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.
Yeah, Dragons are terrible at melee.
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.Yeah, Dragons are terrible at melee.
And Dragons are the only 20HD casters...
Go with me here for a minute. Assume a level one Fighter with a few allies. He puts 1 rank into Intimidate, has it as a class skill, a Charisma of 10, and he took this feat. Do you not see a problem with this level 1 Fighter being able to compel a level 5 Wizard to come out of the sky and attack him with his quarterstaff with a 100% success rate? And then letting his allies gang up on the now grounded wizard? He is now either dead, or severely wounded. If said Wizard survives and tries to cast, he takes a AoO from everyone and likely winds up dead. If he moves away he provokes AoO from everyone and is likely dead. If he withdraws, he has now spent two full rounds doing nothing useful, and he has to pray no one has any ranged attacks (or god forbid another party member can antagonize him) or he winds up dead. These are the kind of situations I have a problem with.
The fact that a level 1 character can do something so debilitating to a CR 4 encounter with a 100% success rate, and without any effort just isn't right in my book.
How many 10th-level inquisitors with Antagonize can a GM include in an ECL 20 encounter? Hint: more than enough to automatically lock down an entire 20th-level party long enough to pick them off at his leisure and laugh about it the whole time.
This has GOT to be the most ridiculous argument YET.
At ANY point in time, the DM can include enough featless CR 1/3 Kobolds to kill a level 20 party.
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.Yeah, Dragons are terrible at melee.And Dragons are the only 20HD casters...
Go with me here for a minute. Assume a level one Fighter with a few allies. He puts 1 rank into Intimidate, has it as a class skill, a Charisma of 10, and he took this feat. Do you not see a problem with this level 1 Fighter being able to compel a level 5 Wizard to come out of the sky and attack him with his quarterstaff with a 100% success rate? And then letting his allies gang up on the now grounded wizard? He is now either dead, or severely wounded. If said Wizard survives and tries to cast, he takes a AoO from everyone and likely winds up dead. If he moves away he provokes AoO from everyone and is likely dead. If he withdraws, he has now spent two full rounds doing nothing useful, and he has to pray no one has any ranged attacks (or god forbid another party member can antagonize him) or he winds up dead. These are the kind of situations I have a problem with.
The fact that a level 1 character can do something so debilitating to a CR 4 encounter with a 100% success rate, and without any effort just isn't right in my book.
Of course the feat needs to be fixed. It doesn't make 90% of the arguments I have seen against it any less terrible.
How many 10th-level inquisitors with Antagonize can a GM include in an ECL 20 encounter? Hint: more than enough to automatically lock down an entire 20th-level party long enough to pick them off at his leisure and laugh about it the whole time.
So I guess I do kind of like this feat. It lets me, in one easy question, identify GMs that I will never, ever sit at a table with. "Do you allow the Antagonize feat, as written, at your table?" If the answer is yes, I can just leave immediately, saving myself the many wasted hours it sometimes takes to identify a GM whose playstyle I simply can't and won't tolerate.
And by the way, I see lots of people justifying how this feat makes sense in combat, but I'm still waiting for someone to justify some of the non-combat stupidity it creates. Seriously, I want someone to direct me to any example in fantasy literature of a monster luring victims into its lair by insulting them so viciously, they have no choice but to approach.
Point 1. You don't even need level 10 inquitors. Those were untwinked.
Skill focus brings it down to 8, Half Orc to 7. Add on skill focus sense motive and you can guarantee double your charisma. Pretty sure I could lock up a lvl 20 party with lvl 5 inquisitors, being guaranteed on everyone with lower than 18 wisdom at that point. By 10, you can make it so that even the cleric autofails if he has less than a 34 wisdom.As to point 2: "Whats wrong McFly, chicken?"
Wow, I can't believe anyone would defend the Intimidate part of this feat, ever.
