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.
Pretty much yes. Still, I'll admit it was a plain bad argument. Probably due to me not reading the Monster Manual since well, DM would'nt like it.
Anyways, I firmly believe melees need a way to force attention to them. I'm fine with the fix that allows casters to cast, archers to arch and so forth, as long as melee classes have a way to make them stop whatever the hell they are doing (which is in all probability aiming for de healer or coup de gracing the rogue) and force them to pay attention to them. Actually, it would fit the spirit of the feat even better, forcing the target to do something that's gonna hurt BAD on the user, instead of someone else.
And come to think of it, who cares if the Dragon antagonizes the caster to force him to come bash it with a cane? It requires a standard action anyways, so before the dragon has time to eat the casters face, the fighter will just move away and antagonize the dragon. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
unless "magic made you do it" right. These thread just prove non magic users cant have nice things.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.
They actually can, see the Ninja. But there is a difference between "nice things" and "brokenly overpowered things".
They actually can, see the Ninja. But there is a difference between "nice things" and "brokenly overpowered things".unless "magic made you do it" right. These thread just prove non magic users cant have nice things.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.
Except its not broken. Its basically a charm effect for 1 round. Having a taunt in the game is great. Now your high AC , high HP shield fighter that wants to protect people might accually be attack instead of ignored.
People like you just want to be able to cast fly to win.
Functional, not good. Not the point though, carry on :)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.
another one that didn't read the thread, the other way around :P
in case, answer me there ;)
|
Again, I'm sure the feat needs some adjustments - for one, so that it can't be used to provoke anyone anywhere anytime.
But I'm against the philosophy of Casters Can Do Anything Because They Are Casters, Fighters Can't Have Nice Things which fuels many disputants here.
And I'm saying that not as a member of Player Advocacy Movement, I'm saying this as a member of Grumpy GM Association.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except its not broken. Its basically a charm effect for 1 round. Having a taunt in the game is great. Now your high AC , high HP shield fighter that wants to protect people might accually be attack instead of ignored.
People like you just want to be able to cast fly to win.
Charm effects cannot make you commit suicide. It's more like a dominate effect EXCEPT there is no way to defend against it AND dominate effects don't force people to commit suicide either.
Again, I'm sure the feat needs some adjustments - for one, so that it can't be used to provoke anyone anywhere anytime.
But I'm against the philosophy of Casters Can Do Anything Because They Are Casters, Fighters Can't Have Nice Things which fuels many disputants here.
And I'm saying that not as a member of Player Advocacy Movement, I'm saying this as a member of Grumpy GM Association.
Agree completely here. Is NOT a matter of "as a spell could be fine". There are 1-2 mechanichal adjustments to fix, but the idea that a character can be so annoying or badass by himself (hence, feat) to taunt enemies is far for being weird.
The IMPLEMENTATION should be fixed, and in my huble opinion is easier than one could think.
Charm effects cannot make you commit suicide. It's more like a dominate effect EXCEPT there is no way to defend against it AND dominate effects don't force people to commit suicide either.Except its not broken. Its basically a charm effect for 1 round. Having a taunt in the game is great. Now your high AC , high HP shield fighter that wants to protect people might accually be attack instead of ignored.
People like you just want to be able to cast fly to win.
There is a defence . HD and Wis mod. Just like there is a defence against will save spells via feats and Wis mod.
I guess this feat doesnt make since though because simple words could never inflame people into violence towards them or another person..... unless you take all of history into account.
Edit - One round in combat is hardly suicide anyway. Especially when you take into account thier defensive magic and the fighting defensively bonus
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm against the philosophy of Casters Can Do Anything Because They Are Casters, Fighters Can't Have Nice Things which fuels many disputants here.
And I'm saying that not as a member of Player Advocacy Movement, I'm saying this as a member of Grumpy GM Association.
