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...
I read that as 100% "non-casters can't have nice things."
As others have pointed out, it's not a compulsion effect
I don't see "Compulsion effect" defined ANYWHERE in the SRD/PRD, there is a compulsion subschool under Enchantment. However the feat is, unless mistranscribed here, mind-affecting which has explicit connotations and definitions unlike "compulsion effect."
Look I fixed it!
** spoiler omitted **
This doesn't actually fix it. Intimidation and diplomacy can be pumped to rediculous levels, while saves do not scale at anywhere near the same rate. Saves will increase at less than 1/level for most characters, even with magic items and stat boosts. At level 10, you are looking at good saves for the party of ~12, if you are lucky. At level 10, I can boost my skill check to ~+30 for intimidate. That basicly reduces the save to needing nat 20s, as a 19 will only succeed if the intimidator rolls low.
This doesn't actually fix it.Look I fixed it!
** spoiler omitted **
Yes it does.
Intimidation and diplomacy can be pumped to rediculous levels,
I roll a 20. I succeed against a DC>9000 Will Save. Moreover, it now lets spells like Mind Blank aid in your defense against the feat.
while saves do not scale at anywhere near the same rate. Saves will increase at less than 1/level for most characters, even with magic items and stat boosts.
So what exactly is your proposal for changing the Spell vs Saving Throw system which, by your own definition here, is broken and unbalanced in favor of spellcasters.
This doesn't actually fix it.Look I fixed it!
** spoiler omitted **
Yes it does.
Intimidation and diplomacy can be pumped to rediculous levels,I roll a 20. I succeed against a DC>9000 Will Save. Moreover, it now lets spells like Mind Blank aid in your defense against the feat.
while saves do not scale at anywhere near the same rate. Saves will increase at less than 1/level for most characters, even with magic items and stat boosts.So what exactly is your proposal for changing the Spell vs Saving Throw system which, by your own definition here, is broken and unbalanced in favor of spellcasters.
How is the spell vs save DC broken by my definition? Spell DCs grow at about the same rate as saves. Look at the comparisons on here for average success rates of spells. It varies maybe 15% over levels against average opponents and is never more than ~75% success rate. I am talking about skill vs saves, which are not designed to work at the same scale. Giving this a 95% success rate instead of a 100% success rate does not create ballance in the feat.
|
I read that as 100% "non-casters can't have nice things."
Well, read it however you like, I suppose. That's not what I intended, though. I am fully aware of the martial-caster disparity in the game and I'd love to see it change. But dominating other people's free will is simply not what fighters are known for.
Make fighters better = Increase their Maneuverability/Threat Range/Damage/Durability/Reaction Time, etc. through things like training, schooling, increased athletic regimen.
Make fighters better =/= Give them magical abilities that aren't magic and just say "It Works!"
I don't see "Compulsion effect" defined ANYWHERE in the SRD/PRD, there is a compulsion subschool under Enchantment. However the feat is, unless mistranscribed here, mind-affecting which has explicit connotations and definitions unlike "compulsion effect."
Yeah, OK - I'm referring to the compulsion subschool of the Enchantment school. OF SPELLS. I'm not sure what the percentage is of mind-affecting abilities that aren't Su, Ex, or otherwise magical in nature, but it's a small, small percentage - because it makes no damn sense at all. That's the point.
But hey, I get where you're coming from. If this stays in as-is, it's a really, really good tool for fighter types to use against magic-users, and I'm not sure that hurts the game mechanically. It does, though, hurt the game in the realm of making any sense at all. I want to see fighter types get better, I really do. But not like this.
How is the spell vs save DC broken by my definition? Spell DCs grow at about the same rate as saves.
No, they really don't.
A save starts at 10 automatically and sort of increases by 1 at every odd level for fast advancement full casters (Wizards). For the fastest track save increase, your saving throw is 2 + 1/even level. Few classes are going to be continuously increasing their saving throw related ability, so let's look at the Cleric. A Cleric will increase their Will defense at the same rate as a Wizard increases his casting stat since Wisdom is the Cleric's casting stat.Starting at both the same casting stat - 18 (so that both save and DC goes up by 1 ever 8 levels. The Wizard has a 10 + 1 + 4 to cast a spell on the Cleric's Wisdom defense who has a saving throw mod of +2+4. That's a 9 to save. As it is in the Wizard's interest to force the target to fail the save more so than in the Cleric's interest to make it, the Wizard shall take the feat Spell Focus (whocares) increasing the DC by 1 and the Cleric will not take Iron Will or whatever the hell it is. Therefore it is a 50% chance to fail/suceed. The next feat the Wizard takes is Greater Spell Focus at level 3.