It flat out breaks the game at level 1 to 20, the only change I could see to allow this feat in play would be to delete the intimidate part entirely.
This would mean overreacting. Let the enemy choose how attack would be enough IMHO.
the only change I could see to allow this feat in play would be to delete the intimidate part entirely.
"The only way to get this spot out is to remove your arm at the shoulder."
Yeah, Dragons are terrible at melee.
Don't put words in peoples mouths, no one said the dragon gets to melee anyone.
step one: You antagonize
step two: it runs/flys/whatever toward you
step three: party hits it with everything they've got
step four: repeat steps 1-3
step five: Party member B executes steps 1-4
no one gets hit, dragon dies, good job 10th level party, that great wyrm was a pain in my side.
Yeah, Dragons are terrible at melee.Don't put words in peoples mouths, no one said the dragon gets to melee anyone.
step one: You antagonize
step two: it runs/flys/whatever toward you
step three: party hits it with everything they've got
step four: repeat steps 1-3
step five: Party member B executes steps 1-4no one gets hit, dragon dies, good job 10th level party, that great wyrm was a pain in my side.
Step 3.5 - the (Ancient White) dragon hits party member A for 2d8+26 damage (or possibly 8d8+26).
Step 3.5 - the (Ancient White) dragon hits party member A for 2d8+26 damage (or possibly 8d8+26).
Yeah, Dragons are terrible at melee.Don't put words in peoples mouths, no one said the dragon gets to melee anyone.
step one: You antagonize
step two: it runs/flys/whatever toward you
step three: party hits it with everything they've got
step four: repeat steps 1-3
step five: Party member B executes steps 1-4no one gets hit, dragon dies, good job 10th level party, that great wyrm was a pain in my side.
I didn't know the dragon had 50ft reach, or were you assuming we were closer then double his maximum distance?
Don't put words in peoples mouths, no one said the dragon gets to melee anyone.
step one: You antagonize
step two: it runs/flys/whatever toward you
step three: party hits it with everything they've got
step four: repeat steps 1-3
step five: Party member B executes steps 1-4no one gets hit, dragon dies, good job 10th level party, that great wyrm was a pain in my side.
Actually, I don't think it works that way. Once people have attacked the dragon (at step 3) it "breaks" the aggro.
Additionally, I don't think party member B can then antagonize, as the "plan" is obvious by then (similar to a firewall) and the intimidate action will have no effect due to the obvious harm it will cause.
...
I agree that the feat needs fixing, but as written it just needs to be GM'ed correctly to not get out of hand.
Most wizards will have a few of the following prepared, and that will be a good time to apply them (a melee touch attack is still a melee attack, so they are all fine): ghoul touch, bestow curse, contagion, symbol of [insert] (on fist)
I didn't know the dragon had 50ft reach, or were you assuming we were closer then double his maximum distance?Step 3.5 - the (Ancient White) dragon hits party member A for 2d8+26 damage (or possibly 8d8+26).
Yeah, Dragons are terrible at melee.Don't put words in peoples mouths, no one said the dragon gets to melee anyone.
step one: You antagonize
step two: it runs/flys/whatever toward you
step three: party hits it with everything they've got
step four: repeat steps 1-3
step five: Party member B executes steps 1-4no one gets hit, dragon dies, good job 10th level party, that great wyrm was a pain in my side.
Dragon has a fly speed of 200'
Note: it's not about "forcing him to attack you". That's not relevant, which you know because of all the chatter about taunting Gandalf. This is about forcing movement, directly at you. It's about enemy positioning. Oh, and it's not one round: it is two.
It's one round if it reaches you in one round. And ends when you are attacked.
It works as many times a day as you like. It only works on one THING once.
Yes. Exactly what I said.
But you can use it as many times as you have enemies. It controls fully for two rounds, no save.
Yes, you use two round to make one enemy attack you once. What are the others doing? Standing around twiddling their thumbs I presume.