Setting aside the fact that I don't completely agree with the assumption that casters are overpowered (I think this is only measurably true at higher levels of play and/or in groups in which every caster starts with a prime stat of 20), if you do accept that to be true, I disagree with your basic prescription for fixing it.
Philosophically, I would attack that problem by placing more limits on casters (back to a d4 for HD, more ways to effectively interrupt/counter spells, better saving throws, etc.) rather than by pumping up fighters with more illogical and immersion-breaking powers.
Of course, that is because the game has already become uncomfortably close to a superheroes game for me already, rather than classic swords and sorcery fantasy. I'd prefer they address pretty much all balance problems through powerdowns rather than powerups.
|
There is a defence . HD and Wis mod.
C'mon, man. C'mon. It's been pointed out a hundred times how skill checks do not scale correctly alongside level + ability mod because of things like Trait bonuses, Feat bonuses, Item bonuses, etc. At this point, you kind of have to acknowledge it as a fact. There is a point at which there is no defense against Antagonize.
Just like there is a defence against will save spells via feats and Wis mod.
Not the same thing. There are not close to the amount of ways to raise caster level as there are to the amount of ways to provide bonuses to skill checks.
The rest of that post... Jason said play nice, I'm playing nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except its not broken. Its basically a charm effect for 1 round. Having a taunt in the game is great. Now your high AC , high HP shield fighter that wants to protect people might accually be attack instead of ignored.
People like you just want to be able to cast fly to win.
You might want to stop right now with the generalized insults. It wins you no friends.
I don't have a big problem with the fighter having a method of making someone attack him. I do have a problem with that method resulting in ranged combatants abandoning their most efficient method of attack and stupidly running up to the Fighter to try to slap him ineffectually in the face. If the feat would force ranged attackers to attack the Fighter (or whomever... the feat can also be taken by casters), but leave them the freedom to choose their method of attack, then it would be fine with the newly errataed DC.
C'mon, man. C'mon. It's been pointed out a hundred times how skill checks do not scale correctly alongside level + ability mod because of things like Trait bonuses, Feat bonuses, Item bonuses, etc. At this point, you kind of have to acknowledge it as a fact. There is a point at which there is no defense against Antagonize.
As can be seen in low-level Star Wars SAGA. About the only D20 game where the gameplay gets more balanced the higher the level of the PC's gets :p ( I still love the system, though ).
Except its not broken. Its basically a charm effect for 1 round. Having a taunt in the game is great. Now your high AC , high HP shield fighter that wants to protect people might accually be attack instead of ignored.
People like you just want to be able to cast fly to win.
You might want to stop right now with the generalized insults. It wins you no friends.
I don't have a big problem with the fighter having a method of making someone attack him. I do have a problem with that method resulting in ranged combatants abandoning their most efficient method of attack and stupidly running up to the Fighter to try to slap him ineffectually in the face. If the feat would force ranged attackers to attack the Fighter (or whomever... the feat can also be taken by casters), but leave them the freedom to choose their method of attack, then it would be fine with the newly errataed DC.
I would be fine with that as well. Common ground is such lovely thing.
One thing everyones over looking as well is that its a mind affecting ability. Just find a way around it.
Just for the sake of tossing in some balance consideration: what if antagonize only forced the target to move within 30ft and then do an attack (rather than all the way for a melee attack)?
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Charm effects cannot make you commit suicide. It's more like a dominate effect EXCEPT there is no way to defend against it AND dominate effects don't force people to commit suicide either.Except its not broken. Its basically a charm effect for 1 round. Having a taunt in the game is great. Now your high AC , high HP shield fighter that wants to protect people might accually be attack instead of ignored.
People like you just want to be able to cast fly to win.
There is a defence . HD and Wis mod. Just like there is a defence against will save spells via feats and Wis mod.
I guess this feat doesnt make since though because simple words could never inflame people into violence towards them or another person..... unless you take all of history into account.
