I would still like to see this feat simply apply penalties unless the target focuses on or avoids the antagonizer (for the Diplomacy and Intimidate effects respectively). That way, it would have utility both on and off the battle field. It would actually become a useful tool in RP situations instead of being a gimmick to initiate combat anytime anywhere.
A feat with no prerequisites simply forcing an escalation from talking all the way to murder-death-kill in one turn is simply ridiculous. Now worsening someone's attitude towards you with each successful check? That at least is more believable. In that case once you get them to hostile I can see the whole "forcing an attack" thing to be viable.
Perhaps Antagonize should have no/limited effect unless the target is already hostile or has already been made hostile.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the wording of Antagonize, I believe simply not forcing the attack to be melee is a sufficient fix, considering the +10 to DC that has already been added. But in that case, it definitely should force the attack to be the most damaging one available to the target, and if melee is chosen the most direct path possible, barring stupid things like passing trough a wall of fire, a spike trap or a line of pikemen (passing trough a few enemies ready to AoO is fine tough, and logical, as those possible attacks are not so much of an obvious hazard).
It's just so easy to come up with situations where Antagonize, even with a "use your best attack instead of melee" change, creates an utterly ridiculous and immersion breaking scenario.
Brad the Antipaldin shows up in town with small horde of his fanatically loyal goblin friends. Who are all first level warriors with Antagonize. The PCs bravely sally forth to do battle with the miscreant when a chorus of goblin voices start taunting them. Each party member is forced to destroy a goblin each round while Brad kills all the children in the orphanage for his dark masters.
I don't have a problem with nonmagical battlefield control. Combat Patrol is a good example of a feat that does that well. A feat that a first level character can take that gives you unlimited uses of a (limited) compulsion effect, as long as you keep switching targets, is not good. Forcing any thinking being to attack you, no matter what the circumstances or situation, just doesn't sit well with me.
And yes, I have a problem with nomagical ways to break the rules of reality/physics. Breaking those rules is what magic does. That's why it's magic.
I'm sorry buddy, but you are just plain wrong about casters being more powerful now. Just gonna name a few spells here to try and prove a point.
Sleep - No Save
Hold Metal - No Save
Otto's Irresistable Dance - No Save
Stone Skin - IMUNITY to a number of attacks (Lasts until used)So, back to topic.
I do believe warriors need nice things (not the fighter alone, I think he is powerful enough) but a feat like this is not the way to go, as explained earlier.
Sleep - elves and half-elves basically immune, useless against anyone over level 4.
Hold Metal? Or Heat Metal? Heat metal, crappy damage over many rounds to no real effect. Combat was done by the time it actually did a lot of dmg.Otto's Dance - the mage had to hit the target.
Stone Skin - Throwing a bunch of pebbles at the target wiped the stone skins. An Ice storm or hail storm cancelled them all. Each hit by a magic missile burned one up.
There were ways around all of that. And of course people missed the diamond dust you had to burn on stoneskin all the time.
Also, if a mage had stoneskin and got hit by an attack, it didn't actually have to do dmg to disrupt the spell still.
===Aelryinth
Hold Metal, it's a rare spell.
Of course there were ways around that, there were ways around everything.
But magic was WAY more powerful, many no save spells, lot's of spells with saves but DEATH instead of suck, which is way easier to circunvent.
I'm saying all this from experience, I play second edition still, and pathfinder, we are WAY more scared from second edition casters than Pathfinder ones.
The point is, making a non-sense feat to "fix" this, is a bad decision. Of course, there are many things I disagree also, like many fighter only feats.
I just don't see casters today as the all powerful entities they were before.
|
Imagine a game of chess where a different person controls every piece - now tell me, would you prefer to play a pawn, likely dead at the opening or sacrificed later on, or the Queen, likely in there until the very end of the game?
Better comparison, please.
A few things: First, pawns are analogous to summoned monsters or CR 1/3 - 1/2 mooks in this storybook. They are not analogous to, for example, 10th level fighters that are tough as heck and in possesion of about a half million feats.
Second, all the attention and pressure is on the Queen. If she enters the battlefield at all, she's a target. If she positions herself poorly, a feeding frenzy develops. If there's any chance whatsoever to take her out, it's done instantly and with extreme prejudice. Queens are actually frequently captured. Capturing them is a much higher priority then capturing knights, for example. This is not a role that appeals to all players. I get that the perception is that it DOES appeal to all players (because of the power!), but that's a fallacy. Even among Chess players, some players devalue the Queen based on an opponent's anticipated desire to go to any lengths - even to a fault - to capture Her.
