Have an archer in the party and the target can be whittled down while they run back and forth between summoner and eidolon. :P
Don't forget that eidolons can take a 1 point evolution to gain +8 to a skill.
It can only be used on a target once in 24 hours.
Well, that does away with that silly scenario!
I would think this ability would be limited to the "within 30 feet" clause that Demoralize has, but of course RAW it doesn't say it is. It doesn't have a range at all (beyond the two turn limit), which is another oversight in my opinion. It means that the range is effectively 1.5 times the max speed of a random individual. At what point do you start imposing a Perception check with range penalties to even hear the taunt?
The problem I have with the feat is that it is about as clear in its scope as simulacrum is. Which is to say not at all.
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.
You mean like the domination spells?
See this doesn't already happen, worse already happens. People are just mad that this time it's not a spell doing it.
|
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.You mean like the domination spells?
See this doesn't already happen, worse already happens. People are just mad that this time it's not a spell doing it.
And let's have a reality check - domination spells are usually cast with DCs that make low Will save PCs cry at night. So they're an autopass most of time. Also, that's not a feat you blow, and you can re-try if you fail, especially with all those nifty re-casting stuff that Pathfinder gives out (bonded object etc.)
It's just this logic which I can't comprehend: Caster classes bend reality on principle, so anything they do is realistic because duh, it's magic!
But non-casters? No no, we have to follow laws of physics and realism because duh, we're not made of magic!
I wouldn't actually mind if that intimidate melee provoking action was melee range only (along with the DC increase proposed earlier). You know, in the rush of blasdes clahing around it might be just about the time when the enemy is suspectible to doing something stupid, like forgoing it's original target in favour of the taunting foe (who might just lure it away from the soft target it originally wanted to attack), but it wouldn't allow these weird charges across the field to whack the tank with a bamboo stick.
|
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.You mean like the domination spells?
See this doesn't already happen, worse already happens. People are just mad that this time it's not a spell doing it.
And let's have a reality check - domination spells are usually cast with DCs that make low Will save PCs cry at night. So they're an autopass most of time. Also, that's not a feat you blow, and you can re-try if you fail, especially with all those nifty re-casting stuff that Pathfinder gives out (bonded object etc.)
It's just this logic which I can't comprehend: Caster classes bend reality on principle, so anything they do is realistic because duh, it's magic!
But non-casters? No no, we have to follow laws of physics and realism because duh, we're not made of magic!
Domination: 1 x appropriate spell slot/day, get a save can be dispelled, don't work in anti magic zones, there are specific items to protect you, you can rise you chance to save several ways (levels+feats+magic items+traits+spells+wisdom), SR apply to it, it is part of the main power of spellcasting classes.
Feat: usable once against one target, unlimited use in one day, you can raise your chance of resist increasing levels and increasing wisdom, it can be taken by everyone and have a decent chance of success.
|
|
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.You mean like the domination spells?
See this doesn't already happen, worse already happens. People are just mad that this time it's not a spell doing it.
And let's have a reality check - domination spells are usually cast with DCs that make low Will save PCs cry at night. So they're an autopass most of time. Also, that's not a feat you blow, and you can re-try if you fail, especially with all those nifty re-casting stuff that Pathfinder gives out (bonded object etc.)
It's just this logic which I can't comprehend: Caster classes bend reality on principle, so anything they do is realistic because duh, it's magic!
But non-casters? No no, we have to follow laws of physics and realism because duh, we're not made of magic!
Domination: 1 x appropriate spell slot/day, get a save can be dispelled, don't work in anti magic zones, there are specific items to protect you, you can rise you chance to save several ways (levels+feats+magic items+traits+spells+wisdom), SR apply to it, it is part of the main power of spellcasting classes.
Feat: usable once against one target, unlimited use in one day, you can raise your chance of resist increasing levels and increasing wisdom, it can be taken by everyone and have a decent chance of success.
Please, tell me you're not serious with AMF and SR being the usual anti-caster defenses. It's the most tired argument of the pro-caster crowd when they try to show how "easy" it is for a martial class to shield themselves against SoD/SoS spells. Also, both screw the defender equally, because hey no healing/buffs from your friends.
Also, I believe that any defense against mind-affecting effects stops the feat. That being said, I'm curious if protection from XXX spells count as a blanket immunity to Antagonize.
