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
Yeah, it sucks more than just a bit that being a loyal Paizoite who buys their books as soon as they are available also means being the one who gets stuck with the non-errataed hardcover.
And again: This feat is stupid. Not only stupid powerful, but also stupidly gamebreaking.
|
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
I somehow doubt that this feat will be made PFS legal, not until errata at least.
Eh, tons of books by a lot of different publishers have needed errata. The writing process of these books can be somewhat complex, lots of emailed versions going between different people in different states of revision. AEG is one of the worst publishers in this regard IMO.
I think the Intimidate part of this feat is pretty easy to fix. A couple of options:
1: It's just their next offensive action must target you, or include you in its effect.
2: Just use the same effect as Diplomacy
3: Exclude movement from the effect
For social situations, just make it clear to the player that they have to adopt an "aggressive posture" to use this feat, in other words, it will be clear to onlookers that you were attempting to start a fight.
I somehow doubt that this feat will be made PFS legal, not until errata at least.
Isn't all content of the core line of PF books automatically PFS legal on release?
|
|
I somehow doubt that this feat will be made PFS legal, not until errata at least.Isn't all content of the core line of PF books automatically PFS legal on release?
Nope. New material needs to be reviewed by Hyrum and Mark, and not everything is kosher for PFS. The current list of Society-legal material can be found here. As far as I know, the approval process for Ultimate Magic is still under way.
I do not have the book yet, but as I see it there are a few things wrong with this feat.
1) it should require charisma 13, not dex 13
2) Intimidate is a silly choice to make someone attack you, a person creature with high ranks in intimidate is in my opinion a fearsome warrior or perceived dangerous creature you want to run from. A taunt or the like should use bluff, I do not see spiderman, who uses such a thing alot, as particulary intimidating, but is sure to have ranks in bluff.
3) forcing anyone to attack in melee by default seems rather silly, for a number of characters and creatures it would be a last resort to attack someone in melee
4) I really do not like that it does not allow a save, but just a check, my players would be very annoyed if I told them they had to attack this or that creature without allowing some kind of roll.
5) The DC seems to be off the mark, not sure what I'd do with it, a will save with a DC of bluff modifier + 5, seems bad enough to me at first glance.
|
Okay a few observations on my part
1 Not sure where people are getting the notion that you need a 13 Dex to use it according to my copy of Ultimate magic it has no such prerequisite
2 100% certain there is a typo in the text (think it is meant to be 10 +hd + wisdom modifier) otherwise a lvl 1 fighter with a charisma of 10 and a single rank autoomaticly has a minimum of 5 on a roll meaning a creature would need either 6hd, a wisdom of 20 or a mixture thereof before the check fails to be automatic success.
Something that play upon the 'quick to anger' part of 'subtle and quick to anger'?
Something that prompts irrational behavior?
Something that makes caster lovers QQ?
I almost want to make a Magic Eater from Nyambé or Hamunaptra just to give them this quality as well.
...a bunch of good stuff about modifying the Antagonize feat.
I agree with you, Remco.
However, I'd go a step further and add these prerequisites: Int 13, Cha 13, and the ability to cast a charm/compulsion spell.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Fighters Can't Get Nice Things....a bunch of good stuff about modifying the Antagonize feat.I agree with you, Remco.
However, I'd go a step further and add these prerequisites: Int 13, Cha 13, and the ability to cast a charm/compulsion spell.
As much as I think the intimidate version needs beat down with my nerf Mjolnier there's no reason to limit this to spell tossers. If anything just the opposite. They don't need this feat, they have compulsions.
Fighters Can't Get Nice Things....a bunch of good stuff about modifying the Antagonize feat.I agree with you, Remco.
However, I'd go a step further and add these prerequisites: Int 13, Cha 13, and the ability to cast a charm/compulsion spell.
Fighters ARE nice things. The rest of us have to work for it. :(
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
+1 cake
Jolt has nailed it.
I'd like to mention i read ALL the posts!
This feat is way over the power mountain for a level 1 feat or any feat for that matter. when defenders of the feat have to compare it to Dominate, or any spell over level 1, or say "but spell casters can cast this spell" (which are CLASS abilities),defend how a level 8 spell can protect against it but can't, or how it uses up an antagonized creatures actions for the round, or defends how you need magical items to help defend against a SKILL then you have already lost the argument in most sane players and GM's books. And that right there says the feat is completely broken or being completely misinterpreted.