Not everyone wants to play a Wizard. My comparison is fine, you just don't choose to accept it, which is OK! I'm reasonably sure most of the other people reading will understand just fine.
Why not go with the obvious change:
The target must attack or otherwise directly harm the antagonizer (apply the same rules to "attack" and "harm" as are used to determine if you stay invisible.
Casters can cast, archers can arch; and that is plenty enough control over the battlefield.
I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force a caster to do something he would do anyway, read: try to take me out with a spell? I'd much prefer to draw a bow and ready for casting, that at least gives me some chance to disrupt the spell?
I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force an archer to do something he would do anyway, read: full attack me with ranged? I'd much prefer to close the distance ASAP so I can actually hurt him.
I'm a Fighter, what's the point of me blowing a standard action to *maybe* force a melee to do something he would do anyway, read: charge me? I'd much prefer to either get in there myself first or ready something against the advancing foe.
Ah, I remember. Fighters Can't Have Nice Things.
I never play casters. Or ranged combatants. So I am all for melees getting a good leg-up. But an easy feat that forces adjacency on anybody is silly. Maybe at the end of a difficult feat chain.
There is *plenty* of incentive to force a caster/ranged combatant to focus on *you* for a round rather than other things. Both in-combat and outside. A single feat shouldn't do more than that.
Why should you make the big bad caster angry at you specifically? Because you are part of a whole party. Maybe you need to make sure that somebody doesn't get coup-de-graced, or maybe you want to have the guy try to dominate you (playing a monk) instead of the weak-willed fighter.
Under no circumstances should the feat be an easy option to make anybody drop their common sense and march right up to the fighter. The last thing I want to see is fighters spending their *standard* action to antagonize just so they wont have to move to enemies and let them come to them instead. What rubbish.
Ummm... and if I am not a caster... do I get the spell suddenly? :)Nope, you have to leave the battle, find a mage or priest to train you, learn how to cast spells, and then come back and cast a spell on your opponent.
Yes, it's that absurd.
Wait wait wait... this thing forces me to do all that and then return to the field to cast Ray of Frost? :)
EDIT: Is this thing actually making me take a level in spellcasting class if I don't have any yet? :oD
I'm ok with the feat - just base it on a save, and force ANY kind of attack.
or at least, Force ANY kind of attack, even with no save. Is even very easy to edit, too ;)
IMHO is a godd thing mind affecting being martial too (fears are from core) just keep it logic and not too much gamebreaking :)
Someone remarked that the skill check requirement was enough of a fix. If you fall in this camp, please do some quick math. Skill checks scale much faster than hit die due primarily to the +3 bonus for class skills and an increasing ability score bonus. The problem becomes worse if you've taken skill focus or (for intimidate) Intimidating Prowess. The point is that in best case scenario, the corrected DC makes the check close to a 50% chance of success, rather than auto-success. Worse case scenario, it has something closer to a 75 or 80% success rate.
Regardless of how the math is fixed, my fundamental problem with this feat is very simple: If I wanted to play a game with a taunt mechanic, I'd go play WOW.
If I wanted to play a game with a taunt mechanic, I'd go play WOW.
Or 4th edition :)
Also, "Video game ideas and 4e ideas are bad just because".
You guys make me defend 4e. This is inexcusable.
Yes it is, you sir, are dismissed.
...
About the dragon thing, and the fact that this feat will make players cry if used against them, I'd like to point out a pet peeve of mine. Why the hell can monsters select player feats and players can't take monster feats (and do go all "You can with your DM's approval" on me, rules are there to provide for a stable environment where you can rely on your expectations, using DM fiat for everything screws that over).
Seriously, if the feat appears in the monster base built, fine, but if you are building one or leveling one and have to select feats, keep to your damn Monster Manuals (exception made for playable races built solely by class levels of course). And yes, I am aware that class levels for monsters screws my point over. Whatever. I don't care.
As for the wording of Antagonize, I believe simply not forcing the attack to be melee is a sufficient fix, considering the +10 to DC that has already been added. But in that case, it definitely should force the attack to be the most damaging one available to the target, and if melee is chosen the most direct path possible, barring stupid things like passing trough a wall of fire, a spike trap or a line of pikemen (passing trough a few enemies ready to AoO is fine tough, and logical, as those possible attacks are not so much of an obvious hazard).
From my perspective, more that harassing casters (tough this is a laudable end by itself) this feat is more about forcing the big brutish thing away from the healer/glass canon/injured person and toward the fighter. Or to force said big...