Edit - One round in combat is hardly suicide anyway. Especially when you take into account thier defensive magic and the fighting defensively bonus
The basic problem most have with this feat is that it allows anyone to perform an action that is the equivalent of a level 4+ spell that's indefinitely repeatable as a Standard Action without having to burn any resources.
Spells at least take up spell slots, and there are built in defenses for resisting them. This feat basically allows on PC/NPC to effectively take control of another PC/NPC's actions for a round without giving the victim a realistic chance of resisting it - and if by some miracle, they do resist, the antagonist can just try again the next round.
Effectively, this feat can take all the tactics out of a combat encounter granting a significant advantage with a minimal expenditure.
Taking it a step further, this feat can effectively take away a player's control of their own character for an extended period of time (provided successive checks succeed), leading to a feeling of helplessness which is not a good experience for any player.
Honestly, as a GM, I have outlawed this feat because I don't think it's fixable. Taunts can work fine in MMOs, but the core mechanic doesn't fit well in Pathfinder (that's not to say it can't be done, it just doesn't work as currently envisioned).
As an aside, your comparison to real world situations when words can inflame people to violence: The feat doesn't account for prioritization of actions and the amount of time it can take for someone to be riled up enough to take violent action against another. The feat allows you to make people immediately ignore whatever they're currently doing (tending to a wounded comrade, defending against an attacking foe, readying a spell, meditating, etc.) to come at them to attack. No spoken word can make anyone instantly drop everything they're doing to charge the antagonist in those circumstances. Typically, one has to antagonize another over a longer period of time to incite them to violence just by taunting - and even then, the attack will come in a manner of the taunted person's choosing, not a mindless melee charge. Generally, people will prioritize their actions based on circumstances. The victim may remember your comments and attack you after they're done with their current task, but it is highly unlikely they will drop everything when you antagonize them for a few seconds, regardless of external factors and/or circumstances. It's the feat's inability to allow for any prioritization of actions that makes it broken, which is why it has such a polarizing effect on its proponents and opponents.
Just my 2 cents.
Its only works on each person one time. So you drop your standard action to dictate thier next turn on a successfull check once per enemy. Its not as bad as people are making it out to be.
Just for the sake of tossing in some balance consideration: what if antagonize only forced the target to move within 30ft and then do an attack (rather than all the way for a melee attack)?
That does work better than melee attack but remember they have to hear it for it to be mind effecting.
Also no repeat antagonizing as it cannot be used unless the target for one additional day. OR just have them have to take an action that deals damage to the target might work.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Just for the sake of tossing in some balance consideration: what if antagonize only forced the target to move within 30ft and then do an attack (rather than all the way for a melee attack)?
That does work better than melee attack but remember they have to hear it for it to be mind effecting.
Also no repeat antagonizing as it cannot be used unless the target for one additional day. OR just have them have to take an action that deals damage to the target might work.
AH, but it IS repeatable if more than one person in a group has it (for example, a group of Kobolds). I stand by my statement that this feat can be used to effectively take control of a PC/NPC for an entire combat, which is why it is banned in my games.
AH, but it IS repeatable if more than one person in a group has it (for example, a group of Kobolds). I stand by my statement that this feat can be used to effectively take control of a PC/NPC for an entire combat, which is why it is banned in my games.Just for the sake of tossing in some balance consideration: what if antagonize only forced the target to move within 30ft and then do an attack (rather than all the way for a melee attack)?
That does work better than melee attack but remember they have to hear it for it to be mind effecting.
Also no repeat antagonizing as it cannot be used unless the target for one additional day. OR just have them have to take an action that deals damage to the target might work.
Yeah I am not thinking of allowing it in my games either if I decide to run one.
No spoken word can make anyone instantly drop everything they're doing to charge the antagonist in those circumstances.
That's why it is a feat
Apparently you can do anything extraordinary unless you can cast spells.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why it is a feat
Apparently you can do anything extraordinary unless you can cast spells.
