Antagonize: Can it really do that?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

(stirs the pot) But the description of the feat says the obviously harmful condition only applies to getting to the antagonist, not the antagonist itself.


Delenot wrote:
(stirs the pot) But the description of the feat says the obviously harmful condition only applies to getting to the antagonist, not the antagonist itself.

the reach weapon and attack of opportunity is harmful.

Shadow Lodge

Umbral Reaver wrote:
Speaking of PFS, has anyone heard of Antagonize being used in organised play and if so, how it was handled?

One of the players (halfling Fighter (armor master)) in our PFS group has it and I played a pacifist cleric (merciful healer) with it. He used it with intimidate while I used it with diplomacy. With him, it usually works decent, it really depends on your group composition and who you're facing. He doesn't spam it constantly, but it does come in handy and since he's focused on AC, he does hardly any damage, something like 1d6+2 or 3. I've only played mine the one time (GM credit and played him at 8th lvl in ebon destroyers) and it was useful for the most part. You just have to remember that you can only use the intimidate aspect of it once per target per day.


Antagonize is overpowering if the GM lets the player get away with it. Like a lot of powerful things in pathfinder, they have a GM stipulation to keep it in check (time stop, planar binding, and some others all have GM caviats that reduce their overall power). If the GM ignores this, the the ability becomes overpowering.

With antagonize, the GM check is "obviously harmful". I rule that if the antagonized player can be damaged or attacked in any way by approaching the antagonist, then the situation is obviously harmful. This would include environmental effects, spell effects, AoO, etc. The antagonist himself can be harmful, but getting to the antagonist should not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Delenot wrote:
(stirs the pot) But the description of the feat says the obviously harmful condition only applies to getting to the antagonist, not the antagonist itself.

No, it just says if doing so is obviously harmful, it does not specify where the harm comes from. I can't think of anything more obviously harmful than attacking somebody with a high intimidate score myself.

Whichever way you look at it, the feat is broken.


Well either the wording has changed resently or I misunderstood something.

"On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell."

So now the feat is alle about making the enemy target you. So that you can function as a tank for the group. Personally i think the feat is super cool, as it somehow lets the fighter do his job.

Comepared to having mind control spells this feat is nothing.


It's still broken.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

leo1925 wrote:
It's still broken.

Can you be more specific? I sometimes GM PFS games, so I'd like to be aware of any issues before someone shows up with that feat.


leo1925 wrote:
It's still broken.

I am also interested in some more details on this. Is it simply that success means that the enemy is likely to provoke AoOs, or is there something more?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its a freaking standard action to make something focus on you for one round (perhaps two by spending another swift action.) If anything its on the weak side as the action economy of it sucks. Ohh yeah and only once per target.

How on earth can people still be throwing a fit over this?

Silver Crusade

Smythen wrote:

Well either the wording has changed resently or I misunderstood something.

"On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell."

So now the feat is alle about making the enemy target you. So that you can function as a tank for the group. Personally i think the feat is super cool, as it somehow lets the fighter do his job.

Comepared to having mind control spells this feat is nothing.

The wording has changed recently. It's a newer errata than the dc errata discussed upthread.


Stome wrote:

Its a freaking standard action to make something focus on you for one round (perhaps two by spending another swift action.) If anything its on the weak side as the action economy of it sucks. Ohh yeah and only once per target.

How on earth can people still be throwing a fit over this?

I have no idea. Seems perfectly fine with me compared to some spells.


Probably because:

1) GMs hate that their BBEG might be forced to attack the defense-optimized tank instead of the glass cannon.

2) For 1 or 2 rounds, your character must attack the PITA who's using it... removing conytrol of the PC from the player (Like teh command spells, charm person, dominate

3) There is no will save.

4) They've already decided it's broken, so no matter what anyone says/does, it will always be broken.


@Jiggy @BetaSprite
It still allows you to say something about the king's/noble's/etc mother and he has to attack you himself (with his fists if he doesn't have a weapon at hand) instead of ordering his personal guard to attack you, and the best part is that you acted in self defense.
So the feat can still break the world.

