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.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?
Well here's the thing. Following mechanics, a successful diplomacy or intimidate creates a forced course of action. You've effectively changed what they would have done previously. You're dictating their reaction through rolls. You're taking the choices out of the GMs hands through game mechanics.
|
I find it interesting that many point to a spell in 2e as the ancestor of Antagonize.
I go back a little further, to the Kender Taunt racial ability from 1e; a non-magical ability which did something very similar to Antagonize as written, IIRC.
Not intended to be a statement pro or con, just an observation.
I find it interesting that many point to a spell in 2e as the ancestor of Antagonize.
I go back a little further, to the Kender Taunt racial ability from 1e; a non-magical ability which did something very similar to Antagonize as written, IIRC.
Not intended to be a statement pro or con, just an observation.
Hell the kender taunt made it back to 3e
I would still like to know what happens when a player antagonizes a little girl, a man without arms, or Gandhi. And I still say the answer better not be enter a foaming frenzy and try kung fu for the first time.
1.) All kings, queens, dignitaries, and really anyone with money now always have Calm Emotions in Contingency to prevent them from them from loosing their shit every time somebody calls them a coward and getting themselves killed or thrown in prison.
2.) Laws are instated that create "quiet" zones.
3.) Con men use antagonize to create lawsuits. As a result, "He called my mother a whore!" becomes a legitimate excuse for getting away with violent crimes.
4.) Let's say you got thrown in prison. This is a classic room with bars you can see through. The guard walks by, twirling the ring with the keys on his finger and whistling to himself. You antagonize him just as he gets in front of your cell door. He isn't "unable to reach you" since he has a key. So he unlocks the door and opens it. You then use the immediate action intimidate to extend the duration by a round. Next you prepare an action for when he gets within reach to disarm him...and profit! You can keep trying until they kill you, keep in solitary, or until the warden changes the regulations to include a mandatory gag policy for all prisoners! Its good to know that now guards, even ones that aren't prison guards, are ALWAYS incompetent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a feat best served with a large side dish of Rule 0
I would still like to know what happens when a player antagonizes a little girl, a man without arms, or Gandhi. And I still say the answer better not be enter a foaming frenzy and try kung fu for the first time.
** spoiler omitted **
+1000
I agree that fighters and such need nice things, but I don't think Antagonize is what they need at all. Awesome feats of physical might and perfection, sure, but taunting isn't my idea of a fighter's best weapon.
|
I would still like to know what happens when a player antagonizes a little girl, a man without arms, or Gandhi. And I still say the answer better not be enter a foaming frenzy and try kung fu for the first time.
** spoiler omitted **
We're talking about a situation where people can be brought back from dead, did you make a similar breakdown of changes which raise dead brings?
We're talking about a situation where people can be brought back from dead, did you make a similar breakdown of changes which raise dead brings?
Why yes, I am the sort of person who considers what the consequences of game elements might be. How kind of you to notice.
So, what consequences did you come up with about raise dead in the game?
Actually, I'm also curious. I think about the implications certain mechanics have on settings as well, and very much enjoyed the things you reasoned out for Antagonize.
Well here's the thing. Following mechanics, a successful diplomacy or intimidate creates a forced course of action. You've effectively changed what they would have done previously. You're dictating their reaction through rolls. You're taking the choices out of the GMs hands through game mechanics.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.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?
Well, it gives general guidelines and inclinations, by far not in this level of detail. It's just like if the feat required the target to "focus aggression" rather than charge and conduct a melee attack. If diplomacy was this strict then it would have to have a set monetary and time value connected with margin of succes for example or perhaps a dominate-like effect that doesn't allow the target to change it's mind if the situation looks bad for it. "Focused aggression" could really be just a stream of invectives in certain situation, or reverse of diplomacy, changing the target's attitude toward hostile, but letting it decide what it does about that.
It would be certainly an okay feat if it, instead of forcing attack, forbade, or penalized heavily engaging other targets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what consequences did you come up with about raise dead in the game?
Well for starters you can cast it on people to bring them back from the dead. That's kinda cool.
1.) Those with incredible amounts of wealth will use resurrection. But lesser nobles and rich merchants will only be able to afford Raise Dead. Either way, wealthy or super wealthy, the likely hood of you living to old age is quite high. The exception is when you are killed by someone who wants your wealth or position. Because of this there are many wealthy people who are willing to take higher risks.