The Cleric will have a Will save of +7 at that level where the Wizard can cast a spell that requires a success of 18.
Etc etc, level 10. The Cleric has a Will save of +12 vs the Wizard's potential DC of +22. Etc etc, 20. +18 vs DC 27.
Sure. That's ~50% through 20 levels assuming they get same magic items and Cleric doesn't take Iron Will. However, that is 50% with a class that both has good Will saves and uses Wisdom as the casting stat.
Should I test how a Fighter would measure up, or even another Wizard?
Look at the comparisons on here for average success rates of spells. It varies maybe 15% over levels against average opponents and is never more than ~75% success rate.
Same Wizard, level 10. Fighter with 14 Wisdom. +5 vs a DC of 22. Yeah, that totally isn't less than a 25% success rate to succeed on the save.
I read that as 100% "non-casters can't have nice things."Well, read it however you like, I suppose. That's not what I intended, though. I am fully aware of the martial-caster disparity in the game and I'd love to see it change. But dominating other people's free will is simply not what fighters are known for.
Make fighters better = Increase their Maneuverability/Threat Range/Damage/Durability/Reaction Time, etc. through things like training, schooling, increased athletic regimen.
Make fighters better =/= Give them magical abilities that aren't magic and just say "It Works!"
Fighters are already the best at what they are designed for. That would be - killing stuff and taking punishment.
People want fighters to get cool magical stuff - like creating demiplanes, teleporting around and charming persons obviously because that make spell casters much more cool.
(yeah I am sarcastic)
Yeah, OK - I'm referring to the compulsion subschool of the Enchantment school. OF SPELLS. I'm not sure what the percentage is of mind-affecting abilities that aren't Su, Ex, or otherwise magical in nature, but it's a small, small percentage - because it makes no damn sense at all. That's the point.
Your argument is both circular and silly.
|
|
Your argument is both circular and silly.
Yeah, OK - I'm referring to the compulsion subschool of the Enchantment school. OF SPELLS. I'm not sure what the percentage is of mind-affecting abilities that aren't Su, Ex, or otherwise magical in nature, but it's a small, small percentage - because it makes no damn sense at all. That's the point.
Can you describe why it's circular? Calling it silly is irrelevent.
Can you describe why it's circular? Calling it silly is irrelevent.Your argument is both circular and silly.
Yeah, OK - I'm referring to the compulsion subschool of the Enchantment school. OF SPELLS. I'm not sure what the percentage is of mind-affecting abilities that aren't Su, Ex, or otherwise magical in nature, but it's a small, small percentage - because it makes no damn sense at all. That's the point.
It's circular because you are using the lack of such mind-affecting abilities to justify lacking mind-affecting abilities. You presented to argument why nothing makes sense. You just tried to justify your misrepresentation of an entire rules segment by pointing out status quo.
PS. EX isn't magical in nature. At all.
Fighters are already the best at what they are designed for. That would be - killing stuff and taking punishment.
People want fighters to get cool magical stuff - like creating demiplanes, teleporting around and charming persons obviously because that make spell casters much more cool.
(yeah I am sarcastic)
People wants the fighter being good at what he does. "taunt" enemies to pull them away from squishies could be a good thing, if well made (I already wrote what I think about the feat).
Fighter have poor defenses, barring AC. Unbelievably poor, in an high level magical world. This has not been addressed yet.
Melees generally have poor use of immediate actions. Fighter have few skills.
All these things are completely mundane, or "badass extraordinary" if well made (did someone remember the magic parry of Levistus, in the BoVD?). And all these things make fighters more interesting and well rounded.
People wants the fighter being good at what he does. "taunt" enemies to pull them away from squishies could be a good thing, if well made (I already wrote what I think about the feat).Fighter have poor defenses, barring AC. Unbelievably poor, in an high level magical world. This has not been addressed yet.
Melees generally have poor use of immediate actions. Fighter have few skills.
All these things are completely mundane, or "badass extraordinary" if well made (did someone remember the magic parry of Levistus, in the BoVD?). And all these things make fighters more interesting and well rounded.
Taunt enemies ala mmorpg in my best intended/honest opinion has no place in a role playing game.
And yeah, I agree that fighters should have somewhat improved defenses against magical attacks but I think that's another subject really.
All that being said, fighters are a very good combat oriented class across all levels. I don't mind improving on that class' options at all but not with feats like this.
How is the spell vs save DC broken by my definition? Spell DCs grow at about the same rate as saves.No, they really don't.