Monster feats are usually monster only because they require something that the players usually have trouble qualifying for (like three or more arms), otherwise I don't see them as particularly restricted. You sure restrict the feat access for your pets, monstrous cohorts, familiars, mounts and eidolorns to bestiary feats only, don't you?
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna shake this soda can.
What miffs me about this feat isn't the balance (although I think issued corrections bring it into the realm of sanity).
Why is this a feat? Why must whole new mechanics be feats? Shouldn't feats usually be modifiers or changes? Are we really claiming that the legions of bards who can't or won't take this feat are somehow unqualified to effectively taunt to gain a tactical advantage? Can't I use social skills to force an enemy's attention? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
I know, I know, it's all part and parcel of how feats expand the game. But we have an ever dwindling number of feat slots. Could we occasionally consider including a new mechanic that doesn't chew up an already-sparse resource?
That's my gripe, anyway.
Also, I'm not as much defending the feat as it's written. It's more a problem that goes like this: there are caster classes that can turn an encounter upside down in one round. Sleep, Power Word (Suck), Black Testicles, Hold Monster, Domiate Monster, yadda yadda. Everyone is fine with that.
Surely that was a typo, no? :P
I would still like to see this feat simply apply penalties unless the target focuses on or avoids the antagonizer (for the Diplomacy and Intimidate effects respectively). That way, it would have utility both on and off the battle field. It would actually become a useful tool in RP situations instead of being a gimmick to initiate combat anytime anywhere.
A feat with no prerequisites simply forcing an escalation from talking all the way to murder-death-kill in one turn is simply ridiculous. Now worsening someone's attitude towards you with each successful check? That at least is more believable. In that case once you get them to hostile I can see the whole "forcing an attack" thing to be viable.
Perhaps Antagonize should have no/limited effect unless the target is already hostile or has already been made hostile.
I also see this as a HUGE problem with the feat. A fighter player could abuse this to force the party into forgoing any and all roleplaying encounters and turning them into combat encounters. Combat XP for all!
|
|
i see nothing wrong with giving a combatant type class the ability to force a caster to engage him up close and personal.
i would make the following changes
the antagonized victim must take the most reckless possible route to the one who 'goaded' them, even if the obstacles involved offer a threat of great bodily harm or even death.
this totally balances the feat.
not only will those wizards have to walk up and take a melee swing on the fighter, but they will have to eat every attack of oppurtunity possible, walks through blade barriers, walls of fire and everything else until they get to thier target.
i would not include the base 10 to the DC.
because the intent of this feat is to give martials an option to force enemy casters into melee range.
in my opinion, mage slayer is a perfectly balanced feat and we need to bring it back.
You are forgetting that missile using people should throw away the bow/crossbow at the start of the movement while under effect of antagonize.
We should keep a balance between affected people.
If I wanted to play a game with a taunt mechanic, I'd go play WOW.
Its funny, the way I see it, the game has always had a taunt mechanic; it was actually taunting the darned enemy and manipulating them into doing what you wanted.
Not every enemy is a master tactician who's going to go for the most effective target first.
And this feat being a way for your character to be more proficient than the player at drawing the otherwise cool and intractible wizards ire is not in and of itself a problem, IMO. It helps a little to keep the players, and the GM, a bit more honest about things.
Especially once its made more reasonable, and the wizard is able to throw back a Baleful Polymorph and retort, "Say that about my mother now! Oh right, you CANT!" within the bounds of the feat :P
Can you imagine the grat wyrm goading a squishy wizard to come to stab it with a knife? Can you imagine a machinegun squad goading a sniper to break his cover and run right to them? That's when I personally allow this sentence to take effect: "The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it"
"Except where it contradicts the first law."
How exactly are you going to define harm? Are you going to do it on an ad hoc basis or a rules basis? What is harm? Being targeted by a spell or attack? What about area spells? Receiving damage? What if that damage is negated by resistance or immunity? Making the player feel stupid? If we are going to make this a "Ask your DM how this feat works, let's not be so wordy." Let's just say "You may use Intimidate to taunt an opponent. The DC is 10 + the target's Hit Dice + it's Wisdom. Your DM decides the effect."
I'm gonna shake this soda can.
What miffs me about this feat isn't the balance (although I think issued corrections bring it into the realm of sanity).