Now, your friend (or Eidolon) standing across the room, taunts. Now it's four rounds. But you don't need to be fully built around this.
Then the Eidolon is hit? Presumably he wasted his 2 free turns doing nothing to get across the room. Your arguments. Don't. Make. Sense. They both rely on the entire party pimping intimidate and using it to stop up the enemy while simultaneously all attacking. Otherwise the only thing doing damage is the one being taunted.
The point is, if your crew of 4 heroes rolls into fight a bad guy who is a solo encounter, you just effing win.
For what reason? Because you get more actions than it does? Duh, you already get that. The only difference is you now have ONE LESS set of actions each round because one person is spending THEIR time taunting the opponent.
And that is the PRIMARY reason your argument is silly.
I realize its pointless to argue with Cartigan, but to the rest of you, where does it say the effect ends if they're attacked? I dont see that at all, even with a very lenient RAI reading.
"The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you."
I mean it says right there.
Dragon has a pretty ass maneuver too. Clumsy. His Fly is +14 in the manual.
Guess the fly check to move in a straight line.
It doesn't matter what the others are doing. The point is, you spent a round to fully CC someone, and they got no damned save. Then you don't even spend a round, and you get the secound round off.
Only if it can't reach you the first round. Your argument AGAIN is conditional.
Because at this point, you get actions, and it does not.
No, you get actions - 1. Where it gets an action.
If you can't see how game breaking this is versus any solo encounter
The fact the feat needs fixing does nothing to lessen how exceedingly obtuse your arguments are.
You can snare them or whatever and still get your full attacks on them. They can't respond to that, nor does it snap them out of it.
If they can't reach you, the effect ends.
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).
There exists the Silent Spell feat, rods of Silent metamagic, and other counters to Silence. There is no "Don't get into a slap fight" Spell feat.
The game is clock full of save or loose spells and abilities. If that upsets you, can I suggest a different game? Perhaps 4e.
Trollllllllllll.
"If you don't like it, play <competing version of the game>" is pretty much the trollingest and least constructive argument possible on a forum like this.
Why does pissing off a wizard make him want to hit you with his 1d3 fist when he has a 10d6 fireball to toss at you? Or a meteor swarm?
A brood master giving Antagonize to all of his brood members would be terrifying! Simply lock up your enemies' actions with no saves while your fellow party members tear them apart.
Dragon has a fly speed of 200'I didn't know the dragon had 50ft reach, or were you assuming we were closer then double his maximum distance?
This ability has no distance limit, he can have fly speed 1000ft for all I care, I can be as far as I want.
Incorrect. If you can't be reached, you can spend a swift. That extends it for a second round. After that, you are free of it.
In other words, it's two rounds in most cases.
Edit: to make it plain, if it's it can't reach you (by distance). If they are PREVENTED from reaching you, then they are able to snap out of it. But that's a pretty loaded word, and it's clear that they mean "made physically incapable of".
I dont understand how you are interpreting this feat.
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). 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 makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
PC uses Antagonize on NPC.
NPC must move to attack PC. If the NPC cannot move and attack the PC, there is no effect, and the NPC can act normally. If moving to attack the PC would harm the NPC, there is no effect and the NPC can act normally. The PC can, at this time on the NPC's turn, make an immediate action to extend the effect one round. The PC has his/her next round to get close enough to allow the NPC to move and attack (without harm) or no effect occurs.Here's what'd I do with a basic trip fighter with reach somehow (permanent enlarge person or something) to kill wizards, level 6 or higher.
1. Antagonize wizard while between 35 - 60 ft away so the Wizard MUST charge.
2. Wizard charges, provoking AoO while at -2 AC. You likely trip him. You have greater trip, so you attack him (he's now at -6 his normal AC for having charged and being prone). His action ends having been unsuccessful in attacking.
