Antagonize: Can it really do that?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

mdt wrote:

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.

Talk about childish twisting of words in almost a tantrum like response. They are many right. There are hundreds of "lose control of your C" things out there and yet DM's largely do not use them on PC's. So why would one relatively weak feat be any different.


master_marshmallow wrote:
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

Realistically speaking, the monster WILL make that roll until the circumstance bonus is effectively GM fiat that it doesn't work.

The fact that the GM would have to decide whether to let it work by giving a circumstance penalty that makes or breaks the usage is a sign the feat isn't what it should be.


Sure, but look at it from the point of view of a character. If a magic user uses magic to make my pacifist punch somebody then I might like to investigate ways to make that magic not work next time. But I can still accurately say that it took extreme coercion to go against my vows and enact violence. It wasn't really 'me' doing it.

But with the Antagonize feat? What's my reasoning for acting totally out of character there? "Oh, he called me names so I just had to punch him in the gob!" Certainly the magical domination is a very scary prospect for our characters too, but it's far less silly than what Antagonize allows.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Anything the PCs use, the NPCs can use. This is called 'game reality'. There is nothing in the rules that say the feat is PC only. If you want to have it on your character and run around using it, get used to it being used on you.

Same as any class ability, spell, feat or magic item.


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. As a DM I wouldn't think of banning the revised Antagonize and leaving Dominate and similar spells unchanged. One is using magic *spazzy jazzhands* while the other is using human emotion to manipulate. Honestly I prefer the flavor and rules of Antagonize over Dominate, but that's just me.

Silver Crusade

And as a player I would be more bothered by my character doing OOC stuff because of Antagonize than dominate.

With dominate, the blame rests on the spell.

With Antagonize, the blame rests on the character.

One of the most frustrating things a GM can do is tell you how your character thinks or feels without any sort of external justification for it. Stuff like, "no, your character laughs" when confronted with something he absolutely would not find funny.

Antagonize does just that.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Ximen Bao wrote:


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.

Who is being made to sacrifice something? The target doesn't have to close to melee with the antagonist. They could attack from range instead.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with being able to goad someone into making an attack. It's not like we don't see things like that happen in real life. At least the target of the antagonism gets a lot of choice as to how to do it (spell, melee, ranged weapon).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Ximen Bao wrote:


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.

Who is being made to sacrifice something? The target doesn't have to close to melee with the antagonist. They could attack from range instead.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with being able to goad someone into making an attack. It's not like we don't see things like that happen in real life. At least the target of the antagonism gets a lot of choice as to how to do it (spell, melee, ranged weapon).

The target is also forced to attack even if it runs entirely counter to that character's nature.

It's also forced to drop whatever it is doing, even if it results in something that character would never allow to happen.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:

And as a player I would be more bothered by my character doing OOC stuff because of Antagonize than dominate.

With dominate, the blame rests on the spell.

With Antagonize, the blame rests on the character.

More accurately, the blame rests on the spell caster for the former. But by the same token, the blame rests on the antagonist with the latter, wouldn't it. He caused your character to lose his cool. Is that really so different from a feinting opponent causing your character to drop his guard (lose Dex bonus)? Surely you didn't do that of your own free will?


@mdt: thats pretty much my GMs warning to people that find ways to be way to powerful instead of just playing "the character" (he loves story and actual Roleplaying, not just "powergaming"), he reminds every one of his players that whatever we use may end up being used against us, so we make sure we are prepared for that.


Verisimilitude is nothing but opinion. Anyone can throw a fit and cry that anything breaks "verisimilitude". As such the argument has no weight and most certainly not on the rules forum. "I don't like the fluff" is not a rules argument.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:


It's also forced to drop whatever it is doing, even if it results in something that character would never allow to happen.

It basically causes a one-round (or so) interruption in what the character was doing. What are you expecting this to signify? I don't see what the problem is.