I think the feat is just total garbage. And i GM, play melee characters, and spellcasters. The wording is horrible and if interpreted wrong breaks everything to do with power balance, classes, and reason. The feat needs a save, it's as simple as that. Stunning Critical even allows a saving throw and it's a level 17 feat! And you could theoretically succeed more often with antagonize, apply it more often, and auto succeed it.
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.
Adm.Venge had some good points but i would interpret it slightly differently. the feat says you MUST attempt to make an attack against the antagonizer. i feel that attempting AT THE LEAST you would have to move into position.
Example: If the character could charge he would charge and attack if possible. if he can't reach the antagonizer with a charge or can't charge then the only other option to ATTEMPT to make a melee attack would be a move action and then a standard attack. SO the antagonized character would take a standard move action to the most direct route (if it would not cause him harm). after he's moved if he's still out of melee attack range the effect ends per the feat and you can take a normal standard action. Now the feat goes into overpowered mode and the antagonizer can make another check as an immediate action to keep it going for a round. This would effectively shut down a spell caster and screw him out of casting spells completely as he's in a rage and can't cast. he could use magic items and a ranged attacker could attack but not being able to perform actions bared while in a rage is what makes this feat lame even by my interpretation. I'm unsure exactly what you can perform in a rage but a 1st level feat shouldn't have this severe of power period.
I think "if it would not cause him harm" part is pretty vague. I interpret this to mean if he's awar a source that is actually going to cause him DAMAGE (physical, energy, drain etc). If he's unaware of the danger then he takes the damage. obviously the character is not going to move past creatures that can take a swipe at him (AOO) no more than he will walk through fire. he's also not going to know how many AOO the the creature has or it's abilities so he will not move into anyone's threat range at all.
things that need corrected:
The feat needs a saving throw. looking back at stunning critical (a 17th level feat), "The DC of this Fortitude save is equal to 10 + your base attack bonus." antagonize would make sense to allow a will save with a DC equal to 10+ your class level+Chr modifier or something along those lines, NOT your intimidate check.
Creatures should be limited to 1 antagonize per day no matter if everyone in the party has it. As its worded right now you could easily have everyone in the party antagonize one at a time to ping pong an enemy around the battle field and pick him off with range, which is utterly stupid.
IF the player suffers damage from someone other than the antagnozier it should end the effect.
I think it's perfectly reasonable, conceptually at least, for a character to be able to use Intimidate to push someone's buttons so hard that they heedlessly want to hurt you, and even to have that action be a bit less effective for being taken in rage. Striking the balance on how much less effective they are in consequence is the tricky part. Forcing a melee attack is clearly too much.
Quick and dirty fix: Instead of 'must attempt a melee attack against you', the feat reads 'must attack you, and do so to the exclusion of other targets.' Possibly also make the feat an opposed skill check, Diplomacy/Intimidate vs. Sense Motive. that a way, a wizard is locked out of powerful AoE effects because he really wants to hurt you specifically, but he can still use devastating single-target spells. Archers and other ranged fighters can still maintain the sense to stay out of melee, but are distracted from shooting at potentially higher-value targets. And an opposed check gives a decent chance to resist--particularly to those pacifist types, who typically come from classes which have a solid Wisdom and Sense Motive as a class skill.
Thoughts?
*shrug*
I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. It's a fun way to start a fight, but the "come to harm" clause gives the GM permission to keep it from becoming overpowerful (giving affected characters an INT or WIS check).
Decent post, RunebladeX.
Although I was thinking, if used on someone unarmed, this turns into the "antagonize anime females so the slap you" feat. Just thought I'd throw that out there (all anima women gain improved unamed strike and immunity to attacks of opportunity when attempting to slap someone, it's a trait)
Fighters Can't Get Nice Things....a bunch of good stuff about modifying the Antagonize feat.I agree with you, Remco.
However, I'd go a step further and add these prerequisites: Int 13, Cha 13, and the ability to cast a charm/compulsion spell.
Nobody should get stupidly overpowered things. And before you ask, I could live with compulsion spells getting powered down a bit, too.
