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!Yeah, including that PC who's been playing a pacifist cleric for 20 levels. "Your character has to attack that dude now... Nope, it's not a magical ability... Nope, sorry, now there are rules dictating how you are and aren't allowed to roleplay your own character when free of magical charms and compulsions..."
If a game with a concrete rules structure gets in way of your roleplaying, don't play d20.
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.
A lot of stuff is "weird." How is it wrong? That's the entire point.
I'm afraid I don't care even remotely about any argument against the feat I have seen. Change it to "must attack the character by any means available." That makes it better anyway.And that is not what Merkatz was arguing.
"must attack the character by any means available." changes it completely, improving it, IMHO.
"must attack the character by any means available." changes it completel, improving it, IMHO.
It invalidates the negatives of the Intimidate part.
"must attack the character by any means available." changes it completel, improving it, IMHO.It invalidates the negatives of the Intimidate part.
Yeah. that's why i said this previously:
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.
NOW, if well made, "mundane" means of influencing could be interesting - but care should be used, IMHO.
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!Yeah, including that PC who's been playing a pacifist cleric for 20 levels. "Your character has to attack that dude now... Nope, it's not a magical ability... Nope, sorry, now there are rules dictating how you are and aren't allowed to roleplay your own character when free of magical charms and compulsions..."
To say nothing of the inevitable douchebag GM who will, at some point in the near future, say, "Hey, if I give that NPC the Antagonize feat and a ventriloquism spell, I can totally punish that player who was dumb enough to play a paladin."
I hadn't even thought of that. I was just thinking of how illogical it was for a non-melee focused character to be forced to use a melee attack against their will. The idea that this feat could easily break an entire character premise, a pacifist, in a standard action with no save is just all the worse.
Then add in the ease with which this could be used to make a Paladin break their oath. That is painful and I personally have known several Dungeon Masters that would use it to just that effect.
I have to say I also don't get the logical leap from the intimidate skill (making people afraid of you) to making someone so furious at you they try to fisticuffs you down.
Feels like Diplomacy or even Bluff would be a more logical skill for that effect.
Hold up let me check my realism scale.
HMmmmmmmm...
...Nope, we're still fighting flying lizards that breath fire and pointy eared humans that throw lightning bolts.
Tell you what - I'll agree that wizards will just continue to cast magic if we agree that fighters are literally immune to anything that causes a will save because tough guys would totally never get scared or let some scrawny wimp "dominate" their mind.
It's entirely, 100% within the genre for the fighting man to grin at the [WHOEVER THE CHARACTER IS] and say a snarky one liner, followed by the [WHOEVER THE CHARACTER IS] growing enraged and charging them.
And wizards? Wizards eat pride and poop hubris. If anything, they'd be the weakest to this sort of thing.
Cirno, I have no problem with the feat if forces you to attack, fullstop.
It could be a good start. I know your opinion. Youknow what I mean with this.
Is the specific reaction which is stupid. Fix that, and we finally have the "taunt". And an use for charisma unrelated to the class.
TA-DAAAAAN.
I have to say I also don't get the logical leap from the intimidate skill (making people afraid of you) to making someone so furious at you they try to fisticuffs you down.
That's why it's a feat and not an inherent part of the skill.
If a game with a concrete rules structure gets in way of your roleplaying, don't play d20.Concrete rules structures in general don't get in the way of my roleplaying. This one feat does, specifically.
There should not be a feat that lets a GM to take control of my character. I'm okay with spells that do that, because spells can be saved against or dispelled. But not this feat.
I'm sorry, but as written, this feat is just an excuse for GM douchbaggery. It shouldn't be called Antogonize, it should be called Antagonize Your Players, because it's a perfect recipe for creating arguments and bad feelings at the table.
IMHO is perfectly reasonable a feat and a good roll can make someone lose his cool.
But the reaction should be based on the character, not dictated by the feat.
Fix that (reaction and CD), and it's ok for me.
I'm wondering, how much of our nerdrage is about how the feat works and how much of it is about how this feat ZOMGBBQWTF throws the metagame upside down.