Moreover, why should we expect only magic and hands-on physical manipulation (i.e. violence) to interfere with the target doing whatever it was doing? Why can't the application of a skill or feat be enough?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


It's also forced to drop whatever it is doing, even if it results in something that character would never allow to happen.

It basically causes a one-round (or so) interruption in what the character was doing. What are you expecting this to signify? I don't see what the problem is.

Moreover, why should we expect only magic and hands-on physical manipulation (i.e. violence) to interfere with the target doing whatever it was doing? Why can't the application of a skill or feat be enough?

Why must I, as the GM, be unable to tell you how to run your character? Why must I restrict myself to magic or NPCs using physical violence? Why can't I use an NPCs skill or feat to force you to do something you absolutely do not want to do?


Bill brought up a good point in his second to last post.

What veteran fighter would drop his guard and open himself up to get shanked in the liver? Yet a Feint does exactly that, through the mundane application of a skill.

Antagonize does the same exact thing. It uses a skill to manipulate the target into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do.

Silver Crusade

Bill Dunn wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

And as a player I would be more bothered by my character doing OOC stuff because of Antagonize than dominate.

With dominate, the blame rests on the spell.

With Antagonize, the blame rests on the character.

More accurately, the blame rests on the spell caster for the former. But by the same token, the blame rests on the antagonist with the latter, wouldn't it. He caused your character to lose his cool. Is that really so different from a feinting opponent causing your character to drop his guard (lose Dex bonus)? Surely you didn't do that of your own free will?

Nope, the blame stays on the victim, because in-setting all you can point to is that the antagonizer got under their skin. Given all the catastrophes it can cause, "he made me lose my cool" doesn't absolve the target.

The mechanics for feinting represent characters' abstracted defenses being lowered because the feinter zigged where he purposefully made it look like he was going to zag. That makes a natural sort of sense, internal sense, and doesn't lead to shenanigans like people leaving loved ones to die or pacifists breaking vows they value more than their own lives because someone was mean to them. The penalty for feinting is an understandable reflex action. The penalty for IntimidateAntagonize is a potentially characterization-destroying OOC moment.

Someone is holding onto a loved one, keeping them from falling off a cliff. That person gets Antagonized.

I don't want to play in a setting where that scenario plays out like a farce.


mdt wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


It's also forced to drop whatever it is doing, even if it results in something that character would never allow to happen.

It basically causes a one-round (or so) interruption in what the character was doing. What are you expecting this to signify? I don't see what the problem is.

Moreover, why should we expect only magic and hands-on physical manipulation (i.e. violence) to interfere with the target doing whatever it was doing? Why can't the application of a skill or feat be enough?

Why must I, as the GM, be unable to tell you how to run your character? Why must I restrict myself to magic or NPCs using physical violence? Why can't I use an NPCs skill or feat to force you to do something you absolutely do not want to do?

You can. Feint does it, Antagonize does it, Dominate does it. Charm and Suggestion can do it to limited degrees.


Mikaze wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Mikaze wrote:

And as a player I would be more bothered by my character doing OOC stuff because of Antagonize than dominate.

With dominate, the blame rests on the spell.

With Antagonize, the blame rests on the character.

More accurately, the blame rests on the spell caster for the former. But by the same token, the blame rests on the antagonist with the latter, wouldn't it. He caused your character to lose his cool. Is that really so different from a feinting opponent causing your character to drop his guard (lose Dex bonus)? Surely you didn't do that of your own free will?

Nope, the blame stays on the victim, because in-setting all you can point to is that the antagonizer got under their skin. Given all the catastrophes it can cause, "he made me lose my cool" doesn't absolve the target.

The mechanics for feinting represent characters' abstracted defenses being lowered because the feinter zigged where he purposefully made it look like he was going to zag. That makes a natural sort of sense, internal sense, and doesn't lead to shenanigans like people leaving loved ones to die or pacifists breaking vows they value more than their own lives because someone was mean to them. The penalty for feinting is an understandable reflex action. The penalty for IntimidateAntagonize is a potentially characterization-destroying OOC moment.