Why is this a feat? Why must whole new mechanics be feats? Shouldn't feats usually be modifiers or changes? Are we really claiming that the legions of bards who can't or won't take this feat are somehow unqualified to effectively taunt to gain a tactical advantage? Can't I use social skills to force an enemy's attention? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
It's a feat because it goes above and beyond what a character can normally do without it - you know, a feat.
|
Its funny, the way I see it, the game has always had a taunt mechanic; it was actually taunting the darned enemy and manipulating them into doing what you wanted.
Not every enemy is a master tactician who's going to go for the most effective target first.
I got mocked on the GitP forums for suggesting such a thing.
Why is this a feat? Why must whole new mechanics be feats? Shouldn't feats usually be modifiers or changes? Are we really claiming that the legions of bards who can't or won't take this feat are somehow unqualified to effectively taunt to gain a tactical advantage? Can't I use social skills to force an enemy's attention? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
This.
In fact, I think the game should have Social Manuvers, and this should be one of them. This would give CHA more to do, and serve to help those of us who prefer to roll-play instead of role-play.
That said, without those rules in place, taunting should be handled strictly through roleplay, in my opinion. At our table we handle it with a quick Intimidate, Bluff or Diplomacy check (usually no more than a move-action). Not against a specific DC, the DM just takes into account how good your roll was, considers the NPC's personality and intelligence and goes from there. Me being a rules-based guy I'd prefer something a little more quantified, but the Antagonize feat goes way too far, IMHO.
I got mocked on the GitP forums for suggesting such a thing.Its funny, the way I see it, the game has always had a taunt mechanic; it was actually taunting the darned enemy and manipulating them into doing what you wanted.
Not every enemy is a master tactician who's going to go for the most effective target first.
You went for it.
That said, without those rules in place, taunting should be handled strictly through roleplay, in my opinion. At our table we handle it with a quick Intimidate, Bluff or Diplomacy check (usually no more than a move-action). Not against a specific DC, the DM just takes into account how good your roll was, considers the NPC's personality and intelligence and goes from there. Me being a rules-based guy I'd prefer something a little more quantified, but the Antagonize feat goes way too far, IMHO.
I hate to say it, but sometimes, some GM's are... less than fair with roleplaying options, ESPECIALLY in combat, where they want everything 'by the book'.
Having options to do these things, as mechanically defined choices, provides a good compromise to meet in the middle in these cases.
Honestly, the most mindboggling thing about this feat to me was its inclusion in Ultimate Magic. That seems like the wrong book for this to have been in.
|
Why is this a feat? Why must whole new mechanics be feats? Shouldn't feats usually be modifiers or changes? Are we really claiming that the legions of bards who can't or won't take this feat are somehow unqualified to effectively taunt to gain a tactical advantage? Can't I use social skills to force an enemy's attention? Wouldn't that have made more sense?This.
In fact, I think the game should have Social Manuvers, and this should be one of them. This would give CHA more to do, and serve to help those of us who prefer to roll-play instead of role-play.
That said, without those rules in place, taunting should be handled strictly through roleplay, in my opinion. At our table we handle it with a quick Intimidate, Bluff or Diplomacy check (usually no more than a move-action). Not against a specific DC, the DM just takes into account how good your roll was, considers the NPC's personality and intelligence and goes from there. Me being a rules-based guy I'd prefer something a little more quantified, but the Antagonize feat goes way too far, IMHO.
Player: "My flavourful taunts and menacing posture ought to have this monster focused on me!"
GM: "Yeah, sure. This is a freaking Glabrezu, it's going to rip the clothies behind you while you sit there trying to look scary".Player: "But I am scary! Look, I rolled 25 for Intimidate!"
GM: "The monster is smarter than that. Look, it's eating the Alchemist's brain now."
Player: "But I bash my sword against my shield! LOOK I'M HERE COME FIGHT ME!"
GM: "Om nom nom nom."
Results: pissed off Player (because his idea didn't work), pissed of GM(because there are no rules to handle what the player wanted to do), some dead party members.
I'll take Antagonize over that any day.
Can you imagine the grat wyrm goading a squishy wizard to come to stab it with a knife? Can you imagine a machinegun squad goading a sniper to break his cover and run right to them? That's when I personally allow this sentence to take effect: "The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it"
"Except where it contradicts the first law."
How exactly are you going to define harm? Are you going to do it on an ad hoc basis or a rules basis? What is harm? Being targeted by a spell or attack? What about area spells? Receiving damage? What if that damage is negated by resistance or immunity? Making the player feel stupid? If we are going to make this a "Ask your DM how this feat works, let's not be so wordy." Let's just say "You may use Intimidate to taunt an opponent. The DC is 10 + the target's Hit Dice + it's Wisdom. Your DM decides the effect."