Sovereign Court

Yeah Leo, but that situation is due to your players. Also a savvy DM would rule that would fall under the "attempting to do so would harm it" clause and not work.

If your characters are going to be stupid, throw stupid rule interpretations right back.


Morgen wrote:

Yeah Leo, but that situation is due to your players. Also a savvy DM would rule that would fall under the "attempting to do so would harm it" clause and not work.

If your characters are going to be stupid, throw stupid rule interpretations right back.

Using that logic the feat would never work, because everything can be twisted to fit the "attempting to do so would harm it" clause.

Sure i know that there are a few other things that can break the world like that and when i find them i do to them what i do to antagonize, i either house rule them or ban them.

Sovereign Court

Not really the point I was trying to make. It was more of a comment on handling your players and expecting them to act with at least some amount of responsibility in their actions.

So you don't have to do things like house rule and ban things. You can just play a fun game with your friends.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:

@Jiggy @BetaSprite

It still allows you to say something about the king's/noble's/etc mother and he has to attack you himself (with his fists if he doesn't have a weapon at hand) instead of ordering his personal guard to attack you, and the best part is that you acted in self defense.
So the feat can still break the world.

Ohh so its "melee can't have nice things." There can be gods know how many spells that control people/monsters but the second its something melee can have its not alright because its not magic?

I really thought the PF community moved pass melee can;t have nice things by now. My mistake.

-Edit- And where are you getting this "has to run up and punch" nonsense? They can cast at the feat user and nothing keeps them from drawing a weapon as part of their move if they don't have one in had.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:

@Jiggy @BetaSprite

It still allows you to say something about the king's/noble's/etc mother and he has to attack you himself (with his fists if he doesn't have a weapon at hand) instead of ordering his personal guard to attack you, and the best part is that you acted in self defense.
So the feat can still break the world.

Who cares if it technically matches the modern day usage of self-defense? Nobles and kings get to do that sort of thing to your PC and still in the right because you antagonized them. Moreover, their guards will almost certainly swarm you as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Stome wrote:


Ohh so its "melee can't have nice things." There can be gods know how many spells that control people/monsters but the second its something melee can have its not alright because its not magic?

I really thought the PF community moved pass melee can;t have nice things by now. My mistake.

Frankly, my hope is we'd get past this stupid criticism. Wanting different things for martial characters than spellcasters isn't the same as not allowing the martial characters to have nice things. That has never been the case. This response is just another piece of rhetorical hyperbole that makes arguments in the gamer community such a pain in the ass.

That said, I have no problem with the antagonize feat in its current version. The antagonizing PC has to hit a target number (so no Will save needed) and the results aren't totally anti-characteristic (like Come and Get It in 4e).


leo1925 wrote:

@Jiggy @BetaSprite

It still allows you to say something about the king's/noble's/etc mother and he has to attack you himself (with his fists if he doesn't have a weapon at hand) instead of ordering his personal guard to attack you, and the best part is that you acted in self defense.
So the feat can still break the world.

Reminds me of that scene in True Romance where the dad goads the mob boss into killing him personally. :)


Morgen wrote:

Not really the point I was trying to make. It was more of a comment on handling your players and expecting them to act with at least some amount of responsibility in their actions.

So you don't have to do things like house rule and ban things. You can just play a fun game with your friends.

I want to have my bases covered and i also want to minimize logical holes (the why didn't we do that? questions for example) and have as much consistency as i can, in addition every now and then a new (to me) player might come and he might disrupt the game with such tactics.

@Bill Dunn

I don't think that this is the case when we are talking about good kings with good people around them, i don't think that a good court of a good king would sentence you to death because you killed the king in self defense after an insult.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
leo1925 wrote:


@Bill Dunn

I don't think that this is the case when we are talking about good kings with good people around them, i don't think that a good court of a good king would sentence you to death because you killed the king in self defense after an insult.

Killing a king after goading him into attacking? With the overall seriousness of regicide? Picking fights with ruling monarchs, no matter the alignments involved, isn't going to get you off with a slap on the wrist. I would expect that character to be on the execution shortlist. So we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

Silver Crusade

Stome wrote:


-Edit- And where are you getting this "has to run up and punch" nonsense? They can cast at the feat user and nothing keeps them from drawing a weapon as part of their move if they don't have one in had.

