And you are of the opinion that that was "perfectly balanced".Remember, you're talking to Shuriken Nekogami.
Well.
What's worse is the revision didn't actually change much. Assume the barbarian has the Intimidating Prowess feat (with Str 18). Now he's getting rather specialized, sure, but he's still got two other feats and all the class features of a barbarian, and now his modifier is +30 vs. a DC of 36. Oh, but when he greater rages (which is an extraordinary ability), he gets another +6 to his Strength, and intimidate is explicitly compatible with raging, so he's rolling 1d20+33 versus a DC of 36.
So, a full 90% of the time, our 11th-level barbarian can force a 20th level, Wis 23 wizard to close to melee . . . into the range of the antimagic field our 11th-level wizard standing behind the barbarian put up. Hey, how many wizards have a Wis as high as 22? Yeah.
To an extent this is white-room stuff. But when you make it possible for someone to move a foe to a specific position with almost perfect reliability, lots of exploits open up as a consequence. This feat needs to be seriously reworked.
here is what the 11th level pair of barbarian and wizard spent to do this trick to take out thier 20th level wizard opposition. the expenditure is quite steep for the power of this trick.
here are the coordinated resources they had to burn
barbarian had to burn 4 feats to rock those intimidate numbers and be able to antagonize. leaving him only 2 to invest on other things
he had to burn 11 skill points on intimidate
he had to not dump charisma, which costs him points that could have otherwise spent improving his combat ability
both PCs had to win initiative
the barbarian had to be a half orc with levels in the barbarian class
the wizard had to blow a 6th level spell slot of which he has very few and seal away his ability to cast for the encounter.
both PCs had to spend several levels planning and coordinating this
the wizard had to bother to learn antimagic field. whether by giving up a free spell or by spending cash. this also costs 6 spellbook pages. spellbooks have weight.
both had to suppress the power of their magical equipment to perform this trick. which drastically lowers thier numbers
both pcs had to spend precious actions to perform this. and the wizard could have done something better.
it's not an exploit, it's a great example of teamwork that requires a great deal of coirdination and resource expenditure between 2 players that really trust each other.
yes, a coordinated team working together as one unit is much more powerful than a group of individuals.
this expenditure of resources and coordination of efforts actually does perfectly balance this exploit.
and this barbarian is essentially a one trick pony.
Investments and dealers, investments and dealers
Consider for a moment the D&D CR/Level system, where by, every single level increases your 'power' by 50% and every two levels by 100%. Two CR 4's is an EL 6 encounter (or a CR + 2 encounter in PF). 4 Creatures of the same CR is an encounter level equal to their CR + 4 (same for PF). A party of four players is meant to win 50% of the time against an encounter level 4 above their own (or 50% of the time in an encounter of CR + 4 in PF). In other words, four CR 4 monsters are equal to four level 4 players.
When determining what encounters are appropriate for a party consisting of a single character you are meant to treat the character as 4 levels lower than he actually is. For example, a 10th level fighter would count as a 6th level character when determining what challenges are appropriate to pit him up against. A 6th level character is expected to die against a CR 10 creature 50% of the time. In other words, CR is meant to be an exact equivalent to character level when speaking in terms of power. That means that a 10th level character and a CR 10 monster are meant to be able to go toe to toe on equal footing (each creature has a 50% chance to win).
A 20th level character was literally expected to be able to handle an infinite number of CR 12 creatures in 3.5 and not be sufficiently challenged as to gain any experience points what-so ever. If CR is meant as a quadratic leap in power than it would follow that quadratic leaps in numbers for lower leveled characters would be equal in power. It should look something like this...
1 level 20 = 2 level 18's
1 level 20 = 4 level 16's
1 level 20 = 8 level 14's
1 level 20 = 16 level 12's
1 level 20 = 32 level 10's
1 level 20 = 64 level 8's
1 level 20 = 128 level 6's
1 level 20 = 256 level 4's
1 level 20 = 512 level 2's
An 11th level barbarian and an 11th level wizard is an EL 13 encounter (or a CR 13 encounter in PF). 20th level characters are meant to be the equivalent of twelve 13th level characters. What you are suggesting, is that because the barbarian and the wizard spent resources, that they should be able to manhandle men that are 12 times as powerful as they are with fair regularity.
Just...no. That's the same as saying "Hey why don't you guys just level up for free."
but there are flaws to relying on the CR system
the creature CRS were calculated on the baseline assumption of the PCs playing a group consisting of Valeros, Merisiel, Kyra, and Seoni fighting with average tactics against foes that also use a similar level of tactics. there are a variety of things that can skew the system. the CR system was not designed to allow the DM to shut his brain off. he still has to factor his the overall ability of his players, from the mechanical abilities on thier sheets, to the skill and creativity of the players and even the number.
