Antagonize: Can it really do that?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

mdt, do you really think having an enemy use his standard action to prevent in-combat healing is game-breaking? Most enemies will do more damage taking a swing at a PC than they would prevent by stopping the cleric from healing.

The only way I can see that being seriously exploited is having a lot of low-level mooks with Intimidate builds and this feat, but if that's the case then slicing them down before they have a chance to use their Antagonize should be easy.

When used by an equal-power opponent it's basically a wash (use your action to eat their action,) although tactically this can be useful. And then there's the question - what is motivating these puny guys to provoke attacks from bad*** heroes? Most enemies don't have death-wishes, and won't Antagonize someone who is clearly more powerful than them.

You're also making assumptions that the Antagonize always works (it's usually an easy check but not so much against a cleric,) and that the cleric is using his spells to attack (he can just as easily throw a shoe.)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Due to ability to pump dcs, yeah, it pretty much always works, even against the Cleric. Just takes an extra level or two at most.

And if the bad guys are too stupid or scared of the 'badass heroes' then why are they fighting them in the first place? Why is the big bad evil guy messing with them if they're sooooo scary?

Why not just have them show up and all evil ceases in fear?

I hate this idea that the PCs are 'great heroes' and the rest of the world is inferior. If that was true, then there would be no BBEGs, because they'd all be too scared to tick off the PCs.


But aren't you specifically talking about the mooks? I don't think anyone thinks that having the BBEG use Antagonize is broken. It's only broken when you use specially-designed mooks.

My point was that most mooks don't have the morale that a BBEG would. They aren't looking to take hits, they're looking to get paid. If they can do so without losing any body parts, so much the better.

If someone uses Antagonize, it's pretty much implied that they're willing to take hits and fight to the death. Most mooks shouldn't be the type that will fight to the death, unless they have some special motivation to do so.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
mdt wrote:


I said there were bad guys, not 'every square around him full of commoners and he can't cast a spell or range weapon'. I'm perfectly fine with him using a spell or a range weapon. The whole point is I can delay him 5-6 rounds from healing his allies, his best friends and he has no choice about it, he has to attack instead of healing, and so PCs die because he can't heal them. He wants to heal them, but he can't, and he doesn't get any saves, he just chooses to do it, to let his allies die.

Not only that, but I can use up his spells, so he has no spells to convert to healing, because he used them all attacking the bad guys. In my experience, most clerics however don't memorize that many damaging spells, and not a lot of clerics in my games have ever gone the ranged route, they go melee because most god favored weapons are melee. So the cleric charges bad guy one, then bad guy two, then bad guy three, and so on, until the bad guys run out of taunts, and then the cleric realizes his friends are dead. Or he himself is, from getting torn up by successive attacks because he was too busy attacking to heal himself.

And in a world where antagonize exists, it's a very valid tactic for a gang of bandits or mercs or orcs to use, making the enemy defeat themselves by ruining any sort of tactical thinking.

Let's dispense with the idea he doesn't get a save. He has a static defense rather than a save which is, functionally, very similar. And it's a more favorable defense than his save probably is in the first place. I recognize that saves, as a game mechanic, are generally better for PF than static defenses, but we're quite far away from the cleric having no defense against the antagonize. It's just that his defense was overcome rather than he resisted the antagonism.

As far as ganging up on one (or more) target with a bunch of enemies with antagonize and then using them, in turn, to negate his actions (assuming all attempts are successful), I can come up with all sorts of stacked encounters to engineer a TPK (why thugs with antagonize? how about wizards with black tentacles?). That's usually considered sleazy on the part of a GM. We generally don't do it because it turns the game into an exercise in futility. How is this any different?

Basically, what I'm getting out of this discussion is all sorts of objections based on edge cases. Someone holding onto a friend hanging over the cliff for dear life (why bother using antagonize? if they're an opponent, they're already neutralized as long as they're in that position). A cleric surrounded by guys who all successfully intimidate him in well coordinated turns and who may not have a missile weapons or damage spells memorized and who has to heal a dying buddy (why aren't they mob grappling him instead so they can stop him from attacking them all, in turn, and still prevent him from healing his buddy?).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok, I'm pretty much done. If people can't see it's a broken feat, despite them coming out and saying it requires a gentleman's agreement not to use it the way it's written, and for people not to take it even though it's really really really powerful, then yeah, I'm wasting my time. Do whatever you want in your own games. PFS bans it, I ban it, everyone I know in RL bans it. Enjoy.