This has nothing to do with nice things. This feat isn't actually all that powerful. But taking a hammer to the face of verisimilitude is actually something to avoid like cookie monster avoids carrots. I don't want any part of it.
If you antagonize the queen, she should just tell the guards to arrest you or go around screaming "Off with his head!"
If you antagonize a pacifist he should just become flustered and loose his cool. Maybe he even starts tossing around some colorful language.
If are at a play and you antagonize one of the actors the last thing he should do is fly into a mad foaming frenzy and dive off the stage with a prop sword in his hand with an intent to kill...for 6 seconds.
If you antagonize a little orphan girl, then she should run away from the big scary bad man.
If you antagonize a paraplegic he should...I'm not sure really, but the answer better not be make a melee attack against you.
Of course, the way the feat currently works, the class best suited to using this feat is the sorcerer (high Cha, Intimidate as a class skill, has few combat-useful feats to choose from).
A 1st-level human sorcerer, built on the elite array, with Antagonize and Skill Focus: Intimidate, is rolling, what, 1d20+10 (1 rank, +3 class skill, +3 skill focus, +3 Cha) versus a DC of 10 to force a kobold using a sling to come at him (10, +1 hd, -1 Wis), right into the awaiting AoOs of the party.
Not as useful as sleep or color spray, sure, but looks to be better than any of his cantrips.
Of course, the way the feat currently works, the class best suited to using this feat is the sorcerer (high Cha, Intimidate as a class skill, has few combat-useful feats to choose from).
A 1st-level human sorcerer, built on the elite array, with Antagonize and Skill Focus: Intimidate, is rolling, what, 1d20+10 (1 rank, +3 class skill, +3 skill focus, +3 Cha) versus a DC of 10 to force a kobold using a sling to come at him (10, +1 hd, -1 Wis), right into the awaiting AoOs of the party.
Not as useful as sleep or color spray, sure, but looks to be better than any of his cantrips.
Wouldnt work because an atempt to reach the target would harm it.
Edit - nevermind accually , I remember this arguement from the last threads and I dont want to get into it. It was alot of would vs could vs perception on harm vs crazyness
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
They wouldn't be forced to go within range. They would be given a strong incentive to focus entirely on the taunter, who can likely take the abuse.
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.
That's what Antagonize as currently written does. The suggested revision, along with the similar proposals that have turned up in this thread, would prevent that sort of scenario.
It would have to be used in a combat encounter and the target still has the option of leaving the fight and shaking it off. He's removed from the theoretical fight, but in situations like the one illustrated above, the target shouldn't be forced into fights anyway.
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.
Again, that's what the current Antagonize does. A version that offers the target the option to give in to the taunt or deal with being shaken up either because of fear or anger prevents characters with the feat forcing every other character they want into a combat encounter.
And it keeps the feat from stealing the PCs from their players. Their actions and motivations will still be their own, whatever choice they make.
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...
Sorry, not a house rule.
You won initiative, it meant nothing because your spell completed at the start of your NEXT TURN. Any hit between now and then voided the spell.Spellcasters had CRAP for AC unless you were handing out bracers willy nilly.
Non spellcasters didn't need buff magic! Spellcasters needed buff magic!
5-7th wizards shot up in levels, and 7th was when they started coming into their own. But with melees the only one who got to use Girdles of Giant Strength, the only ones who could reliably hit stuff, and the only ones with multiple attacks, spellcasters never overawed Melees unless you specifically let a caster prepare for a Melee. FR was absolutely full of high level spellcasters picking on melee types less then half their level...of course they looked awesome. i think in all the FR books there were TWO fighter types higher then level 20. How many post-20 archmages were there? one per city? Like, 5 in Waterdeep?
A bunch of pebbles is no more one attack then a flurry of daggers. TSR SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT that the hailstorm from an Ice Storm would void the spell. Furthermore, nothing in the spell description said an attack had to potentially do damage to count as an attack. That's why each impact of a magic missile wiped a use, too.
