bow because your taunt is really good ?
Do you see a soldier fighting in a confined space, dropping his rifle and running to enemies to punch them in the face because the enemies are making jokes about his invalid brother ? Are you serious ?
Sane people will never act this way. Only people who are prone to violent outbursts in real life might fall for this and even then they will try kill you in a very efficient way if you threaten their life or they intend to kill you anyway.
I say, everyone should take a deep breath. Is this problematic? Maybe. But there is a specific line:
"or attempting to do so would harm it"
Now, the examples given are environmental hazards, but I don't think (given what we've been talking about re: mages and archers and the like) it's too much of a stretch to say that a wizard running out of cover into melee counts as "harming it," follow? I'm wondering if the intention is more to use this as a way to draw melee types into combat with you, and less to abuse the poor spellcaster murdering your party from afar.
And honestly as a player I would LIKE a way to draw out those SOBs. Wrecking entire groups of dudes is the PC wizards role! I may be biased ATM because of recent events in our Age of Worms game, but I digress. ;)
I think that it's definitely supposed to be 13 Cha requisite and DC 10+HD+wis for sure. typos, they happen.
I agree that that still makes it easy for someone who is focusing on Intimidate/Diplomacy. Problematic? Maybe. Sort of depends; isn't shocking grasp a melee attack? ghoul touch?
Really the biggest issue with this is going to be the nightmarish rules lawyer discussions at tables during Organized Play. So just to save GMs that headache maybe errata it for more clarity? I can't imagine JJ and company would design a feat that deliberately allows anyone with a mild focus on Intimidate to massacre ranged combatants with a standard action.
And hey, here's a thought that might help out at a home game: role play it! Seriously, I'm not trying to be flippant, it could be fun! what exactly DO you say to the creature to make it flip its lid and come smack you in the face? As a GM I'd totally give bonuses if you know the target and bring up something personal, and that might encourage players to pay more attention at the table! Which is good.
As for the "this would never happen in real life" arguments, they don't hold water. It's a fantasy game! Wizard go boom, fighter go smack! If you like realism in your gaming, that's awesome, but I think there are probably systems that are better suited to that than DND, at least in my experience. The REAL question is: is this FUN? For the player, for the GM? if the answer is no in either case, then don't use the feat. :)
ANYWAY. F-ing room next to me in this hotel has had an alarm going off for the last hour and a half. So I hope I'm coherent.
Where is the line? The troll could think that the fighter is so powerful that is 2harming" run and charge him. There are not guidelines.
The feat is broken without this suggestion, and a "mommy can I" with.
Where is the line? The troll could think that the fighter is so powerful that is 2harming" run and charge him. There are not guidelines.
The feat is broken without this suggestion, and a "mommy can I" with.
/shrugs/ Was just a thought.
Yea that line "or attempting to do so would harm it" is undoubtedly going to take DM arbitration. I would argue that if moving to the person to attack would offer any of his allies attacks of opportunity that would fulfill the "would harm him" clause.
I do like it thematically like I said, I do think it will have some great fun RP. It forces the opponent into a one on one showdown (at least for one round) I don't think it is anywhere near an instant mage kill as most mages will have mirror image, stone skin, maybe blur, so its likely you use one round to waste one round on them. at high levels contingency can prevent it, at low levels the party likely does not have the means to counter those buffs.I am not sure where the comments about mind effects are coming from, it does not say its a mind effect.
Having said that, I strongly dislike that it dictates the manner of attack and that its to easy to succeed. Even with the +10 for an inquisitor its like an auto succeed. I do like the idea of a choice so maybe make it so that the opponent must attack in some fashion or be shaken similar to how the demoralize use of intimidate does staggered where its 1 round of staggered for every 5 points above the DC only a little more debilitating because you spent a feat to get it
|
|
" Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect." <- here
"Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire)."
AoE attacks threaten specific squares. So if there is a route allowing the target to reach the taunting guy avoiding AoE the sill take and follow it.
Getting into close combat range for most arcane spellcaster is sure death or removal from the fight when the teleport away contingency get activated.
With the current damage dealing capacity of a close combat build and minimal teamwork the arcane spellcaster will get so many HP of damages that he has no option to stay in the fight. His mirror images would be exausted, same thing for stoneskin and he probably would be bleeding and losing hp every round if he was so lucky to be still conscious.
Remember that a well made taunt will not only force you to go in CC range from the guy doing it (and so getting a complete sequence of attacks from him) but probably within a 5' step of his friends.
" Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect." <- here
"Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire)."
AoE attacks threaten specific squares. So if there is a route allowing the target to reach the taunting guy avoiding AoE the sill take and follow it.
Getting into close combat range for most arcane spellcaster is sure death or removal from the fight when the teleport away contingency get activated.
With the current damage dealing capacity of a close combat build and minimal teamwork the arcane spellcaster will get so many HP of damages that he has no option to stay in the fight. His mirror images would be exausted, same thing for stoneskin and he probably would be bleeding and losing hp every round if he was so lucky to be still conscious.Remember that a well made taunt will not only force you to go in CC range from the guy doing it (and so getting a complete sequence of attacks from him) but probably within a 5' step of his friends.
Ah thanks not sure how I missed that. That helps a bit.
Getting into close combat range for most arcane spellcaster is sure death or removal from the fight when the teleport away contingency get activated.
With the current damage dealing capacity of a close combat build and minimal teamwork the arcane spellcaster will get so many HP of damages that he has no option to stay in the fight. His mirror images would be exausted, same thing for stoneskin and he probably would be bleeding and losing hp every round if he was so lucky to be still conscious.Remember that a well made taunt will not only force you to go in CC range from the guy doing it (and so getting a complete sequence of attacks from him) but probably within a 5' step of his friends.
Do you realize how arbitrary is this, right?
What about a low level fighter taunting a wizard able to shapechange in a dragon? Or a druid? If the wizard has a deadly touch attack spell prepared and a contingency (thus able to save himself), should he charge?
Where is the border? Is so DM-fiat that could have been left RP-only.
|
|
Getting into close combat range for most arcane spellcaster is sure death or removal from the fight when the teleport away contingency get activated.
With the current damage dealing capacity of a close combat build and minimal teamwork the arcane spellcaster will get so many HP of damages that he has no option to stay in the fight. His mirror images would be exausted, same thing for stoneskin and he probably would be bleeding and losing hp every round if he was so lucky to be still conscious.Remember that a well made taunt will not only force you to go in CC range from the guy doing it (and so getting a complete sequence of attacks from him) but probably within a 5' step of his friends.
Do you realize how arbitrary is this, right?What about a low level fighter taunting a wizard able to shapechange in a dragon? Or a druid? If the wizard has a deadly touch attack spell prepared and a contingency (thus able to save himself), should he charge?
Where is the border? Is so DM-fiat that could have been left RP-only.
The problem is that he will not turn into a dragon and then pummel him.
He will first pummel (after moving), then maybe shapechange if his power allow him to do that in a swift/free action.Sure, it could be used on the wrong target, but generally players would use it to get weak melee combatant to come to them.
And if it work on players characters hell would be loose.
I imagined an already shapechanged wizard.
And the example you bringed with more people preparing an action scares me even more. What if they are hidden in some way?
Thanks for the heads up guys: I'm definitely not buying this book now.Because of 1 feat? Srsly?
I put the premise that I decided to buy UM and UC for part of the content and for a number of other reasons.
Said this, I am sorry, but the book seems overall, to be kind, not edited in a great way, and the feat itself is not "wrong", just does not seem written by a company.
It seems belong to an homebrew forum, before discussion.
|
Thanks for the heads up guys: I'm definitely not buying this book now.Because of 1 feat? Srsly?I put the premise that I decided to buy UM and UC for part of the content and for a number of other reasons.
Said this, I am sorry, but the book seems overall not that good edited, and the feat itself is not "wrong", just does not seem written by a company. It seems belong to an homebrew forum, before discussion.
I guess I gotta go and burn all my RPG books because each of them contains at least a few errors.
Like Core Rulebook with Paladin smite.
Or APG with Selective Spell.
Or ... you know, every WotC book out there.
IMHO that is a very bad fix, sorry. You force to specialize and to make it an inquisitor only feat.
Make the DC slightly harder, and work on the effect and the wording instead.
Not to be harsh, but the gianormous DC raising is an example, IMHO, of how NOT fix things.
Intimidation is one of the easiest skills to raise in the game. Intimidating Prowress can be a +10 to intimidate alone at higher levels. And the fact that a simple DC 20 Sense Motive check lets you double your Charisma modifier, means many, many people at least have a chance at making the check.
If I don't make the DCs so high, then any intimidate specialist will auto-succeed even against characters much higher level than they are.