So what if an 11th level pair of a barbarian and wizard can slay a 20th level wizard. a 20th level wizard is a CR19 meant to face 1 level 19 PC out of 4. as powerful as 4 CR15 monsters. which an 11th level party of 4 can face as APL +4. i imagine there is also a divine caster and a skill monkey as well. this is a challenging encounter that consumes 50% of the party resources. this calculation assumes you use a baseline party consisting of Merisiel, Seoni, Valeros and Kyra.
the monsters were not designed against the baseline of the optimized builds on the paizo boards. they were built around heavily flawed organically grown pcs who use the elite array, don't have the best gear distribution, and made a few design mistakes.
|
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.
** spoiler omitted **...
Notice that you can't make a "body pieces repository" to use with resurrection, the spell requirements include:
So long as some small portion of the creature's body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature's body at the time of death.
On the other hand, you can have a body bank, with clones under gnetle repose ready for activation.
So no First Ferengi Church (copyrighted) but Everlasting Life clinic by wizard Casimir. ;)
Maybe the target needs the option to flee, using the withdraw action only away from the antagonist.
If that still seems wonky, the fleeing result could be a function of comparative HD; if the antagonizer has fewer HD than you, sure, attack him. If the antagonizer has more HD then you, attack or flee, your choice. If the antagonizer has twice your HD or more, mandatory flee.
Just a notion.
Maybe the target needs the option to flee, using the withdraw action only away from the antagonist.
If that still seems wonky, the fleeing result could be a function of comparative HD; if the antagonizer has fewer HD than you, sure, attack him. If the antagonizer has more HD then you, attack or flee, your choice. If the antagonizer has twice your HD or more, mandatory flee.
Just a notion.
Howabout, "If the target takes any action other than a move action away from the Antagonist, it must include the Antagonist as a target."
and this barbarian is essentially a one trick pony.
When the trick is really good, and works against everything with near 100% reliability, that's much better than most class features. In fact, the only ones that are 100% all the time are defensive ones like immunity to poisons.
It's a forced position. In this game, that means death.
Just last night, we had a fight with a flying invisible menace. It took us several spells, including invisibility purge, and having taken several spells and actions before it was dispelled and was close enough to the fighter to take serious damage. If it was Antagonized to close the distance with the fighter (who specializes in intimidate, but doesn't have this feat), it would have been easier than having to dispel all his active spells 'till fly was hit.
In case it needs pointing out, it would have been a better option than greater dispel magic.
Howabout, "If the target takes any action other than a move action away from the Antagonist, it must include the Antagonist as a target."
I really don't care for a feat telling me how I have to GM NPCs or mandating how the players have to play their own PCs. If we try and write every contingency into the rules as a safeguard against bad GMs then all that will do is restrict good GMs and the crappy ones won't get any better. (i.e. If they can't comprehend a 500+ rulebook, making it twice as thick won't help matters.)
Something like this feat should be implemented as modifiers/penalties that might influence the target to take certain actions relative to the antagonizer but not force them to.
Something like this feat should be implemented as modifiers/penalties that might influence the target to take certain actions relative to the antagonizer but not force them to.
The problem is, modifiers are generally easily overcome by stacking Big Numbers.
Forcing the fighter to attack target notwizard by giving him a -5 to attack Mr. Wizard is utterly irrelevant.
Unless Mr. Wizard has uncommonly pumped his AC, the fighter still hits 95% of the time.
EDIT: And if you make the modifiers big enough to matter, you might as well have just limited their options from the get-go.
Notice that you can't make a "body pieces repository" to use with resurrection, the spell requirements include:
You're right. Its been a long time since the campaign that I did this in (early 3.5) so I forgot about another spell I used to make this work.
On the other hand, you can have a body bank, with clones under gnetle repose ready for activation.So no First Ferengi Church (copyrighted) but Everlasting Life clinic by wizard Casimir. ;)
That's a cool idea. And cheaper than my Res Vaults. I'm thinking an arcane lab, the temperatures kept real low, and there are wizards constantly shuffling about, grooming and maintaining and clones. There are tubes coming from the bodies that provide basic nutrients. Opposite the finished clones are the growing tanks, filled with a feint green bubbling liquid, and an unfinished husk, misshapen and vaguely humanoid. When the players walk in they see a man stick a hypodermic needle loaded with a gentle repose potion into the shoulder of one of the clones. Hmmm...I might be stealing your idea for my next campaign.
The problem is, modifiers are generally easily overcome by stacking Big Numbers.
What difference does it make if +2/-2 modifiers are easily overcome? Nearly all the CMB/D feats grant a +2 bonus along with the benefit of no AoOs. Mobility provides a +4 bonus but only in limited situations. Dodge provides a bonus virtually all of the time, but it's benefit is only +1. Also, out of those 3 examples, only Dodge has no meaningful prerequisites.