I think it's perfectly reasonable, conceptually at least, for a character to be able to use Intimidate to push someone's buttons so hard that they heedlessly want to hurt you, and even to have that action be a bit less effective for being taken in rage. Striking the balance on how much less effective they are in consequence is the tricky part. Forcing a melee attack is clearly too much.
Quick and dirty fix: Instead of 'must attempt a melee attack against you', the feat reads 'must attack you, and do so to the exclusion of other targets.' Possibly also make the feat an opposed skill check, Diplomacy/Intimidate vs. Sense Motive. that a way, a wizard is locked out of powerful AoE effects because he really wants to hurt you specifically, but he can still use devastating single-target spells. Archers and other ranged fighters can still maintain the sense to stay out of melee, but are distracted from shooting at potentially higher-value targets. And an opposed check gives a decent chance to resist--particularly to those pacifist types, who typically come from classes which have a solid Wisdom and Sense Motive as a class skill.
Thoughts?
Completely agree. This would work for me (and is probably how I'd house rule it in my own games if it doesn't get any errata).
*shrug*
I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. It's a fun way to start a fight, but the "come to harm" clause gives the GM permission to keep it from becoming overpowerful (giving affected characters an INT or WIS check).
Saying "when you houserule it a certain way, then it isn't so totally over the top crippling as interpreting it as RAW" is not a really good argument. Of course you can houserule it to be okay, but we are discussing the RAW version.
Saying "when you houserule it a certain way, then it isn't so totally over the top crippling as interpreting it as RAW" is not a really good argument. Of course you can houserule it to be okay, but we are discussing the RAW version.*shrug*
I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. It's a fun way to start a fight, but the "come to harm" clause gives the GM permission to keep it from becoming overpowerful (giving affected characters an INT or WIS check).
You mean the RAW version that says a creature won't attack if it would come to harm?
You mean the RAW version that says a creature won't attack if it would come to harm?Saying "when you houserule it a certain way, then it isn't so totally over the top crippling as interpreting it as RAW" is not a really good argument. Of course you can houserule it to be okay, but we are discussing the RAW version.*shrug*
I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. It's a fun way to start a fight, but the "come to harm" clause gives the GM permission to keep it from becoming overpowerful (giving affected characters an INT or WIS check).
I think this highlights a problem that doesn't exist only here - Paizo often writes material simply to "encourage" GMs to arbitrate things in their games with no guidelines on how or why.
At least this provides examples of a cliff or a firewall (not that THAT has stopped people from complaining about it using cliff references), but in general, what is harm? How is it defined? "Ask your GM." Well great, why write so much to begin with if the important details are going to come down to "Ask your GM."
The devs will not respond to this or we are going to get "It's up to the GM" because this is not a typo or anything like that.
They MIGHT change the feat entirely, but they aren't going to go into nitty gritty about how it was supposed to work despite, I hope, having an idea when they wrote it.
it should require charisma 13, not dex 13
No. Please, please, please No.
It needs X ranks in intimidate or diplomacy, if you want something like that.
If you ask for cha 13, you kick in the ***ls a lot of Multy Ability Dependant classes.
An example? The iconic Shield&Weapon "tank" fighter. Yeah. No enemy attention focusing feat for you fighter. Sorry. Yeah, I know you need strengh and dexterity and constitution and combat expertise needs int 13+...
@Revan: yes.
The devs will not respond to this or we are going to get "It's up to the GM" because this is not a typo or anything like that.
They MIGHT change the feat entirely, but they aren't going to go into nitty gritty about how it was supposed to work despite, I hope, having an idea when they wrote it.
Unfortunately, this is probably true. It's also why I haven't suggested a "fix". The ambiguity of the feat makes me question what the designer intent was; and I just don't know that. That makes any "fix" haphazard at best.
If second printing doesn't clarify this feat and if it isn't allowed in organised play, it won't be allowed at my table either. This game has tons of "stuff" in it already for me to get all headachey over one feat that will have no negative impact on my game by its abscence..
SJ
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
I'll bring my alchemist ;)
I'll bring my alchemist ;)
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
I'm really not seeing how a level 20 party would have any trouble at all with 6,069 (or really any arbitrarily large number of) basic kobolds. At that level, it should be no problem at all for everyone to have some mode of flight, and simply nuke from outside of range.
