Antagonize: Can it really do that?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Antagonize

These questions are based on using Intimidate for this Feat.

Does the target of this feat gain Rage Bonuses, or is the use of the word 'rage' just for descriptive purposes?

What if the target is beyond a standard movement distance? Assuming a flat field with no terrain issues, will the target charge or run to reach you?

Will it try to reach you even if it is too far away to do so?

Is the target still in control enough to actively avoid AoO as it tries to get to you?

This Feat looks really good to me, but what caused me to question it is this; One of the wizards at my table used the example of a spell caster and said, "Ok, so you Antagonize me (a wizard). I move 30' and can't reach you, so I just cast a spell instead."
To which I countered with, "But it says you flew into a rage, you shouldn't be able to concentrate, and wouldn't you use charge or run to reach me?"
He answered with this, "No, I wouldn't run because it says I have to attack you. Can't do that when you run. And it doesn't say I have to charge, what it says is if I can't get to you the effect ends. So I move 30', your effect ends, and I blast you from range. Sure you can try to make it last another round but I still only have to move 30'."

See my dilemma? Antagonize 'looks' good, but is it really?


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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).


20 people marked this as a favorite.

Because it's so awesome a post, and because it demonstrates just how broken Antagonize is currently, here's a great description of the results of how it works currently:

Mikaze wrote:

I try not to think about that night.

We were hired to defend this small village on the border from this warlord that had been tearing across human and orc territory alike. We were expecting trouble, eventually, but we had handled petty orc warlords before.

The villagers were as ready as they could be as well. They had lived their entire lives near the border, they knew the risks. And they did everything we suggested to bolster their defenses.

But then they actually came. Everything went to hell.

These hulking brutes just stomped forth out of the night, shouting vile insults and horrific threats. They made no attempt to hide themselves. They practically announced their presense.

We might have actually been able to halt their advance, but the villagers...gods.

They started to run towards the buildings we had prepared as shelter. But as they ran, as they heard the calls of those orcs....I swear most of them were half-orcs...they stopped in their tracks. Men. Women. Children. The old. They all just turned around and charged towards their own deaths.

Most of them didn't have any weapons. Those that did were hardly of any real quality. But still they turned and charged right into the midst of the enemy to be cut down.

There was an old woman...I never even learned her name....she always seemed to be bringing us food and thanking us for our work. So sweet natured and I never learned her name. I remember calling out to her to run towards safety. She just turned and ran into some orc's axe.

Faris, our mage....he couldn't do anything. Everything he had planned fell apart in an instant when the villagers ran into the orcs' midst. Almost everything he could have done would have killed the people were were there to protect. So he ran.

He didn't get very far. An orc stepped out from behind a house, holding a struggling child in one arm. The brute shouted that he would use Faris' skull as a bowl.

Faris seemed as if he was about to torch the orc right then and there. I saw him glance at the child. He just charged. Faris was a good man...he deserved better.

It all happened so fast...we began to pull back. It wasn't a fight to protect the village anymore. We were all just running, to save as many lives as we could. I was carrying a man I had to knock unconcious to keep him from running towards his own death. He had been weeping, screaming for the wife and children cut down before his own eyes.

I ran past Phaera. She was kneeling over Revik, trying to stop his bleeding. The man was dying, but she had never been one to leave behind those in need. A more loving soul I had never known. She was practically her goddess made flesh by my account.

She was just about to whisper her prayers when one of the bastards called out to her, laughing at her attempts and promising as painful a death as those we had witnessed in the dozens already that hour.

I screamed at her to cover her ears. To run with me.

I don't know if it was fear or rage in her eyes as she stood and ran to her death.

I try not to think about it.

I hear the war's getting closer still. I really thought things would turn around once we started making those muffling helmets for our soldiers. That brought new problems all on its own, but then the bastards learned how to use body and sign language.

Wizards're saying that whatever is happening, it isn't magic. People are just going crazy whenever that horde shows up.

My advice? Keep moving west. Don't look back. Don't listen. Just keep running.

Me? I'm going to stay right here and drink myself blind and deaf. At least then...I might be able to die as myself.


wraithstrike wrote:

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

But it only lasts one round, unless you try to extend it for the max of 2. So if it can't reach you one the first round and you do not extend it, the effects end...right? Otherwise the effects end after two rounds...again, right?


Yes if you don't extend it ends, but if you can get the squishy wizard(insert other squishy as needed) to engage you in melee then his life is most likely over so there is no reason not to extend it, and the DC is trivially easy to make.