I meant the latter, but I still need to cope with current wording, that's why I'd stretch that sentence. You wouldn't charge into an abbys or a wall of fire, so you not only avoid obvious suicide but obvious damage as well, so AoO threat could also be. You don't impale yourself on a spear willingly either just because someone calls you names.
|
|
Just throwing this out there:
It seems the big problem a lot of folks have with Antagonize as written is it kills the mood and takes control of characters away in a way that's harder to rationalize than saying "magic did it".
The example someone else brought up way back when this all started involving a generally peaceful character trying to keep the love of their life from bleeding out or otherwise dying really illustrates this. Someone with Antagonize can just troll that character into stopping what they're doing, charging the taunter, and letting the person they're seeing to die. That's jarring enough if that happens to an NPC. If it happens to a PC, the players would rightfully be upset. As it is, I would never use Antagonize against my players.
However, martial characters badly need a way to put the screws to casters capable of playing keepaway.
What if Antagonize worked like this: The target of the taunt is slammed with penalties that make skill and casting checks hard as hell. Those penalties hang over that character as long as the taunter is in sight/the encounter is continuing/whatever. Unless the target goes after the taunter.
Basically the taret of Antagonize would be given a choice. Either deal with those crippling modifiers and ignore the taunter, or give in "to all their hate and rage" and focus on him, after which those penalties are cleared.
That way, the theoretical character above isn't forced to act completely out of character. The Antagonize effect might still rattle them so much that they can't save the person they're tending to(the taunts cause their hands to shake during a Heal check, they distract at a crucial moment, etc.), but it would likely leave far less of a sour taste in everyones' mouths after the fact.
Why we should change the game to a videogame with aggro?
And why "aggro" should work only again spellcaster and not those pesky rogues hiding in shadows or the sniper that keep range and pincushion me?
The game concept is that the second most casters get in melee range they have already lost, so the "game" for them is to keep the range as long as possible and the "game" for their opponents is to manoeuvre till they get them in melee or to find a way to kill them at range (archer builds).
The second you screw that balance with a mechanic that guarantee that the casters should get within melee range you need to change all the other mechanics to that.
As you generally seem to be very interested in role playing above game mechanics, what will you think of using the intimidate effect in "normal" (non adventuring) life?
I want to kill my neighbour and don't want to risk ending in jail?
I Antagonize him and he is forced to assault me. "I had to defend myself, he was assaulting me." One dead neighbour.
The game would become a bad western with the black hats going around the city and forcing every guy that will not submit to them to a duel.
I hate to say it, but sometimes, some GM's are... less than fair with roleplaying options, ESPECIALLY in combat, where they want everything 'by the book'.
Having options to do these things, as mechanically defined choices, provides a good compromise to meet in the middle in these cases.
Honestly, the most mindboggling thing about this feat to me was its inclusion in Ultimate Magic. That seems like the wrong book for this to have been in.
I actually hate this logic, which essentially seems to be: "Some GMs are bad GMs. So to protect ourselves from the bad GMs, let's put all GMs, even the good ones, in a rules straightjacket that takes away their discretion." The irony for me is that a poor GM, no matter how many rules are put in place, is probably still going to wreck your game. Chipping away at GM discretion will, however, definitely reduce the creativity and awesomeness a good GM can bring to the game. and, in my opinion, if mechanics like Antagonize that reduce GM discretion continue to be added to the game, a lot of the better GMs will probably pack up and leave for other systems that better allow them to do what they do well.
...
Player: "My flavourful taunts and menacing posture ought to have this monster focused on me!"
GM: "Yeah, sure. This is a freaking Glabrezu, it's going to rip the clothies behind you while you sit there trying to look scary".
Player: "But I am scary! Look, I rolled 25 for Intimidate!"
GM: "The monster is smarter than that. Look, it's eating the Alchemist's brain now."
Player: "But I bash my sword against my shield! LOOK I'M HERE COME FIGHT ME!"
GM: "Om nom nom nom."Results: pissed off Player (because his idea didn't work), pissed of GM(because there are no rules to handle what the player wanted to do), some dead party members.
I'll take Antagonize over that any day.
Dragon: ROAAAAR! *intimidate*
Childern comes screaming from the orphanage to kick the dragon.Dragon: Sooo, any of you wimps dares to come next? *intimidate*
Tini girl runs to whack the dragon with her teddy.
