If someone asked for it, yes. However, my players know that anything they can use, I can use.
How about this for a feat. Just examine it, guys, see if you would allow it in your game.
Which is really my main problem with Antagonize. The first time I read it I was like "hey cool, finally a way for the fighter to take care of that pesky wizard/witch/warlock/sorcerer/priest/whatever that is clearly running the show but won't engage him in melee. The DC still seems all sorts of out of whack, it really ought to be a BAB based save, but still the mechanics didn't bother me.
Then I thought for one second. Wait...enemies can take this. I could just basically skip gaming since I'll never have control of my player again if the DM uses this feat.
I happen to kind of be fine with caster supremacy because I like playing casters. However, I would never do anything to hinder and in fact still encourage Paizo to continue to plan a route to balance in this matter, even if it makes me less of a god.
One creature or NPC with this feat, however, and my caster is utter paste.
I think I like my solution to the problem. Imposing SIGNIFICANT negatives to any actions other than slapping the taunter. I wouldn't even care if it lasted more rounds if that were the case. Disabling a caster is as good as beating him with a stick in most scenarios, and it leaves intact free will to players and intelligent NPCs/monsters.
|
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.
Flight Sergeant Nicholas Stephen Alkemade (1923–1987) was a tail gunner for a Royal Air Force Avro Lancaster bomber during World War II who survived a fall of 18,000 feet (5500 m) without a parachute after his plane was shot down over Germany.
Reality can be strange than you think.
Animals (and other creatures below INT 3) should be "tauntable" as well by the way. Rather than insults it would be just loud noise and roaring, but it works as well. That would be rather understandable. They should be immune to diplomacy use of the feat however IMO.
EDIT: Along with the allowance to choose the mode of asault it could be part of the fix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care what Antagonize does in the middle of combat.
What should bother everyone is what it does to social encounters.
A roleplaying game can change the laws of physics and still work just fine. But if it contradicts everything we know about human psychology, then it has ceased to be a roleplaying game, because there is no longer any way to play a role. Your character is just a piece on a game board, with feelings and motivations that can deviate largely from anything humans experience in real life.
This is what I hate about the feat. Combat is bad enough, if I'm the best archer in the land I am not going to drop my bow and pull a belt knife when the dragon insults me, I'm going to unload on him with as many arrows as possible, but that's an easy fix in my opinion.
The social situation is where it gets utterly ridiculous. If I'm playing a diplomacy based bard who grew up as a noble and has been accustomed to the courts since childhood, not to mention having full ranks in sense motive, bluff, and diplomacy, there is no way in hell that I'm going to get so insulted in a King's court by someone with this feat that I run screaming incoherently in their direction with a melee weapon, or just my fists, and give them an excuse to discredit me in court.
If someone antagonizes you and you must attack by some means, is it an attack to antagonize them back? :P
So in the city of Smorgasbord it is illegal to physically attack someone else. City guards are out in force to protect the innocent from bodily harm. If you do attack someone else you are thrown in jail for a varying sentence depending on the severity of wounds inflicted.
I just run around antagonizing people and FORCING them to attack me, just to get beat down by the city guards and hauled off. I can't imagine this is an evil act as I'm NOT EVEN defending myself. Totally turning the other cheek.
Seriously guys, wtf. That's what you want? In a feat with no prerequisites?
I just run around antagonizing people and FORCING them to attack me, just to get beat down by the city guards and hauled off.And my CE character runs around casting ventriloquism and forcing parents to murder their own children. On 1st level.
How does a voice from somewhere make people murder their own chidren?
How does a voice from somewhere make people murder their own chidren?I just run around antagonizing people and FORCING them to attack me, just to get beat down by the city guards and hauled off.And my CE character runs around casting ventriloquism and forcing parents to murder their own children. On 1st level.
Even if that doesn't work, Murderous Command certainly does.
...
So I can record my antagonize on an everrepeating voice-box, place it on a golem and watch it smear the ever-comming weak-eilled targets toward protected area? :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...So I can record my antagonize on an everrepeating voice-box, place it on a golem and watch it smear the ever-comming weak-eilled targets toward protected area? :)
With ventriloquism you can still make intimidate checks. Recordings on the other hand...that's a bit of shaky ground that you probably won't get a strait answer on. Most likely no. Would it be awesome? oh yes. But it would open the floodgates to things like casting ventriloquism and having the voice come from the target of antagonize so that he would attack himself in melee because he thinks he is fed up with his own bull s*#~.