A save starts at 10 automatically and sort of increases by 1 at every odd level for fast advancement full casters (Wizards). For the fastest track save increase, your saving throw is 2 + 1/even level. Few classes are going to be continuously increasing their saving throw related ability, so let's look at the Cleric. A Cleric will increase their Will defense at the same rate as a Wizard increases his casting stat since Wisdom is the Cleric's casting stat.Starting at both the same casting stat - 18 (so that both save and DC goes up by 1 ever 8 levels. The Wizard has a 10 + 1 + 4 to cast a spell on the Cleric's Wisdom defense who has a saving throw mod of +2+4. That's a 9 to save. As it is in the Wizard's interest to force the target to fail the save more so than in the Cleric's interest to make it, the Wizard shall take the feat Spell Focus (whocares) increasing the DC by 1 and the Cleric will not take Iron Will or whatever the hell it is. Therefore it is a 50% chance to fail/suceed. The next feat the Wizard takes is Greater Spell Focus at level 3.
The Cleric will have a Will save of +7 at that level where the Wizard can cast a spell that requires a success of 18.Etc etc, level 10. The Cleric has a Will save of +12 vs the Wizard's potential DC of +22. Etc etc, 20. +18 vs DC 27.
Sure. That's ~50% through 20 levels assuming they get same magic items and Cleric doesn't take Iron Will. However, that is 50% with a class that both has good Will saves and uses Wisdom as the casting stat.
Should I test how a Fighter would measure up, or even another Wizard?Look at the comparisons on here for average success rates of spells. It varies maybe 15% over levels against average opponents and is never more than ~75% success rate.Same Wizard, level 10. Fighter with 14 Wisdom. +5 vs a DC of 22. Yeah, that totally isn't less than a...
All this barring the +5 that the Cleric will eventually get from a cloak.
Like I said, about 75% chance of success. So lets use that as my baseline:
Fighter: Base increases at 1/3, cloak 1/3 until 15, base wis is only a +1, but will likely take iron will at level ~5-9 for a +2. Will be increasing wisdom at higher levels (10+), and by level 20 will likely have a 20 wis, with a possible 22.
lvl 5: 1(class)+1(wis) vs wizard 18-20. Wizard has 75%, 85% for its focus. - So far I'm on target.
lvl 10: 3(class)+3(cloak)+2(iron will)+1(wis) =+9 vs 26 int wizard DC of 23-25. 65-75% success for wizard.
lvl 16: 5(class)+5(cloak)+2(Iron will)+3(wis)=+15 vs 30 int wizard DC of 28-30. 60-70% success for the wizard
lvl 20: 6(class)+5(cloak)+2 Iron will+5 wis=17 vs 36 int wizard DC32-34. 70-80% success for the wizard.
This is assuming the fighter doesn't take improved iron will, which manny builds do, and the wizard is starting with a 20 int, which many do not.
edit: corrected math errors.
People wants the fighter being good at what he does. "taunt" enemies to pull them away from squishies could be a good thing, if well made (I already wrote what I think about the feat).Fighter have poor defenses, barring AC. Unbelievably poor, in an high level magical world. This has not been addressed yet.
Melees generally have poor use of immediate actions. Fighter have few skills.
All these things are completely mundane, or "badass extraordinary" if well made (did someone remember the magic parry of Levistus, in the BoVD?). And all these things make fighters more interesting and well rounded.
Taunt enemies ala mmorpg in my best intended/honest opinion has no place in a role playing game.
And yeah, I agree that fighters should have somewhat improved defenses against magical attacks but I think that's another subject really.
All that being said, fighters are a very good combat oriented class across all levels. I don't mind improving on that class' options at all but not with feats like this.
Is not another subject. Changes like that happens when people realize what mean being an extraordinary hero.
Now, I hate ****crap or stuff not making sense, but a legenday taunter makes sense to me. Is not a matter of MMORPG. Is a matter of "how do I protect the weker members of the party?"
Myself, always killed the enemy first or used polerarms. Combat patrol fighters or monk, or cavalier have nice options too. Paladin spells in APG. But I would not condemnt the feat beforehand - regardless the actual ruling which can be good or bad.
Well fixed, this feat could be the "door", the "pathfinder" for a lot of deeds extraordinaire.
Same Wizard, level 10. Fighter with 14 Wisdom. +5 vs a DC of 22. Yeah, that totally
How high is the int score of the fighter in this example?
Taunt enemies ala mmorpg in my best intended/honest opinion has no place in a role playing game.
