Out of curiosity, how many exceptions to mdt's general rule exist prior to Ultimate Magic? If the answer is zero, then one possible (and reasonable) response is that UM represents a clear level of power creep in mind control abilities and might have stretched beyond the bounds of what some players and DM's consider reasonable given preexisting content'
I'm pretty sure it doesn't get the opportunity for additional saves because it only lasts a round. As does Antagonize.If you're going to make sweeping generalizations like "every other mechanic in the game" it would be helpful to know your pet exceptions prior to formulating a response.
Command. Confusion. That's off the top of my head. There may be more. There might not.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't get the opportunity for additional saves because it only lasts a round. As does Antagonize.If you're going to make sweeping generalizations like "every other mechanic in the game" it would be helpful to know your pet exceptions prior to formulating a response.
My apologies, I honestly didn't even know what the spell was until you mentioned it. I actually do, despite all rumors to the contrary, have a life. So I don't have the entirety of the rule set memorized and at the tip of my tongue. However, I stand by the statement that 'every other mind controling effect in the game has this' and just add the caveat of 'other than broken spells and feats' on to it, thus covering Murderous Command.
BTW: That's also banned in my games, use dominate or something if you want to make people do things they don't want to do.
This is so very very wrong it's utterly ridiculous. There are at least a dozen mind-affecting spells that force your action and don't give you any bonus or additional save if it's against your nature. Cause Fear, Beguiling Gift, Calm Emotions, Knight's Calling, Zone of Truth, Lesser Geas, Geas, Confusion, Insanity, Fear, Euphoric Tranquility, Antipathy.
There are more spells that don't give any bonus for acting against your nature than spells that do.
Back to Antagonize, the realistic fact is that people are not ever in absolute control of their emotions or their actions. Effects like unconscious priming rely on the ability to alter the way someone else's mind works, and guess what, it's a completely mundane effect. You can't declare "my character never sleeps", and for the exact same reasons, you can't declare "my character would never attack someone". If you're that concerned about being forced to attack someone, you can shell out the whole 12.5 GP required to get a scroll of Daze.
Because half of the goal of the feat is to incite the other guy into violence while retaining plausible deniability.
And another good crunch of the feat is getting someone that hasn't a ranged attack or spell available to come into melee. Or force someone to expend his spells against the wrong target.
If throwing a harmless object can fulfill the feat requirement you nerf it.
It woud stil waste his standard and his move, which is the main point. Also Antagonize doesn't have anymore "plausible deniability" than Dominate. In a world where the right words are known to cause any one to fly into a rage, I attacked him because he Antagonized (captial A) me would be perfectly legitimate."
|
And if you don't have any of those spells? Or aren't even a spell caster? The feat is pretty specific, you have to attack with melee, ranged attack, or spell. That's your three options. Spitting on someone is not an attack. Throwing a shoe at them is not an attack, unless you use the improvised weapon rules, in which case, the shoe does damage like a dagger (1d4 bludgeoning) and you have violated your pacifist tenants over 6 seconds of words. Slapping is not an attack unless you can do HP damage. In which case, it's an unarmed strike doing non-lethal damage (but it's still a hostile action which negates your tenants again). That's my biggest issue, as you say, it makes you choose to attack in some way, even if you wouldn't. It doesn't force you to attack, it makes you decide to attack, as you state. That's a huge piece of barf to me.
So you are playng a pacifist non-caster. Every time you guys have to resort to these really wacked out unrealistic scenarios in order to try and show this feat is broken.
Bull Rush = non-damaging attack
If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet.
Disarm = non-damaging attack
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice (even if the item is wielded with two hands).
Both of those also say they can be used in the place of any melee attack. Since antagonize calls for a melee attack you can substitue one of those for that required melee attack.
Androids are part of the Golarian world, and have a racial penalty that they can't get morale bonuses or penalties because they do not have emotions. They are not immune to mind effects, they have minds, they do not have emotions.
In the SRD androids are listed as specifically being immune to emotion-based effects and so would be immune.
No, I don't, because the feat says you must attack melee, ranged, or with a spell. If you aren't making an attack roll, you aren't attacking. And if you don't have a spell, you are down to a ranged attack or a melee attack. Even if you go for non-lethal means, you have made an attack and by the feat you decided to do it.
Do you know what the word requirements means? The "attack melee, raangers or spell" ARE the requirements. You get to decide within those requirements how to act. Not all
Wrong, he did not. You are twisting words. He said, and I refer to your quote, 'It's as easy to learn to do as Toughness or Improved Initiative'. Flat statement. It's a feat, it's just as easy to learn as those, absolute truth.
'So why wouldn't much of the world learn this valuable and useful skill?'. Much of the world speaks German. Is that a majority of the world? Is that all farmers? No, it's not. You are making things up.
Much of the world would find it useful and learn it. Who would find it useful?