Technically this can make people attack a wall if applied this way. I'd rather advocate using common sense with this feat untill we get the full repair, and even then it needs that, like everything. At best After repeated use of this the child could be a good candidate for exorcism.
With murderous command it has this *it's magic* behind it, but as a DM I can say you'd certainly get this with increased frequency from me if you abused this... or perhaps even some extraplanar visit if it got too obviously disrupting :)
I think a feat that forces you to make a melee attack against an opponent (even if you're a spellcaster) is a valid feat if there's also a feat that forces you to cast a spell at an opponent (even if you're not a spellcaster)....
So, any chance you could pull back the curtain a bit and describe how Paizo playtests and edits content, and how this one slipped by the usually rigorous testing and editing?
So, to make a quick recap, to fix antagonize the new reading would need to mention:
1. A higher DC (already taken care of )
2. Add a prerequisite or two. But then what? If this feat is aimed mostly for melee types using a Cha prerequisite is pretty harsh. But then it would solve the "problem" of melees dumping Cha (please don't get into that tough). One option would be having X ranks in Intimidate and / or Diplomacy, but that would probably preclude low level characters from taking that feat, and it does'nt seem to be the intention.
3. That it can only be used while engaged in combat with the target.
4A. The tricky part. The target flies into a rage. On its next turn it is forced to take a melee attack on the character that used antoagonized or suffer a significant penalty (exact number to determine) to attack rolls made against other creatures that the character who used antagonize until (exact duration and conditions to be determined). I would be tempted to add an important spell failure chance too (maybe 25% or so?).
4B. The other popular option is to force the target to simply attack the target of antagonize with it's preferred form of attack, not only melee attacks.
I personally prefer solution 4A, as it strongly encourages the target to come over and hit the feat user, but the target still retains free will.
5. It appears a more specific explanation as to what "The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it." entails. Does it include only garanteed harm (walking in a wall of fire), or also likely harm (AoOs from nearby ennemies? On this point I would tend to go with the former, as the feat seems to imply a certain amount of recklessness.
6. Should the tag "This is a mind affecting effect" be added? Why, or why not?
|
|
So, any chance you could pull back the curtain a bit and describe how Paizo playtests and edits content, and how this one slipped by the usually rigorous testing and editing?
As curious as I am to know this piece of information as well, I find it highly unlikely that they're going to go down this rabbit hole.
I know I wouldn't, if it was my book and my company. They're already extremely transparent, I don't think that pointing fingers in this case gets us anywhere.
I also think it should merely force a penalty to alternative actions rather than forcing an aggressive action.
6. Should the tag "This is a mind affecting effect" be added? Why, or why not?
Yes. A mindless being cares not if it is antagonized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier on I posted that my main objection to this feat has nothing to do with whether it is balanced or not.
It has to do with my opinion that such an "aggro" mechanic is completely unnecessary in a game that has a real live GM and a real live players fully capable of deciding for themselves how the NPCs and characters react to taunts and such. I further believe that undermining the discreton that GMs and players have over the actions of the various NPCs and PCs is not a good thing. Thus the feat is banned in my game (with the enthusiastic and unanimous consent of the players) and will remain so, regardless of any rewrite. To me, this type of thing is strictly roleplaying and GM discretion, and should not have a determinative mechanic.
However, I'm interested in hearing from others why they think such a mechanic is necessary and/or what they think it adds to the game?
|
I also think it should merely force a penalty to alternative actions rather than forcing an aggressive action.
I agree. Of course, that's exactly what the Diplomacy version / option does right now, so I still say just drop the Intimidate part (which is where all the problems with the Feat are, barring the DC which is now sorted) and be done.
6. Should the tag "This is a mind affecting effect" be added? Why, or why not?
No... because it already has the mind-affecting tag. It's right there at the bottom of the first paragraph (of the benefit text), last line.
|
|
However, I'm interested in hearing from others why they think such a mechanic is necessary and/or what they think it adds to the game?
Good question.
I do just want to point out, though, that this is (in the form of the original 2e spell) quite possibly the ORIGINAL "aggro" mechanic. It doesn't draw on WoW or EQ or anything, as the original spell pre-dates any of those influences.
