|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hello!
This is a request for the development team:
Could someone explain the Antagonize feat from Ultimate Magic to me? The "Intimidate" use seems incredibly powerful as written, and may be missing some language..?
The general text says:
No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 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 Intimidate checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn.
...and the "Intimidate" use says:
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).
This effect seems unbelievably good for obvious reasons. It's language-dependant crowd control that can command a 20-HD lich or sorcerer - even an airborne one - with a DC 20 skill check (assuming a neutral Wisdom modifier on the BBEG) to jump into a fatally disadvantageous scenario. A first-level character with 1 rank, a +3 trained bonus, a +3 ability score bonus, and a +2 racial, class, feat, or trait bonus can hit this DC on a roll of 11. That's a fifty-percent success rate, and that's just a first-level character. Plus I can take a swift action to double my Charisma bonus on the check.
The formula for the DC seems like it's just missing a "10". As in: "10 + HD + Wisdom modifier." That's typically the formula for the DC of most abilities. Is that the case here? Is this a simple typo?
Plus, the Intimidate version of this ability seems quite powerful compared to the Diplomacy version. Is the DC (assuming there is a typo there) the only thing missing from this feat's text? Causing high-end ranged or spellcasting monsters and NPCs to "fly into a rage" with a quick line of dialogue seems like a tough thing to "describe" as a GM... especially if it's used a lot, or used repeatedly on the same NPC in different encounters. Plus, I can waste the BBEG's turn by backing out of his movement range (if I can) after firing this off, and using an immediate action to refresh the effect for one round. I can't double my Charisma bonus this time, but the DC is still a guaranteed success.
The feat has no prerequisites, either, so this is something all my melee-oriented BBEGs and minions will want, because it'll let me waste spellcasting and archery-focused PCs turns and time without a Will save. If multiple minions have this ability, I can tie up the PCs for most or all of the encounter. It's such a good feat investment, I can't imagine a melee-oriented character that wouldn't want it.
As far as I can tell (and forgive me if I'm wrong), no devs have advised the fanbase on this issue and no currently-prevelant threads address this question, so please help if you can, devs! Even if all you have to tell me is "we're aware of this and working on it," I'd love to know that this is (or is not) a typo or error.
Thanks!
Yeah, you`re wrong, SKR commented in the original thread,
if not at length (i.e. what the exact ultimate solution is), he said the ability shouldn`t force melee as the means of engagement,
along with the thread in general already raising the obvious discrepancy of the missing 10+.
Maybe they will issue a temporary FAQ, maybe people will have to wait until Printing 2 for Errata like all the other Errata, but Paizo is aware of it.
Easy house-rule fix based on obvious stuff on SKR`s comment:
Use the normal base 10. Only force offensive action vs. Antagonizer, with no specification as to means (i.e. melee, ranged, spells), just that it is offensive action (i.e. no casting Invisibility or Wall Spells that don`t do damage, etc). Don`t force stupid interpretatoins of movement, go with what facilitates a reasonable exhortatoin to take offensive action vs. Antagonizer and doesn`t allow defensive/retreat options.
Yes, I accept donations for Paizo-substitute Errata rulings :-)
Probably nit picky but it wouldn't work on a 20 hd lich or any other type of lich. but beyond that quandary's suggestions seem god.
And this is going beyond the minimum fix, but I would consider SWITCHING the skills used for each effect:
DIPLOMACY is used to goad people to attack you (normally Diplomats avoid getting people angry, but their expertise in avoiding that can also apply for the reverse), INTIMIDATE applies the ASF% and other effects (and I would just tack that on to the NORMAL use of Intimidate, i.e. Shaken... This effect is the weaker of the two options IMHO, and could reasonably have MORE synergy than the current RAW) ...Or possibly just make both options usable by either Diplomacy or Intimidate.
I would limit the effect to Intimidate actions that are ONLY effecting an Intimidate check (i.e. normal, Dazzling Display, alternate modes like Barbarian Roar... but not `free Intimidate` effects tacked onto/ triggered by other actions, like Intimidate on Crit, etc...)