I'm not twisting his words. In the context he was implying that because it is so easy and useful that just about everyone would have it.
Oh look, much of the world are mercenaries, city guards, army members, thieves guild members, assassins guild members, bounty hunters, adventurers, murderers, and other people who generally go around getting involved in violent situations. Is that the majority of the world? No. Is it a large minority? Yes. Is that Much of the world? Yes. Is it every farmer and tavernkeeper as you claim was said? No.
If you want to argue, do it. Don't make up things other people said, and if you do, don't quote them to prove you made it up.
I didn't make anything up. That was exactly his implication. He was implying that the feat was broken because everyone in the world should have it if it works well. Go back and read the post in its entirety and it is clear that is the implication.
The fact is you have to pull out the off the wall utterly unrealistic scenarios when 99.99% of the time the feat isn't going to be an issue. I usually don't even bother taking it on a character because most of the time it is of little use as the enemy is going to do one of these things anyway. Maybe if I am playing an invulnerable rager barbarian this would be helpful for getting enemies to attack me and not the squishy mage but it sure isn't going to break the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also Antagonize doesn't have anymore "plausible deniability" than Dominate. In a world where the right words are known to cause any one to fly into a rage, I attacked him because he Antagonized (captial A) me would be perfectly legitimate."
That's a good point. In a world where everyone except for farmers takes this feat because it's so good, everyone would be aware of it and the laws would reflect that:
Defense: "My client pleads Antagonized, your honor."
Judge: "Oh, of course. Not guilty!"
Prosecutor: "You stupid, worthless excuse for a judge!"
Judge: "I'll kill you!" (judge charges at prosecutor)
and DM's consider reasonable given preexisting content'Command. Confusion. That's off the top of my head. There may be more. There might not.
Ah. Very good. And the spell Greater Command extends to multiple rounds and moves toward allowing multiple saves. Very much in line.
I'm still unhappy with the design of the feat not using a player's defensive stat (Will save), but the effect of the feat is no more out of line than similar abilities.
Again, will save, spell resistance, and it's a spell caster level DC, not 'how high can I pump my skill' spell.
Also, greater command is a 5th level spell. Equal to a feat? Really?
You've also got a limited number of activities you can require with command, and it's also a mind affecting spell, you aren't talking someone into walking forward, you're mentally dominating them into doing it. Again, doesn't make the player decide to do something, it forces him to. Different mechanic.
|
|
and DM's consider reasonable given preexisting content'Command. Confusion. That's off the top of my head. There may be more. There might not. Ah. Very good. And the spell Greater Command extends to multiple rounds and moves toward allowing multiple saves. Very much in line.
I'm still unhappy with the design of the feat not using a player's defensive stat (Will save), but the effect of the feat is no more out of line than similar abilities.
Again, will save, spell resistance, and it's a spell caster level DC, not 'how high can I pump my skill' spell.
Also, greater command is a 5th level spell. Equal to a feat? Really?
You've also got a limited number of activities you can require with command, and it's also a mind affecting spell, you aren't talking someone into walking forward, you're mentally dominating them into doing it. Again, doesn't make the player decide to do something, it forces him to. Different mechanic.
Antagonize is mind affecting as well. Both force the player to do something. It is all window dressing. Same or similar effects just described differently.
Again, doesn't make the player decide to do something, it forces him to. Different mechanic.
I see this a lot with respect to Antagonize. It "forces them to decide". "My character has to attack someone of their own free will." These statements are essentially contradictory.
Antagonize is Sophie's Choice. You're going to attack, you just "get" to choose how. You can't not attack. No free will.
Also, you can't compare Antagonize to Greater Command. You know why. Stop that.
EDIT:
the spell you're looking for is Compel Hostility (spell resistance, saving throws, etc). Let's at least compare apples to magic apples.
Again, doesn't make the player decide to do something, it forces him to. Different mechanic.I see this a lot with respect to Antagonize. It "forces them to decide". "My character has to attack someone of their own free will." These statements are essentially contradictory.
Antagonize is Sophie's Choice. You're going to attack, you just "get" to choose how. You can't not attack. No free will.
Why should the game give characters absolute agency over their actions, when real people in real life DON'T have absolute agency? The clear Simulationist view would be to allow the feat in some form. In order to fit it into the mechanics of the game, they made it a standard action, when you could make a good case it should take longer than that, but in general the existence of the feat adds to verisimilitude (unless you roleplay it poorly.) And the DC is clearly too low, I don't think anyone's debating over that, but that's a separate issue.
Also, you can't compare Antagonize to Greater Command. You know why. Stop that.
So much picking and choosing going on. What about Beguiling Gift? What about Calm Emotions? What about Knight's Calling? All of these things can easily force people to act against their nature, and they don't get any bonus on saves, etc. for that.
|
|
So much picking and choosing going on. What about Beguiling Gift? What about Calm Emotions? What about Knight's Calling? All of these things can easily force people to act against their nature, and they don't get any bonus on saves, etc. for that.