What's funny is that I would guess that the original spell off of which the Intimidate-based mechanic of Antagonize is based was one of the least-memorized, least-cast spells in 2e. I can't imagine a 2e wizard actually wanting anyone to come beat on them for any reason. But, then again, my 2e experience is limited, and far behind me at any rate.
Edit: Oh, right. 2e Stoneskin. That explains it.
I also think it should merely force a penalty to alternative actions rather than forcing an aggressive action.I agree. Of course, that's exactly what the Diplomacy version / option does right now, so I still say just drop the Intimidate part (which is where all the problems with the Feat are, barring the DC which is now sorted) and be done.
6. Should the tag "This is a mind affecting effect" be added? Why, or why not?No... because it already has the mind-affecting tag. It's right there at the bottom of the first paragraph (of the benefit text), last line.
Yes, tough the Diplomacy version has a pretty tame penalty (-2 to attacks and 10% spell failure) but lasts for a full minute. The intent of the intimidate version is to give a stronger penalty altough one that is much more limited in time. On course, in that case I might had that dammage from other sources that the person using antagonize should break the effect (a literal slap in the face).
Also, you are right about the mind-affecting effect part. Dunno why but I was under the impression that it was'nt there.
However, I'm interested in hearing from others why they think such a mechanic is necessary and/or what they think it adds to the game?Good question.
I do just want to point out, though, that this is (in the form of the original 2e spell) quite possibly the ORIGINAL "aggro" mechanic. It doesn't draw on WoW or EQ or anything, as the original spell pre-dates any of those influences.
What's funny is that I would guess that the original spell off of which the Intimidate-based mechanic of Antagonize is based was one of the least-memorized, least-cast spells in 2e. I can't imagine a 2e wizard actually wanting anyone to come beat on them for any reason. But, then again, my 2e experience is limited, and far behind me at any rate.
Edit: Oh, right. 2e Stoneskin. That explains it.
I hadn't even remembered that spell. I'm going to have to dig it up when I get home.
It'd sure be nice if they release their final "fix" for this feat before GenCon. My "bard-barian" just hit 5th level, and so long as there is any legitimate use out of this feat, he'll take it. If not, it's Improved Sunder for him!
Earlier on I posted that my main objection to this feat has nothing to do with whether it is balanced or not.
It has to do with my opinion that such an "aggro" mechanic is completely unnecessary in a game that has a real live GM and a real live players fully capable of deciding for themselves how the NPCs and characters react to taunts and such. I further believe that undermining the discreton that GMs and players have over the actions of the various NPCs and PCs is not a good thing. Thus the feat is banned in my game (with the enthusiastic and unanimous consent of the players) and will remain so, regardless of any rewrite. To me, this type of thing is strictly roleplaying and GM discretion, and should not have a determinative mechanic.
However, I'm interested in hearing from others why they think such a mechanic is necessary and/or what they think it adds to the game?
You would'nt believe the amount of DM's I saw that determined their npcs' and monsters' targets randomly, even when the npcs' and monsters' are begin seriously threatened by the group's armor clade fighter.
Or the amount of frustration of said armor clad fighter experiences when he his completely ignored by the meanies in favor of his squishier friends.
I don't care what Antagonize does in the middle of combat.
What should bother everyone is what it does to social encounters.
A roleplaying game can change the laws of physics and still work just fine. But if it contradicts everything we know about human psychology, then it has ceased to be a roleplaying game, because there is no longer any way to play a role. Your character is just a piece on a game board, with feelings and motivations that can deviate largely from anything humans experience in real life.
Obviously, the only valid way to ruin "non-combat, social" encounters is to be a spellcaster and just manipulate everyone magically.
Obviously, the only valid way to ruin "non-combat, social" encounters is to be a spellcaster and just manipulate everyone magically.I don't care what Antagonize does in the middle of combat.
What should bother everyone is what it does to social encounters.
A roleplaying game can change the laws of physics and still work just fine. But if it contradicts everything we know about human psychology, then it has ceased to be a roleplaying game, because there is no longer any way to play a role. Your character is just a piece on a game board, with feelings and motivations that can deviate largely from anything humans experience in real life.
And possibly be caught doing it, spending slots, be dispelled, having to pass SR and allowing a save, among other things. Yeah, it's totally the same thing.
Obviously, the only valid way to ruin "non-combat, social" encounters is to be a spellcaster and just manipulate everyone magically.