- DC = 10 + (old DC)
- Any offensive action within 30ft of the intimidator is sufficient to satisfy the feat. "Offensive action" is defined in the same way as what breaks invisibility.
I'm pretty sure we will houserule the feat as follows:
I don't normally add to monster threads about things from books I don't plan to use.
But this feat simply should not exist. For anyone who hasn't realized, the Dex requirement is because it's for Kender (or Halflings).
|
|
Please, tell me you're not serious with AMF and SR being the usual anti-caster defenses. It's the most tired argument of the pro-caster crowd when they try to show how "easy" it is for a martial class to shield themselves against SoD/SoS spells. Also, both screw the defender equally, because hey no healing/buffs from your friends.Also, I believe that any defense against mind-affecting effects stops the feat. That being said, I'm curious if protection from XXX spells count as a blanket immunity to Antagonize.
Because rising your wisdom score is a good defence against either the spell or the feat? I listed all the possible options.
You can show a spell or a magic item that give a defence that stops mind-affecting effects (spells or not) in Pathfinder?
Mind blank was the absolute protection in 3.5 and before, but now it simply give a very good bonus to the saving throw against spells and effects and no blanket immunity. As the feat has no ST, it do nothing.
Edit: the feat has another defence, Ear plugs. Not a good option for spellcasers as being deaf give a 20% failure for the spell with verbal components.
You can show a spell or a magic item that give a defence that stops mind-affecting effects (spells or not) in Pathfinder?
Protection from ... - Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature
|
|
You can show a spell or a magic item that give a defence that stops mind-affecting effects (spells or not) in Pathfinder?Protection from ... - Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature
Mind-affecting =/= mental control (it is only a subset of the mind affecting effects)
Not a winner.
Is a winner. There is no spell that specifies in its type "mental control" - it is always mind-affecting.
|
|
Point of Order: Vulture and Doc Ock are old men, who often get taunted with the equivalent of "yo mama" jokes into unwise actions on many occasions.
Their high intellect is excellent for inventing insane gadgets capable of bending the laws of physics, unfortunately it also tends to feed their massive egos.
Where am I going with this?
I hope folks aren't judging the quality of an entire book on a feat that they disagree with. I agree it could use a little tightening up (I'll probably throw a 10+ into that DC) but otherwise I'd be happy to let a player use it as a GM, and my players always have fun during the odd occasion where they end up mind-controlled because they get to do something unusual.
Your friendly neighbourhood,
Dudemeister.
- DC = 10 + HD + Wisdom modifier -or- 10 + Sense Motive (whichever is higher)
- Melee attacks include melee touch attacks, such as certain spells used by wizards
- No effect if any immediate harmful impediments present (firewall, unavoidable attack of opportunity, etc)
Currently this is the consensus reached in my playgroup (though still under some discussion):
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the big issue people have isn't rage, it's self defense. Using Vulture and Doc Oc are bad examples since neither of them have any real ranged attacks. Doctor Doom or GReen Goblin would be better examples. They get mad at Spidy's taunts, they cut loose with ranged attacks.
A feat that makes the target select *you* as a target would work better. Sure it would allow the Red Dragon to toast you with his breath weapon, or teh lich to throw horrid wilting, but it would keep the Str 7 PC wizard from charging into melee combat with the barbarian.
As to the 'fighters don't get nice things' argument. So, Gorbacz, you think it's fine to have a feat that you conceed compares to a one round dominate, at first level?
In fact look at the diplomacy version. Given that I've not heard any complaints that it's 'too powerful' I think that is a good argument for the intimidate version as written to be a bit too much.
|
|
Is a winner. There is no spell that specifies in its type "mental control" - it is always mind-affecting.
Protection from EvilSecond, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects). This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
So by your ruling it stops all the mind affecting effects and spells like: bard songs , Frightful Presence, Brain Drain from the Oracle, Good hope, Crushing despair and so on?
Why I need a level 8 spells that merely give me a +8 to the save when I have a first level spells that protect me totally?
Or maybe it mean the spells and powers that specifically control the mind?
Or maybe it only protects you against certain alignments mind affecting abilities. As it does.
Why won't people let me play an Insult Sword Fightin' Pirate :(
Or something even more Spectacular?
I feel compelled to point out that, in that video, when Shocker and Electro are taunted, they zap[1] Spidey; they don't punch him.