Even in a ground pounding situation, you're still looking at kobolds only hitting on natural 20's, and damage reduction should pretty much stop any real damage. (Plus, only 8 kobolds per person, and a fighter with his great cleave (and a reach weapon) going is going to turn it into a grind, but a very easy grind).
A level 20 party that loses this fight really deserves to die.
|
See, this is the problem with calling the devs out on the carpet over stuff like VoP Monks and very limited-application neverending spell chains. Now they'll never come into this thread and tell us what the heck they meant. Or maybe they will, I don't know, they're a good sort, after all. Neverending patience with nerdrage, and all that.
I have to say, I started this thread in the Cartigan/Cirno/Gorby boat, looking for an oar. But then Mr. cfalcon completely and utterly brought me around to the other side of the argument. I do still get where both sides are coming from, however. Martial characters desperately need ways of dealing with casters more effectively. The fact that this does that in spades was initially intriguing to me, but, like, REALLY. There has to be some other stuff we can give them.
Also, it's a bit odd that the feat that would be the single most effective tactic for martial characters to deal with high level magic users is found in Ultimate Magic. That's a head-scratcher, there.
It is actually the single best way for a broodlord summoner to solo an entire adventuring party.
Another person suffering from multiple delusions about how the feat works.
Also, I obviously need to point out, AGAIN, that having a superior action economy is an imbalance UNRELATED to this feat. Despite multiple peoples confusion as to that fact.
It is actually the single best way for a broodlord summoner to solo an entire adventuring party.Another person suffering from multiple delusions about how the feat works.
Also, I obviously need to point out, AGAIN, that having a superior action economy is an imbalance UNRELATED to this feat. Despite multiple peoples confusion as to that fact.
No, this feat just allows you to greatly increase your action ecconomy, to the point of not allowing your opponent to control a turn if used properly.
No, this feat just allows you to greatly increase your action ecconomy, to the point of not allowing your opponent to control a turn if used properly.It is actually the single best way for a broodlord summoner to solo an entire adventuring party.Another person suffering from multiple delusions about how the feat works.
Also, I obviously need to point out, AGAIN, that having a superior action economy is an imbalance UNRELATED to this feat. Despite multiple peoples confusion as to that fact.
No, it doesn't. Your action economy is - IN FACT - one entire character worth of actions less than it was WITHOUT the use of this feat where the enemy MIGHT be reduced in his action economy to a single attack. Might.
On a side note: Did I read that right? This feat has a Dex pre-req? Who fell on their head during writing and editing?
|
No, this feat just allows you to greatly increase your action ecconomy, to the point of not allowing your opponent to control a turn if used properly.It is actually the single best way for a broodlord summoner to solo an entire adventuring party.Another person suffering from multiple delusions about how the feat works.
Also, I obviously need to point out, AGAIN, that having a superior action economy is an imbalance UNRELATED to this feat. Despite multiple peoples confusion as to that fact.
No, it doesn't. Your action economy is - IN FACT - one entire character worth of actions less than it was WITHOUT the use of this feat where the enemy MIGHT be reduced in his action economy to a single attack. Might.
On a side note: Did I read that right? This feat has a Dex pre-req? Who fell on their head during writing and editing?
There is no pre-req.
|
|
There is no pre-req.No, this feat just allows you to greatly increase your action ecconomy, to the point of not allowing your opponent to control a turn if used properly.It is actually the single best way for a broodlord summoner to solo an entire adventuring party.Another person suffering from multiple delusions about how the feat works.
Also, I obviously need to point out, AGAIN, that having a superior action economy is an imbalance UNRELATED to this feat. Despite multiple peoples confusion as to that fact.
No, it doesn't. Your action economy is - IN FACT - one entire character worth of actions less than it was WITHOUT the use of this feat where the enemy MIGHT be reduced in his action economy to a single attack. Might.
On a side note: Did I read that right? This feat has a Dex pre-req? Who fell on their head during writing and editing?
That's funny, because apparently half the posters here are acting under impression that it requires Dex 13.
I think it only goes to show how many people will believe you if you post something on the Interwebs...
|
|
It is actually the single best way for a broodlord summoner to solo an entire adventuring party.Another person suffering from multiple delusions about how the feat works.
That's not another person, either, it's the same person you've been arguing with for 4 pages. And I hate to say it, because my honest opinion is that it rarely happens, but...you've been out-argued (with a few exceptions).