BTW, Thug Rogue`s ability to cause Fear instead of Shaken with Intimidate attempts which win by 5+ is already an existing strong application of Intimidate... The `goad` ability of Antagonize is/should be (when fixed, as above) roughly on-par with that effect IMHO. (and the beating by 5 aspect would be reasonable to patch into Antagonize, along with the standard base 10 DC)
There are other issues with Intimidate, which already affect things like Thug Rogues` Intimidate to Fear, and I believe it would be reasonable to apply Save bonus vs. Fear... Which along with needing to beat a base 15 DC (effectively), seems more than reasonable in terms of difficulty (if they don`t exceed the DC by 5, the action shouldn`t be wasted, you just gain the benefits of a normal Intimidate or Diplomacy).
Creative Director
|
First off... it's the day after PaizoCon and the well-feared con crud looks like it's skeletonized the department. I know Jason's out sick today... so it might be a bit before we recover from the show to get back up to posting speed.
I'll leave the actual rules talk to the designers, but in the meantime, if you feel something's overpowered... by all means, talk with your GM about adjusting the rule (or if you're the GM, just adjust things yourself).
I personally feel like Antagonize is probably unintentionally overpowered and maybe a bit overcomplicated (there's a lot of checks and on-the-fly calculations you have to make to get the feat off the ground).
As for the effects themselves, they seem VERY good to me, and I'd probably do some house ruling to the feat if I allowed it into my game. At the very least, I'd probably give antagonized foes a Will save to resist it. I'd probably also give the feat a lot of pretty tough prerequisites—I'm actually okay with it being a high-level effect that you can only get by stepping through several hoops.
In any event... with books like Ultimate Magic, we're adding a LOT of new rules to the game. Just because some of those new rules and options aren't specifically called out as "OPTIONAL RULES" (like the Words of Power), in fact ALL of the rules in these books are optional. The GM doesn't have to let anything in he doesn't want in his game. That's not cheating at all, but it IS polite as the GM to let folks know if something's not gonna be allowed before the players get excited about using it...
|
SKR reference, the very first post listed when I search his posts for ´attack force melee´....
Easy to find if you know what word he use. Impossible to find if you search "antagonize" in SKR posts.
Thanks.
I hope Jason is only suffering from the classical "after convention" mix of fatigue, mild headache and aphonia.
Having worked in the organization of some big convention (at least for me 1.500-2.000 players is a big convention) I know how fatiguing it can be.
I hope you guys at least aren't required to help placing and removing tables and chairs beside working during the convention.
The speed at which they acknowledge rules issues isn't my concern. My problem is the speed of fixing the problem. All it takes is about 10 minutes reading a thread, discussing it at the office, and then putting out errata.
Personally, I wish they had, instead of PDFs, a separate link to a site with all the errata. That way they can update the errata on the fly and with speed and ease, instead of posting up another PDF every few months while they wait for errata to collect.
|
|
Personally, I wish they had, instead of PDFs, a separate link to a site with all the errata. That way they can update the errata on the fly and with speed and ease, instead of posting up another PDF every few months while they wait for errata to collect.
Go to the relevant product on the Paizo page, check FAQ. You will find the errata.
Example Advanced Player Guide errata.
Simply making errata isn't so simple when you are speaking of game mechanics.
You should check what was the initial intention and what has gone wrong and (to translate a saying of my native land) if the "patch isn't worse than the hole".
Sometime a problem is visible only after the players point out how some combination of powers make something overpowered. Changing it in a way to keep it usable while at the same time avoiding the overpowered combination isn't easy.
|
Creative Director
|
I hope you guys at least aren't required to help placing and removing tables and chairs beside working during the convention.
There was a little of that at PaizoCon—mostly moving boxes of product and setting up shelves and all that.
Gen Con's the big menace when it comes to boot set-up and tear-down. Not fun.