The original version of Antagonize required an attempted melee attack.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Antagonize is still a very poorly thought out feat. It is better than it used to be, but it's still a trivially easy skill check in order to force a sworn pacifist or small child to attack you(an inquisitor can be making even the DC10+HD skill check on a 1 or 2 as early as 5th level or so). It still doesn't matter how much self control(i.e. Will save bonus) the target has. It's still more powerful used by a flying invisible wizard than it is by a fighter banging his shield. It's not a case of "melee can't have nice things" because Antagonize as written isn't really a nice thing to have.

People who don't like it dislike it for the game world implications. I don't want a world where being good at scaring people makes it more likely that helpless noncombatants attack you. Where a wizard using ventriloquism can make the king's own guards attack him. Where the PC party has to watch the BBEG burn down the village because they're too busy attacking his goblin minions that each have Antagonize.

If you say all those situations are ones of obvious "harm," then I counter with that interpretation you could argue that any tactically disadvantageous situation constitutes "harm" so Antagonize can't make any character do something they weren't ready to do anyway. That interpretation makes the Intimidate half basically worthless.

It's just a bad feat - either it can be easily abused or it does nothing, depending on the GM's interpretation. The system doesn't need an aggro mechanic - we have GMs not AI. I have full confidence that it can be used without problems, and it you're having fun with by all means keep doing so, but I still maintain from a game balance/verisimilitude standpoint it is very broken.


DesolateHarmony wrote:
Stome wrote:


-Edit- And where are you getting this "has to run up and punch" nonsense? They can cast at the feat user and nothing keeps them from drawing a weapon as part of their move if they don't have one in had.

The original version of Antagonize required an attempted melee attack.

No i wasn't thinking of the first version of antaginize, i was thinking of a ruler/noble who isn't a caster and simply doesn't has a weapon on his person.

Bill Dunn wrote:
leo1925 wrote:


@Bill Dunn

I don't think that this is the case when we are talking about good kings with good people around them, i don't think that a good court of a good king would sentence you to death because you killed the king in self defense after an insult.

Killing a king after goading him into attacking? With the overall seriousness of regicide? Picking fights with ruling monarchs, no matter the alignments involved, isn't going to get you off with a slap on the wrist. I would expect that character to be on the execution shortlist. So we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

But you didn't pick the fight (as far as anyone watching can tell) you just said something insulting to him (and it doesn't have to include a challenge or anything) and he is forced to attack you with the intent to kill you, after that fact you simply defended yourself. It would be the same if someone (else) used magic to force the king to attack you and you killed him in self defense.

Also the king example might be a little extreme and indeed sentence you to death for regicide, my main concern is for somewhat serious NPCs attacking someone who insults them just because.


ryric wrote:

Antagonize is still a very poorly thought out feat. It is better than it used to be, but it's still a trivially easy skill check in order to force a sworn pacifist or small child to attack you(an inquisitor can be making even the DC10+HD skill check on a 1 or 2 as early as 5th level or so). It still doesn't matter how much self control(i.e. Will save bonus) the target has. It's still more powerful used by a flying invisible wizard than it is by a fighter banging his shield. It's not a case of "melee can't have nice things" because Antagonize as written isn't really a nice thing to have.

People who don't like it dislike it for the game world implications. I don't want a world where being good at scaring people makes it more likely that helpless noncombatants attack you. Where a wizard using ventriloquism can make the king's own guards attack him. Where the PC party has to watch the BBEG burn down the village because they're too busy attacking his goblin minions that each have Antagonize.

If you say all those situations are ones of obvious "harm," then I counter with that interpretation you could argue that any tactically disadvantageous situation constitutes "harm" so Antagonize can't make any character do something they weren't ready to do anyway. That interpretation makes the Intimidate half basically worthless.

It's just a bad feat - either it can be easily abused or it does nothing, depending on the GM's interpretation. The system doesn't need an aggro mechanic - we have GMs not AI. I have full confidence that it can be used without problems, and it you're having fun with by all means keep doing so, but I still maintain from a game balance/verisimilitude standpoint it is very broken.

