|
So I have been running for a while and would like everyone's opinion on their most troublesome and broken feats players can have. I'll list a few of my favorites.
Academy Graduate
Lookout. Especially with a diviner wizard
Clustered Shots
The entire snap shot line
Tell me what you think. Would really like to see your input.
You'll probably see a lot of Antagonize mentioned. I'd agree. I've run so many of the feats that people have said are overpowered and I can always work around them or deal with them without metagaming. This includes Leadership. But Antagonize is the one that I just cannot do without constantly metagaming against that person. It is the only feat I have banned.
Now a broken feat that is just broken because it doesn't do anything is Prone Shooter. I think it only has a real affect on slings... maybe...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leadership?
What are you calling a broken feat? As I see it there is no broken feats just feat synergy.
Crane wing; it screws over a lot of creatures who depend upon only one attack and is poorly worded as well IMHO.
You'll probably see a lot of Antagonize mentioned. I'd agree. I've run so many of the feats that people have said are overpowered and I can always work around them or deal with them without metagaming. This includes Leadership. But Antagonize is the one that I just cannot do without constantly metagaming against that person. It is the only feat I have banned.
Now a broken feat that is just broken because it doesn't do anything is Prone Shooter. I think it only has a real affect on slings... maybe...
Errata'd Antagonize is fine to me. If a BSF wants to waste an action to make *sure* my Wizard included him in the Transmute Rock to Mud spell I was going to include him anyway, that's fine by me.
Do Feats that are basically useless or which no player would willingly choose count as "broken"?
Anyhow people also keep saying Arcane Heritage is, well, if not broken, abused. so I'll toss that out before someone else does. Then others can say it's not broken at all. Which is fine. I'm only tossing it on the pile because I've seen it complained about a fair amount.
Vital Strike. Not because I don't like the idea, but because it is REALLY not clear what it does and does not combine with.
And because I feel the official line on what vital strike works with should be somewhere else.
Errata'd Antagonize is fine to me. If a BSF wants to waste an action to make *sure* my Wizard included him in the Transmute Rock to Mud spell I was going to include him anyway, that's fine by me.You'll probably see a lot of Antagonize mentioned. I'd agree. I've run so many of the feats that people have said are overpowered and I can always work around them or deal with them without metagaming. This includes Leadership. But Antagonize is the one that I just cannot do without constantly metagaming against that person. It is the only feat I have banned.
Now a broken feat that is just broken because it doesn't do anything is Prone Shooter. I think it only has a real affect on slings... maybe...
What if another BSF is in your face, and about to end your life so instead of "creating distance" you "choose" to attack the intimidator?
What if another BSF is in your face, and about to end your life so instead of "creating distance" you "choose" to attack the intimidator?Errata'd Antagonize is fine to me. If a BSF wants to waste an action to make *sure* my Wizard included him in the Transmute Rock to Mud spell I was going to include him anyway, that's fine by me.You'll probably see a lot of Antagonize mentioned. I'd agree. I've run so many of the feats that people have said are overpowered and I can always work around them or deal with them without metagaming. This includes Leadership. But Antagonize is the one that I just cannot do without constantly metagaming against that person. It is the only feat I have banned.
Now a broken feat that is just broken because it doesn't do anything is Prone Shooter. I think it only has a real affect on slings... maybe...
If somehow two fighters conspired to get one of them past my comrades, who did nothing to interpose between myself and BSF, or beat him into unconciousness, and the 2 aforementioned BSFs were somehow far enough apart that they both couldn't be affected by say, Slow, and I didn't have Invis, Mirror Image, or Stoneskin up, and wasn't already flying out of reach, I'd say I deserved to die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if another BSF is in your face, and about to end your life so instead of "creating distance" you "choose" to attack the intimidator?Errata'd Antagonize is fine to me. If a BSF wants to waste an action to make *sure* my Wizard included him in the Transmute Rock to Mud spell I was going to include him anyway, that's fine by me.You'll probably see a lot of Antagonize mentioned. I'd agree. I've run so many of the feats that people have said are overpowered and I can always work around them or deal with them without metagaming. This includes Leadership. But Antagonize is the one that I just cannot do without constantly metagaming against that person. It is the only feat I have banned.