Would people find this a little more acceptable if the target DC were 10+Sense Motive Modifier if higher than the default DC? (Being more in-tune with understanding people's motives and intentions, the character with the greater Sense Motive can more easily realize what the Antagonist is trying to do and resist it.)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Would people find this a little more acceptable if the target DC were 10+Sense Motive Modifier if higher than the default DC? (Being more in-tune with understanding people's motives and intentions, the character with the greater Sense Motive can more easily realize what the Antagonist is trying to do and resist it.)

Ok, one last response, Kyrt, since ToZ vouches you are reasonable.

The answer, no. Until the feat has something in it about acting against your nature, like all mind controlling magic does, it's not acceptable.

The way to do this sort of thing is not to compell an attack, it is to give a penalty to other things until the character cools off or they attack the antagonizer. Compelling action with no save, and such an easy way to max out the check, and with no mechanic to take into account what sort of person the victim is is wrong, it's bad design.


Makes sense MDT, thanks for your opinion.

It looks like you'd prefer it more to a limited form of Suggestion while the current form of the spell is more of a [u]very[/u] limited form of Dominate. It's up to each individual DM to decide what they want in their games.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
mdt wrote:
Ok, I'm pretty much done. If people can't see it's a broken feat, despite them coming out and saying it requires a gentleman's agreement not to use it the way it's written, and for people not to take it even though it's really really really powerful, then yeah, I'm wasting my time. Do whatever you want in your own games. PFS bans it, I ban it, everyone I know in RL bans it. Enjoy.

I don't see it on the banned feat list for Ultimate Magic in the PFS Additional Resources document as of 1/30/13.


Thinking about it though... it's kind of weird the feat doesn't have the Compulsion tag... it's emotional compulsion rather than magical, but it's still compulsion and something that can't be compelled really shouldn't be susceptible to the feat...


mdt wrote:
Ok, I'm pretty much done. If people can't see it's a broken feat, despite them coming out and saying it requires a gentleman's agreement not to use it the way it's written, and for people not to take it even though it's really really really powerful, then yeah, I'm wasting my time. Do whatever you want in your own games. PFS bans it, I ban it, everyone I know in RL bans it. Enjoy.

I think you're overemphasizing how strong the feat is. It's situationally useful, but not "really really really powerful". I mean, should the Selective Channeling feat be banned because having 6 mook clerics Selective Channeling negative energy is overpowered? Should Hideous Laughter be banned because 6 mook wizards casting Hideous Laughter can shut someone down more effectively than Antagonize can?

There's a difference between "not using it how its written" and "not giving it to every mook on the planet". Antagonize is a feat for people who are willing to take hits, therefore it's essentially a feat for heroes/antiheroes. Most mercenaries don't open themselves up to harm if they can avoid it.

But even so, I don't think "stopping the cleric from healing" is nearly as OP as you think it is. I'm curious to see how you would use this feat that makes it "really really really powerful".


The most OP Intimidate build in the game is a fearsome fallen paladin (converted to anti-paladin after taking 3 levels of Hell Knight). Who can cause anyone to flee in terror and with enforcer can keep them gone for 30 or so rounds.

That is just a bit of entirely irrelevant theory crafting but both enforcer and the power attack variant are probably more powerful than antagonize. They both have a much reduced action expenditure and both shaken and frightened are actually pretty solid de-buffs and if used with enforcer have a massive duration.

Funnily most of the criticisms of the feat are for really bizarre occasions which almost cry out for some pretty potent penalties to the skill roll. For its actual power the most use I can see is getting blaster casters to target high reflex rogues with evasion or melee enemies to target tanks over casters. It is useful but at it's most powerful it uses a standard and immediate actions on the behalf of the user to waste two of his opponents actions, hardly overpowered even compared to first level spells like hideous laughter.