People wants the fighter being good at what he does. "taunt" enemies to pull them away from squishies could be a good thing, if well made (I already wrote what I think about the feat).Fighter have poor defenses, barring AC. Unbelievably poor, in an high level magical world. This has not been addressed yet.
Melees generally have poor use of immediate actions. Fighter have few skills.
All these things are completely mundane, or "badass extraordinary" if well made (did someone remember the magic parry of Levistus, in the BoVD?). And all these things make fighters more interesting and well rounded.
You're not allowed to taunt people? The most realistic thing some one could possibly do in Pathfinder should not be there because it is a staple of MMORPGs?
How high is the int score of the fighter in this example?
Same Wizard, level 10. Fighter with 14 Wisdom. +5 vs a DC of 22. Yeah, that totally
How high is his int-doesn't-apply-to-Will-saves score?
All this barring the +5 that the Cleric will eventually get from a cloak.
Like I said, about 75% chance of success. So lets use that as my baseline:
Fighter: Base increases at 1/3, cloak 1/3 until 15, base wis is only a +1, but will likely take iron will at level ~5-9 for a +2. Will be increasing wisdom at higher levels (10+), and by level 20 will likely have a 20 wis, with a possible 22.
lvl 5: 1(class)+1(wis) vs wizard 18-20. Wizard has 75%, 85% for its focus. - So far I'm on target.
lvl 10: 3(class)+3(cloak)+2(iron will)+1(wis) =+9 vs 26 int wizard DC of 23-25. 65-75% success for wizard.
lvl 16: 5(class)+5(cloak)+2(Iron will)+3(wis)=+15 vs 30 int wizard DC of 28-30. 60-70% success for the wizard
lvl 20: 6(class)+5(cloak)+2 Iron will+5 wis=17 vs 36 int wizard DC32-34. 70-80% success for the wizard.
This is assuming the fighter doesn't take improved iron will, which manny builds do, and the wizard is starting with a 20 int, which many do not.edit: corrected math errors.
Firstly, I would like to point out that any and all arguments based on increasing the save are heretofore used against your argument against the Antagonize feat with a Will save change.
but will likely take iron will at level ~5-9 for a +2
Why?
Will be increasing wisdom at higher levels (10+), and by level 20 will likely have a 20 wis, with a possible 22.
Lolwhat? And why?
This is assuming the fighter doesn't take improved iron will, which manny builds do
What builds? The "Builds I am making up specifically for this exercise in stubbornness"?
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.
Save vs Skill Check. What is this, Game Design Failure 101?
Save vs Skill Check. What is this, Game Design Failure 101?
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.
So if I search this thread, I will find you antagonizing the developers for having an even worse system in place?
All this barring the +5 that the Cleric will eventually get from a cloak.
Like I said, about 75% chance of success. So lets use that as my baseline:
Fighter: Base increases at 1/3, cloak 1/3 until 15, base wis is only a +1, but will likely take iron will at level ~5-9 for a +2. Will be increasing wisdom at higher levels (10+), and by level 20 will likely have a 20 wis, with a possible 22.
lvl 5: 1(class)+1(wis) vs wizard 18-20. Wizard has 75%, 85% for its focus. - So far I'm on target.
lvl 10: 3(class)+3(cloak)+2(iron will)+1(wis) =+9 vs 26 int wizard DC of 23-25. 65-75% success for wizard.
lvl 16: 5(class)+5(cloak)+2(Iron will)+3(wis)=+15 vs 30 int wizard DC of 28-30. 60-70% success for the wizard
lvl 20: 6(class)+5(cloak)+2 Iron will+5 wis=17 vs 36 int wizard DC32-34. 70-80% success for the wizard.
This is assuming the fighter doesn't take improved iron will, which manny builds do, and the wizard is starting with a 20 int, which many do not.edit: corrected math errors.
Firstly, I would like to point out that any and all arguments based on increasing the save are heretofore used against your argument against the Antagonize feat with a Will save change.
but will likely take iron will at level ~5-9 for a +2Why?
Will be increasing wisdom at higher levels (10+), and by level 20 will likely have a 20 wis, with a possible 22.Lolwhat? And why?
This is assuming the fighter doesn't take improved iron will, which manny builds doWhat builds? The "Builds I am making up specifically for this exercise in stubbornness"?
Have you read a single fighter build thread on these boards since you joined? Try to find one that doesn't have Iron Will in it and doesn't have people recommending that the fighter take it. Many, many of those also follow it up with improved iron will by arround level 13, many sooner.
As for the fighter increasing will after level 10: because he can and because it sures up his weakness. Look at high level fighter builds here. They almost universally start raising will after ~lvl 10 by buying inherrent bonuses and investing in a headband. Its makes up an insignificant fraction of their wbl and prevents exactly what you are complaining about.