Seriously it could be like that as well...
|
|
I actually hate this logic, which essentially seems to be: "Some GMs are bad GMs. So to protect ourselves from the bad GMs, let's put all GMs, even the good ones, in a rules straightjacket that takes away their discretion." The irony for me is that a poor GM, no matter how many rules are put in place, is probably still going to wreck your game. Chipping away at GM discretion will, however, definitely reduce the creativity and awesomeness a good GM can bring to the game. and, in my opinion, if mechanics like Antagonize that reduce GM discretion continue to be added to the game, a lot of the better GMs will probably pack up and leave for other systems that better allow them to do what they do well.I hate to say it, but sometimes, some GM's are... less than fair with roleplaying options, ESPECIALLY in combat, where they want everything 'by the book'.
Having options to do these things, as mechanically defined choices, provides a good compromise to meet in the middle in these cases.
Honestly, the most mindboggling thing about this feat to me was its inclusion in Ultimate Magic. That seems like the wrong book for this to have been in.
Look, I'm a dick GM. I fudge rolls to kill PCs. I love when players look at me with fear and anguish. I laugh every time their PCs die, fumble, or just screw up. There's nothing that makes my day better than somebody talking to me about his new character for 2h hours and then me killing said PC off in 2 minutes.
And I'm a big fan of Antagonize. Because it means that at least one part that's traditionally "down to GM's discretion, read: either softballing or being anal" would move into "it's cool, we have rules for that" territory.
I actually hate this logic, which essentially seems to be: "Some GMs are bad GMs. So to protect ourselves from the bad GMs, let's put all GMs, even the good ones, in a rules straightjacket that takes away their discretion." The irony for me is that a poor GM, no matter how many rules are put in place, is probably still going to wreck your game. Chipping away at GM discretion will, however, definitely reduce the creativity and awesomeness a good GM can bring to the game. and, in my opinion, if mechanics like Antagonize that reduce GM discretion continue to be added to the game, a lot of the better GMs will probably pack up and leave for other systems that better allow them to do what they do well.I hate to say it, but sometimes, some GM's are... less than fair with roleplaying options, ESPECIALLY in combat, where they want everything 'by the book'.
Having options to do these things, as mechanically defined choices, provides a good compromise to meet in the middle in these cases.
Honestly, the most mindboggling thing about this feat to me was its inclusion in Ultimate Magic. That seems like the wrong book for this to have been in.
Look, I'm a dick GM. I fudge rolls to kill PCs. I love when players look at me with fear and anguish. I laugh every time their PCs die, fumble, or just screw up. There's nothing that makes my day better than somebody talking to me about his new character for 2h hours and then me killing said PC off in 2 minutes.
And I'm a big fan of Antagonize. Because it means that at least one part that's traditionally "down to GM's discretion, read: either softballing or being anal" would move into "it's cool, we have rules for that" territory.
Appreciate your honesty. :)
Have to disagree, though. There is a huge and wonderful sweet spot between softballing and being anal, of course, and I think most GMs are capable of finding it, with enough experience.
|
|
I'm sorry buddy, but you are just plain wrong about casters being more powerful now. Just gonna name a few spells here to try and prove a point.
Sleep - No Save
Hold Metal - No Save
Otto's Irresistable Dance - No Save
Stone Skin - IMUNITY to a number of attacks (Lasts until used)So, back to topic.
I do believe warriors need nice things (not the fighter alone, I think he is powerful enough) but a feat like this is not the way to go, as explained earlier.You won't get anywhere by just comparing the spells, because you have to take all the rules into context.
Each of those spells could be easily interrupted before they are cast, that's why they had no saves - because if you actually managed to cast one, it would be rather anal if it didn't work.
Also, 1E/2E caster hp was so funny that you really had to watch out what you are doing. 3.5 and PF even more so are very liberal with hp, meaning that you can take more risks than you used to in previous editions.
In 3.5, no amount of damage you take during a round can stop you from casting the spell, unless someone readied against your casting, managed to hit you and you failed your Concentration check (which was laughable in 3.5 and only slightly difficult in PF).
That's one of reasons why 3.5 casters > previous editions.
1st/2nd ed.
You win initiative, no risk to lose your spell.Spellcaster have the highest AC.
Almost no buff magic for non spellcasters.
The first levels the wizard was weak, but after that he was stronger.
1st/2nd edition weren't some "golden age" of fighters, wery far from it.