Considering this feat with no prereqs would grant an ability that doesn't even exist in the game yet (and can currently force a combat situation where there wasn't one), then the corresponding benefit should be inline with existing feats. I'd say a +2 bonus (perhaps scaling by an additional +1/5 ranks) is more than fair.
|
|
here is what the 11th level pair of barbarian and wizard spent to do this trick to take out thier 20th level wizard opposition. the expenditure is quite steep for the power of this trick.
here are the coordinated resources they had to burn
<list redacted for brevity>
This list is silly. You're actually citing "Weight of Spellbook" as a resource. C'mon. Everything you said about the wizard you can say for any wizard at any level casting any spell from their highest-level slot. Really? Are we supposed to pity the wizard for casting spell X from his highest level slot? Really? Really?
You're also calling the Barbarian a One-Trick Pony. This is patently false. He's used 4 "precious" feats, true. He still has Power Attack, and...does he actually need anything else? Probably not, but he takes Improved Initiative anyway, so he has an even better chance of ruining the entire combat for (whatever the most powerful enemy involved in the combat is). He can Antagonize flawlessly. He can hit for a ton of damage. He can Intimidate via standard usage of the skill. He can Climb/Swim/Survive in the Wild/some combination of these. Considering that (as a Barbarian) he's supposed to dish out and take massive amounts of damage and everything above that is gravy, he has just turned into a 230 pound bucket of gravy. With gravy on top. And a side of gravy.
This gets worse when we talk about a Fighter with a similar build. Now the Feat investment is nearly inconsequential. Fighters swim in feats.
You know, I could go on, but it doesn't matter what either of us think. Jason and Sean have stated that they understand that there are problems. Hopefully they fix those problems soon.
Notice that you can't make a "body pieces repository" to use with resurrection, the spell requirements include:
You're right. Its been a long time since the campaign that I did this in (early 3.5) so I forgot about another spell I used to make this work.
That's a cool idea. And cheaper than my Res Vaults. I'm thinking an arcane lab, the temperatures kept real low, and there are wizards constantly shuffling about, grooming and maintaining and clones. There are tubes coming from the bodies that provide basic nutrients. Opposite the finished clones are the growing tanks, filled with a feint green bubbling liquid, and an unfinished husk, misshapen and vaguely humanoid. When the players walk in they see a man stick a hypodermic needle loaded with a gentle repose potion into the shoulder of one of the clones. Hmmm...I might be stealing your idea for my next campaign.
On the other hand, you can have a body bank, with clones under gnetle repose ready for activation.So no First Ferengi Church (copyrighted) but Everlasting Life clinic by wizard Casimir. ;)
And if your going this route don't forgot some sort of empathetic link that has to cast every so often, that retains your memories at the time of death so that your clone is update as possible (and also notified of your untimliness)... Totally doable for enough research and money (Probably have to be a wish for that kind of power though, so rare and expensive but worth it to many).
barbarian had to burn 4 feats to rock those intimidate numbers and be able to antagonize. leaving him only 2 to invest on other things
Three—unless you're recanting your statement that it was balanced before the errata?
he had to burn 11 skill points on intimidate
"Burn"? Intimidate is useful in all sorts of other situations, both as a skill on its own and with barbarian rage powers.
he had to not dump charisma, which costs him points that could have otherwise spent improving his combat ability
Yeah, if he's dumped Charisma all the way to 7, he could have only managed 100% of the time against a Wis 21 20th-level wizard (1d20+24 vs DC 25), not a Wis 23.
both PCs had to win initiative
No, they just have to have not yet died. Granted, for a pair of 11th-level characters against a CR 19 encounter, that might be synonymous.
the barbarian had to be a half orc with levels in the barbarian class
No, this was an example. It's as easy to do with the pre-errata version of the feat with a fighter, ranger, paladin, or monk (and the only reason one's not using another class is to make the grapple work). The barbarian is selected for the example just because it's the class that gets the most non-Antagonize benefit from ranks in Intimidate. If you sub in human or half-elf for the race, you pick up a feat to do Intimidating Prowess in place of the native +2 for the half-orc.
both PCs had to spend several levels planning and coordinating this
No, the Antagonize barbarian just had to take the Antagonize feat when he hit 11th level, having previously maxed Intimidate for the other uses it can give a barbarian. The wizard then takes Antimagic Field as one of his spells at 11th level. Hey, they've spent all of five minutes planning and coordinating this!
both had to suppress the power of their magical equipment to perform this trick. which drastically lowers thier numbers
A 20th-level character has a whole hell of a lot more magical equipment; the lowering of the enemy wizard's numbers is a lot more dramatic, causing a net bonus to the 11th level characters' numbers.
both pcs had to spend precious actions to perform this.
Almost anything characters do costs actions.
and the wizard could have done something better.
Like? What can an 11th-level wizard do to a 20th-level wizard that's more effective than 100% reliably shutting down the 20th-level wizard's class features and gear?
What difference does it make if +2/-2 modifiers are easily overcome? Nearly all the CMB/D feats grant a +2 bonus along with the benefit of no AoOs.
