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 :)
The problem lies in the fact that is quite easy rise the intimidate score at the point that a lot of enemies would need a 20 to succeed.
so, IMHO is not a good fix. fine tuning of the effect is the way.
Yes, it's easy to raise the intimidate score to the point where an opponent would need a 20 to succeed on such a Will save, but then the antagonizer has actually spent those resources to be good at a specific thing, and the opponent still has a chance (albeit small) to resist.
I'm fine with an intimidate-optimizer having a near-guaranteed success rate at an intimidate-related check.
Yes, it's easy to raise the intimidate score to the point where an opponent would need a 20 to succeed on such a Will save, but then the antagonizer has actually spent those resources to be good at a specific thing, and the opponent still has a chance (albeit small) to resist.
I'm fine with an intimidate-optimizer having a near-guaranteed success rate at an intimidate-related check.
IMO is a dangerous generalization. Most times this is IMO correct, but it depends from the nature of the effect.
Domination: 1 x appropriate spell slot/day,
But can be used multiple times in a day
get a save
That can be buffed to the point that you need a 20 to pass.
can be dispelled,
Assuming you have the ability to counter the pimped out Wizard.
don't work in anti magic zones,
You don't need Antagonize on a Wizard in an antimagc zone
there are specific items to protect you
I wear my item of calm emotions! You can't antagonize me!
you can rise you chance to save several ways (levels+feats+magic items+traits+spells+wisdom),
Which is what? The same against Antagonize?
SR apply to it,
Yeah PCs are loaded down with that, what with it applying to friendly spells and all.
it is part of the main power of spellcasting classes.
Did you just justify Domination by saying it is ok because they have it?
Feat: usable once against one target, unlimited use in one day,
You an unlimitedly use it once in 24 hours!
it can be taken by everyone and have a decent chance of success.
So why is everyone's argument against it based on the person using it being a god of intimidation?
Just a question: has Paizo made any comment regarding the okay-ness of the feat?
Cartigan, how about this one?
Dominate Person only works on humanoids. Spellcasters need to wait for 9th level spells before they can Dominate anything else. Antagonize works on anything that you can communicate with.
And sure, spellcasters can raise their DCs enough to make it difficult for similar level, low Will characters to pass. But if we are talking about making it 100% (even against poor save characters) you still need to boost your casting stat through the roof, expend lots of feats, or use metamagic (or some combination of the above).
On the other hand, a 10th level inquisitor can auto-succeed at antagonize against 20HD characters who have average wisdom simply by putting ranks into intimidate. (10 ranks + +3 class skill + 5 inquisitor bonus + 1 Charisma Mod + 1 minimum on d20 =20)
Autosucceed at making an idiot of the wizard who is twice his level. Without even trying.
Seems bonkers to me.
I haven't MATHCRUNCHED or whatever so I can't speak on if the DC is too low or whatevs.
My gripe is with the "But but...verisimilitude!" argument.
I mean come on, this genre thrives in the "one vs one honorable battle even though all my buddies are behind me" trope. This stuff is ingrained.
|
This feat immediately reminded me of a Jester's first level class ability I found while trying to build a jester-variant for the Bard.
Using it as a base, here is something which, I think, could be a nice rewrite. Just sayin'.
Antagonize (Su):
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + creature's HD + creature's Sense Motive modifier. You cannot use this feat against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. 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.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: The creature flies into a deep anger toward you, gaining +1 to attack rolls made to hit you. On its next turn, the target is compelled toward injuring you in its own fashion and with the most possible efficiency : swordsmen will seek to engage you in melee, archers will attempt to shoot you, spellcasters will target or include you as a target of their most powerful spell, etc. The target is not compelled beyond reason: it may avoid hazardous terrain (lava pools, cliffs...) and attacks of opportunity. If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature lands a hit or a spell on you.
Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
I haven't MATHCRUNCHED or whatever so I can't speak on if the DC is too low or whatevs.
My gripe is with the "But but...verisimilitude!" argument.
I mean come on, this genre thrives in the "one vs one honorable battle even though all my buddies are behind me" trope. This stuff is ingrained.
