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.
One. Round.
Yes...I know this.
So instead of waste time I should have said waste one round?
Yes...I know this.
So instead of waste time I should have said waste one round?
1, maybe 2 rounds, hurts, but there are any other number of abilities or powers that can do that or more. And to more than one character.
OK, I was just looking at the OP. He must have modified it.
There is no pre-req.
The working section of the SRD still shows it as Dex 13 and a BAB of +1, maybe they got it wrong *shrugs* I don't have the book yet
If someone simply wanted an "aggro/taunt" mechanic out of the feat, one could borrow from 4th edition's mark system:
-Make an intimidate check, if successful, the target takes a -2 on attack rolls against anyone other than the taunter. Additionally, the target provokes an attack of opportunity for the taunter when he/she/it attacks someone other than the taunter.
Admittedly, this changes the feat completely and does nothing for melee against caster, but it is something for those looking to give "tanks" a new tool.
-2 penalty in 4th edtition is not -2 penalty in PF.
One. Round.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.
Two rounds, you can extend it, and the character never has to hit you, he has to attempt to and run at you but you never have to let him reach you, for two rounds. you know the dpr on an optimized archer? to full attacks because he is blindly running at your buddy not getting to hit anything, then you antagonize so he runs the other way and your buddy unloads into him (assuming he survived the first two full attacks).
Archers on a battlement? get an object for full cover and antagonize them to run over one at a time for you to slaughter.
This seems perfectly balanced to you? killing the ancient dragon didn't seem weird enough?
Two rounds, you can extend it, and the character never has to hit you, he has to attempt to and run at you but you never have to let him reach you, for two rounds.
So presumably you what? Fly away? I suppose you can run away if you start far enough away.
you know the dpr on an optimized archer? to full attacks because he is blindly running at your buddy not getting to hit anything,
Please explain to me why said archer was no making full attacks regardless of where or what the Fighter was doing.
then you antagonize so he runs the other way and your buddy unloads into him (assuming he survived the first two full attacks).
Oh, so now we have a pair of archers built identically to both optimally be archers AND intimidators and are set hundreds of feet apart so as to get the most out of both archery and Antagonize.
Archers on a battlement? get an object for full cover and antagonize them to run over one at a time for you to slaughter.
This is different only in that you are making them attack you instead of you each standing around twiddling your thumbs or shooting blindly at each other.
This seems perfectly balanced to you?
Congratulations, you have failed to recognize that your scenarios would work 95% the same without Antagonize.
|
then you antagonize so he runs the other way and your buddy unloads into him (assuming he survived the first two full attacks).Oh, so now we have a pair of archers built identically to both optimally be archers AND intimidators and are set hundreds of feet apart so as to get the most out of both archery and Antagonize.
Yeah, I keep seeing this example pop up all the time, and it's not something I'm particularly concerned about either. Maybe I'm just not seeing the legions of people all taking this feat and using it in the way you're describing, at least not without being harshly accused of the worst kind of metagaming.
So presumably you what? Fly away? I suppose you can run away if you start far enough away.
Well yeah you start far enough away, seems to go without saying.
Please explain to me why said archer was no making full attacks regardless of where or what the Fighter was doing.
Who said it was a fighter? Wizard and archer works to, keeps either from being attacked while you kill the biggest threat on the battlefield. All squishes forever safe from BBEG's
Oh, so now we have a pair of archers built identically to both optimally be archers AND intimidators and are set hundreds of feet apart so as to get the most out of both archery and Antagonize.
Again archer and wizard, and neither optimally intimidators, just one rank per level, still auto success. and two hundred ft apart isn't hard to do.
This is different only in that you are making them attack you instead of you each standing around twiddling your thumbs or shooting blindly at each other.
in other words one feat made something hard to deal with a walk in the park.
Congratulations, you have failed to recognize that your scenarios would work 95% the same without Antagonize.
if the 5% is those full attacks you are no longer taking to the face then that is an understatement of 5%.
-2 penalty in 4th edtition is not -2 penalty in PF.
So change it to a number you feel more comfortable with? Sorry for the snipe, but the idea is still sound.
-2 penalty in 4th edtition is not -2 penalty in PF.So change it to a number you feel more comfortable with? Sorry for the snipe, but the idea is still sound.