Now a broken feat that is just broken because it doesn't do anything is Prone Shooter. I think it only has a real affect on slings... maybe...
Exactly this. It's the issue with non-magic "taunting" mechanics in a table top game. It just doesn't work. If I'm staggered and I'm trying to run away to live, and a barbarian that has has almost killed me gives me this s~~~ eating grin and says, "Come at me bro!", it makes no sense that I'd try and hit it.
Vital Strike. Not because I don't like the idea, but because it is REALLY not clear what it does and does not combine with.
And because I feel the official line on what vital strike works with should be somewhere else.
From what I heard on Paizo con and read on the boards, it's probably best to treat it as a standard action. I know no Charging, Full Attack, or Whirlwind Attack.
If somehow two fighters conspired to get one of them past my comrades, who did nothing to interpose between myself and BSF, or beat him into unconciousness, and the 2 aforementioned BSFs were somehow far enough apart that they both couldn't be affected by say, Slow, and I didn't have Invis, Mirror Image, or Stoneskin up, and wasn't already flying out of reach, I'd say I deserved to die.What if another BSF is in your face, and about to end your life so instead of "creating distance" you "choose" to attack the intimidator?Errata'd Antagonize is fine to me. If a BSF wants to waste an action to make *sure* my Wizard included him in the Transmute Rock to Mud spell I was going to include him anyway, that's fine by me.You'll probably see a lot of Antagonize mentioned. I'd agree. I've run so many of the feats that people have said are overpowered and I can always work around them or deal with them without metagaming. This includes Leadership. But Antagonize is the one that I just cannot do without constantly metagaming against that person. It is the only feat I have banned.
Now a broken feat that is just broken because it doesn't do anything is Prone Shooter. I think it only has a real affect on slings... maybe...
There are no prerequisites for Antagonize, meaning you can face it as early as level one before you have those defenses. And it's not only the fighter you'd have to worry about, it's also the Inquisitor which is the king of intimidation.
So I have been running for a while and would like everyone's opinion on their most troublesome and broken feats players can have. I'll list a few of my favorites.
Academy Graduate
Lookout. Especially with a diviner wizard
Clustered Shots
The entire snap shot lineTell me what you think. Would really like to see your input.
Academy Graduate -- Went through all my books and could not find this feat.
Lookout -- So the party gets surprise often as long as everybody takes this feat. Smart planning and teamwork should never be a problem.
Clustered Shots -- Bypassing DR is just a matter of having the right weapon and this is a cool alternative way around it.
Snap Shot line -- Went through all my books and could not find this feat.
Antagonize -- So it makes opponents attack you. What's the issue here?
Leadership -- If this is causing problems, you are doing it wrong. This should *NOT* be the "get an extra character" feat. At best, its the "get a NPC to boss around" feat. Big difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Academy Graduate -- Went through all my books and could not find this feat.
I think it's this one. But if it is, I don't see it as particularly abuseable. But I haven't seen it in use.
Snap Shot line -- Went through all my books and could not find this feat.It's this and the Improved et al versions.
Leadership -- If this is causing problems, you are doing it wrong. This should *NOT* be the "get an extra character" feat. At best, its the "get a NPC to boss around" feat. Big difference.
I think this one is considered broken because most of the time in forum-builds when it is included, it is so the build can include a second character that is built from the ground up to be just perfectly synergetic for that particular build.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the DM imposes a NPC with Warrior Class levels on the player, just to nerf it.
But there is a golden mean between "Player gets to design a Cohort from scratch, as if the character built it in a laboratory, and impose it on a happless DM" and "DM picks a Cohort for the player designed to be as useless as possible because the DM hates the feat but didn't ban it."
Leadership is abusable as-written, because it's potentially very flexible and open to interpretation. But Cohort choice should be more of a collaborative project than "PC gets to have whatever he wants, as long as it fits the level limit."