Actually, you have hit upon something. The "metagame" is part of the assumed comfort zone of people playing the game. You know that no matter what new rules come out, X stays the same and Y never does something out of the ordinary.
There may be new ways to accomplish the old assumptions, and shortcuts to get to different abilities, but it all follows a familiar pattern.
Once you throw that on its ear, and challenge the "metagame," you are talking about moving out of the normal comfort zone for the game. If you move out of the comfort zone for the game, you undermine the incentive to stick with a given system.
The more you undermine the "metagame," the more you make it more attractive to adopt a new system rather than tinker with a system that has a shifting base.
I think its just something to keep in mind.
|
I'm sorry, but as written, this feat is just an excuse for GM douchbaggery. It shouldn't be called Antogonize, it should be called Antagonize Your Players, because it's a perfect recipe for creating arguments and bad feelings at the table.
Eh. There is no feat that makes a GM into a jerk, they bring that to the table with them.
If your GM is a jerk he's too busy making your wizard deal with anti-magic fields and making your fighters fend off rust monsters to mess with Antagonize. That A*hat GMs can annoy players with something really is the last thing on my worry list.
On the player side of the table it's a lot harder to abuse because it's so situational and players have to invest a fair bit into the Intimidate skill that it's not really a huge worry.
For characters who are already investing in Intimidate and Dazzling Display this is a nasty trick but it's ultimately fairly limited in use.
I tend to agree on the weird flavor bit but I just don't think it will see a lot of abuse in play.
|
If a game with a concrete rules structure gets in way of your roleplaying, don't play d20.Concrete rules structures in general don't get in the way of my roleplaying. This one feat does, specifically.
There should not be a feat that lets a GM to take control of my character. I'm okay with spells that do that, because spells can be saved against or dispelled. But not this feat.
I'm sorry, but as written, this feat is just an excuse for GM douchbaggery. It shouldn't be called Antogonize, it should be called Antagonize Your Players, because it's a perfect recipe for creating arguments and bad feelings at the table.
IMHO is perfectly reasonable a feat and a good roll can make someone lose his cool.
But the reaction should be based on the character, not dictated by the feat.
Fix that (reaction and CD), and it's ok for me.
I second this wholehearted. It would make this really fun to do with a Paladin, Cavalier, or Fighter with high Cha. In fact, building a Cavalier around using his challenge and this to force enemies to fight him would be awesome.
But I reallllllly don't see how you can INTIMIDATE a puny spellcasting goblin cleric into RUNNING AT YOU TO ATTACK IN MELEE. It just don't feel right. I like the ability to get people to prefer you as a target - it's a staple of MMO tactical play, and a feat like this would be a particularly clean way to implement it, I think, without being too metagamy.
However, I would prefer even better if it instead gave the enemy a hefty penalty to attacking anyone BUT you... say, -4 even. Or maybe have the penaltiy be based on the result of the check. Then we avoid the issue of a skill forcing an action, and instead, Antagonize gets up in an enemies face and makes it harder to do things that aren't attacking, which to me seems like exactly what it was supposed to be.
-Drillboss
But I reallllllly don't see how you can INTIMIDATE a puny spellcasting goblin cleric into RUNNING AT YOU TO ATTACK IN MELEE. It just don't feel right.
Why the hell not? This is not realism the RPG.
I like the ability to get people to prefer you as a target - it's a staple of MMO tactical play,
My irony sensor overloaded.
If I make someone so p** off to attack me, he will use the best attack form. The barbarian will charge me the wizard will fireball me (say).
If hates me and wants me died, why should he use a less effective tactic? It is asinine.
And wizards? Wizards eat pride and poop hubris. If anything, they'd be the weakest to this sort of thing.
Taunted and forced to attack? Sure.
Forced to attack using their most expensive or most powerful spell, even if it isn't a particularly good choice or they'd rather save it for something else? Sure.
Forced to attack when it'd be smarter to retreat? Sure.