No need of overnerf. The feat idea is great because expands the mundane skill use.
The implementation needs a change in numbers and the target choosing how attack. Everything more is overkill.
Now, I would keep your mechanic, scaling with level, for a "tankish" fighter archetype..
(I intended no offense, BTW)
-2 penalty in 4th edtition is not -2 penalty in PF.So change it to a number you feel more comfortable with? Sorry for the snipe, but the idea is still sound.No need of overnerf. The feat idea is great because expands the mundane skill use.
The implementation needs a change in numbers and the target choosing how attack. Everything more is overkill.
Now, I would keep your mechanic, scaling with level, for a "tankish" fighter archetype..
(I intended no offense, BTW)
Sorry, the Internet being what it is, you can never tell ;)
Sorry, the Internet being what it is, you can never tell ;)
true :)
Funny enough the marking mechanic that 4e fighters use doesn't use MMO taunt ideas and is analogous to real life.
The last thing we need is a "tank".
Historically, this is not extant. Thematically, tanks are ludicrous.
It's a video game term. They can keep it.
I say this not to denigrate MMOs. I run a raid guild in WoW, we're currently 4/13 HM, which isn't amazing, but it isn't bad. However, the "tank, dps, heals" concept really shouldn't be in a game that tries to model a fictional reality that is based on the real world + magic.
I mostly agree but the MMO/video game model grew out of a natural extension of RPG roles.
If by tank you mean a big guy who does nothing but get hit and healed with little to no offense, then yes I agree with you; however, I meant it in the sense as the big bad-a$$ in the room that draws all the attention away from the finesse players.
Historically, an actual tank is one of the greatest offensive weapons for an infantry and has the added benefit of being defensive. The tank rolls down the street, blows up a building, drawling the fire of the enemy. Meanwhile the light infantry move in using the tank's heavy armor as cover. It is heavily offensive and defensive for the team.
For a Pathfinder parallel, the two-hand fighter wearing full-plate rolls into a dungeon, cuts down a goblin, drawling the attention of all the other goblins. The rogue/cleric/inquisitor/whatever then benefits from this.
That is the ideal, but in the real game, there's nothing to give an incentive to the goblin to attack the fighter, he is harder to hit after all. I see no harm in giving this "tank" an ability to punish a goblin if the goblin attacks the rogue and not the fighter.
|
Antagonize feat in action.
Man. I had totally given up on this thread and here you go and make me laugh.
Nicely done TOZ.
That's not what a fighter, paladin, dark knight, antipaladin, ranger, or any of the other heroes DO though. They just kick ass. Sure, they also have more hit points, and more armor, and so they'll position themselves to block access to weaklings. They WILL "distract" versus low int monsters who will attack whatever is in front of them, to a degree. But that's the limit of "tanking". For the most part, you have positioning, and initial engagement (to an extent) versus animals and golems. Intelligent things just try to kill your casters while you make holes in their kidneys.
So no, there's no tank. I agree with everyone that physical guys need some better answers to spell casting late game- to a degree.
What you have is some heroes are more survivable than others. Which I'm fine with. But taunt? Tired of taunt. This taunt? Super broken, for reasons detailed above.
That is one narrow view of "tank". There are many RPGs and MMOs that accomplish the tank role in various ways, including offense.
Alas, this is off-topic and I don't think we'll have much common ground anyway. I too do not want to see any aggro/hate mechanics but the 4e mark system is a nice middle ground, one of the very few things they got right.
Nicely done TOZ.TOZ delivers!
Beautiful
|
|
The last thing we need is a "tank".
Historically, this is not extant. Thematically, tanks are ludicrous.
It's a video game term. They can keep it.
I say this not to denigrate MMOs. I run a raid guild in WoW, we're currently 4/13 HM, which isn't amazing, but it isn't bad. However, the "tank, dps, heals" concept really shouldn't be in a game that tries to model a fictional reality that is based on the real world + magic.
I mostly agree but the MMO/video game model grew out of a natural extension of RPG roles.
If by tank you mean a big guy who does nothing but get hit and healed with little to no offense, then yes I agree with you; however, I meant it in the sense as the big bad-a$$ in the room that draws all the attention away from the finesse players.