[1]Okay, they try to zap Spidey.
Calm emotions will definitely work.
.
..
...
....
.....
I'd amend the feat so that the target of the taunt *must* attacker the taunter with their most power/damaging attack/action.
I.E The action/attack that would cause the most amount of damage/pain/suffering.
(According to the perception of the taunted.)
Now I can use the feat intelligently to bait and force my opponent to play his powerful cards when I want them to.
::
Personal preference aside..
As written, the 'if attempted to do so would harm it' line can simply be used to justify Character X not taking an action that would result in them being harmed.
I.E - The archer running into melee. This action, if attempted, would lead the to archer becoming harmed. Ergo, it is not an action the archer would be compelled to take.
::
I would love to play a sorcerer with this feat, as written.
Prime casting stat also prime stat for using feat?
More options than a non-caster to create all manner of nasty traps?
Comedy 'Watch target run into Wall of Force/magically concealed deadly hazard/invisible minions' antics?
Hell yes!
None of these tactics would indicate to the taunted target that approaching, with the intent of engaging my sorcerous self in melee, would result in harm. As a result, the taunted target would be forced to approach and attempt to engage me in melee.
Now, a melee-type, standing there, with a large blade/blunt/pokey thing, attempting to force my sorcerous self to engage in melee is an obvious source of potential harm. As a result, according to the 'if attempted to do so would harm it' line, I would not need to take the action.
Granted their are more devious methods that could be employed by all parties.
The point I wish to make clear is: It's easier to be devious - and some might argue, more effective - when one has access to magic.
.
..
...
....
.....
As far as defenses against Antagonize go, the case could be made that provoking an AoO would constitute "attempting to do so would harm it", but that could render the feat effectively useless.
I would argue, happily, that this line simply requires some effort, planning and thought to be invested into exploring when, where and how best to use the feat.
If folk are looking for an omni-tool to be used as a standard tactic, then this feat is not for them.
If folk are looking for an option that can be used to good effect under certain conditions, then this is the feat for them.
::
Like all tools, it provides an option(s).
If we don't think the option if worth a feat, we do not take the feat.
a lot of good stuff
Thank you Diego. What. He. Said.
Remember kids: kneejerk reactions can be two way. One can be blindly and think that fighters can't have nice things, or can be blindly tahink that a poor written feat can fix the situation.
And people don't even consider prepared action, or the fact that a 3rd level caster CAN take it. Just think about the combos with pit spell with another caster in the group.
Why won't people let me play an Insult Sword Fightin' Pirate :(
Or something even more Spectacular?
I feel compelled to point out that, in that video, when Shocker and Electro are taunted, they zap[1] Spidey; they don't punch him.
[1]Okay, they try to zap Spidey.
Spidey has to be the archetypal taunter and antagonizer in modern fiction, and I think that's what we look for in taunt related abilities.
It seems the biggest issue is forcing a target to do something outside of their normal range of response to a taunt, i.e. the giant who is throwing boulders to come down off the mountain to batter the taunter instead of chucking the next rock at Mr. Tank (who's already taken several without filching) instead of Squishy Mc Bardsalot.
Now I could see a higher level feat that does make a target want to slug you up close and personal, but as the end of a feat chain for taunting.
Feat chains are a bad idea IMHO. A feat should make sense and be balanced. Possibly should scale.
Either a feat make sense taken alone, or is better not write it.
Maybe I'm just simplifying this, but I think everyone is going WAY over board. Yes, the feat needs an adjustment, but it isn't that difficult:
DC changes to 10 + (old DC formula). If the target has over a 15 Intelligence, then the DC increases by the Int modifier of the creature. This helps to adjust for the "omg, 60 year old wizard would never do that" issue.
Intimidate doesn't have a range on it, but I think it is safe to say that if you aren't close (within 30 feet) that intimidate either simply wouldn't work or would be less effective. Demoralize is the key to this feat. Antagonize is supposed to be used IN COMBAT SITUATIONS. Therefor, I would think you would base it's use off the closest thing to that...Demoralize. The Antagonizer has to be within 30 feet. So now, it's not nearly as easy for the barbarian or someone else to just yell at the bad guy behind a legion of zombies. You need to get somewhat close to him.
|
Maybe I'm just simplifying this, but I think everyone is going WAY over board. Yes, the feat needs an adjustment, but it isn't that difficult:
DC changes to 10 + (old DC formula). If the target has over a 15 Intelligence, then the DC increases by the Int modifier of the creature. This helps to adjust for the "omg, 60 year old wizard would never do that" issue.