So if I search this thread, I will find you antagonizing the developers for having an even worse system in place?Save vs Skill Check. What is this, Game Design Failure 101?
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.
Yes, but I don't see them in here claiming it is fixed.
How high is his int-doesn't-apply-to-Will-saves score?
:D
I suggest you to focus your attacks. This one was SUPPORTING your argument.
If the fighter wants a trip build, improved reposition and stuff, needs int 13+. How many stats can you dump? can you afford a decent wisdom?
This was the point. Discuss things in a vacuum is useless. What are the stats used in play?
Moreover, does the sve DC stuff consider persistent spell?
Have you read a single fighter build thread on these boards since you joined? Try to find one that doesn't have Iron Will in it and doesn't have people recommending that the fighter take it. Many, many of those also follow it up with improved iron will by arround level 13, many sooner.
No, I haven't. But let's say one takes Iron Will and Improved Iron Will. They still end up with less bonus to Will saves than a class with good Will saves.
As for the fighter increasing will after level 10: because he can and because it sures up his weakness.
As opposed to increasing his strength (Strength or Dex) to be able to hit things in a game where ACs become increasingly high? Increasing his HP in a game where armor quickly becomes increasingly irrelevant unless you are a caster (ironically)? Sure, Wisdom is better than Cha or Int. But only after Str, Con, and Dex.
They almost universally start raising will after ~lvl 10 by buying inherrent bonuses and investing in a headband. Its makes up an insignificant fraction of their wbl and prevents exactly what you are complaining about.
Then they, therefore, cannot increase their saves faster than a Wizard can increase his DC for spells making those increases irrelevant. The only relevant increase is the +5 from the Cloak and +2 from Iron Will.
PS. The Fighter doesn't get a class bonus. No one is trying to scare him with Charm or Compulsion spells, so go ahead and subtract everything labeled (class)
How high is his int-doesn't-apply-to-Will-saves score?:D
I suggest you to focus your attacks. This one was SUPPORTING your argument.
If the fighter wants a trip build, improved reposition and stuff, needs int 13+. How many stats can you dump? can you afford a decent wisdom?
This was the point. Discuss things in a vacuum is useless. What are the stats used in play?
Moreover, does the sve DC stuff consider persistent spell?
I was purposefully being generous with a 14 starting Wisdom. I realized that the character is probably not going into Tripping builds. Even with a dumped Charisma.
419+ posts is too many to wade through.
However, a few points if they've not already been made:
The Intimidate check to demoralize is still a mind-affecting fear effect. Anything that aids in resisting fear / emotion effects works against both demoralize and antagonize. Remove Fear stops all fear effects cold when promptly addressed. Iron Will, various traits, class features, racial traits, resistance bonuses and feats - let alone spells and the benefits of certain creature types - either aid in thwarting these effects or ignore them completely.
Antagonize needs minor errata, which has already been nicely covered in this thread. I concur that the emotional rage induced by Intimidate is intended to direct the antagonized foe's hostile intent squarely upon that character, with the double-edged benefit of drawing such foe's ire at its strongest capability. Antagonize a dragon, prepare to suffer the consequences.
It has many uses though - among them providing an awesome method to draw a BBEG's attention away from your fellow squishies. For that alone I applaud the feat.
I was purposefully being generous with a 14 starting Wisdom. I realized that the character is probably not going into Tripping builds. Even with a dumped Charisma.
How high is his int-doesn't-apply-to-Will-saves score?:D
I suggest you to focus your attacks. This one was SUPPORTING your argument.
If the fighter wants a trip build, improved reposition and stuff, needs int 13+. How many stats can you dump? can you afford a decent wisdom?
This was the point. Discuss things in a vacuum is useless. What are the stats used in play?
Moreover, does the sve DC stuff consider persistent spell?
This was the point. Did someone addressed persistent spell?
not yet.
And I can't wait seeing an errata for this feat with a charisma requirement.
So, a S&B "tank" fighter can become more MAD than monk :D
The Intimidate check to demoralize is still a mind-affecting fear effect. Anything that aids in resisting fear / emotion effects works against both demoralize and antagonize.
As written, they don't because, as written, it isn't a saving throw.
My proposed change is the most minor while making the most improvement.
The Intimidate check to demoralize is still a mind-affecting fear effect. Anything that aids in resisting fear / emotion effects works against both demoralize and antagonize.As written, they don't because, as written, it isn't a saving throw.
My proposed change is the most minor while making the most improvement.