Forced to attack the taunter when another target would be smarter? Sure.
90 year old wizard forced to run up and get in a slap fight rather than poop hubris and inform the laws of physics that they're merely a suggestion by busting out ridiculously powerful magic? Now that to me just seems silly. It's past unrealistic for me (and yes, there is a sense of realism / consistency even in a fantasy game) to ludicrous. It makes me feel like I'm playing Paranoia or some other comedy game.
If the victim would use its 'strongest attack', people would complain how it would force their wizards to waste their highest spells.
Personally I'd be fine with that and I think that's a more than reasonable alternate version of the feat.
90 year old wizard forced to run up and get in a slap fight rather than poop hubris and inform the laws of physics that they're merely a suggestion by busting out ridiculously powerful magic? Now that to me just seems silly. It's past unrealistic for me (and yes, there is a sense of realism / consistency even in a fantasy game) to ludicrous. It makes me feel like I'm playing Paranoia or some other comedy game.
Just a friendly reminder - the word feat originates from mythical heroes doing extraordinary deeds.
Literally feat comes from "something that is not realistic in the slightest but rather is heroic."
It seems there is a sense of realism and consistency in a fantasy game - when a non-caster wants to do something.
And again, the wizard ceasing his spellcasting to attack the fighter physically is totally in line with the genre. Then again, throughout the genre, evil wizards are rarely if ever weak wristed 90 year old men and are almost always physical warlords to go along with their sinister magic.
And wizards? Wizards eat pride and poop hubris. If anything, they'd be the weakest to this sort of thing.Taunted and forced to attack? Sure.
Forced to attack using their most expensive or most powerful spell, even if it isn't a particularly good choice or they'd rather save it for something else? Sure.
Forced to attack when it'd be smarter to retreat? Sure.
Forced to attack the taunter when another target would be smarter? Sure.
90 year old wizard forced to run up and get in a slap fight rather than poop hubris and inform the laws of physics that they're merely a suggestion by busting out ridiculously powerful magic? Now that to me just seems silly. It's past unrealistic for me (and yes, there is a sense of realism / consistency even in a fantasy game) to ludicrous. It makes me feel like I'm playing Paranoia or some other comedy game.
The feat allows people to intimidate another character into being too angry to think. A wonder they don't think before they act!
If it was realistic, you wouldn't need to take a feat. It would just be part of the intimidate skill.
Feats letting non-casters do crazy unrealistic shit doesn't really bother me. Book of Nine Swords style stuff? Sure, why not.
For some reason, feats allowing non-casters to compel other characters to do crazy unrealistic shit crosses a line for me.
And wizards? Wizards eat pride and poop hubris. If anything, they'd be the weakest to this sort of thing.Taunted and forced to attack? Sure.
Forced to attack using their most expensive or most powerful spell, even if it isn't a particularly good choice or they'd rather save it for something else? Sure.
Forced to attack when it'd be smarter to retreat? Sure.
Forced to attack the taunter when another target would be smarter? Sure.
90 year old wizard forced to run up and get in a slap fight rather than poop hubris and inform the laws of physics that they're merely a suggestion by busting out ridiculously powerful magic? Now that to me just seems silly. It's past unrealistic for me (and yes, there is a sense of realism / consistency even in a fantasy game) to ludicrous. It makes me feel like I'm playing Paranoia or some other comedy game.
THIS. This nails the issue. Do you realize that as written, the wizard would not even buff himself up with a polymorph spell to attack in melee?
This feat would make trivial every combat starting ranged. Unless you think that pimp intimidate would be hard.
As said above, I'm ok with extraordinary things - but one should consider the impact on gameplay. Is not a save. Is an intimidate check. Think about it carefully.
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 couldn't have put this better myself KnightErrant JR. I like Paizo as a company, but currently, their Pathfinder line is heading down the same exact road as WOTC's 3rd edition IMO. Hence I stopped buying with confidence and assuming the product will be good after the APG and instead thoroughly look over the product to see if I feel it's quality and content is acceptable for my games.