Intimidate doesn't have a range on it, but I think it is safe to say that if you aren't close (within 30 feet) that intimidate either simply wouldn't work or would be less effective. Demoralize is the key to this feat. Antagonize is supposed to be used IN COMBAT SITUATIONS. Therefor, I would think you would base it's use off the closest thing to that...Demoralize. The Antagonizer has to be within 30 feet. So now, it's not nearly as easy for the barbarian or someone else to just yell at the bad guy behind a legion of zombies. You need to get somewhat close to him.
I like the suggestion of using the Demoralize 30' rule to adjust this feat. And I also think they forgot the '10+', and that will be errata'd
If people can't stand that spellcasters are required to make a melee attack (which I think is the coolest part of this feat), then maybe they can houserule that it forces a spellcaster to lose a spell-slot to channel [1/2 HD]d6 force damage (reflex half) instead.
If people can't stand that spellcasters are required to make a melee attack (which I think is the coolest part of this feat), then maybe they can houserule that it forces a spellcaster to lose a spell-slot to channel [1/2 HD]d6 force damage (reflex half) instead.
While I do think that having to make a melee attack is...lacking in sense, my biggest problem is that I could decide to play a complete and total pacisifist who wouldn't hurt a living creature even if his own life was on the line (which I have), and someone with this feat could easily force my character to break his core philosopical belief with nothing but a standard action.
If it was magical I could at least excuse it In Character as mental control, but since this is a non-magical feat there is no In Character excuse for his actions. Also the character would at least get the benefit of a saving throw if it was magical.
.
..
...
....
.....
...my biggest problem is that I could decide to play a complete and total pacisifist who wouldn't hurt a living creature even if his own life was on the line...
The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it..
I guess you could get into a wonderful debate with the GM over how they define 'harm'.
''I will not (attempt to) hit them.''
''..but Mr/Mrs/Miss/Misc Pacifist, you must!''
''It will harm my sense of self and will result in psychological trauma.''
''Damn you Ghandi. Damn. You.''
::
...and if this is unrealistic?
Oh oh oh but in a fantasy game......!
|
wouldn't be as bad if the diplomacy check made you flustered , and the intimidate made you fly into a rage ( but just gave you the penalty of the rage, no bonuses. i.e. -2 AC. ).
DC on these is tricky. I thought the dazzling display DC is perilously low, especially since a good bard can have a great Intimidate easily, without focusing on it. It seems more like the skill should set the DC , and the creatures should save against it with a Will check rather than setting a new arbitrary intimidation mechanic and having the acting player attack that DC.
mechanics wise, if you're casting a spell to control a character, you don't make an attack roll with your spell vs. their will save. your character casts his spell and the defender makes a save against the difficulty of the spell. why can't it keep to the same mechanic for Ex abilities and feats?
I could decide to play a complete and total pacisifist who wouldn't hurt a living creature even if his own life was on the line (which I have), and someone with this feat could easily force my character to break his core philosopical belief with nothing but a standard action.Even stupider: I could be playing a character whose wife and only reason for living is bleeding out on the ground and will die this round unless I succeed on a Heal check. Oh, but I have to let her die, even though her life is more important than my own, because someone just Antagonized me.
No, I'm sorry. This feat is craptastically bad game design. Period.
this could happen with dominate person too.
let's don't panic. Mechanics and effect should clarified/changed IMHO, but without going too far.
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.
I am sure every major archmage would charge in and try to pummel the big burly fighter with their bare fists, instead of, say, casting Feeblemind on him.
And I am majorly disappointed to see Gorbacz agreeing with Cartman and Cirno.
This ability will either be banned in my games or changed that so that a PC can use an ability of his choice to attack the person using it. After adjusting the DC to something sane, of course.
Personally, I would be perfectly fine with this feat if it worked this way:
- User makes an Intimidate check.
- Opponent makes a Will save (DC = the Intimidate check result).
That way, the opponent gets a chance at resisting the effect, using a method that is meant to help resist these types of mind-affecting effects.
Most likely, that's how I'm going to house rule it, too. I'm reserving final judgment until I actually have the book in hand though :)