It wont work that way. Since attacking your fighter provokes an AoO, the fighter has the capacity to do harm to the wizard. The effect immediately ends on the wizard's turn.
|
The Antagonize feat is a minefield for the GM (what is its range of effect? Why is the DC so low?); I have an intimidation specialist who will want to take this and I dare say that it will screw the game as every combat will be about this feat (the PC would intimidate successfully almost all the time) and how the group adapts it to their combat tactics. A feat should not distort things so dramatically.
However, perhaps the biggest issue I have is that Paizo have spelled intimidate as "intimitade" halfway through the feat; something that even the most basic spellchecker would have highlighted. That this got through both the author as well as the editor is frankly amazing despite the almost obvious issues with the feat itself. I think someone at Paizo might be getting their arse kicked over this one.
I think not responding to antagonism is more something of a will save rather than something based upon hit dice and wisdom modifier. I think the non-caster should be able to do something like what this feat is trying to do but I think an escalation process would be a better way of handling it.
For a quick idea example, with each failed will save:
Round One: 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.
Round Two: The target must attack you this turn through a spell, melee, ranged attack or appropriate ability with the intention of damaging you.
Round Three: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to damage you with an attack, spell or effect. If this attack, spell or effect is unsuccessful, they must make a will save [DC whatever] at the start of next round or continue to attempt to damage you. A caster must make a concentration check to successfully cast any spells DC 15 + double spell level. The effect ends as soon as the creature deals damage against you.
Once a targeted creature has saved against this ability or has dealt damage to you, they are immune to its effect for 1 day.
I'm guessing the DC should be 10 + half level/HD + charisma and the feat should have a pre-requisite: skill focus (intimidate) or the persuasive feat.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Of course the feat needs to be fixed.
*gasp*
I realize its pointless to argue with Cartigan, but to the rest of you, where does it say the effect ends if they're attacked? I dont see that at all, even with a very lenient RAI reading.
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).
I seriously hope that being attacked counts as being harmed while attempting to get to the taunter. Any other interpretation is crazy. A firewall does pitiable damage compared to what is possible with a "humanwall".
Edit: it is in the GM's hand to make the feat work properly. And the key to that is in the reading of "harm". If the wizard can figure out that it is "stupid" to react to the taunting, then he's not taunted. Simple as that.
A player cannot complain that this is against the reading of the feat - because harm is harm. The feat is plenty useful even if you completely cut away the Intimidate aspect of it. And the Intimidate part *can* still be used in lots of situations where it can realistically apply.
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).I seriously hope that being attacked counts as being harmed while attempting to get to the taunter. Any other interpretation is crazy. A firewall does pitiable damage compared to what is possible with a "humanwall".
Edit: it is in the GM's hand to make the feat work properly. And the key to that is in the reading of "harm". If the wizard can figure out that it is "stupid" to react to the taunting, then he's not taunted. Simple as that.
A player cannot complain that this is against the reading of the feat - because harm is harm. The feat is plenty useful even if you completely cut away the Intimidate aspect of it. And the Intimidate part *can* still be used in lots of situations where it can realistically apply.
By harm they mean things that will definitely hurt it on the way over eg. lava pit, AOO, etc. otherwise this and every dominate type spell is useless because every action has a chance to cause you harm, no matter how small that chance is. Running up to a raging barbarian doesn't hurt the wizard in any way, it might later but the feat is no longer working by then anyway. Putting yourself in a dangerous circumstance is not the same as taking an action that causes you harm.
As has been pointed out several times: the feat is in fact not putting down some magical compulsion. I think it's adequate that it reacts to appropriate levels of harm. Dominate-spells give extra saves on suicidal actions, not actions that bring a small measure of harm like walking through a firewall. Firewall-walking definitely stops the feat as per RAW, but it doesn't stop dominate.
As has been pointed out several times: the feat is in fact not putting down some magical compulsion. I think it's adequate that it reacts to appropriate levels of harm. Dominate-spells give extra saves on suicidal actions, not actions that bring a small measure of harm like walking through a firewall. Firewall-walking definitely stops the feat as per RAW, but it doesn't stop dominate.