Me, when I've had that Feat for a Cohort, it's usually because my player made an NPC buddy/pal in the campaign and they got to be my Cohort; some of these can be pretty badarse (at high levels), but none of them were designed by me or given without DM approval and in-character RPing. ("one day, out of the blue, the perfect 17th level guy shows up and pledges his absolute loyalty to you, because you took the feat.")
It also works best in campaigns with relatively few players. (Oh, but for the old days when I could have 25 Henchies at my beck and call...*sighs*)
That said, while I agree with defending the Feat, I also agree with placing it on the list of Feats here, because it is abuseable in a way that a lot of Feats aren't, and is more open-ended, open to interpretation, and depending on the Cohort, you can get a lot more out of it than from any other single Feat. In fact, you're quite likely to get a lot more out of a Cohort than from any other single Feat.
|
|
So I have been running for a while and would like everyone's opinion on their most troublesome and broken feats players can have. I'll list a few of my favorites.
Academy Graduate
Lookout. Especially with a diviner wizard
Clustered Shots
The entire snap shot lineTell me what you think. Would really like to see your input.
Academy Graduate -- Went through all my books and could not find this feat.
Lookout -- So the party gets surprise often as long as everybody takes this feat. Smart planning and teamwork should never be a problem.
Clustered Shots -- Bypassing DR is just a matter of having the right weapon and this is a cool alternative way around it.
Snap Shot line -- Went through all my books and could not find this feat.
Antagonize -- So it makes opponents attack you. What's the issue here?
Leadership -- If this is causing problems, you are doing it wrong. This should *NOT* be the "get an extra character" feat. At best, its the "get a NPC to boss around" feat. Big difference.
Academy Graduate is a Korvosa feat which lets you summon as a standard action and all you have to do is make a fortitude save or be fatigued DC 15 + Spell level. It appears in the Curse of the Crimson Throne.
What book is that on? I can't find it anywhere on the SRD, aside from Proy's link.
What book is that on? I can't find it anywhere on the SRD, aside from Proy's link.
It is "Acadamae Graduate," not "Academy Graduate." It is a local feat from the (3.5) Crimson Throne Player's Guide. Basically, lets you cast standard action summons. But not technically a Pathfinder feat, so not really more of an issue than any other 3.5 feat you could import.
|
|
What book is that on? I can't find it anywhere on the SRD, aside from Proy's link.It is "Acadamae Graduate," not "Academy Graduate." It is a local feat from the (3.5) Crimson Throne Player's Guide. Basically, lets you cast standard action summons. But not technically a Pathfinder feat, so not really more of an issue than any other 3.5 feat you could import.
You are correct and I will definitely ban this feat because it is a broken 3.5 feat. Good point.
Fort DC of 15+spell level is actually kind of a hard save for a Wizard. Fatigued isn't that bad but if you fail it twice, exhausted is.
All you get is standard action summons, which is like the tamest thing Summoners do. I don't think it's a broken feat at all.
I think having a cohort who is a warrior of only one level behind or so should be an asset, not a liability.
The way this game functions though, being a 10th level fighter with a keep is meaningless. I mean a company with 20 level one warriors with a fourth level leader is almost useless to you, whereas in past editions it was invaluable.
The way it works now a cohort has to be someone who makes you magical items, or provides healing or useful spells. A keep is only useful as far as it gives you an income to buy more magical items with, depending on how your dm runs things.
I actually disagree. Having all of those followers proved invaluable for making a great deal of income and actually helped us start our own colony. With their Profession Checks and trading and such, we always had a good income to come back home to in addition to what we found out in the world. Definitely as useful as having a cohort that builds magic items.
It's powerful, but it's not going to break the game. Synthesists can do it and most still forget the option even exists. If you think summoning as a standard is broken, you should probably just ban Summon Monster.
In fact none of the feats you listed breaks the game, I think the original version of Antagonize is the only thing that has done that (esp if used against a player.)