Historically, an actual tank is one of the greatest offensive weapons for an infantry and has the added benefit of being defensive. The tank rolls down the street, blows up a building, drawling the fire of the enemy. Meanwhile the light infantry move in using the tank's heavy armor as cover. It is heavily offensive and defensive for the team.
For a Pathfinder parallel, the two-hand fighter wearing full-plate rolls into a dungeon, cuts down a goblin, drawling the attention of all the other goblins. The rogue/cleric/inquisitor/whatever then benefits from this.
That is the ideal, but in the real game, there's nothing to give an incentive to the goblin to attack the fighter, he is harder to hit after all. I see no harm in giving this "tank" an ability to punish a goblin if the goblin attacks the rogue and not the fighter.
Small differences:
1) RL tank is faster than the infantry, our fighters are usually slower than the finesse/DPS guys;2) a RL tank is a DPS machine;
3) a RL tank going down a street drawing fire is looking for trouble, modern infantry has a lot of weapons that will disable it (disabled is not destroyed, if the infantry destroy one of the tank track and move to the next street the tank can do very little);
4) in RL the tank will be left to the people with the right equipment and training, the standard grunt with a assault rifle has no reasons to spend ammunitions against it and will not do it unless unless he is untrained or very stupid.
So really the wrong comparison.
I just read over Antagonize again and I can only agree, the Intimidate effect is retarded, both for players and DMs. I would just houserule that you can only get the Diplomacy effect, but can use either a Intimidate or Diplomacy check for it.
Giving an an incentive to attack instead of forcing an attack is a better way to taunt in a PnP RPG imo.
Intimidate effect of Antagonize is broken and needs to modified or eliminated.
The DC to cause someone to abandon all reason and physically attack someone (Intimidate effect) is silly: DC = Character Level + Wisdom Modifier.
One of many simple examples I can give is its obvious use as a mage-slayer.
Theoretically, a low-level character can get an sorcerer/wizard to abandon all his magical abilities and attack physically every round.
Were I looking to slay the evil archmage, I'd go into battle with a few hired elven bards with skill focus in Intimidate and the Antagonize Foe feat. Even at 5th level, these guys will be rolling at least a D20+14 against a DC of 20 or so. Archmage has to close to whack my bard with a stick, and my tank fighter make sure he's within 10' of his bard buddy so he can 5'step and obliterate said mage with a full attack.
Good to know all that magical and mental training will be abandoned, without a saving throw, by someone who is good at pointing out that zit on your nose.
Major FAIL on the part of Paizo here.
This feat should have been extensively playtested first.
Theoretically, a low-level character can get an sorcerer/wizard to abandon all his magical abilities and attack physically every round.
Good luck with that using an ability that only works once per day for 2 rounds or until a melee attack is made.
The over-arching point is still the thing to concentrate on:
It is absurd that a non-magical ability granted by a feat, one that can be accomplished via a low-DC D. 20 roll, that does not allow a saving throw, could force a character to abandon the primary ability of his class (namely, spellcasting if you are a Sorcerer or Wizard) for -any- amount of time.
Even if only affects someone once each day (assuming that multiple characters don't have and make use of this feat to force a magic-wielding foe to run back and forth within the group swinging his staff).
Even the highest level spells that force an individual into an action (particularly one contra to their nature) allow a saving throw.
Now that I think about this one, I rate it EPIC FAIL.
Eh.
Conceptually you are right, but remember that a persistent mind affecting spell vs a low will target is more or less the same. Even worse if is not a mind affecting, but is flesh to stone.
People asked for an use of charisma, and for something to attract the attention of enemies.
IMHO is a good thing Paizo bringed this feat, and more on this line or based on other skills, I would welcome them.
It just needs 2 little tweaks in a number and a word IMHO.
...remember that a persistent mind affecting spell vs a low will target is more or less the same.A persistent mind-affecting compulsion spell is more or less the same. But Antagonize is not a compulsion effect. It is literally telling you what your character must choose to do. Not what your character is compelled to do against his will; what he chooses to do. This is not a restriction imposed upon your character, it is a restriction upon you, the player. You are no longer allowed to play a character who would react to a non-magical taunt in a pacifistic or a passive-aggressive way. You are now mechanically forbidden from playing either of those personality types.