Bolded part is very important; not because of the damage taken, but because any damage taken is an additional penalty on your maneuver check equal to damage dealt. So its not just a +2 to land a maneuver in the case of those feats, its a variable bonus equal to whatever damage was landed by the theoretical AOO avoided. Thats huge. Certainly in comparison the paltry +2 swing you get explicitly.
And the other two examples I gave?
The current Antagonize paradigm is akin to expecting a new BMW when you're only paying for a VW.
"Penalties" could be replaced with disadvantages. The feat could hit the target with a condition or percentile miss chance if it chose not to engage the user of the feat. Staggered + concentration check to cast could work for example.
|
|
That's a cool idea. And cheaper than my Res Vaults. I'm thinking an arcane lab, the temperatures kept real low, and there are wizards constantly shuffling about, grooming and maintaining and clones. There are tubes coming from the bodies that provide basic nutrients. Opposite the finished clones are the growing tanks, filled with a feint green bubbling liquid, and an unfinished husk, misshapen and vaguely humanoid. When the players walk in they see a man stick a hypodermic needle loaded with a gentle repose potion into the shoulder of one of the clones. Hmmm...I might be stealing your idea for my next campaign.
Nice image.
I am honoured.And if your going this route don't forgot some sort of empathetic link that has to cast every so often, that retains your memories at the time of death so that your clone is update as possible (and also notified of your untimliness)... Totally doable for enough research and money (Probably have to be a wish for that kind of power though, so rare and expensive but worth it to many).
Not a problem in 3.5 and Pathfinder, not sure about the 3.0.
Only in previous editions the clone was locked to the level of the original. now the soul travel to the clone on your death.---
About the antagonize a level 20 wizard problem.
What if he had a quickened dimension door?
If he get antagonized he has to move toward the guy antagonizing him at maximum speed and keeping the attack action to hit the target.
But he can cast his quickened spell at the start of the action, getting so far away from the guy that he will never reach him in 2 rounds.
What will happen in that situation?
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day
harm /hɑrm/ Show Spelled
[hahrm] Show IPA
–noun
1. physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2. moral injury; evil; wrong.
–verb (used with object)
3. to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation.
lets look at a more liberal definition of harm.
Ghandi is a hard core pacifist with a vow of peace. breaking his own morals would cause a great deal of mental damage to himself and would make him a potential future asylum candidate. this is sufficient harm to make him immune to this feat
the 20th level wizard would know he would be drastically weakened by the antimagic field and knows that a big hulking brute plans to grapple him so the other pcs can finish him off. with an extremely easy spellcraft check, he knows about the antimagic field and the party's plan and just ignores it. he walks away with his nose in the air.
a Dragon is not going to be able to ever antagonize the little girl into walking up and kicking him. she doesn't need an education to know that the dragon won't even be harmed by her kick and she definitely doesn't need one to know that it can tear her to ribbons with a single swipe of it's claws.
Hot Headed Bandit Princess Madison Twinblade has a short fuse when people insult her deceased Father, Aiden Twinblade, whom was exceuted by the local sherriff. dare to say the sherriff's name in front of her and not only will her group assist her, but she will try to tear you apart with both of her father's daggers.
So you want the feat to be both incredibly powerful and completely useless. Fascinating.
i am a supporter of the need to give non spellcasters access to nice things.
i was kind of having fun with trolling.
but i beleive that what would balance the antagonize feat is not a nerfing of the feat itself, but the addition of some restrictive prerequisites. maybe throw in a few rarely used prerequisite feats and some way to enforce a minimum level. but leave it otherwise unchanged.
but a liberal definition of harm can make the feat completely useless.
i was kind of having fun with trolling.
Fun at the expense of others who were not only trying to have a serious dialog but attempting to take you seriously too?
Well, at least that answers some questions I had about posting habits you've exhibited in the past. Thanks for clearing that up for me — it makes things easier going forward.
the best fun is always at the expense of another.
my problem with antagonize is not the benefit of the feat, but the lack of prerequisites.
i'm sure we could attach a few prequisite feats, maybe a required minimum charisma of 15 as well. that should provide plenty to balance it. a sufficient sacrifice for this feat.
Fun at the expense of others who were not only trying to have a serious dialog but attempting to take you seriously too?
Now, now. Why believe his claim he was just trolling, instead of believing that when he was dismantled he suddenly started pretending he wasn't making a serious argument?
In any case, the goal I had wasn't to convince him; it was to illustrate the problems with Antagonize to the rest of the readers.
To bowl over the latest, sure, if "getting close enough to the antagonizer that he can melee attack you" is by definition "harm" (rather than something that would cause actual injury in order to reach the antagonizer, like the actual examples in the feat), then yeah, the intimidate function of Antagonize isn't overpowered . . . because it has no effect whatsoever.
i was kind of having fun with trolling.Fun at the expense of others who were not only trying to have a serious dialog but attempting to take you seriously too?
Well, at least that answers some questions I had about posting habits you've exhibited in the past. Thanks for clearing that up for me — it makes things easier going forward.