So your argument, in essence, is "If you focus A LOT on buffing your Intimidate skill, you are really good at Intimidation." Yeah, good argument.
Thanks for the heads up guys: I'm definitely not buying this book now.Because of 1 feat? Srsly?
Since the feat is missing at least the "base 10" part of the target DC, it's obviously going to be corrected in the errata.
Not buying this book for the stated reason is equivalent to refusing to buy it because they used "they're" in place of "there" somewhere in the book.
I guess I gotta go and burn all my RPG books because each of them contains at least a few errors.
Like Core Rulebook with Paladin smite.
Or APG with Selective Spell.
Or ... you know, every WotC book out there.
Heh, I see what you did there. "Paizo makes some mistakes, but they are better than WOTC."
Wait, how did WOTC get that way? It couldn't possibly be from fans that defend mistakes, even as they begin to increase from release to release? You know, so that the message to the company was that it was more important to get a book out with more stuff in it than to make sure the stuff worked?
I guess I gotta go and burn all my RPG books because each of them contains at least a few errors.
Like Core Rulebook with Paladin smite.
Or APG with Selective Spell.
Or ... you know, every WotC book out there.
Errors and errors exist. This is a kind of feat I wouldn't expect by a publisher. But, ok, they rolled a natural "1" here.
Then, I'm curious about what paizo will fix. They had a big haste in fixing the paladin smite (right I suppose) and the monk INA (less right IMHO) but there is stuff pointed out as unclear or nonfunctional (cockatrice strike, or the attack "thread of the week" action leading to confusion by players and ADVENTURE DESIGNERS, as pointed out by a poster recently). I've yet to understand their modus operandi regarding this.
The book seems to me badly edited overall. I pointed out recently the Dragon Slaying weirdness thing.
I hope for the best Gorbacz.. I hope you are right, and I'm wrong.
I really did not intend for this to turn into a Piazo bashing session, rather a discussion of the feat. I like the game, I like the APG and I like a lot of the stuff in UM. I just don't like this feat. Hey know what? I don't have to use it as written *shrugs*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really did not intend for this to turn into a Piazo bashing session, rather a discussion of the feat. I like the game, I like the APG and I like a lot of the stuff in UM. I just don't like this feat. Hey know what? I don't have to use it as written *shrugs*.
I understand what you are saying, but I also would like to point out that several people that have concerns also like Paizo. I'm a fan of a lot of what they have done. However, when you become so big a fan that you excuse mistakes routinely, it doesn't help you, as a fan, or the company that you hope to support.
I really did not intend for this to turn into a Piazo bashing session, rather a discussion of the feat. I like the game, I like the APG and I like a lot of the stuff in UM. I just don't like this feat. Hey know what? I don't have to use it as written *shrugs*.I understand what you are saying, but I also would like to point out that several people that have concerns also like Paizo. I'm a fan of a lot of what they have done. However, when you become so big a fan that you excuse mistakes routinely, it doesn't help you, as a fan, or the company that you hope to support.
Well said.
Moreover, if I don't have to use it as written, I would not probably need the book in wich the feat is written, too. Paizo have shown us of being able to put out inspiring, awesome stuff.
I just ask care for products.
There seem to be a lot wrong with this book. I wonder if I should just flat out ban it.
There seem to be a lot wrong with this book. I wonder if I should just flat out ban it.
I think that this impression comes from the fact that each issue encountered is discussed in a 500 post thread. If you actually compare the number of (perceived) issues to the number of useful stuff in the book this impression might go away. The book appears awesome to me.
As for this feat, it is seriously problematic and appears out of place in this book. Banned in my games, that is for sure.
There seem to be a lot wrong with this book. I wonder if I should just flat out ban it.I think that this impression comes from the fact that each issue encountered is discussed in a 500 post thread. If you actually compare the number of (perceived) issues to the number of useful stuff in the book this impression might go away. The book appears awesome to me.
As for this feat, it is seriously problematic and appears out of place in this book. Banned in my games, that is for sure.
It seems to me this time stuff is "yes or no". Boolean quality if you wish.
I found either really awesome stuff, or stuff very badly (IMHO, sorry Paizo) written, because is very weaksauce or.. is like this feat.
For the weaksauce, see a lot of the paladin stuff. Powers in place of divine grace, or smite evil. Seriously? APG delayed the progression of smite evil, as an example. At first glance I tought the oaths were a great idea, but a lot of the implementations are awful or just not clear.