It does not have to be a saving throw - although I'm not familiar with your proposal, I suspect it is pretty straightforward.
When I set Intimidate DCs, I add in Iron Will, resistance, et al mentioned previously because the Intimidate DC - in my eyes - is "taking 10" on the roll to oppose the Antagonize or Demoralize effect on behalf of the target. Much like the DC to Feint in combat "takes 10" on the Sense Motive or (BAB + WIS) check on behalf of the target.
Creatures immune to fear cannot be demoralized as far as I'm concerned. Similarly, those benefiting from some form of immunity to mind-affecting effects (for what ever reason) won't care about Antagonize.
And a bard could countersong the effect too ... or at least should be able to, since Antagonize is a language-dependant effect.
When I set Intimidate DCs, I add in Iron Will, resistance, et al mentioned previously because the Intimidate DC - in my eyes
Let me stop your homebrew train right there.
since Antagonize is a language-dependant effect.
Again, not as written. Language is important, but it isn't tagged as language-dependent.
Let me stop your homebrew train right there.since Antagonize is a language-dependant effect.Again, not as written. Language is important, but it isn't tagged as language-dependent.
Incorrect - as written Antagonize REQUIRES that the target be able to understand what you are saying and have an Int of 4+. This is not homebrew. You may have to use tongues to get it to work, but the requirement is written plain as day in the feat's description.
"You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower." and "This is a mind-affecting effect." - UM p 143.
These sentences mean that Antagonize is a mind-affecting (language-dependant, sonic) [emotion] effect. With all that these descriptors carry with them.
The Intimidate check to demoralize is still a mind-affecting fear effect. Anything that aids in resisting fear / emotion effects works against both demoralize and antagonize.As written, they don't because, as written, it isn't a saving throw.
My proposed change is the most minor while making the most improvement.
It does not have to be a saving throw - although I'm not familiar with your proposal, I suspect it is pretty straightforward.
When I set Intimidate DCs, I add in Iron Will, resistance, et al mentioned previously because the Intimidate DC - in my eyes - is "taking 10" on the roll to oppose the Antagonize or Demoralize effect on behalf of the target. Much like the DC to Feint in combat "takes 10" on the Sense Motive or (BAB + WIS) check on behalf of the target.
Creatures immune to fear cannot be demoralized as far as I'm concerned. Similarly, those benefiting from some form of immunity to mind-affecting effects (for what ever reason) won't care about Antagonize.
And a bard could countersong the effect too ... or at least should be able to, since Antagonize is a language-dependant effect.
Unfortunately, all of those are house rules. Very solid and understandable house rules, but house rules. Which is one of my major issues with this feat.
OK so many people on this thread have interpreted this phrase The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it as meaning if attacking the antagonizer would provoke an AOO then the effect ends. So what if the mage simply has no weapon and does not have the improved unarmed strike feat. Then attacking the antagonizer provokes from the Antagonizer and ends the effect. I think we have just populated the world with unarmed mages.
EDITED REPLY:
The feat itself says it is a mind-affecting effect (and thus has that descriptor).
Language-dependant means that the effect "uses intelligible language as a medium for communication. If the target cannot [hear or understand] what the caster of a language-dependant spell says, the spell fails." Since this feat requires an Int of 4+ and that the target be able to understand what the Antagonizer is saying to sway their emotions, it is a mind-affecting (language-dependant) effect. Yes the feat is not a spell, but it is certainly as or more powerful than most spells. It certainly deserves to be treated as such in terms of descriptors.
Language-dependant effects are stopped by silence as are sonic effects. I can see (after reviewing on my end) that it may or may not be a sonic effect. The feat is definitely a language-dependant effect.
The Antagonize feat also manipulates emotions in two ways - one via Diplomacy, the other via Intimidate. Thus it is an [emotion] effect.
This may be considered a house rule - if it is, so be it. The way the feat's effects are worded lead me to believe it is firmly a mind-affecting (language-dependant) [emotion] effect. That it is not explicitly stated as such does not mean that the mechanisms of the feat don't attach the descriptors in question.
And yes, it is kinda sad that the feat has to be "house ruled" in order to match up with what it does. But there we have it.
OK so many people on this thread have interpreted this phrase The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it as meaning if attacking the antagonizer would provoke an AOO then the effect ends. So what if the mage simply has no weapon and does not have the improved unarmed strike feat. Then attacking the antagonizer provokes from the Antagonizer and ends the effect. I think we have just populated the world with unarmed mages.
or using a wand as an improvised weapon?
Big fan of calling this taunt "realistic".