Hey, Cirno. Just for my sake, since I can't come up with an example off the top of my head, can you provide me an example of the antagonize feat being used in fantasy literature?
A few stipulations:
1. It needs to be a "battle" situation where life and death is on the line for both characters.
2. The one being antagonized needs to be at least a moderately powerful spellcaster, archer, psion, or whatever. So long as he's not good at melee (and not a complete dunce while we are at it), it's all good.
3. The antagonization can't be supernaturally induced.
4. The one being antagonized needs to forgo using his favored method of combat, and instead rush into melee to attack physically.
Provide me a good example, and I will bow out of the whole verisimilitude argument, and admit defeat to you in this one.
3. The antagonization can't be supernaturally induced.
Protip: everything in fantasy is supernaturally induced, D&D's decision to claim that only magic can be supernatural is the biggest blight to it and is in no way tied to any form of fiction, fantasy, or mythology outside of D&D.
Also I literally posted a video of a dude insulting someone else to death so scroll back a bit I guess?
Edit: Hell I even quoted from the Art of War.
A few stipulations:
1. It needs to be a "battle" situation where life and death is on the line for both characters.
2. The one being antagonized needs to be at least a moderately powerful spellcaster, archer, psion, or whatever. So long as he's not good at melee (and not a complete dunce while we are at it), it's all good.
3. The antagonization can't be supernaturally induced.
4. The one being antagonized needs to forgo using his favored method of combat, and instead rush into melee to attack physically.
5. The player of the character antagonized wouldn't feel cheated.
How many can say that?
3. The antagonization can't be supernaturally induced.
Protip: everything in fantasy is supernaturally induced, D&D's decision to claim that only magic can be supernatural is the biggest blight to it and is in no way tied to any form of fiction, fantasy, or mythology outside of D&D.
*sighs* Call it whatever you want. I thought it was an easy definition since we are pretty much a DnD message board. If I redefine it to be: "3. The antagonization can't be magically induced," will you actually give me an example?
Also I literally posted a video of a dude insulting someone else to death so scroll back a bit I guess?
This is a fun scene. However, this isn't the antagonize feat- and it doesn't meet my 4 guidelines I requested. This is a 7 minute long exchange where an old man begins touting his rightgeouness, and then gets his past sins and corruption exposed in front of everyone. The frail old man then dies from the shock of the confrontation. I would love to see something like that happen in one of my games. If the PCs dug up the buried past of some righteous noble, and roleplayed confronting him and exposing him, I think it would be a very plausible end for frail old man to die from the shock (if the PCs rolled well). But I don't need a feat to do something awesome like that.
The antagonize feat is something that allows you to easily make someone you don't even know act like an idiot with a few short words (1 standard action worth).
Edit: Hell I even quoted from the Art of War.
Yes, but what did that quote mean? I'm no scholar, but I don't believe Sun Tzu's intention with that quote was that archers who train for years with the bow, will discard them entirely and attempt to fight you with their bare hands if you but antagonize them a little.
So can I get a real example now? One with my 4 guidelines please? That is, if you don't see any more semantic errors in my guidelines...
I'm not playing to your strawman. You're literally asking me to replicate the exact feat in a situation where the feat doesn't exist. Sorry, you'll have to protect your corn in some other way.
Instead, let's talk about how taunting works all the goddamn time in fiction/fantasy/mythology.
Spiderman was already mentioned. Deadpool does it too!
Quite a few times Harry Dresden wins by distracting the baddie with a flurry of quips, causing the enemy to drop their defenses and hold off on their one hit kill ability in order to "properly" get rid of Harry.
Happens a good number of times in Avatar (Airbender, not Blue People).
I already mentioned and linked to Romance of the Three Kingdoms, since Zhuge Liang does it almost nonstop.
Taunting is actually penalized in a few sports due to being used to provoke other players into underperforming.
These are just a few examples. Taunting someone to make them focus on you and/or lower their defenses and/or stop them from using their strongest attack and/or challenging them to a 1 vs 1 battle despite them having every advantage is a core part of the genre.
|
The point is- it is overpowered wildly.