I would consider walking through a firewall suicidal, otherwise how do you determine whats suicidal? and suggestion specifically mentions harm just like this feat. Appropriate levels of harm to you seems like anything stops it, so apparently everything is immune to antagonize and suggestion.
They clearly mean it the way it has always been used, as in if at any time during movement or attack you would be dealt damage then you don't have to do it, otherwise you do.
They clearly mean it the way it has always been used, as in if at any time during movement or attack you would be dealt damage then you don't have to do it, otherwise you do.
So the feat isn't too far broken?
Right. Cases where the NPC cannot move and attack the PC include things like:
1)- No path available
2)- NPC cannot "move and attack" the PC. This case might included cases like the PC being ethereal or invisible. Does it mean that if you can't move and attack that round? No, the line about not being able to reach you is clearly handled: so being 70 feet away from a 30 move creature means that, he will, in fact, head on over.So this means the NPC heads on over, red rover, red rover. That's what the feat means. Now, what about environmental effects? If there's a wall of fire (which isn't much damage) that breaks the effect. Is it just if you can pick a path that takes you through danger? Or is it that if all available paths send you through danger? There are two examples of "danger" listed. Both are sure-fire damage or death to our noble taunted NPC. If your intepretation of "harm" includes "repositioning myself will do me harm", you could make a pedantic argument that you are not affected by the feat. However, in that case, every...
The NPC does NOT head over, red rover. This feat has no clause that says "If the target cannot reach the Antagonizer and attack him/her, it must move its normal/double/run movement."
If you choose to interpret that is what the feat implies, very well. I believe the feat implies what it says. If you cannot move and attack the target on your round, you act normally. If the Antagonizer chooses to extend his effect for 1 round, that does not effect how the target acts now. It means the target must move and attack on it's next round (if able).
I believe the reason for the "extend the effect one round" is because battlefield conditions change, and you can only use this effect one time per 24 hour period. If there is a clear line of travel to you on your turn, and the conditions of the battlefield change before your target's turn, you can still try one more round to get the target to punch you in the face. I see this feat more being used to keep a bad guy from escaping than for some of the odd interpretations that I have seen here.
my question would then be how does an NPC know something has Attacks of Opportunity? What if (fake) example, I had already made one AoO, would he then attack? What if I had combat reflexes? Would he attack me then? How would he know? Should I take an AoO against one of my allies to "trick" them into thinking Im out of AoOs, and then no harm would likely come to them?
Let the NPC make an INT or WIS check with whatever conditional modifiers are appropriate. The tools for a DM to handle any abuse are built right into the wording of the feat. I think it's a non-starter.
my question would then be how does an NPC know something has Attacks of Opportunity? What if (fake) example, I had already made one AoO, would he then attack? What if I had combat reflexes? Would he attack me then? How would he know? Should I take an AoO against one of my allies to "trick" them into thinking Im out of AoOs, and then no harm would likely come to them?
A more ludicrous question might be "if you were invisible and Antagonized your target, would the target attack?" You COULD have reach, or not. Yes, you can get a bit silly with the interpretation of "attempting to do so would cause it harm". Being threatened by attacks of opportunity are not guaranteed to harm the target, because they could miss. It's not the same as jumping into lava (which would definetly harm most targets).
The target doesnt know how many attacks of opportunity the Antagonizer has. If the Antagonizer has a greater reach than it's target, the target cannot attack without the "possibility" of being harmed. Therefore, I choose to interpret "would cause harm" to include the "possibility" of an AoO, regardless of the actual number of AoO the Antagonizer can make in a round.
my question would then be how does an NPC know something has Attacks of Opportunity? What if (fake) example, I had already made one AoO, would he then attack? What if I had combat reflexes? Would he attack me then? How would he know? Should I take an AoO against one of my allies to "trick" them into thinking Im out of AoOs, and then no harm would likely come to them?A more ludicrous question might be "if you were invisible and Antagonized your target, would the target attack?" You COULD have reach, or not. Yes, you can get a bit silly with the interpretation of "attempting to do so would cause it harm". Being threatened by attacks of opportunity are not guaranteed to harm the target, because they could miss. It's not the same as jumping into lava (which would definetly harm most targets).