Not quite. It's pretty clear that Shuriken actually believed what he was saying (especially if you read his posts in other threads) and after getting a harsh response, decided to say he was trolling to try to dispel the shame. It's fairly common.
i don't always have the best rationality or coherence.
i beleive that martial non spellcasting classes NEEDED this buff.
the problem with the non spellcasting martial classes is that they have no way to deal with the flying invisible wizard. at least this feat gives them a fighting chance. it may only be a single round, but it gives noncasting martials the chance they need to inflict serious injury on the enemy wizard.
here are some problems with the previously mentioned 11th level pair against a lone 20th level wizard.
most typical parties are typically groups of 4-6 players, 5 on average.
the example 20th level wizard is alone. the wizard is extremely vulnerable because he happens to be alone. most of a wizard's powers require at least some allies to work with. the group would have it won nowhere near as easily if the wizard were lower level AND had allies.
level matters a lot less after 10. and 11 is the first of many increases. it's a level that dratically favors vancian full casters and full bab classes.
never use a standalone solo boss. instead of stacking extra levels, stack extra allies.
the problem with a level 20 PC classed humanoid is that even though it has an offical CR of 19, they don't have the survivability of a proper CR 19 monster. 0HD races depend more on wealth because they do not have the inherent ability of the monsters themselves. monsters get a lot more free hit points and have drastically higher attributes.
here is what i imagine antagonize will most commonly be used for.
drawing the wizard into melee range for a single turn.
and noncasting martials need this option. especially since they clearly do not have the evergrowing power of the wizard.
and because wizards have access to methods to circumvent all of thier weaknesses by casting a spell or throwing a wad of cash. they need a weakness that cannot be circumvented so easily. this seemingly overpowered feat provides that weakness.
why is it that it's perfectly fine for a wizard to have an entire arsenel of freedom stripping powers with absurdly long durations but everybody complains when the noncasting martials get a limited version of this power that only lasts a single round and costs both a feat and a perpetually growing amount of skill points?
skill points are not as cheap as everybody seems to make them out to be.
raising skill points requires either increasing intellegence or giving up potential hit points. those intellegence points have to be siphoned from somewhere.
.
..
...
....
.....
Did they be making it non-casters only I do not wonder?
Sorcerer with Antagonise/Bard with Antagonise.
I believe a caster's tool box would promote are far greater range of tactical options with which to make better use of the feat.
I BELIEVE!1!!
|
|
I believe a caster's tool box would promote are far greater range of tactical options with which to make better use of the feat.
I can't think how this would be the case. People have mentioned elaborate situations involving a pit and a silent image or some such, but that's really only effective up to a point and presumes extensive preparation before combat, as well as everything going right.
Not saying you're wrong, but I'd really think that the practical application of this feat is as a caster-killer, not as a caster-helper.
It's more of a player killer than anything else. More often than not, even the fighter doesn't want to take a full-attack from a fully buffed dragon. This lets the dragon put the fighter exactly where it wants him. Would any sensible dragon not take this feat?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's more of a player killer than anything else. More often than not, even the fighter doesn't want to take a full-attack from a fully buffed dragon. This lets the dragon put the fighter exactly where it wants him. Would any sensible dragon not take this feat?
Sounds like a sound feat choice for any sturdy tactician-type crea....
OH GOD MARILITHS
The more I think about it, the more it needs a "run away" option, or just mounting penalties.
It just doesn't make any sense that you could be incited to attack something that you know could decimate you. Certainly there's a spectrum, but maraliths et al. really make it kind of silly.
I also wouldn't want 15th level fighter PCs using this on low level mooks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be happy to see the feat disappear completely and be replaced with some sensible extra uses for social skills in combat that cost no feats at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more of a player killer than anything else. More often than not, even the fighter doesn't want to take a full-attack from a fully buffed dragon. This lets the dragon put the fighter exactly where it wants him. Would any sensible dragon not take this feat?Sounds like a sound feat choice for any sturdy tactician-type crea....
OH GOD MARILITHS
Better one...
EIDELONS!
Especially with that +8 bonus they can get to Intimidate. :) So, tons of arms for weapon attacks, intimidate boost, and this feat. So what if they are glass cannons, the Eidelon can antagonize the enemy spellcaster into closing into melee range, hit him with 10 or 12 attacks. If he get's killed by the fighter, then the summoner summons him with Summon Eidelon, and the Eidelon repeats the trick with the enemy cleric or archer, and continues until he dies from picking on something that can do more damage than he can. And then the summoner resummons again with summon eidelon, and lather rinse repeat. Not to mention that all the summoner's allies can target the antagonized victim.
I'd be happy to see the feat disappear completely and be replaced with some sensible extra uses for social skills in combat that cost no feats at all.
Couldn't agree more. Look at Feint and the Combat Maneuvers. All of them are things that anyone can do, the feats just lets the characters do it better or faster, or with a bonus, etc.