Furious Focus. The scariest thing for a GM at low levels is a Barbarian with a Greatsword, give him Power Attack with no penalties... Ouch.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I think of a feat being "broken", I think of a feat that you'd have to be crazy not to take. Sure, some builds might not include it, but for the most part, these feats edge out every other feat you could take. Here's a short list of my top 5:
1) Power Attack (Or Piranha Strike): You basically NEED these feats to remain competitive in melee damage, and that isn't a good thing. There are a few classes that can get by without them, but for the most part, if you wanna do damage, you pick up one of these guys.
2) Steel Soul: If you're a dwarf, you basically need to take this feat. Well, you don't NEED to, but why wouldn't you? It bumps up your already AMAZING racial feature to a +4 bonus to saves against spells & spell-like abilities. That's simply too good to pass up.
3) Unsanctioned Knowledge: Sure, it has a 13 Int. requirement for a class that normally has Int. as a dump stat, but Unsanctioned Knowledge can DRASTICALLY alter how you play your Paladin. With a variety of spells to choose from, including some pretty fantastic Illusion, Enchantment, and Transmutation spells, you'd have to be pretty crazy (or have a really specific build) to not take this one.
4) Boon Companion: First off, if you're a Ranger and you AREN'T the Beastmaster archetype, you're going to take this feat at level 5. Secondly, there are a number of classes that provide an animal companion at reduced level (Animal Domain, Mounted Fury Barbarian, Wildblooded Sorcerer bloodline) that gain SO much power from this one feat, it's just crazy.
5) Risky Striker: Much like Steel Soul, any halfling character based around melee damage is going to take this feat. For a paltry -1 penalty to AC, you get a scaling damage bonus equal to Power Attack against large and larger enemies (which is most of them at higher levels). To make things worse, the AC penalty doesn't progress like the Power Attack attack penalty does, allowing for a -1 AC/+6 Damage by level 8, continuing to climb.
Now, keep in mind, many of the feats I've mentioned are not overpowered. I mentioned the above feats because they are so good you would have to be crazy not to take them, which is broken in my book.
Snap Shot is designed to allow ranged combat focused characters to survive close-combat without sacrificing their bow being ready.
Leadership states you can attract a cohort NOT you get a cohort. This means you have to succeed in winning over an NPC. And it appears Paizo forgot the key part of the leadership feat. and that is it stating GM permission for a player to take it.
Academae Graduate allows a Summoner Lite in 3.5/Pathfinder. You have to remember all basic summoners can summon as a standard action AND the creatures last one minute per level instead of one round per level.
Using Antagonize on basic combat NPCs they are just being a crappy GM. But for a Character NPC/BBEG's Elite Henchmen/Boss NPC then I can see it. A player would get more use out of it anyways.
Vital Strike is a standard attack option it seems obvious to me even before clarification.
Lookout is a perfect example of how teamwork is in real life, and it only works if you have 2+ members of the party that have the feat.
Furious focus only allows one attack without penalty, and power attack is far from being required to remain damage competitive.
Steel Soul is far from a feat I would want to take, and I play a lot of Dwarves.
Unsanctioned Knowledge is a good thematic feat but far from an all around good spell.
Risky striker gives a bonus that is only useful in certain situations.
and I can't find Arcane Heritage or Boon Companion.
I think having a cohort who is a warrior of only one level behind or so should be an asset, not a liability.
It depends on what you want out of life, but I'll note that, for example, there are few 17th level warriors in published materiels, because, frankly, NPC classes are not used beyond low/modest levels. Not that everyone with the Leadership Feat is high level.
But also note that it's clearly not the intent of the Feat that you only get a Cohort with levels in NPC classes (Warrior, Adept, Expert); Followers, that's another matter. But they wouldn't even bother with the "monsters at cohorts" thing (not that, IMO, most of them are "worth it," but again one's milage may vary - depending on what one wants out of a Cohort).
But this is one of the things where 1) the Feat is open to interpretation and 2) IMO it's entirely appropriate for a DM to say "in my campaign, if you take the Leadership Feat, your Cohort's levels will be in one of the NPC Classes - Adept, Expert, Warrior, or Aristocrat - period;" as long as they tell the player beforehand.