The target doesnt know how many attacks of opportunity the Antagonizer has. If the Antagonizer has a greater reach than it's target, the target cannot attack without the "possibility" of being harmed. Therefore, I choose to interpret "would cause harm" to include the "possibility" of an AoO, regardless of the actual number of AoO the Antagonizer can make in a round.
Which means that the opponent will never close into melee and the feat is useless, since the you could be a barbarian with the ability to make an AoO when the enraged enters the threatened area.
2) Yea, you can kite people with this ability while everyone murderizes them.
Yes, for 2 whole rounds if they are stopped from getting to you.
Congratulations, you have proven nothing because the fact that a party has a HUGE action economy advantage over a single opponent exists regardless of this feat.
At ANY point in time, the DM can include enough featless CR 1/3 Kobolds to kill a level 20 party.
I'm actually genuinely curious now. How many Kobolds is that? Assuming an Epic APL+3 fight. Going by basic XP value shouldn't that be something like 6,068 kobolds? 6,069 if you feel like rounding up.
Anyone want to run a few one off kobold mosh pits? :D
.
..
...
....
.....
Which means that the opponent will never close into melee and the feat is useless, since the you could be a barbarian with the ability to make an AoO when the enraged enters the threatened area.
Yes and/or no.
It does, however, emphasise the point that the feat, as written, has problems regarding the manner of its presentation.
If we take the feat as written then, as many have cited, 'would cause harm' will result in the taunted target not being effected in most situations.
We can argue the supposed intent the writer wished to communicate with this line of text but, as it stands, as a sentence in English, can be read* as 'if target's action would cause it harm then target is not forced to execute said action'.
Since this, as some have mentioned, can be used to negate the likelihood of the Intimidate portion of the feat from ever being effectively executed then I would hope it is clear that this aspect of the feat needs clarification regarding the designers intent and could benefit from some further attention with regards to the manner of its presentation.
Which kiiiiinda makes all this b$#&%'n an' a' figh'n over X = Y!1! NO! Y = Z!1!! kinda moot since anyone can simply cite RAW and claim the feat will not effect their character/the taunted target if the target is harmed in any manner, either on route to the taunter or upon arrival.
Regardless of the other awesome arguments, no-one has been able to prove otherwise, tho many have stated what they believe is the true intent of the line, as written.
Fun tho!
Also, regarding our table - the feat is fiiiiine.
Everything is fiiiiiiiine.
We'll just tweak to taste!
At ANY point in time, the DM can include enough featless CR 1/3 Kobolds to kill a level 20 party.
I'm actually genuinely curious now. How many Kobolds is that? Assuming an Epic APL+3 fight. Going by basic XP value shouldn't that be something like 6,068 kobolds? 6,069 if you feel like rounding up.
Anyone want to run a few one off kobold mosh pits? :D
See if the party can defeat all of the kobolds, or even how long they can survive...
This would be an EPIC one-off adventure. I would play.
The feat as written is too powerful an ability for a 1st level effect and is far too easy to get off. The ambiguity of the use of the word "harm" doesn't make comprehension any easier.
This feat is going to be a hand grenade at con and organised play as people wrangle back and forth about what this feat is "supposed" to do.
Adding this to certain dubious arcetypes, missing spells, numerous errors in layout and grammar (among other things) and this book is falling squarely into the "wait for the 2nd printing" category for me. I've gotten tired of having to mark up all my books to cover errata. YMMV.
SJ