Properly implemented, stacking penalties from skill use could actually be the first step towards a more meaningful social encounter system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the problem with the non spellcasting martial classes is that they have no way to deal with the flying invisible wizard.
Really? That must be a bunch of stupid, useless martial types. A few points:
1) Invisibility disappears as soon as any attack is initiated, so sure invisibility will let the caster buff up and do other sneaky stuff, but as soon as he does anything directly offensive, it's done.
2) If you're talking greater invisibility, that is a 4th level spell (with a pretty short duration), so the caster must be at least 7th level, which cuts out its use for more than a third of a character's life, even making the fallacious assumption that all camopaigns reach 20th level. At higher levels it is not at all unlikely the martial type has some means of flying and/or detecting invisible creatures himself.
3) If all encounters take place on featureless plains in sunny weather, or in large, high-ceilinged rooms, flyers rule. If you introduce darkness, terrain, weather and low ceilings, not so much.
4) While Invisibility does give a +20 to Stealth (+40 if not moving), there are a lot of martial types, particularly rangers, that have perception through the roof. Unless that caster has also invested in Stealth (unlikely), he is still going to get detected sometimes.
5) There are a fair number of mundane ways to detect invisible folks (smoke, water and flour are amongst my favorites).
6) There are also mundane ways to counter flyers, such as moving to an area where the flyer's movement is constrained, using nets or grappling hooks, lacing an encounter area with wires or ropes, etc.)
7) Most important, the martial type is working in a party, not by himself. It really doesn't matter if the martial type, by himself can't counter a flying, invisible caster. The party can. The wizard casts glitterdust, the cleric casts dispel magic on the fly, the rogue and fighter go over and pummel/sneak attack the squishy wizard into a billion pieces. If the dispel fails, they turn him into a pincushion instead. Teamwork is what the game is about. Any individual does not need to be able to counter any other individual's actions, so long as the team can.
In short, a caster who is flying and invisible does not possess an "I Win" button.
I'd be happy to see the feat disappear completely and be replaced with some sensible extra uses for social skills in combat that cost no feats at all.
Please expand on what you mean.
1) Invisibility disappears as soon as any attack is initiated, so sure invisibility will let the caster buff up and do other sneaky stuff, but as soon as he does anything directly offensive, it's done.
Unless of course you are doing the kind of non-offensive offensive spellcasting most often practiced by Conjurers, among others.
2) If you're talking greater invisibility, that is a 4th level spell (with a pretty short duration), so the caster must be at least 7th level, which cuts out its use for more than a third of a character's life, even making the fallacious assumption that all camopaigns reach 20th level. At higher levels it is not at all unlikely the martial type has some means of flying and/or detecting invisible creatures himself.
Of course "Fly" is 3rd level spell so you don't even get half the combo until 5th level anyway.
4) While Invisibility does give a +20 to Stealth (+40 if not moving), there are a lot of martial types, particularly rangers, that have perception through the roof.
Do they get automatic perception or something?
Unless that caster has also invested in Stealth (unlikely), he is still going to get detected sometimes.
Detected here still means of course a 50% miss chance.
6) There are also mundane ways to counter flyers, such as moving to an area where the flyer's movement is constrained, using nets or grappling hooks, lacing an encounter area with wires or ropes, etc.)
How is a net going to hurt a creature in an area where flying is most useful, oh and who you can't find? Never even mind what you think you are doing with a grappling hook.
And where shall we go to hide from the flier? Under a tree? Into a hallway? That totally solves the problem of not being able to attack them.I'm sure the rest are equally bad.
1) Invisibility disappears as soon as any attack is initiated, so sure invisibility will let the caster buff up and do other sneaky stuff, but as soon as he does anything directly offensive, it's done.Unless of course you are doing the kind of non-offensive offensive spellcasting most often practiced by Conjurers, among others.
2) If you're talking greater invisibility, that is a 4th level spell (with a pretty short duration), so the caster must be at least 7th level, which cuts out its use for more than a third of a character's life, even making the fallacious assumption that all camopaigns reach 20th level. At higher levels it is not at all unlikely the martial type has some means of flying and/or detecting invisible creatures himself.Of course "Fly" is 3rd level spell so you don't even get half the combo until 5th level anyway.
4) While Invisibility does give a +20 to Stealth (+40 if not moving), there are a lot of martial types, particularly rangers, that have perception through the roof.Do they get automatic perception or something?
Unless that caster has also invested in Stealth (unlikely), he is still going to get detected sometimes.Detected here still means of course a 50% miss chance.
6) There are also mundane ways to counter flyers, such as moving to an area where the flyer's movement is constrained, using nets or grappling hooks, lacing an encounter area with wires or ropes, etc.)How is a net going to hurt a creature in an area where flying is most useful, oh and who you can't find? Never even mind what you think you are doing with a grappling hook.