As for no-save spells, that's why Scarabs of Protection existed. Gave you a save against something that didn't grant it. Rings of Free action were cheap and easy to come by (no Hold Metal on me!) etc etc. Furthermore, you could enchant gemstones for a wide variety of immunities and save modifiers.
1E was really over the top because it was around for so long.
But when the Archmage is casting spells at the 17th level fighter with a base save of 3 and a Scarab of Protection, he's one round away from a two longsword fricasse. Throw a bunch of marbles to take down his stoneskin with one hand, or just beat on him if he doesn't have one.
===Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the simple fix for the Antagonize Feat, along with the already fixed DC, is to just eliminate the Intimidate version / option completely. It never made any sense anyway - I'm so scary and intimidating you decide you must attack me? Sorry... what? :/
But making people drop down on the floor and pretend to be dolphins using magic is perfectly sensible.
Riiiight.
Because the logical purpose of magic is to do only things that are possible to accomplish without magic. Of course, this causes magic to disappear in a puff of Darwinism, but that's OK.
The feat needs some adjustment from the logical standpoint too, but gorbacz is essentially right.
Every character should be special. You can see how powers are divided in "Extraordinary", "Supernatural" and "Spells/Spell-likes".
We don't have "crappy", "almost crappy but similar to magic so quite awesome" and "awesome since it's magic".
So I think it's fine imagine something very special for a non magical ability too. The game, expecially at high level, suffers when this is not considered.
Because the logical purpose of magic is to do only things that are possible to accomplish without magic. Of course, this causes magic to disappear in a puff of Darwinism, but that's OK.The feat needs some adjustment from the logical standpoint too, but gorbacz is essentially right.
Every character should be special. You can see how powers are divided in "Extraordinary", "Supernatural" and "Spells/Spell-likes".
We don't have "crappy", "almost crappy but similar to magic so quite awesome" and "awesome since it's magic".
So I think it's fine imagine something very special for a non magical ability too. The game, expecially at high level, suffers when this is not considered.
I disagree. What you guys are defending is something that doesn't work for me and most people I know. I mean, when you create a fighter, normally, you want non magic stuff, to do things by strength of arms and not supernatural might. Some setting are cool for EVERYONE to have some kind of "magic" stuff. I don't think that's true for most fantasy games however, and certainly not this one and that feat, as is, steps on the toes of unbelievable too much.
Of course, I may be wrong about what you guys are defending. :)
I don't want fighters throwing fireballs. There would be no point of being wizard, or at least diversity would be killed.
But the ability if mundane classes of bending MORE (because they already do it) the laws of physics is not bad.
And they ALREADy do it. A weapon master can cut through a wall with a sword, like cutting butter. It that so different from a PC so clever or menacing in insulting able to make you lose your cool?
Just remove the "forced to melee", make it a "forced to attack", and we are done. I think that feats like this should be encouraged IF WELL DONE.
I don't want fighters throwing fireballs. There would be no point of being wizard, or at least diversity would be killed.
But the ability if mundane classes of bending MORE (because they already do it) the laws of physics is not bad.
And they ALREADy do it. A weapon master can cut through a wall with a sword, like cutting butter. It that so different from a PC so clever or menacing in insulting able to make you lose your cool?
Just remove the "forced to melee", make it a "forced to attack", and we are done. I think that feats like this should be encouraged IF WELL DONE.
I can agree on that. Well done is complicated though.
I can agree on that. Well done is complicated though.I don't want fighters throwing fireballs. There would be no point of being wizard, or at least diversity would be killed.
But the ability if mundane classes of bending MORE (because they already do it) the laws of physics is not bad.
And they ALREADy do it. A weapon master can cut through a wall with a sword, like cutting butter. It that so different from a PC so clever or menacing in insulting able to make you lose your cool?