@the Forgotten: said this, ban a book for a feat is not a good idea. I nevertheless point out the feat because I really feel paizo should know.
I found either really awesome stuff, or stuff very badly (IMHO, sorry Paizo) written, because is very weaksauce or.. is like this feat.
This is my finding so far, as well... but let us try and focus on the positive...
What dd you find awesome?
|
|
I really did not intend for this to turn into a Piazo bashing session, rather a discussion of the feat. I like the game, I like the APG and I like a lot of the stuff in UM. I just don't like this feat. Hey know what? I don't have to use it as written *shrugs*.I understand what you are saying, but I also would like to point out that several people that have concerns also like Paizo. I'm a fan of a lot of what they have done. However, when you become so big a fan that you excuse mistakes routinely, it doesn't help you, as a fan, or the company that you hope to support.
So good ol' pal Sir Knight... are we witnessing the tipping over of Paizo to the dark side already? :)
I found either really awesome stuff, or stuff very badly (IMHO, sorry Paizo) written, because is very weaksauce or.. is like this feat.This is my finding so far, as well... but let us try and focus on the positive...
What dd you find awesome?
Few spells here and there of course. Funny ones(the monkey swarm one as an example), rule of cool ones (Ride the Lighting, I played metallica when i was in high school, and come on, you BECOME lighting), some for the effects (the fungus and the maggots ones, even if i don't get why an inquisitor should spread maggots all around).
Ideas behind the alchemyst and the summoner are very cool. I found them very inspiring for my campaing. Witch and Oracle seem cool.
The magus is awesome, and the Hexcrafter is something I wished for from the beginning.
The monk is a good example of how every class should be made: modular powers you can switch (my vision of this is more leaborate but this is not the point).
Feats are in the same situation. You find Witch Knife wich is very nice and LOADED with RPG potential (this too will be THROWN in my campaing directly) and then there is Greater Mercy wich is unispiring and does not scale. STUFF. SHOULD. SCALE. Paladin have not that meany feats.
Now apparently druids have TWO mandatory feats :D
PvP Player 1: "I use Antagonize on you!"
PvP Player 2: "I counter it with Iron Heart Surge!"
PvP Arena GM: *head explodes*
this DM made three mistakes from the beginning :D
So your argument, in essence, is "If you focus A LOT on buffing your Intimidate skill, you are really good at Intimidation." Yeah, good argument.IMHO that is a very bad fix, sorry. You force to specialize and to make it an inquisitor only feat.
Make the DC slightly harder, and work on the effect and the wording instead.
Not to be harsh, but the gianormous DC raising is an example, IMHO, of how NOT fix things.
Intimidation is one of the easiest skills to raise in the game. Intimidating Prowress can be a +10 to intimidate alone at higher levels. And the fact that a simple DC 20 Sense Motive check lets you double your Charisma modifier, means many, many people at least have a chance at making the check.
If I don't make the DCs so high, then any intimidate specialist will auto-succeed even against characters much higher level than they are.
What? That's not my argument at all... My argument was that it shouldn't be trivial to intimidate level 20 characters. And that characters should have some way to boost their intimidate defense (other than leveling up and becoming Wiser). And that the DCs I suggested are still obtainable by characters who actually focus on intimidation.
What? That's not my argument at all... My argument was that it shouldn't be trivial to intimidate level 20 characters. And that characters should have some way to boost their intimidate defense (other than leveling up and becoming Wiser). And that the DCs I suggested are still obtainable by characters who actually focus on intimidation.So your argument, in essence, is "If you focus A LOT on buffing your Intimidate skill, you are really good at Intimidation." Yeah, good argument.IMHO that is a very bad fix, sorry. You force to specialize and to make it an inquisitor only feat.
Make the DC slightly harder, and work on the effect and the wording instead.
Not to be harsh, but the gianormous DC raising is an example, IMHO, of how NOT fix things.
Intimidation is one of the easiest skills to raise in the game. Intimidating Prowress can be a +10 to intimidate alone at higher levels. And the fact that a simple DC 20 Sense Motive check lets you double your Charisma modifier, means many, many people at least have a chance at making the check.
If I don't make the DCs so high, then any intimidate specialist will auto-succeed even against characters much higher level than they are.
Your argument is a character who put everything into being the best intimidator ever shouldn't be allowed to be that good at it.
So good ol' pal Sir Knight... are we witnessing the tipping over of Paizo to the dark side already? :)
Well . . . I've not see a lot in the campaign setting side of things to disturb me, its the fact that the shift to producing more rules is not a comforting harbinger of things to come.