Nothing in the feat says it can be used with spells like ventriloquism. It says *you* use it, and they attack *you*. Also, if the GM is creating every minion to use Antagonize, that's a play style problem, not a feat problem. It's as bad as having a paladin only ever face CN opponents, or a ranger never fight his favored enemy or in his favored terrain.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Stome wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

@Jiggy @BetaSprite

It still allows you to say something about the king's/noble's/etc mother and he has to attack you himself (with his fists if he doesn't have a weapon at hand) instead of ordering his personal guard to attack you, and the best part is that you acted in self defense.
So the feat can still break the world.

Ohh so its "melee can't have nice things." There can be gods know how many spells that control people/monsters but the second its something melee can have its not alright because its not magic?

I really thought the PF community moved pass melee can;t have nice things by now. My mistake.

-Edit- And where are you getting this "has to run up and punch" nonsense? They can cast at the feat user and nothing keeps them from drawing a weapon as part of their move if they don't have one in had.

So your opinion is that saying "I break you in two", getting the target to attack you and then slaughtering him in self defense is "fighters having nice things"?

It sound more like "I love to break the game, but woe if the Gm do that to me."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:


It sound more like "I love to break the game, but woe if the Gm do that to me."

Bingo, end of thread.

Every supporter of this feat (both in it's original version, and the current version) has said that a GM that uses it on the players is being a jerk, but it's ok for the players to use it.

Sorry, that's cheese from limburg. It stinks to high heaven.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If this is in for the PC's to use every game, then it's in for the GM to use every game, just like every fighter class feature, every rogue talent, every spell, etc.


mdt wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


It sound more like "I love to break the game, but woe if the Gm do that to me."

Bingo, end of thread.

Every supporter of this feat (both in it's original version, and the current version) has said that a GM that uses it on the players is being a jerk, but it's ok for the players to use it.

Sorry, that's cheese from limburg. It stinks to high heaven.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If this is in for the PC's to use every game, then it's in for the GM to use every game, just like every fighter class feature, every rogue talent, every spell, etc.

Do you think NPCs should be able to intimidate PCs into submission too? Should NPCs be able to use Diplomacy to change the attitudes of the PCs?

For me, those answers are both no, so Antagonize shouldn't make PCs lose control of their characters either.


Its funny. All these contrived strawman situations that are being rambled on about have been able to be done by spells long before PF even came around. So why the cry fest now?

Don't give me the "its harder to land those spells!" bull. Its plenty easy to pump DCs up to the point of nigh unfailable.


Some people just want magic to naturally surpass mundane potential no matter what Stome. Many of them are on this board, many more are not. You've got to learn to live with it if you want to spend a lot of time online talking to the D&D community.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Stome wrote:

Its funny. All these contrived strawman situations that are being rambled on about have been able to be done by spells long before PF even came around. So why the cry fest now?

Don't give me the "its harder to land those spells!" bull. Its plenty easy to pump DCs up to the point of nigh unfailable.

Reading the truth is problematic for you?

Pumping up those skills is way easier than increasing a spell DC, increasing the difficulty of the difficulty of the skill check is way harder than increasing your ST.
If needed you can take Iron will and Improved Iron will to protect against enchantment spells, those same feat don't do squat against antagonize.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:


Pumping up those skills is way easier than increasing a spell DC, increasing the difficulty of the difficulty of the skill check is way harder than increasing your ST.
If needed you can take Iron will and Improved Iron will to protect against enchantment spells, those same feat don't do squat against antagonize.

The defense against antagonize is based on the target's hit dice, not saving throws, so it's not like the offensive and defensive values are out of proportion. And the effect is limited to imposing a penalty or getting the target to devote a round or two's worth of actions to attacking the antagonizer. This is hardly a game breaker.


I never used the feat neither as a player nor as gm but I like it. And I have no more problem with the gm using this feat than with the gm using mindcontrolling or fear inducing spells.
Either or. If you ban antagonize you should ban every compulsion, fear or other mind comtrolling spell as well.