In one of my campaigns the PC's came to the house of a local viscount. The party was lead into the viscount's dimly lit bedroom. The man they saw looked ancient. Impossibly so. They discovered that he was afraid to die again because he had already died twice in the past and had paid for it with his health. He wanted the PC's to hunt the Well of Immortals (basically a fountain of youth) for him. It was a great story centered around raise dead and one nobles desperate wish to stay alive.
2.) Many larger churches will have a bank of body parts in a secure, well guarded location. Members of the church and those who make not unsizable donations will be allowed to store a part of their own body (locks of hair mostly) in these vaults. These banks are true resurrection prevention insurance. For example, the king could have a lock of hair in this vault so that way if he dies, and for some reason the body is un-recoverable, he can still be resurrected, rather than pay for the steep true resurrection costs.
3.) Although nobles can afford Raise Dead its still a heavy investment. Many nobles with political clout will try and make deals with churches; Assurance of raise dead in return for political favors. Some churches are better about dealing with corruption than others.
4.) Some nations force you to register to be raised before hand. Raise Dead is expensive and it only works on willing targets. No body wants to waste their time and money.
5.) Often legal hearings will be required before criminals can be brought back. Violent criminals can only be raised not resurrected. The idea is that raise dead will make them less of a threat. Of course that's even if a cleric is even willing to bring him back.
6.) High level (heroic) parties are the first line of defense against all the shadowy forces of the world. If the party has saved a metropolis or kingdom, those people aren't going to forget you when you TPK. If the ruler of the Kingdom you saved knows that you have been killed, he is going to try and get you raised. If the king is particularly grateful he might even pay for resurrection. Its doubtful, however, that he will pay for true resurrection for the entire party, so if he can't recover any piece of your bodies your shit outa luck.
7.) Clerics may sometimes be visited by petitioners who beg them for a second chance at life.
8.) etc. etc. etc. There are a lot of setting consequences for raise dead. I couldn't possibly write all the ones I've thought of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually don't believe that Raise Dead has as many consequences for a setting as the Antagonize feat has. For one, you need to be at least a 7th level druid to cast reincarnate, a 9th level cleric/10th level oracle for Raise Dead, or a 13th level wizard for Limited Wish to emulate reincarnate or 17th level wizard for Wish to emulate Raise Dead.
While there are high level NPCs, 9th level clerics of the proper faith to want to raise somebody aren't all over the place in Golarion, and Resurrection/True Resurrection spells are much, much harder to get access to as clerics of higher levels get more and more rare. Secondly, the price is prohibitively expensive, and coin is not enough, the cost must be paid in diamonds, which are rare and coveted enough in our world where they don't fuel resurrection spells.
Some things I do think would occur:
1. Diamond mines will be the most fought over pieces of earth on the planet, with the wealthy and powerful taking them. Diamond jewelry would probably be more of a liability than an investment, as all it takes is a couple desperate family members or less than scrupulous adventurers needing a resurrection to come along and rob or murder you for the bit of diamond.
2. Churches will be either controlled, placated, or put in high positions of many nations whose leaders want to gain the goodwill of the churches and ensure they are seen in a good enough light to receive a raise/resurrection upon their untimely death. Also raised/resurrected leaders will make succession even more convoluted than it usually is, which can cause quite a few problems.
And many, many more.
|
I actually don't believe that Raise Dead has as many consequences for a setting as the Antagonize feat has. For one, you need to be at least a 7th level druid to cast reincarnate, a 9th level cleric/10th level oracle for Raise Dead, or a 13th level wizard for Limited Wish to emulate reincarnate or 17th level wizard for Wish to emulate Raise Dead.
Or a 6th level paladin with high charisma and two feats.
A 6th level paladin can cast raise dead once per day without a material component.
Yes they can. They also won't abuse that power by raising greedy nobles. High standards them pallys. But clerics can be of any alignment. A neutral god of wealth for example is going to have followers who buy and sell favors with promises of raise dead (among other spells). If you have ever read any of the Discworld books by Terry Pratchet (or played Discworld 2), you might be familiar with pork futures. Its kinda like that.