But...but..but Knight's Calling would make my archer act against his nature and close to melee range!! Waaaahhhhhh!!! Broken!! Unfair!!! Must Ban!!! /sarcasm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This may be an appropriate time to tell the story of an Actual scenario that Actually Happened to my character:
Handsy McGoodHands, adventurer and former All Star Wide Receiver for the Golarion Goliaths, was crossing a tightrope over a chasm, 300ft above a river of lava filled with Lava Gators. In his hands, he was cradling his newborn son, Handsy Jr.
Halfway across the tightrope, the evil Sorcerer cast Command on Handsy. Handsy failed his Will save.
I argued that since Handsy had never dropped a ball in his entire 13-yr career for the Goliaths (players didn't hop around teams so much in those days) and because he really loved his son (although he questioned whether it was really his--Handsy's wife had a roving eye), he should get two additional Will saves. Handsy would never do that. His whole concept was NOT dropping things. The GM looked at the rules, looked at me, and said, "you're right. But I'm sorry, the rules say you don't get them."
tl;dr
Command is broken.
Again, doesn't make the player decide to do something, it forces him to. Different mechanic.I see this a lot with respect to Antagonize. It "forces them to decide". "My character has to attack someone of their own free will." These statements are essentially contradictory.
Antagonize is Sophie's Choice. You're going to attack, you just "get" to choose how. You can't not attack. No free will.
Also, you can't compare Antagonize to Greater Command. You know why. Stop that.
EDIT:
the spell you're looking for is Compel Hostility (spell resistance, saving throws, etc). Let's at least compare apples to magic apples.
Absolutely! Yes, Let's compare apples to apples.
Compel Hostility
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 1, cleric 1, inquisitor 1, paladin 1, ranger 1, summoner 1, witch 1CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a drop of your blood)EFFECT
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw see text; Spell Resistance see textDESCRIPTION
Whenever a creature you can see that threatens you makes an attack against one of your allies, as an immediate action, you can compel that creature to attack you instead. When you compel a creature to attack you, you must first overcome that creature’s spell resistance, and the creature can attempt a Will saving throw to ignore the compulsion. A summoner casting this spell can choose his eidolon as the target of the spell.
I have absolutely no issue with this spell. Heck, if you made Antagonize this exact mechanic, I'd have no issues with it either. Because it has quite a few limitations on it that Antagonize does not.
1) Saving throw based on caster's level vs 'auto success based on the fact I maxed out a skill, which I can get to 2 or even 3 times my level fairly easily'.
2) Spell resistance.
3) The target of the freaking ability must already be hostile, and must be attacking! He's already decided to attack someone, you're just making him change targets.
4) THE TARGET GET'S A FREAKING WILL SAVE TO AVOID IT! (I know, that's also 1, but I wanted to point out how important that is).
Apples to Magic Apples, Antagonize is still a piece of c**p.
|
|
I have absolutely no issue with this spell. Heck, if you made Antagonize this exact mechanic, I'd have no issues with it either. Because it has quite a few limitations on it that Antagonize does not.1) Saving throw based on caster's level vs 'auto success based on the fact I maxed out a skill, which I can get to 2 or even 3 times my level fairly easily'.
2) Spell resistance.
3) The target of the freaking ability must already be hostile, and must be attacking! He's already decided to attack someone, you're just making him change targets.
4) THE TARGET GET'S A FREAKING WILL SAVE TO AVOID IT! (I know, that's also 1, but I wanted to point out how important that is).
Apples to Magic Apples, Antagonize is still a piece of c**p.
1) Saving Throw or skill check it is still one roll of the die to determine whether effective or not. Window dressing.
2) Kyrt-ryder already blew holes all through your spell resistance argument like 10 posts ago.
3) Window dressing. You are forcing him to use his standard action in a limited way. Antagonize forces you to use your standard action in a limited way.
4) THE USER HAS TO MAKE A FREAKING SKILL CHECK TO USE ANTAGONIZE!
We get it you don't like Antagonize. You really really really don't like Antagonized. In fact you are getting really Antagonized by how much you really really don't like Antagonize and are about to fly into an uncontrollable rage. However, 99% of campaigns that allow it never have any problems with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have absolutely no issue with this spell. Heck, if you made Antagonize this exact mechanic, I'd have no issues with it either. Because it has quite a few limitations on it that Antagonize does not.1) Saving throw based on caster's level vs 'auto success based on the fact I maxed out a skill, which I can get to 2 or even 3 times my level fairly easily'.
2) Spell resistance.
3) The target of the freaking ability must already be hostile, and must be attacking! He's already decided to attack someone, you're just making him change targets.
4) THE TARGET GET'S A FREAKING WILL SAVE TO AVOID IT! (I know, that's also 1, but I wanted to point out how important that is).