About the King problem: How about just ruling that antagonize is a clearly offensive act that everyone can identify as an open agression?
No more world breaking.

Do this to a king and his guards will be swarming you.
Besides: As this feat is known most kings will have guards who grapple them as AoO when the king rushes past them after being antagonized while the rest takes care of the offender.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Some people just want magic to naturally surpass mundane potential no matter what Stome. Many of them are on this board, many more are not. You've got to learn to live with it if you want to spend a lot of time online talking to the D&D community.

Most people that dislike the Intimidate half of Antagonize want mundane characters to have their special and powerful things as well. We just want them to be their own thing and make sense.

Also, we don't want them to ruin characterization. That's what the Intimidate portion of the feat does. One can go on about buffing up ones defenses against it or reworking the numbers, but it doesn't change the fact that that half commits some cardinal sins regarding player(and GM) agency when it comes to roleplaying their characters.

The Diplomacy aspect is fine. Ideally, Antagonize would have used that approach entirely rather than enabling a player(or GM) to steal someone else's character with no non-immersion breaking explanation.

The Intimidate makes pacifists lose their @#$% and mothers drop their babies all so they can take a swing at someone that would obviously cut them in half. It makes healers leave bleeding-out patients to die and bodyguards to abandon those to whom they are devoted because someone scared them into a rage.

It also takes something that should be performed through roleplaying and turns it into a feat. If you want to antagonize an enemy, roleplay it, and maybe back it up with a skill check. You shouldn't have to buy a feat to do it, and you shouldn't have it guaranteed to work on every character regardless of circumstances just by meeting a certain number.

I would hate to run into this feat as a GM and a player, whether it was targetting a PC or NPC, regardless of which side of the table I'm sitting on. It would kill the mood to make the brilliant BBEG we've been struggling to overcome throughout the entire campaign just herpaderp because one of us growled at him. And I would never make a player's PC act contrary to their actual personality by having some ogre doing the same.

With magical compulsions, the characters and setting aren't compromised. Players can see their characters actions under compulsion and still understand that they remain the characters they wanted to play. If you want an entirely mundane version, get some pheromones. Get some technology that can mess with people's brains. Make it something that makes sense.

But don't make it something that overwrites other people's characters and "forces" them to act out of character of their own free will, so to speak. That's what Antagonize's Intimidate function does right now.

Someone gets dominated, they can look back and understand that they were forced to act unnaturally.

Someone gets IntimidateAntagonized, they have no such explanation for whatever OOC actions they were forced to take.

working on Cockatrice Strike erotica next


Diego Rossi wrote:
Stome wrote:

Its funny. All these contrived strawman situations that are being rambled on about have been able to be done by spells long before PF even came around. So why the cry fest now?

Don't give me the "its harder to land those spells!" bull. Its plenty easy to pump DCs up to the point of nigh unfailable.

Reading the truth is problematic for you?

Pumping up those skills is way easier than increasing a spell DC, increasing the difficulty of the difficulty of the skill check is way harder than increasing your ST.
If needed you can take Iron will and Improved Iron will to protect against enchantment spells, those same feat don't do squat against antagonize.

Sorry to break it to you but saying something is the truth does not make it so. It is nothing but your over blown ill thought out opinion.

So its on the easy side to land? Big deal. It has a trade off for that of only being able to be used on a target once. While the spells that do similar but far more powerful things can be repeated over and over again. And are still easy to pump to a near no fail rate to boot.

If these half thought out "killing a king" fallacies are really a problem its the group not the feat since there are at least a hundred other ways to do the same thing.


Mikaze wrote:
The Intimidate makes pacifists lose their @#$% and mothers drop their babies all so they can take a swing at someone that would obviously cut them in half.

So what? Magic does that same thing with several different spells. Why is that ok but antagonize is not? Just because one has a defensive roll (save) instead of an offensive roll (skill check)?

As antagonize only works once per day and as it has a poor action economy I see that as not so problematic. Or even more it can be tried only once. If the first roll fails that's it for the day.

Silver Crusade

Umbranus wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
The Intimidate makes pacifists lose their @#$% and mothers drop their babies all so they can take a swing at someone that would obviously cut them in half.