My problem with the whole argument that realism doesn't apply to a fantasy game is the old saying that it's easy to accept the impossible but hard to accept the improbable.
I can accept dragons and magic and all the rest of the stuff that makes fantasy fantasy, because it's impossible and because of that I give it a free pass.
What I can't accept is the improbable action that someone could drop a Ya Mamma joke that's so off the hook and offending that a person with intelligence and/or wisdom so far beyond the pale of actual human understanding, would be forced to attempt to harm them. Not just harm them, but in what may be their least effective means in which to do it.
This feat would, to use real life comparsions, allow someone to deliver an insult so powerful that even Gandhi would be so filled with rage that he would have to leap up and attempt to pop them one in the mouth.
|
My problem with the whole argument that realism doesn't apply to a fantasy game is the old saying that it's easy to accept the impossible but hard to accept the improbable.
I can accept dragons and magic and all the rest of the stuff that makes fantasy fantasy, because it's impossible and because of that I give it a free pass.
What I can't accept is the improbable action that someone could drop a Ya Mamma joke that's so off the hook and offending that a person with intelligence and/or wisdom so far beyond the pale of actual human understanding, would be forced to attempt to harm them. Not just harm them, but in what may be their least effective means in which to do it.
This feat would, to use real life comparsions, allow someone to deliver an insult so powerful that even Gandhi would be so filled with rage that he would have to leap up and attempt to pop them one in the mouth.
Shooting a longbow fives times in 6 seconds = fine.
Delivering insults that make archmages foam at mouth = improbable.
Mmmmkay.
Wait, am I with Cirno and Cartigan in one boat? ROW FASTER!
Realism is out the window.
What we want is verisimilitude.
Shooting a longbow fives times in 6 seconds = fine.Delivering insults that make archmages foam at mouth = improbable.
I'm actually fine with being able to deliver insults that make people unbelivably angry. What I'm not fine with is that it allows no save, they have no option but to attack, and no choice about how to attack.
Throw in a save and some resonable measure of choice over how the character responds (attack in the manner of your choice or take a sizable penlty) and I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with the feat, if any.
|
|
Shooting a longbow fives times in 6 seconds = fine.Delivering insults that make archmages foam at mouth = improbable.
I'm actually fine with being able to deliver insults that make people unbelivably angry. What I'm not fine with is that it allows no save, they have no option but to attack, and no choice about how to attack.
Throw in a save and some resonable measure of choice over how the character responds (attack in the manner of your choice or take a sizable penlty) and I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with the feat, if any.
Sigh. Non-casters can't have nice things. Just not. It's verboten.
My problem with the whole argument that realism doesn't apply to a fantasy game is the old saying that it's easy to accept the impossible but hard to accept the improbable.
I can accept dragons and magic and all the rest of the stuff that makes fantasy fantasy, because it's impossible and because of that I give it a free pass.
What I can't accept is the improbable action that someone could drop a Ya Mamma joke that's so off the hook and offending that a person with intelligence and/or wisdom so far beyond the pale of actual human understanding, would be forced to attempt to harm them. Not just harm them, but in what may be their least effective means in which to do it.
This feat would, to use real life comparsions, allow someone to deliver an insult so powerful that even Gandhi would be so filled with rage that he would have to leap up and attempt to pop them one in the mouth.
Shooting a longbow fives times in 6 seconds = fine.
Delivering insults that make archmages foam at mouth = improbable.
Mmmmkay.
Wait, am I with Cirno and Cartigan in one boat? ROW FASTER!
Well, all three of you have a very valid point. It is a fantasy game and realism doesn't apply.
ANY SENSE OF REALISM WHATSOEVER.
That's one of several little niggling aspects of Pathfinder that's driven me from playing it as is. The rules are written to play a very specific type of fantasy game. This is borne out more so with each new book of rules. It's really a lot of work to play a fantasy game with Pathfinder rules in any other way besides the default, especially if you as a GM, decide to include the splatbooks.
And that is disappointing.
Realism is out the window.
What we want is verisimilitude.