You could easily kill an entire party like this.

Just have two orc NPC's with this feat, have them stand beside each other. You now have 4 rounds of it, and not wizard is going to survive 2 rounds of full round attacks from full BAB classes barring extreme luck.

After you get the wizard you pull the cleric in, and these are the mooks doing this.


Keep in mind, I believe that a wizard can cast a touch spell as part of the casting is a melee touch attack, which would fill the need for a melee attack. But that wouldn't really help the wizard much as he's still in melee range, unless the spell could kill the creature in one hit (highly unlikely).

But, your wizard friend is wrong, if you are 35 feet away, then the wizard must attempt to make a melee attack. Since you are within charging range, he must try and attack you. If you are out of charging range, you could spend an immediate action to force him to spend his next round attempting to melee attack you as well, which could involve him running to you, and then attacking on his next turn. Which should put him in your melee range on the first round, and on his turn he attempts to attack you, and either moves (which provokes) away, or 5 ft steps, which won't help as since you can 5 ft step towards him on your turn. Either way, you'll probably get 2 full attacks on him.


@ Bobson. I love that example! Can't say I have ever read something that funny on here!


wraithstrike wrote:


Just have two orc NPC's with this feat, have them stand beside each other.

Nah have them stand 10 feet apart and play ping-pong alternating each round so they get the free AOO each time the other guy taunts the 'piggy in the middle' over.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Didn't we already do this thread for March?


Kthulhu wrote:
Didn't we already do this thread for March?

Yes, yes we did. Then there was an errata for this feat and the fun started all over again ;)


What was the consensus Kt?

Feat is busted?

Worse than Leadership?


Yeah, this feat is completely busted. I absolutely forbid its use when I GM. I can't imagine the bedlam it is causing in PFS play.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Shifty wrote:

What was the consensus Kt?

Feat is busted?

Worse than Leadership?

Busted all to hell and back, compared to this Leadership is moderate and acceptable. The only thing would be Leadership with you and your chief cohort having Antagonise in order to play Wizard-ping-splat.


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


This feat makes the 346 splat books for 3.5 look playtested and well-written.

Yeah, my archer is gonna throw down his bow, draw a dagger and charge into melee 'casue he's angry and wants to hurt someone....wait...what?!?!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sylvanite wrote:

This feat makes the 346 splat books for 3.5 look playtested and well-written.

Yeah, my archer is gonna throw down his bow, draw a dagger and charge into melee 'casue he's angry and wants to hurt someone....wait...what?!?!

Yes, I guess every developer rolls a '1' sometimes.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

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

Personally, I have not seen it used.

For the sake of preventing anyeurisms, if I used it it'd only be the Diplomacy version.

If I'm GMing, I'll be pointing to the escape clause about "obvious harm" if someone in the back says the NPC has to run through a gauntlet of PCs to get to him.


There was errata? What did it change/clarify?

This is the first martial character I have EVER played. This feat looked good, but not over powered...at least as presented in text. Just looking for documented clarification if there was any. I guess I missed the March debate.

Dark Archive

I haven't been on the boards looking at everything as much as I would have liked recently.

Last time I heard about this feat was that Paizo errataed the DC, but was going to get back with us on the wording/effect so there was no confusion.

Can somebody point me to the clarification? I didn't realize it was finalized recently.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Delenot wrote:
There was errata? What did it change/clarify?

I believe it was just that the DC was listed wrong (left out the base of 10).

Liberty's Edge

Its in the FAQ.


So...is there any decent way that a spellcaster can intimidate during combat? Kind of a bummer that there isn't Enforcer (Spell).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

ShadowcatX wrote:
Its in the FAQ.

Link.

So it's just the DC that changed.

Sovereign Court

Even errata'd, this feat is right up there with Leadership. So broken it's not even funny.

Dark Archive

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

In my area, we avoided the feat when it was released thinking it was going to get the big nerf bat or the ban hammer. So I have never encountered this before.

I'm tempted to take it with my half-orc fighter who didn't dump CHA and then show up at Gen Con and see what havoc that causes.

Dark Archive

Jiggy wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Its in the FAQ.

Link.

So it's just the DC that changed.

That changed a long time ago. I thought there was recent changes. Wraithstrike mentioned it in his post earlier, and then Kthulu says we did this for March already.