Evil second in command drops a PC to negative con or lower. BBEG uses antagonize on the cleric who healing her allies far above violence. Cleric attacks instead of breath of life ally dies.

Cleric has little chance to not break her entire personality to attack.


It's quite common in literature that the extremely mild-mannered and friendly character eventually snaps when faced with an enemy who knows how to really get underneath their skin and antagonize them. I don't think it's unrealistic to say someone gets so heated that they're distracted from doing anything else but respond to the aggravator.


Which is okay for book, where the author controls all the characters...


So it's 100% ok that magic can do it, but even though it is entirely possible in real life (to the point of being cliché,) it should never be allowed via non-magical means?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Even after the errata, one major flaw remains: The usual bonuses to Will saves do absolutely nothing to protect against usage of this feat -- only boosts to wisdom help. The inconsistent mechanic is more of a problem than the momentary deprivation of free will.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:
Let's dispense with the idea he doesn't get a save. He has a static defense rather than a save which is, functionally, very similar. And it's a more favorable defense than his save probably is in the first place. I recognize that saves, as a game mechanic, are generally better for PF than static defenses, but we're quite far away from the cleric having no defense against the antagonize. It's just that his defense was overcome rather than he resisted the antagonism.

Please point to em the feat that allow you to add 3 points to a spell DC, 6 points if you have 10 levels in a spellcasting class.

Or those that add 2 points to two different spells DC, 4 points if you have 10 levels in a spellcasting class.

I can point you to Skill focus and persuasive feats to improve the Intimidate and Diplomacy checks used with Antagonize.

Point me to what class get a +3 to the DC of a spell over and above the spell level and the casting stat. I can point you to the class skills.

Point me to the feat that allow you to add a second characteristic as casting stat for a spell DC. I can point you to Intimidating Prowess for Antagonize.

Edit:
Forgot the skill items.
Any items tat give more than a +2 to a spell DC? skill items can give up to +10 to a skill check.


RumpinRufus wrote:
So it's 100% ok that magic can do it, but even though it is entirely possible in real life (to the point of being cliché,) it should never be allowed via non-magical means?

No, but it shouldn't be irresistible. The spells that do they same thing have a DC.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
mdt wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Would people find this a little more acceptable if the target DC were 10+Sense Motive Modifier if higher than the default DC? (Being more in-tune with understanding people's motives and intentions, the character with the greater Sense Motive can more easily realize what the Antagonist is trying to do and resist it.)

Ok, one last response, Kyrt, since ToZ vouches you are reasonable.

The answer, no. Until the feat has something in it about acting against your nature, like all mind controlling magic does, it's not acceptable.

The way to do this sort of thing is not to compell an attack, it is to give a penalty to other things until the character cools off or they attack the antagonizer. Compelling action with no save, and such an easy way to max out the check, and with no mechanic to take into account what sort of person the victim is is wrong, it's bad design.

By the Way, most compelling spell give you a second Saving throw if you go against your character nature.

As written Antagonize don't even give you a modifier to the check DC.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wind Chime wrote:

The most OP Intimidate build in the game is a fearsome fallen paladin (converted to anti-paladin after taking 3 levels of Hell Knight). Who can cause anyone to flee in terror and with enforcer can keep them gone for 30 or so rounds.

That is just a bit of entirely irrelevant theory crafting but both enforcer and the power attack variant are probably more powerful than antagonize. They both have a much reduced action expenditure and both shaken and frightened are actually pretty solid de-buffs and if used with enforcer have a massive duration.

Funnily most of the criticisms of the feat are for really bizarre occasions which almost cry out for some pretty potent penalties to the skill roll. For its actual power the most use I can see is getting blaster casters to target high reflex rogues with evasion or melee enemies to target tanks over casters. It is useful but at it's most powerful it uses a standard and immediate actions on the behalf of the user to waste two of his opponents actions, hardly overpowered even compared to first level spells like hideous laughter.

Maybe some people play the social part of the game and don't care only about DPS see problems where people interested only in the combat part don't see them.