Stone Skin - Throwing a bunch of pebbles at the target wiped the stone skins. An Ice storm or hail storm cancelled them all. Each hit by a magic missile burned one up.===Aelryinth
Both houserules Aelryinth. A bunch of pebbles was one attack, the same for a Ice storm. (2ed version)
The 2 ed version of the spell was fairly badly written, so I reverted back to 1rst edition.That way it protected from 1 successful attack that dealt 1 or more points of damage through impact, cutting or piercing, from a dragon bite to a sword trust to a ice storm. Simple and linear.
1rst/2nd ed at high level your ST were very good so save or die/save or suck spells weren't much used, on the other hand HP damage was way stronger than today and not spellcasters guys had way less options.
Spellcasters vs non-spelcasters is way more balanced today.
Ummm... and if I am not a caster... do I get the spell suddenly? :)Nope, you have to leave the battle, find a mage or priest to train you, learn how to cast spells, and then come back and cast a spell on your opponent.
Yes, it's that absurd.
Well then , Mr. developer guy , why did you guys make it. No since in making it and then printing and and then complaining about it.
Edit - I guess its only ok for a spell caster to take control of a character away?
Edit 2 - also I like your idea of a bad guy using a feat to grant me a spell caster level. Get on it stat.
Player: "My flavourful taunts and menacing posture ought to have this monster focused on me!"
GM: "Yeah, sure. This is a freaking Glabrezu, it's going to rip the clothies behind you while you sit there trying to look scary".
Player: "But I am scary! Look, I rolled 25 for Intimidate!"
GM: "The monster is smarter than that. Look, it's eating the Alchemist's brain now."
Player: "But I bash my sword against my shield! LOOK I'M HERE COME FIGHT ME!"
GM: "Om nom nom nom."
Wow...That GM is a dick. I would hate to play with him. The DC to use intimidate on a Glabrezu is 25. That player totally succeeded. :)
Look, I'm a dick GM. I fudge rolls to kill PCs. I love when players look at me with fear and anguish. I laugh every time their PCs die, fumble, or just screw up. There's nothing that makes my day better than somebody talking to me about his new character for 2h hours and then me killing said PC off in 2 minutes.
So...what your saying is you don't know the first thing about playing fair and anything you say about game balance should be ignored? Great, I'll jot that down in a memo somewhere.
|
|
About the dragon thing, and the fact that this feat will make players cry if used against them, I'd like to point out a pet peeve of mine. Why the hell can monsters select player feats and players can't take monster feats (and do go all "You can with your DM's approval" on me, rules are there to provide for a stable environment where you can rely on your expectations, using DM fiat for everything screws that over).
Exactly, what monster feat you can't take?
Something that require 4 or more arms? or that require you to be huge size for starter? capable to naturally fly?
the monster feats that you can't take are those that require monstrous anatomy or minds.
Come And Get Me, Pounce + Boasting Taunt OMG Paizo made Burburians overpowered NERF PLX!I'll take Boasting Taunt.
I'll take Antagonize over that any day.
Actually, Paizo made the barbarians FUNCTIONAL. It's easy to understand, you just have to read the relevant thread in which the aforementioned powers are discussed.
So...what your saying is you don't know the first thing about playing fair and anything you say about game balance should be ignored? Great, I'll jot that down in a memo somewhere.
And then you'll do what, glare evilly at said memo and yell "Bad Gorbacz, bad!"?
Gorbacz is usually a good guy and one of the most entertaining members of the board, although in this particular case he sadly is horribly wrong. Antagonize still is broken and the Intimidate function needs to be adjusted, so that you cannot force anyone to run up to a ZOMGBIG! Monster and slap it in the face, even while that action is completely suicidal.
Wow, you got that from one post? You must be psychotic!I mean, psychic.
>.> Can't tell if serious...
But, yeah, in my book when you tell me that you cheat and lie to your players and get off on watching them squirm and suffer, then that means you don't know how to play fair (or don't care too) and you don't actually give a rats ass about what the rules are. Call me psychotic...um, I mean psychic, but those type of people can seriously go on my "don't even bother" list.
Admittedly it is hard to distinguish sarcasm from fanaticism sometimes. When I read Shuriken's post earlier, I thought he was being sarcastic and ironic at first. Then I realized that I was horribly mistaken...
I'm still not sure about Gorbacz's character killing comment, although I suspect that were I at his table and he pulled that on me, he'd have a good case for the Antagonize feat working as written... posthumously of course. ;)
About the dragon thing, and the fact that this feat will make players cry if used against them, I'd like to point out a pet peeve of mine. Why the hell can monsters select player feats and players can't take monster feats (and do go all "You can with your DM's approval" on me, rules are there to provide for a stable environment where you can rely on your expectations, using DM fiat for everything screws that over).