And, yes, Players shouldn't be designing their Cohort as if it were a 2nd PC; it should be a collaborative process with heavy DM input (a Cohort is, after all, an NPC). And IMO, with rare exceptions*, any Cohort should either already be a friendly associate of the PC, or be "found" in the course of a campaign (I.E. just as if someone wants a Unicorn Cohort, they should find one and "recruit" it - it doesn't just show up on their doorstep the second they choose the Feat. Likewise if you want a specific class/race/type of Cohort, it does need to be found. This shouldn't be something that puts the whole campaign on hold, but it shouldn't be waved away, either). (Followers are a bit of a different matter - presumably they flock to the PC the same way followers used to when characters reached "Name Level," attracted by their renown. But Cohorts are different from Followers because. . .they are different from Followers).
*
The way this game functions though, being a 10th level fighter with a keep is meaningless. I mean a company with 20 level one warriors with a fourth level leader is almost useless to you, whereas in past editions it was invaluable.
Yeah, I do miss that. When I have Followers now, too, I tend to make them "staff" and not combat-types (a Chamberlain/Butler, a Chef, a couple other specialists - these are the senior followers - and then household staff, and/or people out in the city with their ear to the ground or who run shops around my home so they can warn me of things if someone in the neighborhood is makin a move on me). I might have them use Perception to give the alarm. But putting them at risk? Not so much.
One 3E publication I liked was the "Stronghold Builder's Handbook" that recaptured, a bit, those early-edition spirit of building a keep. But things got expensive, fast, with that.
Another side-game I play is Birthright, where you are a Regent (a ruler of something, be it lands, temples, guilds, or magical sources), and can Recruit a Louie (and, if you're creative, have Vassalouies), along with having skilled advisors and the like.
I actually disagree. Having all of those followers proved invaluable for making a great deal of income and actually helped us start our own colony. With their Profession Checks and trading and such, we always had a good income to come back home to in addition to what we found out in the world. Definitely as useful as having a cohort that builds magic items.
This can work depending on how the DM rules it. I usually say that whatever followers produce ends up roughly equal to maintaining your household. So they earn enough to pay the upkeep and maint on your home and where they live and all the chow they and you eat and the clothes they wear and the like.
But there are certainly money-making opportunities depending on how you pimp them out (skill wise, I mean. I'm not suggesting you turn your followers into courtesans and concubines. No, really, I'm not. I don't remember the "Wanton Wench Table" from the old DMG at all. . .stop looking at me like that).
I've always thought Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearms) is a ridiculous considering all the other EWP feats include only one weapon.
I've always thought Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearms) is a ridiculous considering all the other EWP feats include only one weapon.
Historically it was easier to teach someone to use a gun than a sword. read up on Napoleon's Peasant Corp. Most of them had about a weeks worth of training. Most of with was learning formations and commands with only 2-3 days learning how to load, fire, make cartridges, and clean ones musket.
to me EWP(firearms) represents the lack of training areas/trainers besides most of them are so similar it is ridiculous. I mean requiring 2 feats to use both the musket and double barrel musket is even more redundant.
Plus only 2 eras (Very Rare Guns & Emerging Guns) have them as Exotic Weapons.
There are no prerequisites for Antagonize, meaning you can face it as early as level one before you have those defenses. And it's not only the fighter you'd have to worry about, it's also the Inquisitor which is the king of intimidation.
I was walking out the door to go see Dark Knight Rises so I forgot the biggest thing: This "overpowered" part of Antagonize only works if two people are working in concert to screw the Wizard. So yeah, 2 on 1 the 2 people win, big surprise. In anything situation remotely resembling one a party would actually be in, however, it's not overpowered.
The old Antagonize worked very, very well to render archmages easy meat to mid-level parties. The current? It can disadvantage a foe sometimes.
Think it doesn't make sense for a nonmagical ability? Stick your own little (Su) tag on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was walking out the door to go see Dark Knight Rises so I forgot the biggest thing: This "overpowered" part of Antagonize only works if two people are working in concert to screw the Wizard. So yeah, 2 on 1 the 2 people win, big surprise. In anything situation remotely resembling one a party would actually be in, however, it's not overpowered.