Apples to Magic Apples, Antagonize is still a piece of c**p.
1) Saving Throw or skill check it is still one roll of the die to determine whether effective or not. Window dressing.
2) Kyrt-ryder already blew holes all through your spell resistance argument like 10 posts ago.
3) Window dressing. You are forcing him to use his standard action in a limited way. Antagonize forces you to use your standard action in a limited way.
4) THE USER HAS TO MAKE A FREAKING SKILL CHECK TO USE ANTAGONIZE!
We get it you don't like Antagonize. You really really really don't like Antagonized. In fact you are getting really Antagonized by how much you really really don't like Antagonize and are about to fly into an uncontrollable rage. However, 99% of campaigns that allow it never have any problems with it.
And again, BS on your skill check. Again, it doesn't scale with HD. Saying it is window dressing is like saying that a nuclear device being compared to a IED is 'window dressing'.
THE FREAKING SKILL CHECK THAT THE USER HAS TO MAKE IS TOO EASY TO GAME, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO MAKE IT HARDER TO GET THAN TO LEVEL UP!!!! I don't know how you can possible equate the two. SHeesh.
|
|
And again, BS on your skill check. Again, it doesn't scale with HD. Saying it is window dressing is like saying that a nuclear device being compared to a IED is 'window dressing'.THE FREAKING SKILL CHECK THAT THE USER HAS TO MAKE IS TOO EASY TO GAME, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO MAKE IT HARDER TO GET THAN TO LEVEL UP!!!! I don't know how you can possible equate the two. SHeesh.
It is still just a d20 roll with some modifiers. You don't like the difficulty of that d20 roll but either way just a d20 roll with some modifiers. Window dressing.
Of course command has a more difficult margin of success because it is useful in a much greater variety of situations.
And again, BS on your skill check. Again, it doesn't scale with HD. Saying it is window dressing is like saying that a nuclear device being compared to a IED is 'window dressing'.THE FREAKING SKILL CHECK THAT THE USER HAS TO MAKE IS TOO EASY TO GAME, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO MAKE IT HARDER TO GET THAN TO LEVEL UP!!!! I don't know how you can possible equate the two. SHeesh.
Of course the skill check scales with hit dice. Are we even speaking a common language here?
As far as it being easy to game, sure you can. But the problem probably resides more with the variability of the DC for targets of the same CR than anything else. Pumping the skill check upward is pretty important to succeeding against big opponents who tend to have more HD per CR like the cloud giant example. But that does leave smaller targets excessively vulnerable like the gnome cleric.
However, I would say that basing the difficulty on a will save isn't much better, particularly when related to an ability to intimidate the target. Big brutes tend to have will saves that are simply too low to be appropriate given the confidence they should have with their inherent strength. Intimidate really does work better on a more direct hit dice target DC model rather than 1/3 hit dice model.
THE FREAKING SKILL CHECK THAT THE USER HAS TO MAKE IS TOO EASY TO GAME, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO MAKE IT HARDER TO GET THAN TO LEVEL UP!!!! I don't know how you can possible equate the two. SHeesh.
It does scale with HD, although admittedly not well. There are, in fact, two ways to make it harder: level and Wisdom modifier.
---
If I were trying to fix Antagonize (and cards on the table, I do think it needs to be fixed), I would probably do something like the following:
1a) Make it an opposed Charisma check, like Charm Person
or
1b) Make it a Will Save, DC equal to the Intimidate check.
Now, for 1b), be careful what you wish for. It's a lot easier to stack Intimidate than Will.
2) Allow the target to spend a full round action "swallowing their rage" instead of attacking. So your pacifists can keep their pacifism, but your dying lover is still going to bite it.
---
BTW, I don't suggest anyone quibble over those proposed changes, because they're pretty much off the cuff and I'm not interested in defending them. There's no point to it anyway, if non-magical compulsion Should Never Ever Be Allowed Ever Ever Unless It's Me Using Diplomacy on an NPC In Which It's Totally Cool.
If I were trying to fix Antagonize (and cards on the table, I do think it needs to be fixed), I would probably do something like the following:1a) Make it an opposed Charisma check, like Charm Person
or
1b) Make it a Will Save, DC equal to the Intimidate check.
I know you don't want to quibble over these but I think I can say that both would be flawed. A charisma component is already present in the intimidate check and most things you'd think might be resistant to the intimidation (big brutes) aren't particularly charismatic.