And possibly be caught doing it, spending slots, be dispelled, having to pass SR and allowing a save, among other things. Yeah, it's totally the same thing.
This recently backfired on me too. But Bardsong is a nice feat like that. ;)
You wouldn't believe the amount of DM's I saw that determined their npcs' and monsters' targets randomly, even when the npcs' and monsters' are begin seriously threatened by the group's armor clade fighter.Or the amount of frustration of said armor clad fighter experiences when he his completely ignored by the meanies in favor of his squishier friends.
Thoughts going on in the monsters head: "This guys armor is so strong I can barely penetrate it (high AC)! And he is so tough that even when I do he seems un-phased (High HP). Plus, he is about to rearrange my face (full attack) like he did to my buddy over there if I don't put some distance between us (move). On top of that the scrawny guy in the pointy hat (wizard) is making it really tough to fight. Looks like I could squish him (hit him) and then me and my remaining buddies could concentrate on (flank) the big guy."
Player (to the DM): "That's bull s%@~! How come the monster never attacks me! I'm the tank!"
And possibly be caught doing it, spending slots, be dispelled, having to pass SR and allowing a save, among other things. Yeah, it's totally the same thing.Obviously, the only valid way to ruin "non-combat, social" encounters is to be a spellcaster and just manipulate everyone magically.I don't care what Antagonize does in the middle of combat.
What should bother everyone is what it does to social encounters.
A roleplaying game can change the laws of physics and still work just fine. But if it contradicts everything we know about human psychology, then it has ceased to be a roleplaying game, because there is no longer any way to play a role. Your character is just a piece on a game board, with feelings and motivations that can deviate largely from anything humans experience in real life.
But if I can just piss people off into attacking me during social encounters because my actions were assumed aggressive, why does a feat that does that specifically get so much grief? Oh no spending slots! As opposed to what? Wasting one feat slot forever and focusing your other feats and skill purchases on intimidate? Yeah, totally WAY more burdensome to use one or two spell slots for the day. And who exactly are your bargaining with that has SR that won't just attack you anyway? And what do you think those feats to do magic covertly are for? Must not be for doing magic covertly.
Earlier on I posted that my main objection to this feat has nothing to do with whether it is balanced or not.
It has to do with my opinion that such an "aggro" mechanic is completely unnecessary in a game that has a real live GM and a real live players fully capable of deciding for themselves how the NPCs and characters react to taunts and such. I further believe that undermining the discreton that GMs and players have over the actions of the various NPCs and PCs is not a good thing. Thus the feat is banned in my game (with the enthusiastic and unanimous consent of the players) and will remain so, regardless of any rewrite. To me, this type of thing is strictly roleplaying and GM discretion, and should not have a determinative mechanic.
However, I'm interested in hearing from others why they think such a mechanic is necessary and/or what they think it adds to the game?
By your logic, you shouldn't be allowing the use of things like diplomacy, intimidate, quite a few enchantment spells and likely several other things that I can't quickly think of. You're right in the fact that players and GMs do get to choose how to react to certain situations. But where do you draw the line?
|
|
By your logic, you shouldn't be allowing the use of things like diplomacy, intimidate, quite a few enchantment spells and likely several other things that I can't quickly think of. You're right in the fact that players and GMs do get to choose how to react to certain situations. But where do you draw the line?Earlier on I posted that my main objection to this feat has nothing to do with whether it is balanced or not.
It has to do with my opinion that such an "aggro" mechanic is completely unnecessary in a game that has a real live GM and a real live players fully capable of deciding for themselves how the NPCs and characters react to taunts and such. I further believe that undermining the discreton that GMs and players have over the actions of the various NPCs and PCs is not a good thing. Thus the feat is banned in my game (with the enthusiastic and unanimous consent of the players) and will remain so, regardless of any rewrite. To me, this type of thing is strictly roleplaying and GM discretion, and should not have a determinative mechanic.
However, I'm interested in hearing from others why they think such a mechanic is necessary and/or what they think it adds to the game?
I am not going to hide the fact that I think this ability is an abomination. Do we really really need a feat that takes so much control away from the player and the GM? Being taunted to rush by a bunch of AOOs to attack the guy in full plate in the back makes no sense.
Because everything else in the game makes so much sense.
|
|
Because everything else in the game makes so much sense.