Someone is holding onto a loved one, keeping them from falling off a cliff. That person gets Antagonized.

I don't want to play in a setting where that scenario plays out like a farce.

Step 1: Person gets antagonized

Step 2: Person's love slips out of their grasp (whether by random timing chance and accident, or because the person lost their grip for a split instance due to distraction caused by the Antagonization)
Step 3: Person is so enraged and furious (even moreso due to the result of the Antagonize than by the Antagonize itself) that they do everything in their power to kill the Antagonist.

Looks about right to me.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Step 1: Person gets antagonized

Step 2: Person's love slips out of their grasp (whether by random timing chance and accident, or because the person lost their grip for a split instance due to distraction caused by the Antagonization)
Step 3: Person is so enraged and furious (even moreso due to the result of the Antagonize than by the Antagonize itself) that they do everything in their power to kill the...

That's not what Antagonize does.

Antagonize makes them let go so they can go run and attack whoever is taunting them by being scary.

DiplomacyAntagonize(the good version) is closer to what you want for steps 1 and 2. A mechanic like that would represent rattling the target, messing with their concentration and incurring penalties to the task they are trying to perform.

The Antagonizer gets an effect. The target remains in-character.

Silver Crusade

Bill Dunn wrote:
Mikaze wrote:


It's also forced to drop whatever it is doing, even if it results in something that character would never allow to happen.

It basically causes a one-round (or so) interruption in what the character was doing. What are you expecting this to signify? I don't see what the problem is.

Moreover, why should we expect only magic and hands-on physical manipulation (i.e. violence) to interfere with the target doing whatever it was doing? Why can't the application of a skill or feat be enough?

One round is all it takes for a disaster to happen. And some things, some characters would just never allow to happen for even one round if they can help it.

Again, you want interruption, DiplomacyAntagonize. Use its mechanics, and you get both an effect and preservation of the target's characterization.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Bill brought up a good point in his second to last post.

What veteran fighter would drop his guard and open himself up to get shanked in the liver? Yet a Feint does exactly that, through the mundane application of a skill.

Antagonize does the same exact thing. It uses a skill to manipulate the target into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do.

Feint works by the feinter being more skilled than what the target's defenses can keep up with. It also doesn't force the target to act OOC.

It also makes internal sense.


No, Antagonize dictates that they let go AND attack whoever is taunting them by being scary. The feat doesn't say that has to be the reason. If you let the mechanics write your story for you then you're going to run into problems like this.

Silver Crusade

kyrt-ryder wrote:
No, Antagonize dictates that they let go AND attack whoever is taunting them by being scary. The feat doesn't say that has to be the reason. If you let the mechanics write your story for you then you're going to run into problems like this.

You're getting close to why many people hate Antagonize. You're letting mechanics dictate the characterization of other characters.

If you're having to bend over backwards to work in an in-character reason for a character to let something horrible happen and go berserkotron, there's something wrong with the feat in question.

Again, IntimidateAntagonize doesn't distract you. Something closer to DiplomacyAntagonize could.


You have to bend over backwards to work a lot of things into the story of this game. 99% of the rules are written almost entirely from the perspective of mutual combat.

Silver Crusade

I'm having a hard time thinking of many other mechanics that are outright hostile to roleplaying a consistent character right out of the box.

I'm currently playing a barbarian. Positive CHA, very high Intimidate and Diplomacy. I could use Antagonize to completely wreck enemies that otherwise acted intelligently.

I don't use it, because I don't want to wreck the feel of those characters or the campaign. What I do do is roleplay attempts to get enemies to make bad decisions. I might get asked for an appropriate skill check along with that. Whatever that enemy does would be roleplayed in turn, and would remain consistent with what that character was about.