Big brutes also tend to have soft will saves and full HD+mods vs 1/3 HD+mods that 1b entails doesn't scale well either.The antagonize DC is built more on a more forgiving version of the feint model in which the DC is 10+target's BAB+target wis mod. Feint adds the option, if trained in sense motive, to set the DC to 10+sense motive bonus (if higher). Antagonize could pull in the sense motive alternative pretty easily if someone so desires, but the HD component is already better than people get trying to resist feint unless you're trying to intimidate a full BAB character. The character trained in sense motive gets the exact same chances to pump up his defenses against antagonize as the antagonist gets to pump up his intimidate. So I think that would be a pretty reasonable improvement.
|
|
Antagonize could pull in the sense motive alternative pretty easily if someone so desires, but the HD component is already better than people get trying to resist feint unless you're trying to intimidate a full BAB character. The character trained in sense motive gets the exact same chances to pump up his defenses against antagonize as the antagonist gets to pump up his intimidate. So I think that would be a pretty reasonable improvement.
I really like this. It would make a lot of sense to allow sense motive to resist Antagonize. I think I will suggest this to my GM if it ever comes up again.
I really like this. It would make a lot of sense to allow sense motive to resist Antagonize. I think I will suggest this to my GM if it ever comes up again.
Antagonize could pull in the sense motive alternative pretty easily if someone so desires, but the HD component is already better than people get trying to resist feint unless you're trying to intimidate a full BAB character. The character trained in sense motive gets the exact same chances to pump up his defenses against antagonize as the antagonist gets to pump up his intimidate. So I think that would be a pretty reasonable improvement.
/co-sign
So, it's a feat that only PCs should be able to take? A PC should never be the victim of this feat?
1. Generally, I agree that refereed games shouldn't need an aggro mechanic, in theory. But I've read too many posts on the internet that suggest this may not be true in practice. I can live with certain kinds of aggro-based mechanics, particularly ones that require player agency to invoke.
You misunderstand me, but I suppose I led you in that direction by saying player agency. I really meant character agency and that "player" at the table making the decision to direct the antagonism target's attention could be the GM as much as a player.
There's two problems with antagonize.
1) Mechanics - This one most people agree on. With a feat like Skill Focus (+3 / +6 at 10 ranks), class skill (+3), a trait (+1), a half-orc (+2) fighter could easily have +10 to their intimidate at level one without adding charisma bonuses. What's more, being really scary makes people want to attack you without regard to their personality and they don't even get a will save or sense motive roll. At level three, if the half-orc fighter focused on aggro then took intimidating prowess and had a decent strength it goes up more. Also since your intimidate goes up with your size, the larger you are, the more people will come to attack you. I suppose it would be another thing if the enemy was already primed to attack, they choose you over other targets since you're the most threatening, but the whole enrage fluff doesn't fit with the mechanics and the mechanics are too easy to abuse.
2) Fluff - It's essentially the same problem with all social skills and some of the mental skills too. It takes player agency. Players don't like losing control of their characters, and even GMs get annoyed when the situation is taken so far out of character's personality. Diplomancers, Glibness Bluffers, and dim-witted wizards with an Int of 30. This is something that may never truly be resolved within Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, this thread is pretty silly. Seems to me like you can pretty much fix the feat by being liberal about what what breaks the intimidate version.
They say jumping through a wall of fire would break it, so just say anything else as potentially harmful as a wall of fire also breaks it. It's a major nerf to the intimidate half of the feat, but the feat is still worth it with the diplomacy half intact. Seems to me like a simple GM interpretation fixes it without any actual language changes.
|
Having read through this thread, and now that I finally have a little time to jump in on these discussion boards again, at least occasionally-- I tend to agree with those who have said the 'antagonize' feat as written is severely broken. Since I'm not afraid to 'house rule' anything I see a problem with, I'm still going to allow the feat, but here's how it will be changed in action in my game:
Antagonize (Feat): the intimidate version of this feat only works if the target is already hostile towards you. If the situation isn’t potentially violent and the target, no matter how much he or she does not like you, is not presently disposed towards violence, he or she may respond with a verbal “attack” rather than any actual, violent “attack” in the game-rules sense. Bottom line: the ‘intimidate’ version is primarily a combat feat and it will not produce instant combat in 6 seconds where very little potential for violence exists (short of one of the PCs drawing a weapon and suddenly going berserk). It can be used to provoke a fight where a tense, hostile potentially violent situation exists, but combat hasn’t broken out yet (and might not occur without an extra push, such as the use of ‘antagonize’, to set it off). Also, as a ‘compulsion’ effect—‘antagonize’ cannot make the target take obviously outright suicidal actions (usually attacking someone who looks really dangerous is still risky, but not overtly suicidal); and it cannot make the target act in a way completely against the target’s character (for most PCs, attacking an enemy in a fight cannot be explained as ‘against their character’—fighting is what they do; however, the pacifist healer who never gets violent with anyone, is NOT suddenly going to turn into a berserker and defy every oath he’s ever sworn and every principle he upholds to go attack someone using this feat; and the lawful good paladin sworn to protect all innocents is not going to attack if the only way he/she has at his/her disposal will involve killing lots of innocent bystanders in the process of getting the bad guy). Common sense also applies: the fleeing target who is already panicked and running, is NOT going to suddenly turn tiger and try to attack someone who employs this feat (because a character who just wants to run for his/her life isn’t really hostile in the combatant sense anymore). In response to a specific example raised elsewhere: the cleric who is the party’s primary healer, BUT who is also a solid melee character who likes to bash the enemy and has been doing so in the current combat, may be goaded into making an attack before turning back to heal a downed party member in the middle of a fight (maybe he got distracted and thought his buddy had a little more time before he bled out; a fighting cleric does not get to claim ‘but I’m a pacifist…’).