I actually don't believe that Raise Dead has as many consequences for a setting as the Antagonize feat has.
Oh no. Not even close. Raise Dead is kinda tame in comparison. Antagonize is one of the dumbest feats I've ever seen. I was just responding to a friendly challenge.
Bear in mind that there is also the WANTING to be back part. You finally find rest, peace and your God on the afterlife (not all people, but some) it's kinda hard to say "Ok, I'll come back to this land of hardship"
I actually don't believe that Raise Dead has as many consequences for a setting as the Antagonize feat has. For one, you need to be at least a 7th level druid to cast reincarnate, a 9th level cleric/10th level oracle for Raise Dead, or a 13th level wizard for Limited Wish to emulate reincarnate or 17th level wizard for Wish to emulate Raise Dead.Or a 6th level paladin with high charisma and two feats.
True, though a paladin can't be bought so a campaign world can handle them raising the dead without as much of an impact.
|
|
True, though a paladin can't be bought so a campaign world can handle them raising the dead without as much of an impact.I actually don't believe that Raise Dead has as many consequences for a setting as the Antagonize feat has. For one, you need to be at least a 7th level druid to cast reincarnate, a 9th level cleric/10th level oracle for Raise Dead, or a 13th level wizard for Limited Wish to emulate reincarnate or 17th level wizard for Wish to emulate Raise Dead.Or a 6th level paladin with high charisma and two feats.
You don't have to 'buy' a paladin. 'Raise my husband and I'll donate a thousand gold pieces to an orphanage.' should certainly help to motivate him.
I don't find the Antagonize feat to be all that compelling as it is designed, but on general principle, going all the way back to my Basic D&D days, I've never really bought in to the idea that players ought to have total and complete control over their characters.
You know what, I agree with this in principle. I just think the mechanic is too binary, too narrowly considered, and chews up more feat slots for something that ought to be a basic option. Social skill mechanics would have been a better choice for all of those reasons.
|
First, +1000 Internets to Gorbacz for nearly derailing this thread into a discussion about raise dead, which is not a problem in PFRPG, and wasn't a problem in 3.5 or AD&D. Bravo, sir, and well played.
Second:
I find it interesting that many point to a spell in 2e as the ancestor of Antagonize.
I go back a little further, to the Kender Taunt racial ability from 1e; a non-magical ability which did something very similar to Antagonize as written, IIRC.
Interesting. Here is a link to the 2e spell I was referring to. Ca you provide the 1e verbiage you're referring to? I never played any 1e and have no frame of reference. I'm really interested to see what you're referring to.
|
|
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.
A spell this powerful has at least one save. I would have a ton of issues with any ability this powerful without a save. Adding a save for this control ability would go a long way towards "fixing" it.
The Kender Taunt ability made it so that the character could taunt any intelligent creature. They had to save vs. spell, and if they failed then they would attack the Kender for 1d10 rounds at -2 to hit and +2 AC.
I don't have the exact text on hand, I wrote all of this down on the back cover of my AD&D Player's Handbook (I REALLY liked the Kender back in the day), but it seems like this was also an at-will power that you could just spam over and over again.
How to use the antagonize feat: Tell the target you want to antagonize, "I really like Kender."
How to use the antagonize feat: Tell the target you want to antagonize, "I really like Kender."
*twitch*
Pretty sure that the only time I've ever used the Divine Lightning Bolt was back in high school (playing 2E) when I learned one of my players had statted up a CN Kender thief for his character. Did I mention we weren't playing in Krynn or even using the DragonLance setting?
Anyway, appreciate the breakdowns by WPharolin. That sort of stuff is always interesting. :)
|
One of the reasons the non-magic aspect of this Feat's Intimidate effect is an issue (and it's not 'because Fighters can't have nice things') is that the Pathfinder game assumes a setting with magic, where magic is known to exist by the general public.
Cast a spell on a diplomat to make him go berserk and attack you and a simple detect magic cantrip, or even having a few ranks in Knowledge (arcana) quickly reveals that the poor diplomat was the victim of some spellcaster being a dick.
Use the Intimidate aspect of this Feat and it's the diplomat who is seen as not only a dick, but a dangerous psychopath who's reaction to insults is an attempted murder in broad daylight in front of witnesses.