That why I asked, because I didn't see any new FAQ entries, and I didn't recall anything new with Antagonize.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

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

In my area, we avoided the feat when it was released thinking it was going to get the big nerf bat or the ban hammer. So I have never encountered this before.

I'm tempted to take it with my half-orc fighter who didn't dump CHA and then show up at Gen Con and see what havoc that causes.

Honestly, I want to make a ninja who uses the Diplomacy version right before activating a Vanishing Trick.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Avenger wrote:
Even errata'd, this feat is right up there with Leadership. So broken it's not even funny.

I'd say its on a level way above leadership. There can be legitimate and non-disruptive ways to use leadership in game. My group is in our kingmaker games, our second in commands (a low council for the kingdom) are our cohorts, and followers are our staff. They dont adventure with us but they do keep the kingdom running, when the general, prime ministire, magister, coucilor, marshal, etc go off adventuring. Using it in that fashion the feat is helpful, serves an in game purpose, and makes sense without being some sort of power grab.

Antagonize has no such saving grace.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The obvious harm part make the feat useless and turns roleplaying into rollplay. Bad feat, bad wording, bad effect. Picking something you know is broken, easily misinterpreted, that will cause problems and plan on abusing is bad too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The diplomacy aspect of Atnagonize isn't that bad, it's the intimidate one that breaks games. My cousin lives in another city 100 miles away (I live in Alaska) and his GM allowed any feat, combo, etc. as long as it was supported by the rules. For giggles, I told him to take Antagonize. He is playing a Paladin with a high diplomacy and intimidate (said he plays both good and bad cop). He used Antagonize on the BBEG at the end of the first Kingmaker book and killed him with smite in the two following rounds. Paladin + haste (potion) + Full attack + charge crit = dead baddy.

After that, the GM told him to take another feat and no one could use Antagonize ever again.

Dark Archive

Tels wrote:

The diplomacy aspect of Atnagonize isn't that bad, it's the intimidate one that breaks games. My cousin lives in another city 100 miles away (I live in Alaska) and his GM allowed any feat, combo, etc. as long as it was supported by the rules. For giggles, I told him to take Antagonize. He is playing a Paladin with a high diplomacy and intimidate (said he plays both good and bad cop). He used Antagonize on the BBEG at the end of the first Kingmaker book and killed him with smite in the two following rounds. Paladin + haste (potion) + Full attack + charge crit = dead baddy.

After that, the GM told him to take another feat and no one could use Antagonize ever again.

In this particular case, the GM is right. Often GMs react-ban things they don't understand or think it's broken when they are not.

Antagonize with errata is broken beyond belief.

Another problem is if the GM interprets it many things breaking the effect, then it's broken on the other end. As the feat doesn't work because of the GM, so it's a waste to take it.

It's easier to just ban this feat in a home game.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Avenger wrote:
Even errata'd, this feat is right up there with Leadership. So broken it's not even funny.

No, it's way worse than Leadership. You can use Leadership and it need not be broken. If you use Antagonise, you are abusing it.

GeneticDrift wrote:
The obvious harm part make the feat useless and turns roleplaying into rollplay. Bad feat, bad wording, bad effect. Picking something you know is broken, easily misinterpreted, that will cause problems and plan on abusing is bad too.

This is the get-out, and it can be argued any way - one way and the feat is useless. The other, and it's broken to hell and back.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BYC wrote:
It's easier to just ban this feat in a home game.

Or just ban the use of the Intimidate version.


In the PFS games I've participated in / heard about here in Copenhagen, Denmark (quite a few), I've never witnessed anyone using it. And we all know it exists. And we're (almost) all of us power gamers that find it fun to find loopholes and poke at the RAW to see if it breaks.

I think general consensus is simply that this feat is either so not fun, that none of us wants to even touch it - or that whoever is GM'ing for that night will invoke the "obvious harm clause" making it a completely useless feat.


The more I think about it, the less it makes sense. I mean, the larger and more terrifying something is, the less you can help but charge into it??? O.o


Dabbler wrote:
Shifty wrote:

What was the consensus Kt?

Feat is busted?

Worse than Leadership?

Busted all to hell and back, compared to this Leadership is moderate and acceptable. The only thing would be Leadership with you and your chief cohort having Antagonise in order to play Wizard-ping-splat.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

*bangs into the furniture and rubs his head in pain*

Oh man, that was the single funniest thing I have ever read on the entire internets! Your satire of people's reactions to Antagonize by using the most ridiculous hyperbole imaginable is simply brilliant. Brilliant!