Especially not when a lot of mistakes and just problematic rules are evident this quickly.
Your argument is a character who put everything into being the best intimidator ever shouldn't be allowed to be that good at it.What? That's not my argument at all... My argument was that it shouldn't be trivial to intimidate level 20 characters. And that characters should have some way to boost their intimidate defense (other than leveling up and becoming Wiser). And that the DCs I suggested are still obtainable by characters who actually focus on intimidation.So your argument, in essence, is "If you focus A LOT on buffing your Intimidate skill, you are really good at Intimidation." Yeah, good argument.IMHO that is a very bad fix, sorry. You force to specialize and to make it an inquisitor only feat.
Make the DC slightly harder, and work on the effect and the wording instead.
Not to be harsh, but the gianormous DC raising is an example, IMHO, of how NOT fix things.
Intimidation is one of the easiest skills to raise in the game. Intimidating Prowress can be a +10 to intimidate alone at higher levels. And the fact that a simple DC 20 Sense Motive check lets you double your Charisma modifier, means many, many people at least have a chance at making the check.
If I don't make the DCs so high, then any intimidate specialist will auto-succeed even against characters much higher level than they are.
I'm sorry, but what do you consider "putting everything into being the best intimidator ever" actually entailing? Simply putting 20 ranks in intimidate, and have it as a class skill? That's hardly "everything."
I think my method, while not perfect, works pretty well for this feat. It puts this feat on a playing field equal to Combat Maneuvers, and made it all but impossible for people who didn't heavily specialize in this feat. It was either that, or let optimized half-orc inquisitors be able to routinely intimidate elder dragons by level 6... I like my way better.
But actually, if you go into the Bestiary, and compare my method of finding the intimidate DC for Antagonize (10 +HD +Will), and compare it to the CMB of most monsters, you will find they are often pretty comparable. And more importantly, the difficulty of both rise similarly as they go up in level.
Let's look at a level 20 half-orc fighter. He maxes out intimidate ranks, spends a few thousand gold on skill increasing items, and takes an intimidate boosting trait. Then, instead of taking Combat Expertise, Improved X, and Greater X, he takes Skill Focus (Intimidate), Intimidating Prowess, and Antagonize. You wind up with a 20th level fighter with a Intimidate score in the high 40s.
A CR 20 Pit Fiend will have an antagonize DC of 48 (a CMD of 53 fyi). The fighter antagonizes the Pit Fiend practically 90% of the time. Of course, there are monsters with higher antagonize DCs that would make the check less sure- but the fighter could still do more to boost his Intimidate skill, as well.
So tell me again how I am saying the "best intimidator ever shouldn't be allowed to be good at it?" Because I'm really not seeing it.
I'm sorry, but what do you consider "putting everything into being the best intimidator ever" actually entailing? Simply putting 20 ranks in intimidate, and have it as a class skill? That's hardly "everything."
That's 20 levels plus what? 6?
A CR 20 Pit Fiend will have an antagonize DC of 48 (a CMD of 53 fyi). The fighter antagonizes the Pit Fiend practically 90% of the time. Of course, there are monsters with higher antagonize DCs that would make the check less sure- but the fighter could still do more to boost his Intimidate skill, as well.
So a level 20 fighter manages to make a Pit Fiend attack him 90% of the time if at all possible once a day? Good God, how can we let this happen?!
So tell me again how I am saying the "best intimidator ever shouldn't be allowed to be good at it?" Because I'm really not seeing it.
What you just said. Which is what you are arguing against.
This feat is super weak and a massive debate to NERF IT is laughably ridiculous. If a Half-Orc Fighter of level 20 with every Intimidate increasing ability he can take also takes this feat, he could make ANYTHING attack him once a day!
Give me a break.
This feat is super weak and a massive debate to NERF IT is laughably ridiculous. If a Half-Orc Fighter of level 20 with every Intimidate increasing ability he can take also takes this feat, he could make ANYTHING attack him once a day!
Give me a break.
Cartigan, I fear you are missing the point. Is not a matter of power, is a matter of logic and coherence.
If the fighter is finally forcing the troll he's in melee with to focus him instead fo the rogue, everybody is happy.
Is the fighter taunts a flying wizard and compel him to reach him and beat him with a stick, it's wrong.
We are not measuring the "strenght" of the feat - the feat is just weird. Is what people are pointing out.