Just remove the "forced to melee", make it a "forced to attack", and we are done. I think that feats like this should be encouraged IF WELL DONE.
See.. it's about Paizo too. Sometimes the balance is missing, and annoys me that 90% a word more or less coul have been enough. But they have shown two things:
- they seem to hear people and support the products
- they are not scared of being groundbreaking, even if people tell them to don't do something. A lot of interesting concepts are available because of this.
I don't want fighters throwing fireballs. There would be no point of being wizard, or at least diversity would be killed.
But the ability if mundane classes of bending MORE (because they already do it) the laws of physics is not bad.
And they ALREADy do it. A weapon master can cut through a wall with a sword, like cutting butter. It that so different from a PC so clever or menacing in insulting able to make you lose your cool?
Just remove the "forced to melee", make it a "forced to attack", and we are done. I think that feats like this should be encouraged IF WELL DONE.
If said wall is stone, it is practically impossible to "cut" through it without a hammer or pick. It says as much in the rules.
Relevant Rules...
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
I don't want fighters throwing fireballs. There would be no point of being wizard, or at least diversity would be killed.
But the ability if mundane classes of bending MORE (because they already do it) the laws of physics is not bad.
And they ALREADy do it. A weapon master can cut through a wall with a sword, like cutting butter. It that so different from a PC so clever or menacing in insulting able to make you lose your cool?
Just remove the "forced to melee", make it a "forced to attack", and we are done. I think that feats like this should be encouraged IF WELL DONE.
If said wall is stone, it is practically impossible to "cut" through it without a hammer or pick. It says as much in the rules.
Relevant Rules...
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
He will choose a pick then as his election weapon :P
Your point being?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For sake, Fighters can shoot composite longbow 6 times in 6 seconds on feats alone. That's already about as unrealistic as is falling from 500 ft. and taking 1/3 of your hp damamge, even without feats. We don't want to have every swing of an ordinary sword shoot a barrage of DEVIL METEORS at the enemy, we want some tactical options.
I think allowing a blasty spell or ranged attack would make it better.
The reasoning is if I am a practiced archer with a bow out and am angry and not the best at swinging swords if I was pissed off at someone why wouldn't I just shoot them.
|
|
The only thing it means is that martial characters need more ways to be effective against arcane characters, which is probably a truism. I'm also on that team, for the record.
The fact that the four of you believe that THIS is the way to accomplish that end honestly boggles the mind.
@TOZ, I think Gorby is thinking of Cirno, who is definitely on" Team Antagonize".
The only thing it means is that martial characters need more ways to be effective against arcane characters, which is probably a truism. I'm also on that team, for the record.
The fact that the four of you believe that THIS is the way to accomplish that end honestly boggles the mind.
@TOZ, I think Gorby is thinking of Cirno, who is definitely on" Team Antagonize".
Well, wait. i think that a FIXED antagonize it's a good start. I consider the feat horrible as printed.
I was answering to people saying that "only magic should do X". I am against no-save mechanics in general.
The fact that anyone is okay with this feat is pretty baffling to me. It has nothing to do with fighters not having nice things, it's just a very poorly written feat. There's no prereqs, so there's no reason EVERYONE wouldn't take this feat, as it is a no-save at-will 1-round dominate.
The question you have to ask is: do you want every monster and NPC in your game taking it and using it against you? Would that make the game more fun? I'd have to say that no, it would not. You could never have strategy, virtually every combat would devolve into throwing insults around and forcing combat movement/melee attacks.
There is no viable defense against it. Anyone, literally anyone, can blow maybe two feats and be near auto success against all monsters. It is NOT called out as a mind-affecting ability, so it affects everyone and everything with an intelligence greater than 3.
How about this for a feat. Just examine it, guys, see if you would allow it in your game.
Prerequisites: None
Benefit: Choose a target. It explodes (reduced to -55 HP). All magic items on or owned by that target are automatically equipped on you.