... Antagonize is one of the dumbest feats I've ever seen...
As far as the Intimidate aspect goes, I totally agree.
A spell this powerful has at least one save. I would have a ton of issues with any ability this powerful without a save. Adding a save for this control ability would go a long way towards "fixing" it.
So, you want Antagonize to have a DC to beat, and then a save on top of that? I could see something like an opposed Charisma check, kinda like Charm Person (which you can do far more with than you could ever do with antagonize) has. But no, since it already has the DC one has to beat, there's no call for an additional save.
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.
If I knew the goal posts were wheeled, I would have just said something ridiculous.
|
|
So, you want Antagonize to have a DC to beat, and then a save on top of that? I could see something like an opposed Charisma check, kinda like Charm Person (which you can do far more with than you could ever do with antagonize) has. But no, since it already has the DC one has to beat, there's no call for an additional save.
A spell this powerful has at least one save. I would have a ton of issues with any ability this powerful without a save. Adding a save for this control ability would go a long way towards "fixing" it.
Intimidate bonuses scale waaaay faster than 10+Level+WisMod. That really needs to be accepted as an axiomatic fact in this discussion.
Intimidate bonuses scale waaaay faster than 10+Level+WisMod. That really needs to be accepted as an axiomatic fact in this discussion.So, you want Antagonize to have a DC to beat, and then a save on top of that? I could see something like an opposed Charisma check, kinda like Charm Person (which you can do far more with than you could ever do with antagonize) has. But no, since it already has the DC one has to beat, there's no call for an additional save.
A spell this powerful has at least one save. I would have a ton of issues with any ability this powerful without a save. Adding a save for this control ability would go a long way towards "fixing" it.
Ok, so what would you base the save DC off of then?
Ok, so what would you base the save DC off of then?
10+1/2 Hit Dice + Stat is standard for save DC.
10+1/2 Intimidate Ranks + Charisma for a will save might be appropriate?
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.
First off, thanks for answering the question. If I understand your answer correctly, you feel the mechanic is useful in those cases in which GMs do not seem to be determining NPC/monster actions logically. I'm sorry that you seem to find that a frequent occurence, and I can see your argument if it is. In that case, it is filling the exact same function as the aggro mechanic in a MMORPG is filling, determining NPC/monster actions in the absence of a competent GM.
I have to say my experience is different, and I haven't seen that level of incompetence from very many GMs over the years. I note that, of course, just because players want the monsters/NPCs to attack the most heavily armored character does not mean that that is the logical thing for them to do. Each monster/NPC is unique in its intelligence, experience and tactical acumen and should be played that way by the GM. Relatively stupid opponents or those without much tactical skill and experience might well attack the most difficult or the closest target first. Smarter ones might instead seek out the most dangerous opponents, or the weakest ones first. Many highly intelligent or tactically sound foes will always seek to take out the spellcasters first, particularly the healers, since all the damage you do is meaningless if the cleric keeps channeling it away every round. For intelligent enemies, think about how your group would attack a rival adventuring group. If your GM is doing anything like that, that's pretty reasonable.
As for randomly determining targets, I agree that is usually not the best method. I have to admit to doing it in select situations, myself, usually when there are multiple targets available and no real reason to prefer one over another. For example, in a recent game I ran, a pack of wolves ambushed the party. Using predatory tactics, they concentrated their attacks on the characters they viewed as the weakest members of the "herd" (the smallest in stature, in this case a female dwarven druid and petite human female sorcerer), and sought to gang up on them and flank (animals don't have to be smart to use these tactics, they're learned/instinctive). A few leftover wolves, however, who couldn't reach the prime targets, were left to choose between equally appealing/unappealing targets they could reach. So I tolled a 6-sided die. 1-2 attack the dwarven fighter, 3-4 attack the human paladin, 5-6 attack the human cleric.
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 do claim logical consistency, at least. I'm one of those players who found the incorporation of social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate in 3.0, which allowed die rolls to determine what had previously been purely the providence of roleplaying, to be very controversial. I do use those rules, because eliminating them would take me a little further into houserule territory than I am usually willing to go, but I modify them pretty heavily. I incorporate a lot of roleplaying, and a ton of situational modifiers to produce what I believe are more logical results (e.g. the chance of getting a drunken barmaid with loose morals to sleep with your character is going to be significantly higher than your chance of getting a sober young virginal paladin of Erastil to do the same).