Diplomatic parley, A threaten B, B assault A with the intent to kill.
End of diplomacy.

High ball at the royal court, A threaten B, B assault A with the intent to kill. B is retained and probably throw in jail or banned from the royal court. A will be seen as uncouth probably, but still admitted at court.

City council. Same scenario, whatever B was trying to achieve is lost.

Hired duelist getting a valid reason for a duel to death with his preferred weapon as he is the wronged party.

There are thousand of scenarios where using a spell will fail (remember, there are very few archetypes that can hide their spellcasting) but this feat will be extremely powerful.


Stome wrote:
No trying to set up something as ridicules as "Cleric with only one spell and no range weapon vs bad guy with every square around him full of commoners blah blah blah." that is a contrived load of bull made up to try and make a problem where there is none to prop up a weak argument. If anything like that really happened in a game it is a dick DM and nothing more.

To be fair, I made this scenario in response to Kyrt talking about working story mechanics to make the outcome in question seem more plausible. There's only so much you can handwave as to why someone would act so absurdly out of character, and that was the point this was illustrating.

So yes, it is contrived. And yet... it still is something antagonize can force you to do. If you don't think there's any problem with that, fine, but I consider it to be absurd that an insult or threat can cause someone to act wildly out of character and irrationally.

The one thing I consider most sacred to the player is their autonomy. The feelings and actions of their characters are the one thing that the GM cannot tell for them. Mind control or other effects may remove their free will, but when it is a completely mundane matter of taunting, that is about the roleplay.

So, how would you feel if you've been playing a character who always keeps his cool in battle. You roleplay him as such, and he's smart, he knows enough about tactics to focus on weaker guys such as casters and so on. And then the GM says, "This guy makes some noise and intimidates you. *roll* You are so infuriated at the display that you race over to attack him, leaving the caster behind you no longer threatened. On his next turn, he's going to cast..."

That is what the intimidate option of Antagonize does, and it's absurd. I know it is more likely to be the players who make use of it on NPC's instead, but it goes both ways. There are villains who are smart enough and level-headed enough not to do something so idiotic, and yet this forces that on them, through no more than some little remark that can be yelled in battle.

If you don't find that to be nonsensical, alright then, but I do. I guess we'll just have to disagree on it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RumpinRufus wrote:
It's quite common in literature that the extremely mild-mannered and friendly character eventually snaps when faced with an enemy who knows how to really get underneath their skin and antagonize them. I don't think it's unrealistic to say someone gets so heated that they're distracted from doing anything else but respond to the aggravator.

Oh yes, and they do that in less than 6 second saying "I break you in two" at a complete stranger.[/sarcasm]

Or instead they do that with careful insults and threats, possibly knowing what are the sore spots in the character personality?

Doing that with a few (in game) minutes of diplomacy, intimidation and roleplaying, possibly with bonus o malus depending on knowing appropriate tidbits about the target? Fine.

Doing that giving the finger to someone? Not fine.

Silver Crusade

New wording of the feat... No longer broken...

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.

So use this on the enemy Wizard and he just Fireballs your butt


So the version on d20pfsrd .. which version is that? Is it still the broken version or is it finally unbroken?

Text:

Quote:

Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.

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.

I took this feat with an Oracle Debuff build intending to stack the Diplomacy effect with other negatives such as ray of sickening / etc, and if the current version is still the "broken" version I need to have a quality conversation with my GM about how we're going to rule "obvious harm" so it ceases to be broken in our game.

Silver Crusade

Ok I'll admit that a buffer or healer... someone with NO offensive capabilities could be disadvantaged by this, and yes a GM could use this feat to devastating effect if he carefully plans this out against your party, but then my #1 rule about GMs comes into play...

As a GM you can kill your party at any given time... You are god, omnipotent, period. BUT if your only goal is to kill the party then... screw you dude, who wants to play with you? It's a game of storytelling and if the main characters all die then the story is over... sounds like time to find another narrator.

If your players are using this feat to screw up your game... See the above statement, you are omnipotent, take back control of your game with out using the weak sauce excuse... "Um, that feat is banned"... Like for instance beat the dog snot out of the guy overusing this feat with a dude who looks like a wizard but turns out to be a martial artist of extreme skill that uses the Antagonizer for punching practice.