The suspense of disbelief is important even in a fantasy rpg. To have either characters or BBGs running about willy nilly because someone said something bad to them is pretty out there, while having them do so while under the effects of a spell is much easier to accept.
Thoughts going on in the monsters head: "This guys armor is so strong I can barely penetrate it (high AC)! And he is so tough that even when I do he seems un-phased (High HP). Plus, he is about to rearrange my face (full attack) like he did to my buddy over there if I don't put some distance between us (move). On top of that the scrawny guy in the pointy hat (wizard) is making it really tough to fight. Looks like I could squish him (hit him) and then me and my remaining buddies could concentrate on (flank) the big guy."
Player (to the DM): "That's bull s&$~! How come the monster never attacks me! I'm the tank!"
Don't mind so much for smart organized monsters. But it does tend to be damn right annoying when targets are selected randomly and the monster goes all the way around the "tank" to attack the caster, while the fighter is right there in it's face, and blows haven't even started to fly yet. Happens often, and in way too many gaming groups for my taste. Might just be a trend in my region tough...
Because everything else in the game makes so much sense.The suspense of disbelief is important even in a fantasy rpg. To have either characters or BBGs running about willy nilly because someone said something bad to them is pretty out there, while having them do so while under the effects of a spell is much easier to accept.
Evasion.
|
Because everything else in the game makes so much sense.The suspense of disbelief is important even in a fantasy rpg. To have either characters or BBGs running about willy nilly because someone said something bad to them is pretty out there, while having them do so while under the effects of a spell is much easier to accept.
So, two guys shoot a composite longbow six times in six seconds.
One of the does that thanks to a spell, another one thanks to Rapid Shot.
Which one is easier to accept?
|
|
Evasion.Because everything else in the game makes so much sense.The suspense of disbelief is important even in a fantasy rpg. To have either characters or BBGs running about willy nilly because someone said something bad to them is pretty out there, while having them do so while under the effects of a spell is much easier to accept.
Lol, I know a few guys that hate that ability because of the non-magical nature. Even then you can state that evasion is a SU ability easily enough. Similar enough to a shadowdancer's dimension jump.
Evasion is the reverse of Antagonize thou. Evasion adds control over the damage one takes, while Antagonize strips control either from the DM or the players. Either case, does the taunt mechanism need to exist in fantasy tabletop games? I would answer no, while my 4E fan friends would answer yes. A taunt mechanism does make combat pretty simplistic.
So, any chance you could pull back the curtain a bit and describe how Paizo playtests and edits content, and how this one slipped by the usually rigorous testing and editing?As curious as I am to know this piece of information as well, I find it highly unlikely that they're going to go down this rabbit hole.
I know I wouldn't, if it was my book and my company. They're already extremely transparent, I don't think that pointing fingers in this case gets us anywhere.
I don't want fingers pointed! I didn't ask, "who designed this feat?" or "who approved this feat?". Just would like to know that there's usually a process that eliminates stuff like this, and why that process resulted in this feat in print, this time.
Their info to share, or not. Think I asked nicely, at least? Was trying to...
Because everything else in the game makes so much sense.The suspense of disbelief is important even in a fantasy rpg. To have either characters or BBGs running about willy nilly because someone said something bad to them is pretty out there, while having them do so while under the effects of a spell is much easier to accept.So, two guys shoot a composite longbow six times in six seconds.
One of the does that thanks to a spell, another one thanks to Rapid Shot.
Which one is easier to accept?
Well attack rolls used to be an abstraction like HP. When you made 6 attack rolls it didn't necessarily mean that you made 6 actual attacks, it could have been more or less given the tempo (narrative view) of combat. Attack rolls were just a meta-game measurement of your ability to deal damage.
I believe this abstraction has been done away with in Pathfinder.
I don't want fingers pointed! I didn't ask, "who designed this feat?"
Why not? You aren't bad or rude for wanting to know who made a feat. Knowing who's writing allows you to give praise or criticism the person responsible. Praise and criticism are good things. It allows the author to see what he has created that's resonated with fans and what hasn't. If an author continues to write things that aren't resonating, then it also helps the company by letting them know who to hold accountable. For a game, that's clearly important.