And where shall we go to hide from the flier? Under a tree? Into a hallway? That totally solves the problem of not being able to attack them.I'm sure the rest are equally bad.
So is it your contention that a flying, invisible caster is the invincible god of the battlefield? If so, I'll just laugh heartily and move on to engage with someone reasonable. Assuming you are more nuanced than that, here are just a few counterpoints:
-- Yep, conjurers and others can keep summoning stuff wtihout becoming visible, most of which the martial type is going to turn into explosions of blood and gore in just a round or two, if he doesn't just ignore them.-- My point is that Stealth is always a contested roll. +20 is great at low levels and will probably ensure success most of the time. Less so by mid-levels, by which time +20 or higher in Perception is not that hard to reach.
-- Does a caster really want to get hit even 50% of the time by a well-built archer or two-weapon fighter?
-- A basic tenet of good tactics is to not let the enemy choose the battleground. If I am ground-bound, I would never engage with flyers during the daytime in a wide open space, unless I had no option. Unless there is some reason you need that ground immediately, withdraw and either force them to meet you on terms of your own choosing, or come back prepared for the specific challenges. And yes, taking cover under trees or in a hallway or so forth is an excellent move to make. Then it becomes a game of cat and mouse as to who can detect and effectively attack the other. I'll take the ranger or rogue in that game against the caster.
While still not perfect, here is a version of Antagonize that doesn't offend my senses.
Antagonize
Benefit:
You have a snakes tongue and a quick wit. You know just what to say to get under a persons skin. When you use this ability you must succeed on either a Diplomacy or an Intimidate check. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier + a modifier based on the starting attitude of the target.
Helpful = +20
Friendly = +15
Indifferent = +10
Unfriendly = +5
Hostile = +0
If you fail this check the target's attitude shifts one step toward Hostile. If you succeed on this check the target's attitude immediately changes to hostile and they must perform a specific action. You do not select which of these actions they take. The target may choose for themselves which specific action to take selected from the list below (they must select one). You cannot use this ability against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain a +2 bonus to the check until the end of your next turn. You cannot use this ability on targets that cannot see you. Once you have used this feat on a creature you cannot use it again on the same creature for 24 hours. This is a mind-affecting effect.
The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, all melee attacks that the target makes must be against you. The target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire ). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The melee attack does not need to be with a weapon. It can be with an unarmed strike, a natural attack, or a spell or spell-like ability that targets only one person. The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you.
The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, all ranged attacks the creature makes must be against you. The target must attempt to make a ranged attack against you. They may take a 5-foot step or move before making any shots only if taking the shot would provoke an attack of opportunity. After any movement they must attempt a shot even if doing so would still provoke an attack of opportunity. The ranged attack may be with a weapon or with a spell or spell like ability that target's only one person. The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a ranged attack against you.
The target spends its entire turn yelling and shouting and demanding that somebody kill, harm, or arrest you. It cannot take any other actions though it takes no other penalties. No one is necessarily compelled to listen to the targets orders, but the followers of leader's are more likely to do so. For example, it is highly likely that the queens guards will do their best to follow her orders. This effect ends at the end of the targets turn.
The target must move away from you. The only standard action they can take this turn is total defense. During their movement they can climb, jump, swim, fly, burrow, or otherwise use any type of movement available (including spells such as teleport, plane shift, dimension door).
Special: Druids and Rangers with the Wild Empathy class feature may make a Wild Empathy check to use Antagonize to affect animal's or magical beasts with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (taking the normal -4 penalty to affect magical beasts). This is an exception to the rule that you cannot use Antagonize on creatures who cannot understand you or who have an Intelligence score of 3 or less. Animal's and magical beasts can only choose the "All right! This chick is Toast!" or "I don't have to take this abuse from you..." options.
|
|
So is it your contention that a flying, invisible caster is the invincible god of the battlefield?
Yeah, that's pretty much the whole argument. I believe it to be the hallmark of a player who has lost a beloved character to a Flying, Invisible wizard somewhere along the way. It's a viewpoint shared by a lot of people, unfortunately, and they can't be made to see it differently (unfortunately).
To some, it's as though a flying, invisible wizard is simply an unassailable foe, and, as such, every Tom, Richard and Harry should be equipped with a "I demand that you come down here where I can hit you THIS INSTANT!" button.
I don't see it either, but hey...
to defeat a flying invisible wizard you need one of 2 things, to have DM fiat work in your favor, or to have another better prepared flying invisible wizard on your side.
i have lost countless characters to flying invisible wizards in weekly william's group. because the group is often so melee heavy and usually forgets about things like healing, skills, or even combat utility.
even back in the day when we had 12 players and 1 DM. we would be lucky to have a single wizard or cleric among us. and rogues were even less likely. but we had all of these melee combatants and maybe an archer on extremely rare occasions.
assuming this former 12 person party, here is what the most widespread makeup would look like
1 cleric built around healing, buffing, and maybe melee
1 wizard usually played by a more straightforward player who would rather be a fighter. likely became a second gish because he didn't want to sit in the back flinging spells.