Sorry if this ruffles feathers, but I'm always amazed at the antagonistic (lolz) feel some groups sound like they have... The Gamemaster should be bros with all his players, not some dbag everybody hates to be around. The same goes with players, if all you do is try to break my home game, chances are your not invited to the next session and your character is dragon food in your absence. My players LOVE me, just saying, cause I try to make gaming fun, challenging, but never tedious or annoying, and I expect the same of them.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:

The most OP Intimidate build in the game is a fearsome fallen paladin (converted to anti-paladin after taking 3 levels of Hell Knight). Who can cause anyone to flee in terror and with enforcer can keep them gone for 30 or so rounds.

That is just a bit of entirely irrelevant theory crafting but both enforcer and the power attack variant are probably more powerful than antagonize. They both have a much reduced action expenditure and both shaken and frightened are actually pretty solid de-buffs and if used with enforcer have a massive duration.

Funnily most of the criticisms of the feat are for really bizarre occasions which almost cry out for some pretty potent penalties to the skill roll. For its actual power the most use I can see is getting blaster casters to target high reflex rogues with evasion or melee enemies to target tanks over casters. It is useful but at it's most powerful it uses a standard and immediate actions on the behalf of the user to waste two of his opponents actions, hardly overpowered even compared to first level spells like hideous laughter.

Maybe some people play the social part of the game and don't care only about DPS see problems where people interested only in the combat part don't see them.

Diplomatic parley, A threaten B, B assault A with the intent to kill.
End of diplomacy.

High ball at the royal court, A threaten B, B assault A with the intent to kill. B is retained and probably throw in jail or banned from the royal court. A will be seen as uncouth probably, but still admitted at court.

City council. Same scenario, whatever B was trying to achieve is lost.

Hired duelist getting a valid reason for a duel to death with his preferred weapon as he is the wronged party.

There are thousand of scenarios where using a spell will fail (remember, there are very few archetypes that can hide their spellcasting) but this feat will be extremely powerful.

With a focus on diplomacy or intimidate you can basically walk into any non-combat scenario and take over to a large degree if your gm plays raw. So I don't really see this feat making matter worse.


Would it make this feat better if the target could oppose it by a Sense Motive or Knowledge (Tactics) to pick up that he or she is being baited?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wind Chime wrote:
With a focus on diplomacy or intimidate you can basically walk into any non-combat scenario and take over to a large degree if your gm plays raw. So I don't really see this feat making matter worse.

You really don't see the difference?

A guy with high diplomacy or intimidate can be opposed by someone with the same skills, a group with a lesser level of the skill can use aid another and overcome him.
Some NPC can't be swayed by him as their motivations are strong enough to resist any attempt of changing them.

On the other hand antagonize make you act against your intention with extreme ease. A guy with less diplomacy than your face can goad him into attacking with a easy check and then whatever the face was trying to accomplish is lost.

Character A, bard face with 10 ranks in diplomacy, speak for half an hour, roll a 20 and get a total of 38 on his diplomacy check and sway the masses, then
character B with 5 ranks in diplomacy, intimidate and skill focus say "Io ti spiezzo in due", roll a 9 on his dice, get a total of 20 and destroy everything the bard has done.

Wonnerful.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
darth_borehd wrote:
Would it make this feat better if the target could oppose it by a Sense Motive or Knowledge (Tactics) to pick up that he or she is being baited?

It change the simple fact that you can get a pacifist in a homicidal rage with 3 words in 6 seconds?

No, so it would not make it better.


Diego Rossi wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Would it make this feat better if the target could oppose it by a Sense Motive or Knowledge (Tactics) to pick up that he or she is being baited?

It change the simple fact that you can get a pacifist in a homicidal rage with 3 words in 6 seconds?

No, so it would not make it better.

I guess we have to agree to disagree then.

I personally have seen this happen in real life, so I have no doubt it is possible.