It's stolen from MMOs. Which used it to poorly ape tabletop. It's not a bad mechanic in a game such as WoW, which has "tanks". Of course, it still doesn't specify melee even there.
Here's how this works in reality: a bank robber taunts the cop, who runs forward to pistol whip him (from 50 feet away, leaving his cover), and gets gunned down. Repeat on each cop.
It's the opposite of realistic. It doesn't even have the saving grace of magic to explain it, either.
It gets less and less realistic with every cop/spellcaster after the first that is forced to fall for it.
"Don't do it Bob! You saw what happened to Pete!"
"Can't help it, Bill! He insulted me Mah!"
*Bob runs out and dies*
"Hey Bill! Is that really your name? Man, the kids at school must have had a heyday with that one! Let me guess, you had a nick name back then? Was it Billy the Goat?"
"I'll kill you Bad Guy!"
*Bill runs out and dies*
So. Stupid.
|
|
It's stolen from MMOs. Which used it to poorly ape tabletop..
This particular thing isn't stolen from MMOs, though. Its almost a word for word transcription from a 2nd Edition spell called Taunt. I cited it on the last page. I'm on an iPad right now so I'm not going to link to it, but that is definitively where it comes from.
It made sense in 2nd Edition, when mages could warp the fabric of reality to achieve it. It does not make sense in its current application as a feat. It's as simple as that, really. I think Cartigan is the only one still even arguing the point, and I'm reasonably sure he's just trolling at this point anyway. He likes to argue just for argument sometimes, which I actually can respect. This is pretty cut and dried, though. It's barely even a matter of opinion anymore.
Can you describe why it's circular? Calling it silly is irrelevent.Your argument is both circular and silly.
Yeah, OK - I'm referring to the compulsion subschool of the Enchantment school. OF SPELLS. I'm not sure what the percentage is of mind-affecting abilities that aren't Su, Ex, or otherwise magical in nature, but it's a small, small percentage - because it makes no damn sense at all. That's the point.It's circular because you are using the lack of such mind-affecting abilities to justify lacking mind-affecting abilities. You presented to argument why nothing makes sense. You just tried to justify your misrepresentation of an entire rules segment by pointing out status quo.
PS. EX isn't magical in nature. At all.
I got bogged down with actual work at work and didn't have time to respond to this, but I accept that evaluation of what I said as accurate. It was a weak statement on my behalf.
With that said, however, I really don't think that the designers intended to completely change the metagame when they wrote this one feat. As written, it's absolutely a must-have feat for fighters of almost any level, and that's not the type of feat you want to put in a splatbook, let alone one aimed at magic-users. As I said earlier, if you want to make fighters better, make them better at fighting in some way. Don't give them magical mind affecting abilities which are most comparable to somthing out of the Compulsion subschool but that somehow aren't magical at all and then say "It just works that way".
As for not presenting an argument as to why it doesn't make sense as written, I really didn't think I had to. Not only is it obvious why it doesn't make any sense, but I think you know it doesn't make sense already. It's pretty much self-evident, and you're not a dumb dude. But just to be clear: nothing short of being magically compelled (yes, magically) should cause a caster to attack with a melee weapon if his player doesn't want to do it. There is no precedent for it in any version of the game, and if I close my eyes and imagine it happening I suddenly feel more stupid for having done so and I immediately feel as though I need to take a long, hot bath and have a good cry.
If that's circular - and in a way it is, yes - I guess that's just something I'm going to have to live with.
So if I search this thread, I will find you antagonizing the developers for having an even worse system in place?
And I didn't even take ranks in intimidate. :(
But to be a little more constructive: If you wanted to give it a save DC, how about using the basic formula of 10 + half character level + relevant ability (charisma?)?
If you want the check result to mean something, you could, say, add a bonus to the DC for every five points you beat an opposing sense motive check, or something. Heck, you could even have an opposed roll the way feint does. Because it's helluva hard to provoke someone enough for them to do something that stupid while in a life or death situation.
But that's getting awfully complex. Personally, I think the intimidate part should just be completely rewritten and brought in line with what feats actually do. There is no way Antagonize compares to a +1 dodge bonus.
OK so many people on this thread have interpreted this phrase The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it as meaning if attacking the antagonizer would provoke an AOO then the effect ends. So what if the mage simply has no weapon and does not have the improved unarmed strike feat. Then attacking the antagonizer provokes from the Antagonizer and ends the effect. I think we have just populated the world with unarmed mages.or using a wand as an improvised weapon?
Only if the wizard has Catch Off-Guard or Improvised Weapon Mastery. Otherwise no. Not even barbarians that are raging engage in combat with non-proficient weapons unless they have no choice.