The second point is- it is stupid.
I'm not seeing either of your points really.
Yes its strong, but it doesn't hose a spellcaster half as much as Silence in a smallish room (that doesn't even require a save). The game is clock full of save or loose spells and abilities. If that upsets you, can I suggest a different game? Perhaps 4e. I hear it doesn't make you save or loose. (For the record, this is one of the weaker save or loose effects. Its somewhat interesting in that it relies on skill checks vice saving throws though.)
Your examples are fairly incoherent, but I think that just as it can't force people to make acrobatics checks to jump a chasm it can't force people to charge through attacks of opportunity.
As for stupid... nope it makes sense. You are simply wrong in your subjective opinion. 8)
Even in World of Warcraft an ranged opponent which you taunt will still use his ranged attacks on you. This feat is stupid and counterproductive.
It will lead to nothing better than an arms race between players and GM's... and I think it'll hurt players more than the GM's, because if a squishy NPC gets filleted, the GM just pulls out the next one. If the GM uses it to make a player character suicide himself by running into melee with Overlord Hacknstab, then there will be hurt feelings and recriminations at the table.
Your examples are fairly incoherent, but I think that just as it can't force people to make acrobatics checks to jump a chasm it can't force people to charge through attacks of opportunity.
Im not getting into this, just pointing out rules for further discussion.
You can make someone run through 10 traps and 15 AOO as long as he didn't know they were there when you made him do it. Okay carry on.
I find it hilarious that people will defend Dominate-as-a-feat-except-without-save because you could just memorize more Dominate Person spells.
I also want a feat that grants wishes. But only once a day, I'm not unreasonable!
But to be serious for a moment, I think the Diplomacy part of Antagonize is entirely reasonable and a decent example of how to make a taunt mechanic work in an RPG. The Intimidate part is just wrong.
|
|
It will lead to nothing better than an arms race between players and GM's... and I think it'll hurt players more than the GM's, because if a squishy NPC gets filleted, the GM just pulls out the next one. If the GM uses it to make a player character suicide himself by running into melee with Overlord Hacknstab, then there will be hurt feelings and recriminations at the table.
Umm... no.
At least no more so than if Archmage Youdienow flies in buffed like mad and says save or die for the next 5 rounds.
Also, I'm trying to figure out how its an arms race. Its not the end of the world to spend one round acting less than perfectly. Archers are probably the worst off but I'm failing to see how they die instantly.
A fun thing would be a dragon using this feat. 8)
As far as masking illusions, I'd say that dirty trick would let the target get hit once before the effect broke. I'd even give 'm a will save before they walked into it to break the illusion.
It will lead to nothing better than an arms race between players and GM's... and I think it'll hurt players more than the GM's, because if a squishy NPC gets filleted, the GM just pulls out the next one. If the GM uses it to make a player character suicide himself by running into melee with Overlord Hacknstab, then there will be hurt feelings and recriminations at the table.Umm... no.
At least no more so than if Archmage Youdienow flies in buffed like mad and says save or die for the next 5 rounds.
Also, I'm trying to figure out how its an arms race. Its not the end of the world to spend one round acting less than perfectly. Archers are probably the worst off but I'm failing to see how they die instantly.
A fun thing would be a dragon using this feat. 8)
Uh, okay. So you can't see how this would cause characters to die instantly, but you think a dragon using this feat would be "funny"? Alright.
"Grawr, Wizard McSquishy, your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!" "Wwwwhaaaaatttttt? <runs towards dragon, eats AoO, ineffectively beats on dragonscales with quarterstaff" "<full attack, claw,claw,bite,wing buffet,wing buffet> Wizards are tasty! <burb>"
Or worse (as has been alluded to previously):
A dragon, with its massive intimidate score, uses a standard action to antagonize the wizard then a move action to fly to where the rest of the party can't easily reach the dragon without copping AoOs.
The wizard, on his turn, must enter melee. If the threat of AoOs is enough to break the effect, the dragon voluntarily uses up all its AoOs on the rest of the party, leaving itself open.