Makes Leadership look moderate and acceptable! *wipes a tear from eye* Wow, that's good stuff right there!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Makes Leadership look moderate and acceptable! *wipes a tear from eye* Wow, that's good stuff right there!

It's true, though. In my home game the Sorcerer took Leadership, and has largely used his cohorts to 'hold the fort' in the party's absence and do some crafting while they are off adventuring...and it's not broken!

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
The more I think about it, the less it makes sense. I mean, the larger and more terrifying something is, the less you can help but charge into it??? O.o

You know, that gives a great out:

Player: "I use Antagonise the wizard!"
DM: "OK, make an Intimidate check."
Player: "28!"
DM: "Wow, you are looking scary!"
Player: "Yeah! So he must attack me!"
DM: "Hell no! it says here, he will not attack anything that will cause him obvious harm and with that check, dude you look scary!"

If they fail the check, they can't Antagonize, if they succeed it's because they look scary and hence present as 'obviously harmful'...


Canuberon wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Didn't we already do this thread for March?
Yes, yes we did. Then there was an errata for this feat and the fun started all over again ;)

The errata was out before the thread even started.


The intimidate version can be overpowered but it can be absolutely useless depending on how the GM interprets the riding clause of avoiding obvious harm. Either way, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to intimidate someone into attacking you...

The diplomacy version doesn't really do a whole lot, but to spend a round making another character have -2 to their rolls for one turn seems kind of a waste of a feat; you might as well just be aiding another player which requires no investment of feats.


wraithstrike wrote:
Canuberon wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Didn't we already do this thread for March?
Yes, yes we did. Then there was an errata for this feat and the fun started all over again ;)

The errata was out before the thread even started.

Didn't the old version allow a wizard to just blast the antagonist with a bonus?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

No, the target DC was eaual to hit dice plus wisdom modifier. So, say, 5 for a 1st level cleric, when at the same level you can have an Intimidate score of 1+3 ranks, +4 charisma, +3 Skill Focus = 11. Even 10+HD+Wis mod is too low, as skills can scale up way faster than levels. In the case above, DC15 when you have a +11 score means an 85% chance of success - against the TOUGHEST target to influence!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
The diplomacy version doesn't really do a whole lot, but to spend a round making another character have -2 to their rolls for one turn seems kind of a waste of a feat; you might as well just be aiding another player which requires no investment of feats.

Someone didn't read very carefully:

Antagonize wrote:
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 have you within their area of effect.

Diplomacy version lasts for ten rounds. Also, I've never seen aid another grant spell failure chance.

Silver Crusade

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

My wife uses it for one of her characters in PFS (a melee fighter). She doesn't abuse it and only tends to use it to get out of reach opponents to come to her.

We have a pretty harmonious marriage, we don't argue about housework or the fact that I need to do more exercise. No, we have stand up rows about the Antagonise feat.


Dabbler wrote:
Sylvanite wrote:

This feat makes the 346 splat books for 3.5 look playtested and well-written.

Yeah, my archer is gonna throw down his bow, draw a dagger and charge into melee 'casue he's angry and wants to hurt someone....wait...what?!?!

Yes, I guess every developer rolls a '1' sometimes.

The problem comes in when they don't use the "re-roll" of errata to remedy the situation.


Well, double 1's are still 1/400... problem is they where too stressed to take 10.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I have a paladin / hellknight who uses Antagonize on fiends. It nicely shuts down their spell-like and supernatural abilities for a round or two.

I've heard tell of players in Minnesota who have built a team of PCs with Antagonize and reach weapons. They're really effective.


Chris Mortika wrote:
I've heard tell of players in Minnesota who have built a team of PCs with Antagonize and reach weapons. They're really effective.

Obviously harmful, I'm staying right here thanks.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
I've heard tell of players in Minnesota who have built a team of PCs with Antagonize and reach weapons. They're really effective.
Obviously harmful, I'm staying right here thanks.

Just remember to bring your noise-cancelling headphones if you pass through Minnesota.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Hm, I haven't run into that group yet...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:
I've heard tell of players in Minnesota who have built a team of PCs with Antagonize and reach weapons. They're really effective.
Obviously harmful, I'm staying right here thanks.
Just remember to bring your noise-cancelling headphones if you pass through Minnesota.

Nah, the reach weapons are obviously harmful, so you can ignore them.

1 to 50 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.