I don't care about verisimilitude or game balance in this one case. I just don't want NPCs actions to ever be completely stupid, because, well, I run them. It's stupid for a wizard to fly down out of the sky and try to knife a fully armored fighter. I like the concept of "fighters need something they can do to wizards". I don't like this concept as being that thing.
When wizards compel via domination, they usually either make melee types a) flee or b) attack allies somehow. If this feat had a decent DC threshold and had effects less godawful stupid than what wizards make other people do under magical compulsion I would be fine with it. But it SO doesn't, on either count.
edit to say: the effects don't even have to be less stupid than what wizards make people do under compulsion. If they were merely as stupid, that'd be fine too.
No, this feat just allows you to greatly increase your action ecconomy, to the point of not allowing your opponent to control a turn if used properly.It is actually the single best way for a broodlord summoner to solo an entire adventuring party.Another person suffering from multiple delusions about how the feat works.
Also, I obviously need to point out, AGAIN, that having a superior action economy is an imbalance UNRELATED to this feat. Despite multiple peoples confusion as to that fact.
No, it doesn't. Your action economy is - IN FACT - one entire character worth of actions less than it was WITHOUT the use of this feat where the enemy MIGHT be reduced in his action economy to a single attack. Might.
On a side note: Did I read that right? This feat has a Dex pre-req? Who fell on their head during writing and editing?
Yes, because reducing an opponent to maybe 1 attack over 2 rounds using a single standard action and repositioning them into a more favorable position is somehow a loss on the action economy. The worste this feat does is reduce an opponent to a single attack action, removing full attacks from melee or spells from casters, while repositioning them where you want them. Sorry, that is not a loss of action economy in any way. It is a win, and a huge one at that. It allows you to force the enemy to close, instead of closing, giving you more full attacks early on. It allows you to take a defensive stance in an offensive fight, a huge advantage of action economy.
There is no pre-req.
OK, I was just looking at the OP. He must have modified it.
I don't care about verisimilitude or game balance in this one case. I just don't want NPCs actions to ever be completely stupid, because, well, I run them. It's stupid for a wizard to fly down out of the sky and try to knife a fully armored fighter.
Of course it's stupid. But "blind rage" is what I'm guessing they were going for.
It would be better if they just ENTERED a Rage, in effect, that lasted 2 rounds and forced them to attack the antagonist.
Yes, because reducing an opponent to maybe 1 attack over 2 rounds using a single standard action and repositioning them into a more favorable position is somehow a loss on the action economy.
You are losing an attack on the opponent in order to maybe move them more favorably or to reduce them to 1 attack over 1 round. Two rounds is an excess assumption.
while repositioning them where you want them.
Does it teleport them? All you achieved is getting them to get within melee range if they can.
A simple fix is replace "On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you." with "On its next turn, the target must attempt to attack you."
I'll houserule it this way till it's fixed.
|
|
It would be better if they just ENTERED a Rage, in effect, that lasted 2 rounds and forced them to attack the antagonist.
Yes, yes it would. As long as "attack" is the wording used, and not "melee attack". It's bad enough to make a wizard pull out his crossbow. Making him close to within full attack range is just...
Well, I don't know, but it really doesn't fit with my idea of the game. If fighters had this and some other tricks in their back pocket, it would go a long way toward evening the playing field a bit, which would be a good thing. Still though, uh, reasonable DC/Saving throws are a must. A 45%/50% chance to save before optimization is reasonable, and a baseline that's been set by many other abilities throughout the game.
Yes, because reducing an opponent to maybe 1 attack over 2 rounds using a single standard action and repositioning them into a more favorable position is somehow a loss on the action economy.You are losing an attack on the opponent in order to maybe move them more favorably or to reduce them to 1 attack over 1 round. Two rounds is an excess assumption.
while repositioning them where you want them.Does it teleport them? All you achieved is getting them to get within melee range if they can.
They are forced to move towards you into melee. This means that they are forced to close with you, and your nearby allies now get full attacks instead of no attack (and closing with the enemy) or partial. even if they do need to manuever to get attacks on this opponent and are denied full attacks, they can move into positions to prevent the single opponent's retreat and get flanking, instead of everyone hitting the front of the enemy line. You draw opponents out of their defensive positions into yours, reducing their ability to buff for a round. If you do it right, you can get a free round on that 1 opponent before his allies move, potentially wiping him, or forcing his allies into a worse position where they have to decide if they will hold their line or aid their ally at your line. This ability is amasing, and its not the only utility of the feat.