The dragon then eats the wizard.
The wizard's player had no defense or alternate options in any of this. How is that player going to feel? Will he or she think that it was a legitimate tactic on the part of the dragon and the GM behind it?
What if more then one (N)PC targets one (N)PC with antagonize?
I know this changes the gist of the feat a lot, but I think this is a much more viable way of handling it:
Antagonize
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: You awe your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a -2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against you and has a 10% spell failure change on all spells that do target you or that have you within their area of effect.
i.e. a mirrored version for the diplomacy / intimidate checks
Or worse (as has been alluded to previously):
A dragon, with its massive intimidate score, uses a standard action to antagonize the wizard then a move action to fly to where the rest of the party can't easily reach the dragon without copping AoOs.
The wizard, on his turn, must enter melee. If the threat of AoOs is enough to break the effect, the dragon voluntarily uses up all its AoOs on the rest of the party, leaving itself open.
The dragon then eats the wizard.
The wizard's player had no defense or alternate options in any of this. How is that player going to feel? Will he or she think that it was a legitimate tactic on the part of the dragon and the GM behind it?
I think the *threat* of AoO's is enough to constitute harm, and allow the wizard not to engage the dragon. The wizard cannot be certain that the dragon won't AoO (nor the dragon's lackeys) - so trying to approach the dragon definitely constitutes potential harm. Unless the dragon succeeds on an opposed bluff roll maybe.
Cartigan, how about this one?
Dominate Person only works on humanoids.
Which, with the inclusion of Giants, is a hell of a lot of everything.
Antagonize works on anything that you can communicate with.
With non-animal intelligence. Yet apparently you need to dedicate all your feats and ability bonuses to pimping Intimidate in order to make a person attack you once every 24 hours. Crazy overpowered.
And sure, spellcasters can raise their DCs enough to make it difficult for similar level, low Will characters to pass. But if we are talking about making it 100% (even against poor save characters) you still need to boost your casting stat through the roof, expend lots of feats, or use metamagic (or some combination of the above).
Again, isn't this YOUR and everyone else's argument against Antagonize that people are superbuffing their intimidate to use it?
On the other hand, a 10th level inquisitor can auto-succeed at antagonize against 20HD characters who have average wisdom simply by putting ranks into intimidate. (10 ranks + +3 class skill + 5 inquisitor bonus + 1 Charisma Mod + 1 minimum on d20 =20)
So a level 10 Inquisitor has managed to force a what? Barbed Devil to attack him. I'm sorry, are we supposed to be arguing this feat is overpowered or stupid to use?
Autosucceed at making an idiot of the wizard who is twice his level. Without even trying.
A level 20 Wizard is going to have what? At least a 28 from Mind Blank? Probably a 30. I'm pretty sure there are other spells that just plain block Mind-affecting abilities.
Seems bonkers to me.
Your argument is nonsense. A feat exists in D&D specifically to give a player the ability to do something both mundane and absurd. Your realism argument - in D&D nonetheless - is completely blown apart by the fact that this is not an inherent ability of the intimidate skill.
This feat is broken as written and will not be allowed in my games.
I see 2 really easy fixes for this feat.
1. Make it not usable in combat. This becomes an awesome roleplaying feat as it allows you to draw someone into a confrontation when they do not want to be in one. For this version, I would change the diplomacy one to -2 on skill/ability checks and concentration checks, and keep the intimidate one the same.
2. Remove the word melee and allow them to cast spells that target you.
Either way the DC is rediculously too low and should be the same as demoralize, which is practically an autosuccess as it is for anyone focusing on intimidate, but is at least reasonable for those not.
I very much prefer option 1.
Autosucceed at making an idiot of the wizard who is twice his level. Without even trying.A level 20 Wizard is going to have what? At least a 28 from Mind Blank? Probably a 30. I'm pretty sure there are other spells that just plain block Mind-affecting abilities.
Mind blank doesn't help the wizard. There are no spells or abilities that make PCs immune to mind-affecting effects. This has no resistance or way to increase the DC.