So what?

Magic does that same thing with several different spells. Why is that ok but antagonize is not? Just because one has a defensive roll (save) instead of an offensive roll (skill check)?

One has an explanation that makes sense.

One is something that characters can look back on in-setting and realize forced them to act unnaturally.

One is something that lets players keep their characters remaining the characters they wanted to play because there's an outside force that caused their character to act OOC.

Intimidate-Antagonize is none of those.

AGAIN, Diplomacy-Antagonize is fine. Intimidate-Antagonize, not so much.


More and more its becoming clear that people are stuck on this "Not magic get it out." thing and its frankly sad. Its not like there are not plenty of things not magical that clearly break the laws of reality and has been for a long freaking time. But you step on the enchantment specialist toes and there will be hell to pay?


Like Mikaze I want certainly want my fighters to be balanced with magic users, but I don't want that to be by making fighters just do the same things only with different flavour than a wizard.

I think that Antagonize would be pretty iffy as a spell too depending on the level, but even if it wasn't it's not something I want my fighter doing. Calling out names to have a mother abandon her baby or a pacifist punch me is just silly to my mind for a character who is meant to be a mundane man in a world of magic.

Again, it's not that I don't want fighters to have nice things. But that doesn't mean I want fighters getting things that have a more magical flavour either. It's all about what breaks verisimilitude for a different person. To me some odd kind of irresistible non-magical compulsion that makes you totally go against your own character is a step too far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I love it when I am right.

"NO NO! Antagonize can't work on PCs, just like diplomacy and other skills can't work on PCs, they are metagamed to always behave however the PC wants, even if there's no good IC reason for it! So they are immune to antagonize! Nyah nyah nyah!"

Sickening.


Stome wrote:
More and more its becoming clear that people are stuck on this "Not magic get it out." thing and its frankly sad. Its not like there are not plenty of things not magical that clearly break the laws of reality and has been for a long freaking time. But you step on the enchantment specialist toes and there will be hell to pay?

Breaking the laws of reality is one thing. Breaking verisimilitude is quite another.

The mother was the strongest example above. Having a lvl 1 commoner mother trying to save her child mind-controlled into nut-punching the monster is one thing. Making her do it because the monster goaded her into attacking is something else altogether. It breaks suspension of disbelief. It's a failure of story and mechanics separation.

It's not "Grrr, rarrr! We're stupid mean people who hate anything that's not magic." It's, "what's supposed to happen makes no sense in it's own terms."


Mikaze wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
The Intimidate makes pacifists lose their @#$% and mothers drop their babies all so they can take a swing at someone that would obviously cut them in half.

So what?

Magic does that same thing with several different spells. Why is that ok but antagonize is not? Just because one has a defensive roll (save) instead of an offensive roll (skill check)?

One has an explanation that makes sense.

One is something that characters can look back on in-setting and realize forced them to act unnaturally.

One is something that lets players keep their characters remaining the characters they wanted to play because there's an outside force that caused their character to act OOC.

What? No it isn't. Dominate is WORSE! At least with this it's a single specific action with logical sense (the Antagonist enraged their target into attacking them in some means available to them) while Dominate can make those same mothers STRANGLE their babies.

Mind telling me which one forces the character to act more unnaturally?

Silver Crusade

Stome wrote:
More and more its becoming clear that people are stuck on this "Not magic get it out." thing and its frankly sad. Its not like there are not plenty of things not magical that clearly break the laws of reality and has been for a long freaking time. But you step on the enchantment specialist toes and there will be hell to pay?

NO.

You're not actually listening to the people complaining about Antagonize.

Saying that the criticism of Antagonize is only coming from "casters over all" folks is flat out false. Many posters you see criticizing Antagonize have been begging for help and more options for non-casting characters for years.

But we want those options to stay within the spirit of the game(ie: Letting people play their own characters) and make some sort of sense in the internal logic of the setting.

You want an ability like Intimidate-Antagonize?

Make it a sort of supernatural "call to battle" that forces others to fight.

Make it some sort of pheromone effect.

Make it some sort of technological effect.