You mean, would be silly even if you could choose how attack? What about adding the [compulsion] tag to the effect?
EDIT: I don't mean aggressive tone I'm curious, I want to say what people think about it.
Good luck with that using an ability that only works once per day for 2 rounds or until a melee attack is made.
Theoretically, a low-level character can get an sorcerer/wizard to abandon all his magical abilities and attack physically every round.
except that you don't even need 2 rounds to kill a full caster with even a poor melee character of the same level. heck if i had 5 0 level children i could probably kill a 5th level mage with this feat as it currently worded...
I dont really care if they reword the feat as i'm just banning it. i dont see any GM allowing this peace of garbage in there game. Speaking of flesh to stone lets make a feat that lets a mage turn a a character to stone with no save and make it character level + con mod. Oh but to be balanced let it only work for 2 rounds. We wouldn't want it to be overpowered after all >:D
Good luck with that using an ability that only works once per day for 2 rounds or until a melee attack is made.
Theoretically, a low-level character can get an sorcerer/wizard to abandon all his magical abilities and attack physically every round.except that you don't even need 2 rounds to kill a full caster with even a poor melee character of the same level. heck if i had 5 0 level children i could probably kill a 5th level mage with this feat as it currently worded...
I dont really care if they reword the feat as i'm just banning it. i dont see any GM allowing this peace of garbage in there game. Speaking of flesh to stone lets make a feat that lets a mage turn a a character to stone with no save and make it character level + con mod. Oh but to be balanced let it only work for 2 rounds. We wouldn't want it to be overpowered after all >:D
An unprepared unbuffed mage sure. A mage with Mirror image and blur, doubtful.
An unprepared unbuffed mage sure. A mage with Mirror image and blur, doubtful.Good luck with that using an ability that only works once per day for 2 rounds or until a melee attack is made.
Theoretically, a low-level character can get an sorcerer/wizard to abandon all his magical abilities and attack physically every round.except that you don't even need 2 rounds to kill a full caster with even a poor melee character of the same level. heck if i had 5 0 level children i could probably kill a 5th level mage with this feat as it currently worded...
I dont really care if they reword the feat as i'm just banning it. i dont see any GM allowing this peace of garbage in there game. Speaking of flesh to stone lets make a feat that lets a mage turn a a character to stone with no save and make it character level + con mod. Oh but to be balanced let it only work for 2 rounds. We wouldn't want it to be overpowered after all >:D
Both of which require standard actions to cast and are combat spells. He will only get them if he wins initiative and has the suprize round. Otherwise, he only has his all day buffs, which at that level may not even include mage armor.
Both of which require standard actions to cast and are combat spells. He will only get them if he wins initiative and has the suprize round. Otherwise, he only has his all day buffs, which at that level may not even include mage armor.An unprepared unbuffed mage sure. A mage with Mirror image and blur, doubtful.Good luck with that using an ability that only works once per day for 2 rounds or until a melee attack is made.
Theoretically, a low-level character can get an sorcerer/wizard to abandon all his magical abilities and attack physically every round.except that you don't even need 2 rounds to kill a full caster with even a poor melee character of the same level. heck if i had 5 0 level children i could probably kill a 5th level mage with this feat as it currently worded...
I dont really care if they reword the feat as i'm just banning it. i dont see any GM allowing this peace of garbage in there game. Speaking of flesh to stone lets make a feat that lets a mage turn a a character to stone with no save and make it character level + con mod. Oh but to be balanced let it only work for 2 rounds. We wouldn't want it to be overpowered after all >:D
Well, most mages I run as NPCs either know when the party is coming through scrying or because there are other rooms full of Mooks the party has to go through first where the mage can hear the fighting, or are coming after the party in which case they buff out of site and show up prepared.
A persistent mind-affecting compulsion spell is more or less the same. But Antagonize is not a compulsion effect.
But, unless people keep writing it down wrong, it IS mind-affecting. The compulsion part of the spell means nothing; the MIND AFFECTING part means something.
Both of which require standard actions to cast and are combat spells. He will only get them if he wins initiative and has the suprize round. Otherwise, he only has his all day buffs, which at that level may not even include mage armor.An unprepared unbuffed mage sure. A mage with Mirror image and blur, doubtful.Good luck with that using an ability that only works once per day for 2 rounds or until a melee attack is made.