You want the new content to have a level of believability and congruence to our established 'reality' and carefully crafted core rules? Bah, doubt that'd ever happen.
Is anyone from Paizo looking into this? I love the idea of the feat (my friend would have a field day with something like this) but it's poorly implemented. :'(
Sigh. Non-casters can't have nice things. Just not. It's verboten.
I'm not much for quoting people but here's one of my favorites and I think it sums up my feelings on the subject nicely:
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
-William J.H. Boetcker
|
|
My problem with the whole argument that realism doesn't apply to a fantasy game is the old saying that it's easy to accept the impossible but hard to accept the improbable.
I can accept dragons and magic and all the rest of the stuff that makes fantasy fantasy, because it's impossible and because of that I give it a free pass.
What I can't accept is the improbable action that someone could drop a Ya Mamma joke that's so off the hook and offending that a person with intelligence and/or wisdom so far beyond the pale of actual human understanding, would be forced to attempt to harm them. Not just harm them, but in what may be their least effective means in which to do it.
This feat would, to use real life comparsions, allow someone to deliver an insult so powerful that even Gandhi would be so filled with rage that he would have to leap up and attempt to pop them one in the mouth.
Shooting a longbow fives times in 6 seconds = fine.
Delivering insults that make archmages foam at mouth = improbable.
Mmmmkay.
Wait, am I with Cirno and Cartigan in one boat? ROW FASTER!
Well, all three of you have a very valid point. It is a fantasy game and realism doesn't apply.
ANY SENSE OF REALISM WHATSOEVER.
That's one of several little niggling aspects of Pathfinder that's driven me from playing it as is. The rules are written to play a very specific type of fantasy game. This is borne out more so with each new book of rules. It's really a lot of work to play a fantasy game with Pathfinder rules in any other way besides the default, especially if you as a GM, decide to include the splatbooks.
And that is disappointing.
That's not a problem of Paizo, it's a problem of your narrow vision of what fantasy is :)
That's not a problem of Paizo, it's a problem of your narrow vision of what fantasy is :)
Of course it's not Paizo's problem. They've merely lost me and my players as a buying customer since I've moved to other systems that better suit my style of play. :)
Hahahahaha, wow, this feat, man. This feat.
I'll admit that I've skipped a lot of the posts in this thread, but even if this isn't changed somehow, I plan on just houseruling that the affected creature must "take risks to harm you" to exclusion of other potential targets. Basically, they'll fight to the death and only make attacks that include you as a target.
As others have pointed out, no matter how mad you might get, if you know a way that'll hurt someone more than poking them with a stick, you'd probably use that first.
Even with this houserule, it's a pretty potent feat since you can make opponents so mad they won't try fleeing if things start going poorly. They might also forgo attempts at casting defensive spells in favour of spells that cause damage to the one who riled him up.
|
"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)."
The feat does say that if the person would be harmed that they don't have to 'charge into melee'. You could rule that if a mage attempted to fly into a fighter to try and punch the fighter it would likely cause significant harm to the mage - meaning the mage stays put, and is immune from the feat until a day passes.
The feat needs cleared up, it's either a killer feat or a useless feat as is.
S.
Shooting a longbow fives times in 6 seconds = fine.
Delivering insults that make archmages foam at mouth = improbable.
Mmmmkay.
Actually, yeah.
People have to pretty much react like people, whether we're talking a game, literature, etc.
We'll accept a character like Superman who has so many ridiculous powers that in a given situation he may legitimately forget that, hey, heat vision can solve this problem easy, because his motives and reaction are still essentially human. He has secrets, he cares about what people think of him, he falls in love, etc.
If Superman was about a guy with all those powers who had these wholly inhuman motives and actions no one would want to read it.
|
|
Just to stand up a little for Paizo. They listen and they fix.
In our PF group we have a rule - nothing gets used until the 2nd printing comes out (actually rather like Microsoft products and Service Packs).