As for enchantment/compulsion spells, they are a bit different. First off, they usually have some pretty significant limitations written into them. Secondly, they almost always give saving throws, frequently with significant bonuses applied for actions that would be dangerous/out of character. Saves are a more difficult obstacle to overcome than static target DCs. Thirdly, they require the use of spell slots, a limited and valuable resource that is totally wasted if the spell fails.
Finally, what is your answer to my basic question: Why is this feat necessary, and what does it add to the game?
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 don't find the Antagonize feat to be all that compelling as it is designed, but on general principle, going all the way back to my Basic D&D days, I've never really bought in to the idea that players ought to have total and complete control over their characters.
It's always felt unrealistic to me that a character would behave the way they generally do in an RPG. An early example might be a player telling the GM that their character is always wearing their armor, always carrying their weapon, and always tensed and ready for battle. This would apply even after a full day of travel in the wilderness, or walking through peaceful town. When we discovered Rolemaster I often used the Discipline attribute to try and knock some more reality into this approach to play. If the player wanted to always be at the ready then they had better have a high Discipline stat.
As time went on and I was able to see more game systems and reflect on living in the world more it's pretty obvious to me that humans are more or less just surfing on our emotions. Our rational minds are constantly navigating our interior emotional landscape and it's rather easy during stressful and dramatic situations for us to react in ways that, in the ease of hindsight, would not have been the best approach. Having game mechanisms that would simulate that kind of tension, such as FATE's Aspects with their compels, is something that I think works well. The power for the player is still technically all there, but they take a penalty if they don't follow their emotional currents.
Lastly, in all my time playing RPGs I've found roleplayers in broad general terms to be awful at creating interesting drama. The freedom of RPGs to "not be like those stupid characters in that horror movie" and endlessly act in highly systematic and rational manners means that dramatic moments...
I agree with some of what you say, disagree with other parts and am not sure I understand others.
Your first statement about not having complete control I can buy into, but there is a big difference between complete control and being forced to do something suicidal without a saving throw. The Antagonize feat, apart from being completely unnecessary, crosses a redline for me.
As for your example, it doesn't impress me much. I've had players try to play that exact same card with me, arguing that they always slept in their armor, with sword in hand, and were always alert. They saw the light after I started applying stacking fatigue penalties to them. There was no need for a Discipline stat or any other such mechanic, just a GM exercising discretion and applying logic. And I don't care how many ranks of whatever skill/attribute you apply, sleeping in anything beyond the lightest armor is going to leave you sore and tired the next day, particularly if you do it over several nights in a row.
I haven't played FATE so cannot comment on the mechanics of that game, but do have a natural suspicion toward anything that tries to convert roleplaying into simple deterministic mechanics.
I disagree with your observation about players not being able to create drama, basically not being able to roleplay effectively. Not everyone is a great roleplayer, of course, but in general, I'm pretty pleased with the stories my players are able to tell through their roleplaying and actions. It always turns out significantly different than I had imagined, and frequently much, much better.
|
|
Ok, so what would you base the save DC off of then?10+1/2 Hit Dice + Stat is standard for save DC.
10+1/2 Intimidate Ranks + Charisma for a will save might be appropriate?
These values for a will save makes sense. You can even dump the skill check part before (as the skill check is pretty meaningless).
These values for a will save makes sense. You can even dump the skill check part before (as the skill check is pretty meaningless).
Ok, so what would you base the save DC off of then?10+1/2 Hit Dice + Stat is standard for save DC.
10+1/2 Intimidate Ranks + Charisma for a will save might be appropriate?
And whats better?
Its trivially easy to include the following;
"SPECIAL: If you have Skill Focus (Intimidate) you gain a +1 bonus to the Save DC. If you have Skill Focus and more than 10 ranks in Intimidate, this bonus increases to +2."
Or some such.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so what would you base the save DC off of then?Intimidate bonuses scale waaaay faster than 10+Level+WisMod. That really needs to be accepted as an axiomatic fact in this discussion.So, you want Antagonize to have a DC to beat, and then a save on top of that? I could see something like an opposed Charisma check, kinda like Charm Person (which you can do far more with than you could ever do with antagonize) has. But no, since it already has the DC one has to beat, there's no call for an additional save.