Knowing who is writing the rules can also give you a heads-up as to the quality or style of the work. For example, every book that has "Monte Cook" printed on the cover will, at the very least, get me to take a look even when I otherwise wouldn't have. Meanwhile, I avoid anything with the name "Mike Mearls" on the cover like the plague. Not because I think Mike Mearls is a bad person or because he is just badwrong. But rather, because I just don't care for his style of gaming. And that's okay.
So yeah, point fingers. The more we point fingers the better.
|
|
I don't want fingers pointed! I didn't ask, "who designed this feat?" or "who approved this feat?". Just would like to know that there's usually a process that eliminates stuff like this, and why that process resulted in this feat in print, this time.Their info to share, or not. Think I asked nicely, at least? Was trying to...
I think you asked very nicely, and I wasn't trying to insinuate any incorrect action on your part at all. I was merely pointing out that I doubt we're going to get that level of detail from Sean or Jason.
** spoiler omitted **
Personally, I think more needs to be done.
I'll probably keep the feat the way it is, personally.
Think of it this way; a spellcaster has the ability to cast Hold Person against a Melee character. Most (not all) melee characters have weak Will saves, and when they fail, they become paralyzed and easily slain.
With this feat, a melee character has the ability to force a spellcaster into threatening range of the melee characters. Not only does he lose his actions (he has to move and attack, after all), but he's also placed into a position where he is more easily slain (possibly set up to become flanked or what not).
Despite this, Antagonize works only for a singe turn, and the spellcaster can still act; he has a great chance of failing, but a good spellcaster has escape mechanisms (teleports and what not). A Fighter who is paralyzed still doesn't have much of a chance to escape, and it is arguably easier to kill a Fighter who can be coup de graced then a Wizard that is in Sneak Attack position. In my opinion, a good spellcaster will have tools to rely on (Stoneskin, Displacement, etc) while not much is going to save the Fighter from having his head chopped off.
By your logic, you shouldn't be allowing the use of things like diplomacy, intimidate, quite a few enchantment spells and likely several other things that I can't quickly think of. You're right in the fact that players and GMs do get to choose how to react to certain situations. But where do you draw the line?Earlier on I posted that my main objection to this feat has nothing to do with whether it is balanced or not.
It has to do with my opinion that such an "aggro" mechanic is completely unnecessary in a game that has a real live GM and a real live players fully capable of deciding for themselves how the NPCs and characters react to taunts and such. I further believe that undermining the discreton that GMs and players have over the actions of the various NPCs and PCs is not a good thing. Thus the feat is banned in my game (with the enthusiastic and unanimous consent of the players) and will remain so, regardless of any rewrite. To me, this type of thing is strictly roleplaying and GM discretion, and should not have a determinative mechanic.
However, I'm interested in hearing from others why they think such a mechanic is necessary and/or what they think it adds to the game?
I think there is a difference between forced course of action and penalties for not doing a thing. Diplomacy or Intimidate can get you a favour or info from an NPC or stay them from attacking, but it doesn't let you dictate them every action unless you follow them and keep them in check.
I am not going to hide the fact that I think this ability is an abomination. Do we really really need a feat that takes so much control away from the player and the GM? Being taunted to rush by a bunch of AOOs to attack the guy in full plate in the back makes no sense.By your logic, you shouldn't be allowing the use of things like diplomacy, intimidate, quite a few enchantment spells and likely several other things that I can't quickly think of. You're right in the fact that players and GMs do get to choose how to react to certain situations. But where do you draw the line?Earlier on I posted that my main objection to this feat has nothing to do with whether it is balanced or not.
It has to do with my opinion that such an "aggro" mechanic is completely unnecessary in a game that has a real live GM and a real live players fully capable of deciding for themselves how the NPCs and characters react to taunts and such. I further believe that undermining the discreton that GMs and players have over the actions of the various NPCs and PCs is not a good thing. Thus the feat is banned in my game (with the enthusiastic and unanimous consent of the players) and will remain so, regardless of any rewrite. To me, this type of thing is strictly roleplaying and GM discretion, and should not have a determinative mechanic.
However, I'm interested in hearing from others why they think such a mechanic is necessary and/or what they think it adds to the game?
I offer you your own argument in return, but replace feat with spell. Yet you seem to have no problems with spells that do the same.
Honestly, I do think the feat is overpowered. I've toned it down in my own game, and I urge others to do the same. My only issue is with people who are blind to the fact that control removing things are already in the game. They're just currently in the hands of spellcasters.