And it goes the other way too. My character will lose his @#$% if an enemy says or does the right thing. But there are also circumstances where he would never abandon what he was currently doing. There have been moments where, if he had been pulled away, all of his allies would have been slaughtered. There have been moments that, if he had been pulled away, an NPC who he cares about more than his own life would have been endangered. This character has fallen victim to magical manipulation before that caused him to take horrible actions. That never ruined the feel of the character.

Having him throw everything he cares about away because someone was mean to him would.


mdt wrote:
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.

I find this comparison extremely apt.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

@Kyrt

A) Several people for Antagonize have stated it can't be used on the PCs, I was throwing that argument back in their face.

B) If you have to houserule it, or if it's broken when the GM uses it, it needs to be errated/nerfed.


Ah, that makes sense MDT. I see no reason it couldn't be used against PC's personally (except by gentlemen's agreement), and had no interest in houseruling it, just not letting mechanics write my story. (Mechanics are mechanics, they dictate what happens, not why it happens. Or at least that's always been my perspective on it.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
(Mechanics are mechanics, they dictate what happens, not why it happens. Or at least that's always been my perspective on it.)

This is fair enough and I'm a fan of fluffing stuff in a lot of circumstances. But how far can you stretch belief to accommodate these mechanics?

How about a LG cleric who's got Holy Smite prepared for the day as his only offensive spell, when the BBEG antagonizes him with Intimidate option.

Now, the BBEG is surrounded by a bunch of hostages - 1 HD Neutral Commoners. And the Cleric is out of charge range, or there's difficult terrain or something, and he doesn't have a bow on hand.

So... he uses Holy Smite on the BBEG. With a 20 ft. radius burst, he just killed half a dozen people. (Or, heck, you can replace Holy Smite with Flame Strike and he'll even be killing Good people).

How are you gonna fit that into the story? The Cleric who has always been Lawful and Good, protective of civilians, whatever, just blew up a bunch of people because someone tossed an insult his or unnerved him. Takes a lot of work to make that sound even remotely reasonable.

The same idea can be repeated through countless scenarios. Put simply, it can make people act in ways that they absolutely never would and without good reason.


I don't see the feat mandating that the cleric use a ranged attack option that's available to him if he can't reach the target. Can't he just Run or Double Move as close as he can with the intent of smacking the guy in the face as soon as possible?

Am I misreading it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but...

Antagonize wrote:
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. 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. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking 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 attack 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 attacks you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

Reads to me that, if you can make an attack, you have to do so. If your only option for an attack is tossing a spell, then that's what you do.


I can not help but wonder if all this "its not magic so not at my table!" would stop if it was marked as SU since clearly being tagged as magic is all anything needs. Or would people find another reason to complain about a weak feats that is overshadowed be even low lvl spells.

Silver Crusade

It doesn't have to be magic.

It just has to be something that is and makes internal sense as a form of compulsion that forces the target to act against its will, not willingly act OOC.


I still fail to see the problem. "flies into a rage" is more then enough text to explain it since even rage as a game mechanic limits and changes what one can do. While it does of course not grant rage stat bumps. (could be explained as they have not trained to control rage as a barb has.)

So we have one often used mundane mechanic that limits and changes the actions someone can take and it is alright. But in another form it is not. Is it because one is (most of the time.) done by choice? Seems like a pretty fine hair to split to me.

-Edit- I am just going to agree to disagree here. I have seen people taunted in the RL into throwing a punch when i never thought they would. In a fantasy world where even mundane is cranked up to 11 I have no issue without someone that has the ability to epicly smack talk be it magic or mundane.

Silver Crusade

Stome wrote:

I still fail to see the problem. "flies into a rage" is more then enough text to explain it since even rage as a game mechanic limits and changes what one can do. While it does of course not grant rage stat bumps. (could be explained as they have not trained to control rage as a barb has.)