My more general thought is that someone who intends to attack (or at least really feels like attacking) someone, can be goaded into targeting a particular enemy with this feat (no matter how much the character would have really liked to attack someone else before 'antagonize' was used on him/her), but someone who isn't attacking at all (and has no intentions of launching an attack) cannot be forced into violent action (though I may consider some other distracting effect besides the 'must attack' result from this ability).
I think that fixes the feat well enough without completely 'nerfing' it either-- I can see it still being quite useful in a lot of circumstances, but it's not overwhelming and/or character-concept destroying this way.
Comments?
There's two problems with antagonize.
1) Mechanics - This one most people agree on. With a feat like Skill Focus (+3 / +6 at 10 ranks), class skill (+3), a trait (+1), a half-orc (+2) fighter could easily have +10 to their intimidate at level one without adding charisma bonuses. (...) At level three, if the half-orc fighter focused on aggro then took intimidating prowess and had a decent strength it goes up more.
So this player is investing his race choice, one trait and two feats to enhance half of what another feat does and you complain that he is likely to succeed in what he wants to to with this feat? A feat he can only use once per day per opponent?
What's more, being really scary makes people want to attack you without regard to their personality and they don't even get a will save or sense motive roll.
Repeating that the target wants to do something over and over doesn't make it any more true. Antagonize doesn't change what the target wants, what he does is not his own free will and to say otherwise is and remains a lie.
--
@Godwyn: If the bad guy did ready his action he may act before what the other side does takes effect. So he could just kill his hostage with his ready action when he is being antagonized. After that, on his next turn he has to attack the antagonizer and might be killed. But the hostage would be dead by then. It is just about your definition of hostile. Would a bard trying to fascinate the hobo be hostile? Would casting charm person be hostile?
I accept that using antagonize in your scenario might lead to bad results. But as could nearly any use of some ability on the hobo.
You could make it clear that there is a noticable difference between using antagonize and just calmly talking (not far fetched) to the hobo could differenciate between the hostile action of using antagonize vs. the attempt to calmly talk him out of killing the hostage.
So if a player tries to antagonize the hobo it is just another bad idea like attacking or casting a spell. Just because attacking would make the hobo kill the player it doesn't mean it should not be possible to attack someone at all.
It's only a bad choice under that circumstance.
Nearly all arguments against antagonize come down to the idea that you can do it by saying something normal that would not arouse suspicion or anger without the feat.
Saying "hello, how's the weather" will not trigger antagonize.
Saying "You mother's so fat she could rent her shadow out on hot days" might, while "You stupid, ****eating son of a ****, come over or I'll **** your **** baby sister!" will most likely work.
So the hobo can very well decide the speech is at least hostile after the first few words and kill the hostage without making roleplaying impossible."
It isn't much different that deciding "Lokum, Kym nak mar shedim..." is not a try to be nice but the casting of a spell.
EDIT:
But if you still think it is not good for your game, you can certainly ban or change it. I only keep on arguing for it because some posters stated that it is so broken and world breaking that it should be banned not only from their personal games buy from the whole pathfinder system. And that is what I'm arguing against.
|
|
Actual scenarios have been requested, and so I shall comply. And it doesn't even take lovers or mothers to work.
A hobgoblin holds a sword to a dying player's throat. Readied action to stab if the other characters do hostile things.
Normally, this turns into an excellent roleplay situation. All the social skills can come into play properly. It is, in fact, a great situation for a game session.
Instead, antagonize the hobgoblin. It does not matter what action he takes, his ready action is gone and unable to be reset with a new standard action, and he die.
NO ROLEPLAY. No other skills being put into use. No in character conniving. No out of character theatrics.
Truly, I expect this scenario to be as ignored as all the others posted, but for me the most important test antagonism fails is "does having it available make the game better or worse over all."
First off no scenarios offered have been ignored. They have been dismissed as unconvincing and IMO your scenario fares no better. If the hobgoblin has readied an action to perform a coup de grace on the dying player if any hostile action is taken. Antagonize should definitely be considered a hostile action triggering the coup de grace which means the coup de grace would go off before the antagonize completes and thus the dying PC would be dead. This would be the same result as if the players tried get off a command spell, fire an arrow, or any other action. Are those actions broken because an opportunity for role play will be missed if the characters are foolish enough to try them?