Silver Crusade

darth_borehd wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Would it make this feat better if the target could oppose it by a Sense Motive or Knowledge (Tactics) to pick up that he or she is being baited?

It change the simple fact that you can get a pacifist in a homicidal rage with 3 words in 6 seconds?

No, so it would not make it better.

I guess we have to agree to disagree then.

I personally have seen this happen in real life, so I have no doubt it is possible.

But does it happen regardless of the person and situation involved?

Antagonize makes that sort of thing commonplace, regardless of the target's actual character or circumstance, and turns the in-game world into black comedy.


Has no one ever been super pissed off at someone else? Ever watch an episode of Law and Order SVU? I mean I get mad enough at just watching episodes of that show to hurt (originally had "slit the throat" thought maybe too much) of someone even joking about being a pedophile or sexual abusing someone...if I were in a room and someone was "adept" at pissing people off and happen to mention certain "activities" with a person or persons below a certain age...I could most definitely become mad enough to attack them no matter what...rage and anger have some serious effects on people

And so far I am confused...is everyone arguing the "old" version of this feat or the "new" version? I mean this feat sounds awesome for my next character...he's going to be a monk/swordlord fighter/duelist, be great to use on melee guys that I challenge to a duel eh?

If its the old version...then why are we arguing...

If its the new version then it can only be used once on someone, they don't have to charge you, ANYTHING can essentially be used as a thrown weapon

My first character ever was a half-orc fighter, had Throw Anything and Two-handed Thrower...antagonize him and you might just be a stain on the wall from his greataxe...or one of the throwing warhammers from his blink-back belt...just saying


I know I am jumping back up the page on this but off well. So some peoples problem is if you make a group of metagamed mooks with this feat then with all of them using it one could lose out on 5 turns...

So a whole team with a feat to accomplish what one spell (the number of spells that could remove you from battle for 5 turns is almost staggering.) can is a problem?


Mikaze wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
Would it make this feat better if the target could oppose it by a Sense Motive or Knowledge (Tactics) to pick up that he or she is being baited?

It change the simple fact that you can get a pacifist in a homicidal rage with 3 words in 6 seconds?

No, so it would not make it better.

I guess we have to agree to disagree then.

I personally have seen this happen in real life, so I have no doubt it is possible.

But does it happen regardless of the person and situation involved?

Antagonize makes that sort of thing commonplace, regardless of the target's actual character or circumstance, and turns the in-game world into black comedy.

And? Evasion makes dodging a fireball in a 10X10 room where every square inch is hit commonplace. Aspect of the Beast makes people that can grow claws without magic commonplace.

You know the list could go on and on but its not worth my time. there are a TON of non-magical things in the game that break "What makes sense". So much so that the whole "It don't make sense!" argument really has no place in this GAME, ever.


Two quick questions:
Why do I have to choose the most effective attack? The afore mentioned mother could just use a stone and throw it. Or the noble at court could slap you in your face (a melee attack!). The Healer Cleric could shout "Stay away from my friend, you monster", guard him with his life and throw his spear/stone/whatever.
And why does the Antagonizer not get thrown in jail? In Prussia you were also punished for *verbally* starting a fight...

You lose one round of actions, you have a much higher defense than your will save (even considering cloaks of resistance), your enemy loses his standard action and cannot attack you in this round... At least in my gaming group I wouldn't use it against my PCs, because it surely wouldn't be very effective.


I find it weird that the people who think this feat is cool are okay with it being completely gamed as all freakin' hell.

"Yeah, it's not that big a deal because you can just do some ineffectual attack that's hardly even an attack to sorta technically satisfy the requirements of making an attack. Or so that you don't make an attack, you could use a buff or something on the enemy instead, 'cuz it satisfies targeting them with a spell."

Seriously? I mean, just... really? Completely gaming the system and straight up going against the idea of the feat entirely ("Jeez, that guy just put me into a blind rage! Let me go ahead and buff him now, that's perfect!" or "Arg, anger! Rather than charging that person to stab them with my sword like I do to everybody else anyway, let me pick up a rock to throw, so that I don't leave this guy that I'd actually rather be attacking anyway, but will leave alone for this moment while I chuck rocks at the other guy! Ragh, more anger!").