Again, isn't this YOUR and everyone else's argument against Antagonize that people are superbuffing their intimidate to use it?
I said by superbuffing you can autosucceed at antagonizing things 4 times your level. I don't think you can do that with spells even if you superbuff. You still autosucceed at things your level (and often much higher) just by having ranks in Intimidate.
Hell, a 1st level Fighter with dumped Charisma (7), and 0 ranks in Intimidate can still pull this off 90% of the time against other average wisdom 1HD characters...
On the other hand, a 10th level inquisitor can auto-succeed at antagonize against 20HD characters who have average wisdom simply by putting ranks into intimidate. (10 ranks + +3 class skill + 5 inquisitor bonus + 1 Charisma Mod + 1 minimum on d20 =20)So a level 10 Inquisitor has managed to force a what? Barbed Devil to attack him. I'm sorry, are we supposed to be arguing this feat is overpowered or stupid to use?
I was more thinking of the 20th level wizards, sorcerers, witches, etc...
Autosucceed at making an idiot of the wizard who is twice his level. Without even trying.A level 20 Wizard is going to have what? At least a 28 from Mind Blank? Probably a 30. I'm pretty sure there are other spells that just plain block Mind-affecting abilities.
Mind Blank doesn't work against this feat. It grants a +8 resistance bonus on saving throws. There is no save against this feat. So a Mind Blanked Wizard is just as susceptible as one without it. That is part of the problem with this feat.
Your argument is nonsense. A feat exists in D&D specifically to give a player the ability to do something both mundane and absurd. Your realism argument - in D&D nonetheless - is completely blown apart by the fact that this is not an inherent ability of the intimidate skill.
Taunting is a very real part of fantasy literature, and my own Pathfinder games. But I guess a lot of my arguments boils down to this:
I think it's bonkers that in every combat that takes place, the Inquisitor with Intimidate can make every spellcaster or archer give up their advantages and favored method of attack, and attempt to rush at him and attack him in melee (even when they suck at it). <-- This doesn't happen in any fantasy literature that I can think of.
On the other hand, I think it would be cool to play an Inquisitor who buffs his defenses and draws attention to himself by antagonizing the enemy into attacking him (to the best of their ability) while the rest of the party does it's thing. EG: "Oh we are going to fight a Fire Elementalist Wizard? Okay, give me the ring of fire resistance, and I'll make sure he targets me while you guys lay down the hurt." <-- This kind of thing happens all the time in fantasy literature.
Autosucceed at making an idiot of the wizard who is twice his level. Without even trying.A level 20 Wizard is going to have what? At least a 28 from Mind Blank? Probably a 30. I'm pretty sure there are other spells that just plain block Mind-affecting abilities.
Just correcting you here: Mind Blank does nothing against the feat as written, as it doesn't allow a saving throw.
Mind blank might not work, but calm emotions does.
...
Just to play devil's advocate: I think it would be hilariously smart for the level 10 inquisitor to antagonize a level 20 wizard to come and get it on. Good luck, may the inquisition be with you ;)
To play devil's advocate some more: a wizard that isn't buffed up and prepared before antagonize happens to him, deserves what he gets. And a buffed wizard can definitely take a massive iterative full attack for a round.
To play devil's advocate some more: a wizard that isn't buffed up and prepared before antagonize happens to him, deserves what he gets. And a buffed wizard can definitely take a massive iterative full attack for a round.
And this can be used at range, preventing the caster from geting off combat buffs in the first round or 2 and forcing him to close before he wants to.
For those who advocate the feat, a question?
How you (if GM) or your GM manage dragon encounters? wich tactics the dragon uses?
Wich ones the players?
Dear, I'm curious. I'm so curious.
|
|
For those who advocate the feat, a question?
How you (if GM) or your GM manage dragon encounters? wich tactics the dragon uses?
Wich ones the players?
Dear, I'm curious. I'm so curious.
I'm a big fan of Blue Dragons, so my players don't get to see one. They just get killed by his second-in-command, thinking that he's the BBEG.