Big fan of calling this taunt "realistic".
It's stolen from MMOs. Which used it to poorly ape tabletop. It's not a bad mechanic in a game such as WoW, which has "tanks". Of course, it still doesn't specify melee even there.
Here's how this works in reality: a bank robber taunts the cop, who runs forward to pistol whip him (from 50 feet away, leaving his cover), and gets gunned down. Repeat on each cop.
It's the opposite of realistic. It doesn't even have the saving grace of magic to explain it, either.
It gets less and less realistic with every cop/spellcaster after the first that is forced to fall for it.
"Don't do it Bob! You saw what happened to Pete!"
"Can't help it, Bill! He insulted me Mah!"
*Bob runs out and dies*
"Hey Bill! Is that really your name? Man, the kids at school must have had a heyday with that one! Let me guess, you had a nick name back then? Was it Billy the Goat?"
"I'll kill you Bad Guy!"
*Bill runs out and dies*
So. Stupid.
I laughed really hard reading this... and sadly this is true, the feat clearly doesn't work as intended (the situation above is too much absurd).
I personally agree with the people who say that the DC should be 10 + modifiers (instead of 5 + modifiers) AND allow for ANY kind of attack against the 'taunter', not merely melee ones; otherwise it would only lead to madness...
Just my 2c.
With that said, however, I really don't think that the designers intended to completely change the metagame when they wrote this one feat. As written, it's absolutely a must-have feat for fighters of almost any level, and that's not the type of feat you want to put in a splatbook, let alone one aimed at magic-users. As I said earlier, if you want to make fighters better, make them better at fighting in some way.
As written, it has issues. However, there are two points against your argument that every Fighter would take it. (1) Everyone's argument against it is entirely based on a Half-Orc Inquisitor Intimidation monster and (2) Minor changes, say my proposal, would fix the issue.
Don't give them magical mind affecting abilities which are most comparable to somthing out of the Compulsion subschool but that somehow aren't magical at all and then say "It just works that way".
I'm not going to accept at any point an argument that X class shouldn't have ability Y because they can't cast spells and I think this ability should be limited to spell casters. Why don't we cut out the middleman and just toss non-casting classes altogether?
PS. Enchantment is NOT the only mind-affecting spell school. Your argument is again hampered by misrepresentation of the rules and an obvious bias towards the status quo.
Hey that think just negate invisiility... Fight begin no surprise round, Wizard has the initiative, cast invisibility and move, Fighter taunt, wizard cannot buff himself or summon a monster... No, no he has to go and hit the guy and poof the invisibility...
It may or may not be a good thing but still... there's also the :
- "Aaaargh we're outnumbered 3 to 1 !!! Let's flee !!!"
- "We can't they're going to Antagonize us and instead of fleeing we will have to go straight to them..."
- "Erf, almost forgotten, well guys, it was nice to know you... yeaaarg" (PS : the last word is a cry of death ;) )
Mmmh this one is really a bad idea ;)
This is OBVIOUSLY why we need Prestige Classes. You think we would be having this "Fighter's shouldn't be able to make people attack them!" argument if this was a Fighter Prestige Class with Antagonize as a class ability? No. Just stick an SP or SU (or even EX apparently) on it, and everyone goes "Oh, it's magic. Ok" and shuts right up.
This is OBVIOUSLY why we need Prestige Classes. You think we would be having this "Fighter's shouldn't be able to make people attack them!" argument if this was a Fighter Prestige Class with Antagonize as a class ability? No. Just stick an SP or SU (or even EX apparently) on it, and everyone goes "Oh, it's magic. Ok" and shuts right up.
Well make it a fighter only feat with charisma prerequisite would be enough for my part... ;)
But as now it's a feat without pre-req. open to everybody... I don't like it like that...
So I think I'm going to houserule it for fighter and monk only feat... Maybe for rogue don't know yet... ;)
PS : almost forgot the 13, 14 or 15 Cha pre-req. yeah that'll do it... :p
A Gandalf version:
"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Yo momma so fat!"
Stupid, stupid feat.
With out the yo momma so fat on the end its still a taunt. Hes saying im really powerful and awesome. Your flames suck. Im am just so much cool then you are. The bad guy was like " what! Crazy old man goin down." Melee attack incoming!
Anyway , I dont see what the fuss is about. They have to have int of 3 or greater. So no animals , undead or constructs. They have to be able to understand you. Hope you put points in Linguistics fighter and didnt dump cha. Either way , you get one a day per guy pass or fail. Suck it up.