So we have one often used mundane mechanic that limits and changes the actions someone can take and it is alright. But in another form it is not. Is it because one is (most of the time.) done by choice? Seems like a pretty fine hair to split to me.

The rage ability doesn't make one act out of character.

A barbarian can rage to lift rubble off of a friend.

A barbarian can rage to hold onto and pull a loved one up from a cliff.

A barbarian can rage while standing right by the person they're protecting at all times.

A barbarian's rage does not force them to act out of character and go charging after enemies, abandoning all of the above examples.


Well the "out of character" thing is frankly only your opinion. My opinion is everyone has the capacity for blind rage. That's the thing about opinions, They rarely line up. In the end though that have little bearing on rules and its better that way. As opinions can get radical that's for sure.


This thread makes me sad.

If Antagonise was supernatural and none of the wording was changed, it would be a badly-written mind control ability that anyone could cast by taking the feat.

It would make sense, if we ignore that the mechanics are awful.


How would the mechanics be awful? Its not like there are not already feats that grant magical abilities. So explain awful, preferably in some real intelligible way rather then just opinion. Also it would not be "Cast" Magic does not equal spell. If it did then there would be a large number of rage powers that are "cast"

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Antagonize would still be broken if it were a spell, because there's no way to improve your defenses against it. If you don't want to be mind controlled, you can take feats (Iron Will), choose classes with strong will saves, pump your wisdom, buy a cloak of resistance, and so on. The only thing you can do against Antagonize is pump your wisdom and hope your opponent doesn't make the pathetically easy DC.

I would actually have a lot fewer problems with Antagonize if it had a DC10+1/2HD+Cha mod Will save instead of a trivial skill check. Then it would be less likely to work on characters that are supposed to be good at self control. As it stands a character built for Intimidate can auto-succeed against a level 20 guy with a 36 Wisdom every single time.

I agree with others that say the Diplomacy half of the feat is fine. I'm okay with some well-chosen insults rattling someone. "I can make anyone fly into a murderous rage 100% of the time because I'm that scary" is not fine.

Also, how is the action economy bad here? I spend my turn to make my opponent completely waste his turn (possibly twice), with the possibility of also imposing all sort of bad tactical/collateral effects doesn't seem like a wasted turn. It seems like something to do every fight against nearly every foe.


For one it gives up the power of most of the spells for that easy DC. If you made it function like a spell or SLA it would need to last longer and not be once per target. This picking on little aspect to complain about while ignoring what it gives up in exchange is not helpful.

No way in hell should it be another ability based off a caster ability score.

How is that action economy not bad? Compare to the mileage one gets out of even then weaker control spells. Most of those are 1 round/lvl.

If it got dropped to just the diplomacy half then it would need improved. Ether better action economy or a scaling penalty. Which I wouldn't mind.


Antagonize should be under the taunt skill but as a taunt skill but as there is no taunt skill it makes sense to roll it in with intimidate which also aims to produce an emotional response. When you use intimidate to antagonize you are not attempting to frighten opponent you are attempting to bait them. As for DC it really should be 10+ the opponents will save rather than 10+will+HD.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Wind Chime wrote:
When you use intimidate to antagonize you are not attempting to frighten opponent you are attempting to bait them. As for DC it really should be 10+ the opponents will save rather than 10+will+HD.

Past 3 HD or so (assuming you're looking at the target's strongest save, it's even more obvious with weak saves), that's an easier Intimidate check to make than the 10+Wis bonus+HD. Using HD generally gives a much more even break to the target than using the Will save value.

Sovereign Court

As a Player I don't have any issue with Antagonize being used against my characters? What would be the big deal about that?

Oh no. A Game Mechanic is causing an effect in a Game. Everything is ruined and we should all panic. </sarcasm>

It isn't like it can be used to make me go down to the corner store and buy the GM a soda or something. It just means you have to attack a particular target. As it was originally written it wasn't suitable but now it isn't that bad.