Theoretically, a low-level character can get an sorcerer/wizard to abandon all his magical abilities and attack physically every round.except that you don't even need 2 rounds to kill a full caster with even a poor melee character of the same level. heck if i had 5 0 level children i could probably kill a 5th level mage with this feat as it currently worded...
I dont really care if they reword the feat as i'm just banning it. i dont see any GM allowing this peace of garbage in there game. Speaking of flesh to stone lets make a feat that lets a mage turn a a character to stone with no save and make it character level + con mod. Oh but to be balanced let it only work for 2 rounds. We wouldn't want it to be overpowered after all >:D
Mage Armor being an hour per level spell. What mage doesn't cast that before wondering off into the wilderness or any possibly hostile situation?
|
|
[grognard]Hey, I just found something funny! This is almost word-for-word a transcrption of a 2nd Edition spell, Taunt.[/grognard]
Taunt
(Enchantment)
Range: 60 yds.
Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 rd
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect: 30-ft. radius
Saving Throw: Neg.
A taunt spell enables the caster to jape and jeer effectively at a single type of creature with an Intelligence of 2 or greater. The caster need not speak the language of the creatures. His words and sounds have real meaning for the subject creature or creatures, challenging, insulting, and generally irritating and angering the listeners. Those failing to save vs. spell rush forth in fury to do battle with the spellcaster. All affected creatures attack the spellcaster in melee if physically capable of doing so, seeking to use body or hand-held weapons rather than missile weapons or spells.
Separation of the caster from the victim by an impenetrable or uncrossable boundary (a wall of fire, a deep chasm, a formation of set pikemen) causes the spell to break. If the caster taunts a mixed group, he must choose the type of creature to be affected. Creatures commanded by a strong leader (i.e., with a Charisma bonus, with higher Hit Dice, etc.) might gain a saving throw bonus of +1 to +4, at the DM's discretion. If used in conjunction with a ventriloquism spell, the creatures may attack the apparent source, depending upon their Intelligence, a leader's presence, and so on.
The material component is a slug, which is hurled at the creatures to be taunted.
Pathfinder's nostalgia for old D&D material comes back to bite people in the ass. I lol.
|
|
Now I'm perfectly fine with it as long as Fighters have to carry slugs around with them and wing them at people.
Actually, not, but...
The fact that this was a spell at one point and was put in Ultimate Magic makes me think it was intended to be taken by casters, and appears in the book in that context. Unfortunately, there's no such restriction listed, so we now have an open can of worms.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Now I'm perfectly fine with it as long as Fighters have to carry slugs around with them and wing them at people.
Actually, not, but...
The fact that this was a spell at one point and was put in Ultimate Magic makes me think it was intended to be taken by casters, and appears in the book in that context. Unfortunately, there's no such restriction listed, so we now have an open can of worms.
Don't you mean a can of slugs? :-)
Now I'm perfectly fine with it as long as Fighters have to carry slugs around with them and wing them at people.
Actually, not, but...
The fact that this was a spell at one point and was put in Ultimate Magic makes me think it was intended to be taken by casters, and appears in the book in that context. Unfortunately, there's no such restriction listed, so we now have an open can of worms.
Non-casters can't have nice things.
Look I fixed it!
Bold is addition, italicized is subraction
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. The target creature must make a Will save with a DC equal to your Diplomacy or Intimidate skill check., and has a DC equal to the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check 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 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.
|
|
Unfortunately, there's no such restriction listed, so we now have an open can of worms.Don't you mean a can of slugs? :-)
LOL, I suppose I do indeed.
Non-casters can't have nice things.
Well, they can (in theory), but I for one would at least like them to have nice things that are flavored toward their class. The main problem with Antagonize all along has been that there's no conceivable reason why it should work the way it does. Knowing now that it used to be a spell makes a lot of sense. If it was a spell, it would have a believeable context for working as it does...it's an Enchantment spell! But as-is, it's just not believeable. As others have pointed out, it's not a compulsion effect - it's telling you how you (the player) must choose for your character to react to a stimulus. The game has long (at least since 2E) framed that type of power within the context of Enchantment (compulsion) spells, but this isn't that.
Give them nice things, I have no problem at all with that. Just make them make some sense.