Seriously, I've seen people criticize for twisting of the rules before for much smaller things than this, and these workarounds (because that's exactly what they are. I really can't see how they could possibly be considered anything else) honestly are not being called out as totally breaking all of the mechanics, flavor, and intent of this feat?

Just... what?

I'm sorry if I'm sounding aggressive and/or sarcastic on this, but really. That is all kinds of messed up, and I can't believe people are really advocating such absurd workarounds to make this seem legitimate. It is just honestly boggling my mind.

*sigh* /rant

Edit: Rant back on for a moment.

And again, it's the people who are defending the feat that find these exploits to be perfectly acceptable. What is this, I don't even

*rant back off*

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Putting aside all the frankly ridiculous situations the very existence of this feat make possible (yes they are contrived, that doesn't make them any less mind boggling), let's strip away the flavor and see what we have:

Antagonize is a feat that can be taken at first level that lets you spend an action to take away someone else's action. In that sense it's similar to the spell daze except it works on anything that understands your language and has a mind, no limitations on creature type or HD like daze. Oh, and daze allows a saving throw so no matter how much you pump your save DC it still has a 5% chance of not working. Antagonize realistically has no chance of failing. Skills do not fail on a 1 and it's very easy to have an Intimidate score of +16 or so by 5th level. By 10th level it hits +25-30(autosuccess against an equal level foe with a 22! wisdom) and by 15th level you can have a bonus somewhere in the 40s if you try.

I just don't think a feat that lets you automatically cancel an opponent's intended action is balanced, especially when it's 1st level feat with no prereqs. Allowing multiple allied characters to use it in subsequent rounds approaches terrible remorse levels or abuse.

Oh, and in what world are we comparing 1st level feats to 4th/5th level spells to gauge power levels? If this feat required 10-15 ranks of Intimidate or Diplomacy I would have a lot less problems with it.


[rant] It's better to game the system (as you call it) than to outright lie and say "the feat makes a mother kill her baby child because.. how could she attack someone and not kill her child before she does." and use this as an argument against the feat. Something not in the least written.

So using RAW is better than using silly ideas about how it could be misinterpreted in the dumbest way.[/rant]

Not everyone has to like the feat but it is not totally broken and it is not killing worlds if you use it in a grown up way.
And while doing that does not HAVE to mean that you allow mild attacks that's what the RAW of the feat allows.

This feat is intended to force the target to not do what it wants but makes it do what the feat states. This includes attacking you in any way or to include you in some not defined spell effect.

In the end: If using a feat RAW makes it better than using it what you think is RAI, then do the only reasonable way and use it RAW. You could be wrong about RAI after all.


Umbranus wrote:

It's better to game the system (as you call it) than to outright lie and say "the feat makes a mother kill her baby child because.. how could she attack someone and not kill her child before she does." and use this as an argument against the feat. Something not in the least written.

So using RAW is better than using silly ideas about how it could be misinterpreted in the dumbest way.

Except... that's pretty much exactly what it says by RAW.

You are forced to do what it states you need to do, barring some threat to your own person that could prevent it. You can be holding a rope for someone hanging off a cliff, and if someone hits you with this, you do need to let that person fall to their death. By RAW. It's not obvious harm for you, so go ahead and pick up a rock to chuck at the enemy. That's what the feat states you need to do.

Yeah, I know, look at that, another contrived situation and all. But it is completely legitimate, and if you don't think that seems weird, then I guess I really don't know what to tell you.

Umbranus wrote:
In the end: If using a feat RAW makes it better than using it what you think is RAI, then do the only reasonable way and use it RAW. You could be wrong about RAI after all.

Okay. Because casting Haste on a guy is definitely in the same line of intent as making attacks against them. Sure, that sounds completely reasonable, maybe that is indeed RAI for this feat.


@Darkwolf: But there were people who insisted that a woman holding her baby in her arms, standing near a cliff has to throw the baby down before running to attack. That's what I was refering to.


I know, and you're correct, that is unlikely, hence why I used a different scenario.