As we get the PDF updates for free its not the end of the world. Sure it's not the greatest having a 1st printing book that without errata you aren't playing exactly the same game as others with newer books, but again not a deal breaker. Paizos commitment to releasing the PDF of the latest printing to all to have purchased the book is great customer support in my eyes. I guess in my group we don't feel the need to drastically change our game every time a new book is released. The upside of this approach is, as GM, I get to read over everything and read what the forum "rule-breakers" have done, then decide if X or Y fits with my game. For example in my campaign there are no Alchemists and Witches are NPC only. I can tell you now that Gunslingers won't get a look in my campaign - they just don't fit the feeling. My players respect that it's my campaign World and Paizo don't force me as GM to use everything verbatim.
At a core PF is a solid rule-set, perhaps this feat (and another few things) aren't the best currently. Simple ignore them until either Pazio fixes them, even then no gun at your head to use them if you disagree.
If you want perfection you shouldn't be buying something made by another human,
S.
"If your enemy is of a choleric temper, seek to anger him."
I think the problem people have with this is they keep applying a modern outlook to things. For example:
What I can't accept is the improbable action that someone could drop a Ya Mamma joke that's so off the hook and offending that a person with intelligence and/or wisdom so far beyond the pale of actual human understanding, would be forced to attempt to harm them. Not just harm them, but in what may be their least effective means in which to do it.
This happens a lot in mythology. Hell, insults outright kill people at times.
But here's the catch: they don't do it by going "Ya Mamma." They do it by saying "You have wasted seventy-six years of your life! You've rendered no useful service! You, a dog with broken backbone, dare to bark at my army? I've never seen such a shameless man as this!"
Stop thinking that insult or taunt means that the fighter farts at them or goes "HUR HUR YOUR MOM." Of course that sounds lame. That's because it is lame. Stop making lame examples. Make awesome examples and boom, problem solved.
"Lo, in has come | the son of Earth:
Why threaten so loudly, Thor?
Less fierce thou shalt go | to fight with the wolf
When he swallows Sigfather up."
People make rash, dumb decisions all the time. Even intelligent people. Even 60 year old wizards.
|
|
My problem with the whole argument that realism doesn't apply to a fantasy game is the old saying that it's easy to accept the impossible but hard to accept the improbable.
I can accept dragons and magic and all the rest of the stuff that makes fantasy fantasy, because it's impossible and because of that I give it a free pass.
What I can't accept is the improbable action that someone could drop a Ya Mamma joke that's so off the hook and offending that a person with intelligence and/or wisdom so far beyond the pale of actual human understanding, would be forced to attempt to harm them. Not just harm them, but in what may be their least effective means in which to do it.
This feat would, to use real life comparsions, allow someone to deliver an insult so powerful that even Gandhi would be so filled with rage that he would have to leap up and attempt to pop them one in the mouth.
Shooting a longbow fives times in 6 seconds = fine.
Delivering insults that make archmages foam at mouth = improbable.
Mmmmkay.
Wait, am I with Cirno and Cartigan in one boat? ROW FASTER!
Delivering insult in a way that make your longbow firing guy drop his weapon and attack you with his fletching knife is good, right?
It don't work only on octogenarian wizards, it work on anyone.
The rogue manoeuvring for a flanking position that will attack you in a straight line, your healing/buffing cleric, your bard (he can even maintain his buffing song?), the cavalier duelling a different guy and so on ad libitum.
Sigh. Non-casters can't have nice things. Just not. It's verboten.
Don't be blinded by the your pleasure in "getting even" with the bad wizard, it work on anyone and it can be disrupt any class.
Fighter:
"Hey guys, the evil [whatever] has a gazzilion followers ready to flank and massacre us if we go in the open, but using wisely our position we will mow down them a few at a time without problem."
Evil enemy:
"Puny fighter, hide in your hole, you have no hope against me, bwhaaaaa"
Puny fighter leave cover to attack [b]once[/b* and get flanked by head enemy and 8 followers.
During his turn head enemy make a 5' step and "call" for the cleric while one of his follower close the hole left in the group flanking the fighter.
Enjoy.