A spell this powerful has at least one save. I would have a ton of issues with any ability this powerful without a save. Adding a save for this control ability would go a long way towards "fixing" it.
Me? I would scrap the Intimidate portion of the feat, and not spend any more time thinking about it. Intimidate is too easy to boost based on already-published materials to try to build an aggro mechanic off of it.
Some of the objections to, um, the objections...have been that people are putting "intimidate monsters" forward that are designed top-to-bottom to dominate this mechanic. I say that's exactly what people should be doing, because that's what people will play. This is a feat - a single feat, not a feat at the end of a chain - that you can build an entire 20-level character around. It's wildly effective at low levels and at high levels.
That pesky Balor, flying around... "No worries! Hey Balor, yomommasofat!" Down flutters the Balor to the party's clutches, because the party's inquisitor has their Intimidate pumped to, I don't know, +45 (I really don't know what the ceiling is here because I don't build characters like this...but I do GM, and I do have common sense, and +45 doesn't sound too outlandish).
Sure, to do this, he had to use a few feats - Skill Focus: Intimidate certainly - but it's his entire schtick, so that's not an issue for him. If you don't think that this will become a very, very popular character type, well, I'd be happy to come to your table and show you how annoying and disruptive it can be.
I just dealt with the (semi houseruled) version of this feat saturday. Since I houseruled it ahead of time (Added the 10 to the dc and required them to focus their anger on you). It wasnt much of an issue. However a fun little conversation came up when the same guy used intimidate on a peasent, and tried to tell me that by the rules the intimidated party has to do exactly as he says... I just snickered, and said "No". I accept the idea you can intimidate people into doing things, however completely bullying them into any action regardless of danger is just dumb. Sometimes players never cease to amaze me...
What do people think of some of the other variations on the concept behind this feat. For example, Open Design's Provoke Feat from Advanced Feats: The Cavalier's Creed.
...If they are already hostile, it provokes them to attack you, violently if possible. This effect is not strictly compulsory, and the target does not attack heedless of all danger but takes all reasonable efforts to direct attacks at you.
This part would need to be altered. It still forces little girls and Gandhi to attack you. That's dumb. The part about turning people hostile rather than fuming with violent rage and an intent to kill however, is better than Antagonize by leaps and bounds. Its still clunky and I don't like it, but way better than Antagonize.
This effect lasts until the end of combat or until the target is killed. Until the effect ends, you cannot use Provoke on another opponent in combat.
This needs to be changed. Why does it continue to last? Shouldn't there be leg room for things like...oh...I don't know...apologies?
But worse than the duration is the once per combat rule. There is really no reason for it to be unusable again during combat. If your good enough to provoke one person with words then why aren't you just as capable on another?
Special: You suffer a −5 penalty to your Intimidate check if your target is currently threatened by an opponent but not by you, or if your target has little or no means of hurting you. Instead of attacking personally, a target can order any loyal retainers or allies to attack on its behalf. Provoke does not work on enemies immune to mind-affecting effects.
This seems workable.
|
|
What do people think of some of the other variations on the concept behind this feat. For example, Open Design's Provoke Feat from Advanced Feats: The Cavalier's Creed.
Benefit: You can make an Intimidate check as a standard action to provoke an opponent into violence against you. A successful check worsens your targets attitude by one step if they are not already hostile. If they are already hostile, it provokes them to attack you, violently if possible. This effect is not strictly compulsory, and the target does not attack heedless of all danger but takes all reasonable efforts to direct attacks at you.
This effect lasts until the end of combat or until the target is killed. Until the effect ends, you cannot use Provoke on another opponent in combat.
Special: You suffer a −5 penalty to your Intimidate check if your target is currently threatened by an opponent but not by you, or if your target has little or no means of hurting you. Instead of attacking personally, a target can order any loyal retainers or allies to attack on its behalf. Provoke does not work on enemies immune to mind-affecting effects.
I take way less issue with this - I'd prefer that it specify that the check has a DC of 10+Level+WisMod (since that's left merely as an implication) - but it seems reasonably limited, and it certainly doesn't specify "melee" (a.k.a. "suicide") attack. I am sort of amused that it specifies "violently if possible", as though there are non-violent attacks. That part made me LOL.