Also seriously try actually arbitrating your game some times guys. Unarmed 0-level NPC's aren't going to try to assault fully armed and armoured PC's. That is an obviously suicidal action and certainly falls under the not going to happen clause. No one is hurling babies off cliffs because they got insulted. That's your decision to allow that kind of tactic to work.


I find it sad that those who do not like the feat keep on adding stuff to the rules text that is not there.

1) The mother has to drop her child: She has to somehow attack the one antagonzizing her but how is up to her. So if someone decides to throw her own child down a cliff to attack it is not antagonize making her do that. She could just as well hit him with the baby, kick him or hold the child in one hand, draw a weapon (or pickup a stone) with the other hand and throw that.

2) The cleric has to kill lots of innocent people: If the cleric really only has area damaging spells memorized and can't reach the bad guy to melee him he, too can pick up a stone to throw. Or he could throw his holy symbol or a gold coin. It nowhere states that he has to use his most damaging attack.

3) The lover has to drop her loved one he is trying to save from falling to her death: He could do a lot, like cast feather fall on the loved one before letting go. Or use the free hand to throw a rock. And if it really is the only option to let go this is one of those situation that trigger the exception, because ín my book for most hardy adventurers it is worse to let you loved one die than to run through a wall of fire. So while "If will not attack the ettin with my bare fists, that's bad for me" might not count, killing your lover will.

4) The victim of antagonize willingly does something that's contrary to its personality: The victim does attack. But the feat nowhere states that it is done willingly. So a child antagonizing a paladin who kills her would make him sad and feel guilty but he would not fall because it was not his wish and this he is not guilty. Other people can blame the victim of some mind control as well as a victim of antagonize.

You don't have to like the feat. But using wrong statements like "the mother has to sacrifice her firstborn" do not help your argumentation.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Umbranus wrote:

I find it sad that those who do not like the feat keep on adding stuff to the rules text that is not there.

1) The mother has to drop her child: She has to somehow attack the one antagonzizing her but how is up to her. So if someone decides to throw her own child down a cliff to attack it is not antagonize making her do that. She could just as well hit him with the baby, kick him or hold the child in one hand, draw a weapon (or pickup a stone) with the other hand and throw that.

2) The cleric has to kill lots of innocent people: If the cleric really only has area damaging spells memorized and can't reach the bad guy to melee him he, too can pick up a stone to throw. Or he could throw his holy symbol or a gold coin. It nowhere states that he has to use his most damaging attack.

3) The lover has to drop her loved one he is trying to save from falling to her death: He could do a lot, like cast feather fall on the loved one before letting go. Or use the free hand to throw a rock. And if it really is the only option to let go this is one of those situation that trigger the exception, because ín my book for most hardy adventurers it is worse to let you loved one die than to run through a wall of fire. So while "If will not attack the ettin with my bare fists, that's bad for me" might not count, killing your lover will.

4) The victim of antagonize willingly does something that's contrary to its personality: The victim does attack. But the feat nowhere states that it is done willingly. So a child antagonizing a paladin who kills her would make him sad and feel guilty but he would not fall because it was not his wish and this he is not guilty. Other people can blame the victim of some mind control as well as a victim of antagonize.

You don't have to like the feat. But using wrong statements like "the mother has to sacrifice her firstborn" do not help your argumentation.

So all your replies to the objections boil down to: "I can make the feat use meaningless trowing a coin at the feat user."

So you feel that is totally acceptable as it can be negated if you accept that trowing a coin is an attack.
Strange, my idea of an attack is a bit different than throwing money at someone.


The idea that the contrived and mostly poorly thought out situations are somehow even a half argument is laughable. The only ways these situations would ever happen is if a DM engineers them to. Pretty much the same kind of DM that sets paladin fall traps.

I sure as hell hope they never EVER start writing things with "Can the DM be a dick with this?" in mind. In no way should rules be written under the weight of what contrived nonsense could be a DM come up with.

101 to 150 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.