@Umbranus: The text already makes it clear that Antagonize can't be disguised as normal everyday speech. Hurtful words and biting remarks are NOT normal speech and are recognizable for what they are.
Instead, antagonize the hobgoblin. It does not matter what action he takes, his ready action is gone and unable to be reset with a new standard action, and he die.NO ROLEPLAY. No other skills being put into use. No in character conniving. No out of character theatrics.
Truly, I expect this scenario to be as ignored as all the others posted, but for me the most important test antagonism fails is "does having it available make the game better or worse over all."
If that's not role playing, then no other skill use is role playing either. Nor is rolling a combat option. So I think that's an odd criticism to lay on antagonize in this situation.
But doesn't this strike people as a case we might see in the action movies or police shows? Perp takes a hostage. Hero keeps talking and pushing the perp's buttons until he gets pissed enough to aim the gun at the hero. I would say it counts as a less stupid option than the hero shooting the hostage himself to "take him out of the equation."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off no scenarios offered have been ignored. They have been dismissed as unconvincing and IMO your scenario fares no better.
I'm sorry, but I quite vehemently disagree with this.
I feel it is more accurate to say : First off, no scenarios offered have been ignored. They have been instead dismissed out of hand because the people who are pro-antagonist do not want to have to prove the situations are not broken.
Or rather, can not prove that the situations are not broken. Honestly this thread reminds me of an old movie I saw one time. This submarine was under repair in the field, and ended up getting a coating of primer mixed up from white and red (not enough of either to prime it) and it ended up pink. Before they could paint it, they got attacked and the grey paint got splattered. So they had to make way as pink, and the captain, after he looked at it, turned to the first mate and said 'I am not captaining a pink submarine', to which the first mate looked at it, and said with a straight face. "It's not pink sir, it's white and red."
People in this thread remind me of the first mate, it's not pink, because I don't want it to be pink, so I'll call it white and red.
The feat isn't broken, and I dismiss your scenario because that scenario would mean the feat is broken, and I don't want it to be broken.
Or, as the guy from myth buster's would say, "I reject your reality, and substitute my own where Antagonize is not broken.".
You can't reason with that, all you can do is sit back, read how convoluted people get in their defense of their substituted reality, laugh your butt off, and occasionally make a post to poke a hole in the bubble reality to see what new bubble reality takes it's place. :)
|
|
First off no scenarios offered have been ignored. They have been dismissed as unconvincing and IMO your scenario fares no better.I'm sorry, but I quite vehemently disagree with this.
I feel it is more accurate to say : First off, no scenarios offered have been ignored. They have been instead dismissed out of hand because the people who are pro-antagonist do not want to have to prove the situations are not broken.
Or rather, can not prove that the situations are not broken. Honestly this thread reminds me of an old movie I saw one time. This submarine was under repair in the field, and ended up getting a coating of primer mixed up from white and red (not enough of either to prime it) and it ended up pink. Before they could paint it, they got attacked and the grey paint got splattered. So they had to make way as pink, and the captain, after he looked at it, turned to the first mate and said 'I am not captaining a pink submarine', to which the first mate looked at it, and said with a straight face. "It's not pink sir, it's white and red."
People in this thread remind me of the first mate, it's not pink, because I don't want it to be pink, so I'll call it white and red.
The feat isn't broken, and I dismiss your scenario because that scenario would mean the feat is broken, and I don't want it to be broken.
Or, as the guy from myth buster's would say, "I reject your reality, and substitute my own where Antagonize is not broken.".
You can't reason with that, all you can do is sit back, read how convoluted people get in their defense of their substituted reality, laugh your butt off, and occasionally make a post to poke a hole in the bubble reality to see what new bubble reality takes it's place. :)
And your entire argument is simply an ad hominem claiming that those addressing the scenarios aren't doing so in good faith rather than addressing their responses to the scenarios.
I apologize if I am incorrect here but I don't feel like going back through pages of posts. I believe you are one of those that claim that when this is used you are able to disguise your antagonize as normal speech and provoke a reaction which the text of the feat plainly disproves.
So not only are you arguing using a logical fallacy you are, in fact, guilty of the very behavior of which you accuse others.
I apologize if I am incorrect here...
Apology accepted, since I was not.
I was the person who said it was stupid to have a mechanic that was based on a skill that could be pumped with a DC set on a near-static (HD + Wis Bonus) so that by level 5 anyone could make Mother Theresa attack them out of combat by calling her mama fat. Make it a will save at least, and make it only work on people already hostile/attacking one of your allies, and I have no issue with it. As it is written, it makes anyone in any setting fly into a rage and attack and the only way to claim it's not broken is to weasel around with 'what is an attack' and try to claim casting heal on them is an attack. Sheesh.
I admit that it would be improved by adding that it only works as written when the target is already agressive/in combat but not nessesarily with the user or his friends.