You are NOT LISTENING.That example was how to bully around a Great Wyrm Red Dragon. It was an autosuccess (no need to roll) at level 13. Many of your threats won't out HD you by 50%, and won't be larger than you (-4) and won't have a Wis of 22.
So a Charisma focused character who has focused on Intimidation maximization can force something double his level to attack him once a day. I'm afraid I don't care.
YOU aren't listening.
It works. Once. A. Day. Once. You can make ONE thing attack you ONCE. IF it can reach you in 2 rounds safely. And THAT is if they are affecting by mind-affecting abilities.
Oh, and it's not one person. You can use it once per round. In the fight versus Big Bad Guy, he'll have to spend two rounds crawling, rolling, or flying over to you while your buddies get ever MORE action advantage.
At which point he kills you. Good job. You have sacrificed yourself for 1-2 rounds of action economy IF the bad guy isn't immune to mind-affecting and if the GM rules provoking AoOs doesn't count as putting yourself in danger.
At which point, your friend across the room taunts him, and he has to go chasing him. For those two rounds denied, you spent a standard and a swift.
Apparently everyone is burning their actions to be killed.
20 HIT DICE
Have you ever played this game above 5? You go ahead and make something with 20 HD attack your level 10 character. I'll let you.
Oh, and it's not one person. You can use it once per round. In the fight versus Big Bad Guy, he'll have to spend two rounds crawling, rolling, or flying over to you while your buddies get ever MORE action advantage.At which point he kills you. Good job. You have sacrificed yourself for 1-2 rounds of action economy IF the bad guy isn't immune to mind-affecting and if the GM rules provoking AoOs doesn't count as putting yourself in danger.
Not sure how you are losing any action ecconomy. You are spending 1 standard action to deny your opponent and give him 1 attack in 2 rounds. Not 1 full attack. 1 attack. Seems like a big win in the action economy to me, especially when you just made the target more succeptable to your allies by putting him into a more favorable position.
At which point, your friend across the room taunts him, and he has to go chasing him. For those two rounds denied, you spent a standard and a swift.Apparently everyone is burning their actions to be killed.
20 HIT DICEHave you ever played this game above 5? You go ahead and make something with 20 HD attack your level 10 character. I'll let you.
Yes, a 20HD caster is reduced to melee attacks against his target. He will do amasing damage that way. Seriously, if you don't see an issue with this I'm not sure anyone can help you.
Developer
|
Would the following be possible:
Player 1 starts at a double move from the big bad. Antagonizes. Big bad rushes him.
Player 2 readies an action to antagonize the big bad if he tries to attack Player 1.
Repeat with as many characters as sit at the table.
Does the big bad even get to swing, or does the readied action force a retargetting, denying the hit?
stuff
Exactly. Now I ask - a feat like that, would be relevant or not relevant in its inpact on the various tactics? What if the dragon, great meleer and decent spellcaster starts to use it, with pit spells covered by an illusion as an example?
What if casters start to use it in this way? what the "a wizard beat me when I was a kid" crowd thinks about it?
(side note: correct the quote, I never said anything about 4th edition. Matthew Trent said this - I AGREE WITH YOU more or less)
@Gorbacz: so your players are not supposed to start the fight with a dragon? To clarify - I LOVE that sort of things - but it's the only way to deal with the dragon?
|
Mind blank might not work, but calm emotions does.
... Creatures so affected cannot take violent actions (although they can defend themselves) or do anything destructive. Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures. ...
Yes, it block the feat. Pummelling the target of the feat senseless will get the same result. Or holding him.
This spell substantially remove the target from combat. Great way to help "I will remove you from combat so that the enemy will not remove you from combat."
Just to play devil's advocate: I think it would be hilariously smart for the level 10 inquisitor to antagonize a level 20 wizard to come and get it on. Good luck, may the inquisition be with you ;)
You mean it would be hilarious smart for the level 10 inquisitor to have the level 20 wizards chase him, to pummel him with his "mighty" fist, for 2 rounds while his allies buff up, debuff the caster, pincushion him with arrow and get in the best position to flank him?
I sound a bit different now, right?