As I recall though, I believe the scenario with the woman was more as a comparison between Antagonize and other things that could cause similar outcomes - the difference between someone saying something to the woman and her tossing the baby away in anger, as opposed to getting hit by a bull and having the baby knocked from her arms.

I quoted it to say that I actually found it to be a surprisingly good analogy of how this would look in-game, and why Antagonize seems weird in my opinion.


See I think it is the worst analogy possible because nothing in antagonize would make the woman throw away her baby.


ryric wrote:

Putting aside all the frankly ridiculous situations the very existence of this feat make possible (yes they are contrived, that doesn't make them any less mind boggling), let's strip away the flavor and see what we have:

Antagonize is a feat that can be taken at first level that lets you spend an action to take away someone else's action. In that sense it's similar to the spell daze except it works on anything that understands your language and has a mind, no limitations on creature type or HD like daze. Oh, and daze allows a saving throw so no matter how much you pump your save DC it still has a 5% chance of not working. Antagonize realistically has no chance of failing. Skills do not fail on a 1 and it's very easy to have an Intimidate score of +16 or so by 5th level. By 10th level it hits +25-30(autosuccess against an equal level foe with a 22! wisdom) and by 15th level you can have a bonus somewhere in the 40s if you try.

I just don't think a feat that lets you automatically cancel an opponent's intended action is balanced, especially when it's 1st level feat with no prereqs. Allowing multiple allied characters to use it in subsequent rounds approaches terrible remorse levels or abuse.

Oh, and in what world are we comparing 1st level feats to 4th/5th level spells to gauge power levels? If this feat required 10-15 ranks of Intimidate or Diplomacy I would have a lot less problems with it.

Save for the fact that you leave out a great deal. For one comparing it to a lvl 0 spell is flat out ignoring the fact that spells go beyond lvl 0. So the feat is on par with spells for.... 1 LVL! OMG!

While intimidate is not hard to pump that's true its not "easy" one still must expend resources. And could we stop pretending that a save is somehow a hindrance to spells. Getting stupidly high DCs is not much harder then a high skill. Sure the skill numbers look better but that's because of different scaling.

Then there is the fact that this can only be used on a target once. While spells can be chained. I am sure someone is going to go "But but but.. spells per day! limited recourse.". Yeah bull. With pearls of power and since full casters need very little else in the way of gear spells have not be that limited in a long time.

Then there is the sort duration. Wheres most control spells have 1 round/lvl duration. Sure they get more saves the odds are still well in the casters favor to get a couple rounds out of it most of the time.

Its a feat that's weaker then lvl 1 spells. Stop the BS pretending it not.


Umbranus wrote:
See I think it is the worst analogy possible because nothing in antagonize would make the woman throw away her baby.

Pretty much this. These contrived scenarios are not only getting more contrived but are also adding in a bunch bull that's not in the feat.

I frankly find these whole thing on par with the ridiculousness of DMs forcing a paladin to fall in a lose lose scenario. Can it be done of someone tries hard enough to engineer it. But that's a problem with the DM not the feat/Paladin.

-Edit- Or if your players are going around trying to get a commoner to throw her baby (even though there is no reason for that to happen with this feat.) then its a problem with your players not the feat. Since there are a great deal of abilities/spells/whatever that could do far worse. If your players want to screw with commoners then there is a lot of ways to do it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Umbranus wrote:
See I think it is the worst analogy possible because nothing in antagonize would make the woman throw away her baby.

The woman is holding onto a rope as she brings her baby up the cliff in a basket, her and her fellow travelers are climbing up the cliffs to get away from enemies.

Scenario 1 : A boar charges out of the bushes, hits her, and knocks her down. The baby falls to it's death 500 ft below because she loses her grip on the rope.

Scenario 2 : An enemy below yells out a taunt at the woman. She let's go of the rope to pick up and throw a stone at the taunter. The baby falls to it's death 500 ft below because she chose to release the rope to attack the taunter.

There, although I'm sure you'll whine and moan about this as well, as it's too 'contrived' for you. It's also a perfectly legitimate situation caused by the feat. And the biggest issue is she chose to do it.

151 to 200 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.