Exactly, what monster feat you can't take?
Something that require 4 or more arms? or that require you to be huge size for starter? capable to naturally fly?
the monster feats that you can't take are those that require monstrous anatomy or minds.
I think he's referring to the fact that in some games, PFS included, you are precluded to take feats from the Bestiaries, unless your GM rules that you can... I don't have links but you can easily look for those threads.
The antagonize feat is partially errataed, as SKR said that they are going to change the part where it says 'melee attack' with 'appropriate attack', so we just have to wait.
Actually, Paizo made the barbarians FUNCTIONAL. It's easy to understand, you just have to read the relevant thread in which the aforementioned powers are discussed.Come And Get Me, Pounce + Boasting Taunt OMG Paizo made Burburians overpowered NERF PLX!I'll take Boasting Taunt.
I'll take Antagonize over that any day.
Functional, not good. Not the point though, carry on :)
I actually hate this logic, which essentially seems to be: "Some GMs are bad GMs. So to protect ourselves from the bad GMs, let's put all GMs, even the ." The irony for me is that a poor GM, no matter how many rules are put ingood ones, in a rules straightjacket that takes away their discretion place, is probably still going to wreck your game. Chipping away at GM discretion will, however, definitely reduce the creativity and awesomeness a good GM can bring to the game. and, in my opinion, if mechanics like Antagonize that reduce GM discretion continue to be added to the game, a lot of the better GMs will probably pack up and leave for other systems that better allow them to do what they do well.I hate to say it, but sometimes, some GM's are... less than fair with roleplaying options, ESPECIALLY in combat, where they want everything 'by the book'.
Having options to do these things, as mechanically defined choices, provides a good compromise to meet in the middle in these cases.
Honestly, the most mindboggling thing about this feat to me was its inclusion in Ultimate Magic. That seems like the wrong book for this to have been in.
Good GM's generally take the time to work these things out, and can make the decision to pass on the feat (or rework it) or not. GM discretion, which you have mentioned several times, is free to just do away with this feat if its an issue.
Less good DM's, however, might not have the time for the same, and for them, having a toolbox full of useful tools is a great thing.
So...what your saying is you don't know the first thing about playing fair and anything you say about game balance should be ignored? Great, I'll jot that down in a memo somewhere.And then you'll do what, glare evilly at said memo and yell "Bad Gorbacz, bad!"?
Gorbacz is usually a good guy and one of the most entertaining members of the board, although in this particular case he sadly is horribly wrong. Antagonize still is broken and the Intimidate function needs to be adjusted, so that you cannot force anyone to run up to a ZOMGBIG! Monster and slap it in the face, even while that action is completely suicidal.
unless "magic made you do it" right. These thread just prove non magic users cant have nice things.
I actually hate this logic, which essentially seems to be: "Some GMs are bad GMs. So to protect ourselves from the bad GMs, let's put all GMs, even the ." The irony for me is that a poor GM, no matter how many rules are put ingood ones, in a rules straightjacket that takes away their discretion place, is probably still going to wreck your game. Chipping away at GM discretion will, however, definitely reduce the creativity and awesomeness a good GM can bring to the game. and, in my opinion, if mechanics like Antagonize that reduce GM discretion continue to be added to the game, a lot of the better GMs will probably pack up and leave for other systems that better allow them to do what they do well.I hate to say it, but sometimes, some GM's are... less than fair with roleplaying options, ESPECIALLY in combat, where they want everything 'by the book'.
Having options to do these things, as mechanically defined choices, provides a good compromise to meet in the middle in these cases.
Honestly, the most mindboggling thing about this feat to me was its inclusion in Ultimate Magic. That seems like the wrong book for this to have been in.
Good GM's generally take the time to work these things out, and can make the decision to pass on the feat (or rework it) or not. GM discretion, which you have mentioned several times, is free to just do away with this feat if its an issue.
Less good DM's, however, might not have the time for the same, and for them, having a toolbox full of useful tools is a great thing.
I understand what you are saying, but still don't like the logic. It means that good GMs have to work much harder to eliminate things placed in the game just to inneffectively control poor GMs. And, of course, there are many players who object to extensive houseruling, forcing GMs to waste more time defending their decisions and explaining the logic. I would much prefer system-wise, that a certain level of competence is expected, rather than have the system written to the lowest common denominator.