Think of the following scenario:
A father is beating up his baby child because it dropped it's candy. The hero comes by and antagonizes the dad to attack him so he can do what's right and do to the father what he did to his child (beat him up).
I like that this is possible with antagonize.
What I'd really like would be if it just worked different for out of combat chars. Like make them mad enough to insult the user with a torrent of words (that uses up a standard action). So the primary use of the ability stays the same without making people who are not in combat fly into a murderous frenzy.
|
|
I apologize if I am incorrect here...Apology accepted, since I was not.
I was the person who said it was stupid to have a mechanic that was based on a skill that could be pumped with a DC set on a near-static (HD + Wis Bonus) so that by level 5 anyone could make Mother Theresa attack them out of combat by calling her mama fat. Make it a will save at least, and make it only work on people already hostile/attacking one of your allies, and I have no issue with it. As it is written, it makes anyone in any setting fly into a rage and attack and the only way to claim it's not broken is to weasel around with 'what is an attack' and try to claim casting heal on them is an attack. Sheesh.
I prefer rather than making it a save making it an opposed roll with sense motive or making the DC 10 + sense motive or something. It just makes sense to me that sense motive would allow you to realize what they are up to and check your emotions.
As it is written, it makes anyone in any setting fly into a rage and attack and the only way to claim it's not broken is to weasel around with 'what is an attack' and try to claim casting heal on them is an attack. Sheesh.
I still disagree with this point of view. I still don't believe the intimidate based use can be used in just any conditions and I still have yet to see a convincing (to me) scenario where its use is obviously game breaking . It may not be ideal (as described above I think the mechanic can be tweaked) but I don't think it is broken.
Unfortunately, I think we are destined to disagree. Both of you posted things you think should be changed, but don't think it's broken. If it is not broken, it doesn't need to be changed. If it needs to be changed, it is broken/bad/whatever you want to call it.
|
|
Unfortunately, I think we are destined to disagree. Both of you posted things you think should be changed, but don't think it's broken. If it is not broken, it doesn't need to be changed. If it needs to be changed, it is broken/bad/whatever you want to call it.
Saying that something can be done better or in a way that makes more sense is not the same as saying it is broken. A mechanic doesn't have to meet all of my preferences not to be broken. Broken to me means it ruins game play. For example, I think Witches should be Wisdom based casters not Intelligence but just because I think that should be changed doesn't mean I think Witches are broken the way they are (I am, in fact, playing one right now).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That feat is broken. That was a very recent long debate on it. Nobody gets rage bonuses. The feat basically forces you to do things you would not do otherwise such as forcing casters to enter melee.
The target will try to charge to reach you. Casting spells is not an option.
On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you.The feat does not say the effect end if he can't reach you. It say the effect end if he is prevented from reaching, but he still must try. That is the reason why you are allowed to extend the effect on the next round.
The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter).
It's not right man, the feat is really explicit in the case of a caster:
"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....."
Yar!
It's not right man...
...uhm, you do realize that this thread, and the post that you are quoting, was created/posted over a year ago, and thus is using the version of the feat that was in print at that time (aka: before the most recent errata. An errata that added the extra text about ranged attacks and casting spells)?
In it's original version, the feat is as Wraithstrike said: (paraphrasing) It forced the target to try to make a melee attack against you. No target controlled options, no alternatives for casters or ranged characters, just "attempt to make a melee attack".
~P
|
|
Greetings :D
Sorry for reviving the thread, but I have a question concerning antagonize feat. I had a situation where my peace-loving paladin was not sure of the enemy's intentions (she believes there is good in everyone), and readied an antagonize (intimidate part) in case the enemy attacks someone. The enemy (melee brute) then took a 5-foot step, and tried to attack an ally, which is where my antagonize kicked in.Now, the enemy can't reach me since he took a 5-foot step, and I succeeded at prolonging the effect for one round.
So, what are his options for this round? Can he still attack my ally even if he is under the effect of antagonize since he has no ranged options? Could he drink a potion or do any other actions? I think it would be logical that he can, but I want more opinions on this.
Thank you :)
P.S.
Please without "this feat is(not) broken" stuff :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Per the feat (which I still hate and ban even after errata), he must attack you. So he has to attack you. He can throw a sword, or draw a dagger and throw, etc. Unless he'd provoke, in which case he doesn't (danger to self clause). So he'd pretty much have to stand there and fume.
That feat is broken. That was a very recent long debate on it. Nobody gets rage bonuses. The feat basically forces you to do things you would not do otherwise such as forcing casters to enter melee.
The target will try to charge to reach you. Casting spells is not an option.
On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you.
That is very much wrong. I will not imply you did it on purpose but the longer quote definitely clears up that casting IS an option and the feat is totally ok.
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.
So casting flare or daze would be totally enough to follow the feat.