But don't make it something that makes a character, of their own free will, regardless of what that character is about, regardless of the current situation, charge into battle by intimidating him.


Ximen Bao wrote:
Stome wrote:
More and more its becoming clear that people are stuck on this "Not magic get it out." thing and its frankly sad. Its not like there are not plenty of things not magical that clearly break the laws of reality and has been for a long freaking time. But you step on the enchantment specialist toes and there will be hell to pay?

Breaking the laws of reality is one thing. Breaking verisimilitude is quite another.

The mother was the strongest example above. Having a lvl 1 commoner mother trying to save her child mind-controlled into nut-punching the monster is one thing. Making her do it because the monster goaded her into attacking is something else altogether. It breaks suspension of disbelief. It's a failure of story and mechanics separation.

It's not "Grrr, rarrr! We're stupid mean people who hate anything that's not magic." It's, "what's supposed to happen makes no sense in it's own terms."

would a GM not give her a circumstance bonus against the check... or rather raise the DC for the antagonize based on the situation?

that seems more appropriate than saying the feat is broken and badwrongfun

dont forget this isnt a video game, not everything is predetermined and plugged into a calculator, we can play it by ear


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:


What? No it isn't. Dominate is WORSE! At least with this it's a single specific action with logical sense (the Antagonist enraged their target into attacking them in some means available to them) while Dominate can make those same mothers STRANGLE their babies.

Mind telling me which one forces the character to act more unnaturally?

Antagonize.

Dominate is a spell that FORCES you to do something.

Antagonize is a feat that makes you CHOOSE to do something.

It's the difference between having your baby knocked out of your arms by a charging buffalo and someone calling you a bad mother, and you throwing the baby over the cliff to go slap them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
The Intimidate makes pacifists lose their @#$% and mothers drop their babies all so they can take a swing at someone that would obviously cut them in half.

So what?

Magic does that same thing with several different spells. Why is that ok but antagonize is not? Just because one has a defensive roll (save) instead of an offensive roll (skill check)?

One has an explanation that makes sense.

One is something that characters can look back on in-setting and realize forced them to act unnaturally.

One is something that lets players keep their characters remaining the characters they wanted to play because there's an outside force that caused their character to act OOC.

What? No it isn't. Dominate is WORSE! At least with this it's a single specific action with logical sense (the Antagonist enraged their target into attacking them in some means available to them) while Dominate can make those same mothers STRANGLE their babies.

Mind telling me which one forces the character to act more unnaturally?

It makes sense that mind-control forces characters to act unnaturally. That's what we expect mind-control to do. It's sort of inherent in the definition of the word.

It does not make sense for a non-mind-controlled person to sacrifice what they care about most in the world, in addition to their own lives, because someone insulted them. We would not expect that to happen. This would happen solely because the rules said it happen and not because of any reason that makes sense within or without the world you're playing in.

That's the difference. One makes sense in setting and the other doesn't.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
The Intimidate makes pacifists lose their @#$% and mothers drop their babies all so they can take a swing at someone that would obviously cut them in half.

So what?

Magic does that same thing with several different spells. Why is that ok but antagonize is not? Just because one has a defensive roll (save) instead of an offensive roll (skill check)?

One has an explanation that makes sense.

One is something that characters can look back on in-setting and realize forced them to act unnaturally.

One is something that lets players keep their characters remaining the characters they wanted to play because there's an outside force that caused their character to act OOC.

What? No it isn't. Dominate is WORSE! At least with this it's a single specific action with logical sense (the Antagonist enraged their target into attacking them in some means available to them) while Dominate can make those same mothers STRANGLE their babies.

Mind telling me which one forces the character to act more unnaturally?

You're not getting it. Antagonize makes them act out of character of their own free will.

Dominate is something that can be looked back upon and understood as something that forced the character to act OOC against their will.

Also, dominate allows saves when forcing actions completely against the nature of that character.

Antagonize does not.

Antagonize is the equivalent of a GM saying "no, your character does this" with no internally consistent explanation, except now it's bad GM behavior sold as a feat to both GMs and PCs.

51 to 100 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Antagonize: Can it really do that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.