1 melee rogue also played by a guy who would rather be a fighter.
1 archer (usually ranger)
1 melee monk
1 melee gish
1 5th wheel hybrid that could be another gish, a mystic thuerge, an arcane trickster or some other thing.
5 melee fighters
|
the problem with the non spellcasting martial classes is that they have no way to deal with the flying invisible wizard.Really? That must be a bunch of stupid, useless martial types. A few points:
1) Invisibility disappears as soon as any attack is initiated, so sure invisibility will let the caster buff up and do other sneaky stuff, but as soon as he does anything directly offensive, it's done.
*cough* Summon Monster *cough*
2) If you're talking greater invisibility, that is a 4th level spell (with a pretty short duration), so the caster must be at least 7th level, which cuts out its use for more than a third of a character's life, even making the fallacious assumption that all camopaigns reach 20th level. At higher levels it is not at all unlikely the martial type has some means of flying and/or detecting invisible creatures himself.
So now all the wizards are less than 7th level? I thought everyone was complaining because it could let level 1s kill a level 20? (yes that is hyperbole)
3) If all encounters take place on featureless plains in sunny weather, or in large, high-ceilinged rooms, flyers rule. If you introduce darkness, terrain, weather and low ceilings, not so much.
Having fought several of these fights as a fighter in PFS AND THEY COST THE COMPLETION OF THE MOD. It doesn't have to be a featureless plain.
4) While Invisibility does give a +20 to Stealth (+40 if not moving), there are a lot of martial types, particularly rangers, that have perception through the roof. Unless that caster has also invested in Stealth (unlikely), he is still going to get detected sometimes.
Not easily and not often. YOu have to get close and target an area for the perception roll and you just blew your standard action. On his turn he moves away and you lose him again.
5) There are a fair number of mundane ways to detect invisible folks (smoke, water and flour are amongst my favorites).
So you carry an entire kitchen with you? If you don't wave it on your sheet. It don't exist is the usual rule.
6) There are also mundane ways to counter flyers, such as moving to an area where the flyer's movement is constrained, using nets or grappling hooks, lacing an encounter area with wires or ropes, etc.)
And the high level wizard laughs at you for running, and casts fireball near you. YOu take damage, he doesn't. And how do you prep an area you've never been to before?
7) Most important, the martial type is working in a party, not by himself. It really doesn't matter if the martial type, by himself can't counter a flying, invisible caster. The party can. The wizard casts glitterdust, the cleric casts dispel magic on the fly, the rogue and fighter go over and pummel/sneak attack the squishy wizard into a billion pieces. If the dispel fails, they...
And meanwhile the wizard is casting long range spells while these guys are casting short and medium range.
here is the biggest flaw i see with pathfinder.
the double standard between caster and noncaster.
casters are allowed to bend physics every day to accomodate whatever the hell they want. and they can do this from level 1 onward.
noncasters are forever bound to the laws of physics even past level 20 until they take thier first level in a casting class.
because of the harsh restrictions on non spellcasting classes. Miyomoto Masashi, Beowulf, Hercules, Sun Tzu, Rasputin, or even Blackbeard could never exist inside the system.
While still not perfect, here is a version of Antagonize that doesn't offend my senses.
Antagonize
...
For goodness sake! Does that really have to be THIS long :D
here is the biggest flaw i see with pathfinder.
the double standard between caster and noncaster.
casters are allowed to bend physics every day to accomodate whatever the hell they want. and they can do this from level 1 onward.
Yes, a level one caster can do "whatever the hell they want". Like fly to the moon, make gold from green cheese, and date supermodels.
noncasters are forever bound to the laws of physics even past level 20 until they take thier first level in a casting class.
Forever bound to the rules of physics, huh? Which rule of physics lets you sheath your hands in flames to do additional damage, fire 6 arrows in 6 seconds, or turn someone to stone with your foot?
because of the harsh restrictions on non spellcasting classes. Miyomoto Masashi, Beowulf, Hercules, Sun Tzu, Rasputin, or even Blackbeard could never exist inside the system.
Wait, what? Three real life people (you know, bound by the laws of physics for sure) can't be modeled by the rules because non-casters are bound by the rules of physics?? I'm calling BS on this one.
Sorry, you don't like a system where everyone can play fast and loose with reality, but your assertations are beyond absurd. Or are you trolling again?
For goodness sake! Does that really have to be THIS long :D
Not at all. Originally it was much shorter. I made it longer because I wanted to be as clear as I possible so that I could avoid the undue criticism of people who misread it (the final version will be edited to be clear and as short as possible). The feat does need to be more thorough. It needs to handle more than one circumstance. There needs to be enough flexibility for this to be usable on any sort of character without automatically destroying the games verisimilitude. Intricate abilities, like taunting, DO require longer instruction manuals to prevent stupidity like Antagonizing little girls into melee.