In a perfect world, I think anything of this nature would be an opposed roll, likely against Sense Motive. Unfortunately, Intimidate is useful on it's own, while Sense Motive is somewhat of a less traditionally min-maxed skill. So even that isn't a very good solution.
I think a flat DC is actually more appropriate in this case.
If one experienced diplomat (level 2 or 3 aristocrat) taunts another nothing is going to happen. If one kid (commoner 1) taunts another the handle is more likely to be flown off of.
Success should go down as the tauntee gets more experienced without regard for the experience of the taunter.
flat DC are very bad IMHO. They don't scale, which is the worst thing you can say about a feat.
the way i see it, any action caused by a mind effecting compulsion is completely involuntary.
it already has a DC. gaining the higher skill bonuses requires an investment of precious highly limited resources. you only get so many feats. and few people ever dump wisdom while charisma is the biggest dump stat ever.
it doesn't matter that it forces the antagonized victim to fly into a murderous rage and try to kill the antagnizer with a melee attack.
magical compulsions can do far worse things. and they steal control of a character for much longer. try hours versus a single round.
the feat sas published before the errata was perfectly balanced in my opinion. it gave wizards and archers something to fear.
one of the reasons that wizards are so overpowered and that archers dominate the DPR olympics is because they have absurdly high ranges. archers can full attack right away and wizards cast thier better spells from crazy good distances. because they already are so good at participating from so far away. they need something that makes them feel a hint of danger. something to keep them in line.
in combat, range is an amazingly powerful benefit. this just cancels out that benefit for a single round and is hardly anywhere near as good as stunning said target.
and the best class for intimidation is likely an inquisitor built around it.
and skill bonuses beyond ranks, plus attrbiute modifer require resource investment proportionate to the desired bonus. remember that the guy who maxed out his intimidate to perform this task on a 2 or better probably burnt several resources and yes, skill points are precious too.
if one could vouch for the antagonized victim not acting like his typical self. the antagonizer could be suspected of using exotic magic illegally.
Here is another unintended consequences of the antagonize feat. This one really sets the bar.
In a world where people regularly loose their shit and assault people, it will be commonly accepted. Magic won't even be a suspect most of the time. Innate fury will attributed to all violent crimes. Even ones that weren't provoked. In a world with antagonize, everyone will be believed to be inherently violent. Churches will claim that everyone is born with anger inside them that they can't control (and they will be right). People will just come to accept that violence is a natural part of their psyches, and in our heart of hearts, we are all inherently dangerous. Yes, even sweet, innocent little Fluttershy is filled will the rage of a thousands suns. No one is stable.
In a world with antagonize there is no such thing as a human, elf, dwarf, halfling, or any other sentient race (that isn't immune to mind-affecting effects) who is not horribly insecure, emotionally fragile, and without deep seeded anger issues. In such a world, everyone is emotionally scarred as evidenced by their inability to control themselves. This applies to the players as well. Like it or not, in a world with where antagonize is real, your paladin does have anger issues. Now, everybody is Nickolas Cage (explicit)...Awesome.
the feat sas published before the errata was perfectly balanced in my opinion. it gave wizards and archers something to fear.
Let's take a Charisma 10, 11th-level, half-orc barbarian. He put eleven ranks into Intimidate and spent three of his six feats on it— Antagonize, Skill Focus (Intimidate), and Persuasive. His roll modifier? +26 -- 11 from ranks, +10 from feats, +2 from race, +3 from being a class skill.
Before the errata, he had an absolute, 100% chance to force a 20th level Wisdom 23 wizard to run over and engage in a melee attack, because 1d20+26 beats 20+6 every single time.
I figure it's about three minutes before people figure out that you can, between an 11th-level barbarian and an 11th-level wizard, Antagonize any 20th-level in the whole game world into running into an area covered by an Antimagic Field. At which point the barbarian makes a grapple attack on the powerless wizard.
And you are of the opinion that that was "perfectly balanced".
And you are of the opinion that that was "perfectly balanced".
Remember, you're talking to Shuriken Nekogami.
I wonder if taking trip attacks from AOO agianst the intimidated wizard to stop him from attacking would work. Friends do not let frineds kill themselves.