The feat can also be used to draw suprize attacks away from weaker characters. That monster just hit your mage in the back line instead of your fighter in the front? Fighter uses this, forces the opponent to move up away from the squishies, and thus wasting 2 of its turns, 1 to move and attack the fighter, and annother to go back and do its job of attacking the squishies.
Or how about those long range enemies taking potshots at you? Now they spend a turn moving up into melee. Rather than you wasting your time with a secondary ranged weapon, you just pull out your sword to deal with those archers by making them come to you.
The advantages of this feat are huge, and with its super-low DC it is pretty much guaranteed to be successful against everything you ever care to use it on.
A simple fix is replace "On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you." with "On its next turn, the target must attempt to attack you."
I'll houserule it this way till it's fixed.
That's almost equally bad. It doesn't specify how "attack" is defined. Something that requires an attack roll - mundane or magical? Something that does damage - mundane or magical? Anything that affects the target?
They are forced to move towards you into melee. This means that they are forced to close with you, and your nearby allies now get full attacks instead of no attack (and closing with the enemy) or partial.
So you and your allies form a specific pattern such that everyone must no more than 5' step to be within range of any adjacent cell to you after the antagonized creature closes.
You draw opponents out of their defensive positions into yours, reducing their ability to buff for a round.
Assuming everyone just stumbles into each other and no one has buffed.
If you do it right, you can get a free round on that 1 opponent before his allies move,
This requires an assumption on how your DM rolls initiative AND that all your initiatives are higher than the opponent.
potentially wiping him, or forcing his allies into a worse position where they have to decide if they will hold their line or aid their ally at your line.
What kind of combat do you run? Does everyone line up on each side of the battlefield and shoot their muskets at each other?
The feat can also be used to draw suprize attacks away from weaker characters.
No. The word you want here is "mitigate." The surprise attack still happens.
That monster just hit your mage in the back line instead of your fighter in the front? Fighter uses this, forces the opponent to move up away from the squishies, and thus wasting 2 of its turns, 1 to move and attack the fighter, and annother to go back and do its job of attacking the squishies.
So the fighter, being dozens of feet away from the mages, forces the opponent to charge him and then charge back. Still getting one attack. Sure, you have reduced its number of attacks but that's it.
Or how about those long range enemies taking potshots at you? Now they spend a turn moving up into melee.
One spends a turn closing while the others continue to shoot you from afar. You'd be better off charging right into the middle of them if they were better at range than up close.
Rather than you wasting your time with a secondary ranged weapon, you just pull out your sword to deal with those archers by making them come to you.
Why not keep your sword out and engage?
The advantages of this feat are huge, and with its super-low DC it is pretty much guaranteed to be successful against everything you ever care to use it on.
No, the IMAGINED advantages - with both a little extra imagination and beneficial DM rulings - are huge.
That's almost equally bad. It doesn't specify how "attack" is defined. Something that requires an attack roll - mundane or magical? Something that does damage - mundane or magical? Anything that affects the target?A simple fix is replace "On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you." with "On its next turn, the target must attempt to attack you."
I'll houserule it this way till it's fixed.
He'd have to spend a standard action trying to cause harm to you, either by spell, psi power, ranged attack or melee attack. Anything detremental.
Like casting prayer, which hurts you and helps himself, for instance, would fit.
That's almost equally bad. It doesn't specify how "attack" is defined. Something that requires an attack roll - mundane or magical? Something that does damage - mundane or magical? Anything that affects the target?A simple fix is replace "On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you." with "On its next turn, the target must attempt to attack you."
I'll houserule it this way till it's fixed.He'd have to spend a standard action trying to cause harm to you, either by spell, psi power, ranged attack or melee attack. Anything detremental.
Like casting prayer, which hurts you and helps himself, for instance, would fit.
I disagree with using spells. Otherwise they can just remove the Intimidate section.
Just trying to make it less a blatantly anti-mage feat.
EDIT: This could also me used by a mage that's buffed to hell and back make a fighter waste his time on his nigh-invulnerable self while his minions attacked others. It can work both ways.