There are no prerequisites for Antagonize, meaning you can face it as early as level one before you have those defenses. And it's not only the fighter you'd have to worry about, it's also the Inquisitor which is the king of intimidation.
Why is it two on one? You don't need two people to make Antagonize work. And it hurts every class, not just wizards. It may not be overpowered, but there are many scenarios for all classes that just shows this feat's wrongness.
You're trying to save your friend from falling off a cliff or drowning or some other danger. Enemy uses antagonize and suddenly, you are roaring after them while your friend hangs on for dear life. Does that make any sense?
An assassin just killed the king and you are after him, chasing him down when suddenly, his partner in crime uses Antagonize and suddenly, you forget all about important business and now want to slug this guy.
You are a bodyguard to a princess, cool headed and paid to guard her with your life while you are guiding her back to the castle. Some wanna be assassin antagonizes you and suddenly you need to explain to your king why you felt punching some guy was more important than protecting his girl.
Hell, one thing that I saw recently at a table was a group of four vs three barbarians. One antagonized the fighter away from his sorcerer friend, allowing the other two to leap on him without worrying about attacks of opportunity and slammed into the mage, almost killing him. Each barbarian kept antagonizing him while their friends almost killed the other players. It wasn't a TPK thanks to the bard but man, it was close. And that was 4 v 3 in favor of the PCs, especially since it met their ECL.
It's easy to pump your Intimidate to beat these DCs, I daresay moreso than it is to pump the save DC of a spell. It doesn't take a half-orc inquisitor with Skill Focus (Intimidate) to realize that this really breaks the verisimilitude of a scene greatly. And while the above may MAY be corner cases of abuse (especially the last one), realize that they can be abused so easily. I honestly thought the way you did but I've seen this done at tables I've been to and even had it done to myself with the newest version of Antagonize (the first example; my friend ended up drowning to death because my fighter thought punching the barbarian instead of saving his long time paladin friend was a great idea).
And yes, you could do this with Dominate Person. But Dominate Person has the clause of "Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus". It takes into account roleplaying cases like above where it really would make no sense. If Antagonize had that clause... I could accept it.
I'm not saying martials shouldn't have nice things, but this really pushes things in a very wrong way.
I also just got back from Dark Knight... I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did :)
I did the math a while ago and a half-orc inquisitor at level 10 can have an equivalent save DC of around 50 without too much trouble. (Except the Inquisitor is rolling the die and even a nat 1 isn't failure.)
The way I read it there are some feats that allow one to deflect a ranged attack, be it arrow, bolt, javelin or even ranged touch spell attacks. I see no mention of having to roll to perform this act, it just states you do it if you decide to.
The way I read it there are some feats that allow one to deflect a ranged attack, be it arrow, bolt, javelin or even ranged touch spell attacks. I see no mention of having to roll to perform this act, it just states you do it if you decide to.
Those are usually limited to a certain number of times per round or are immediate actions (once per round).
|
Crane wing; it screws over a lot of creatures who depend upon only one attack and is poorly worded as well IMHO.They should have called it Blade Grasp.
"I use Blade Grasp against the T-rex's attack"
"You can't. He's not using a blade""I can, the feat says nothing about blades in the description!"
"No blade, no grasp. Sorry!"
"&$(#*% you!"
"%#)$% you!"
Crane wing; it screws over a lot of creatures who depend upon only one attack and is poorly worded as well IMHO.They should have called it Blade Grasp."I use Blade Grasp against the T-rex's attack"
"You can't. He's not using a blade"
"I can, the feat says nothing about blades in the description!"
"No blade, no grasp. Sorry!"
"&$(#*% you!"
"%#)$% you!"
Already saw that with Snatch Arrows and bolts/bullets/darts/shurikens.
Step Up and Strike, in conjunction with anything that activates on attacks of opportunity including Spellbreaker, can just be stupid devastating. It changes the game entirely at the base assumption. All spellcasters go from being legitimate threats to "fighter and forget."
"The wizard five-foot steps away... and gets hit for 2d6+22 damage. Okay. He tries to cast defensively... you give him a -4 on that. He rolls 11 for level, plus five for int, plus 4... now neg four... so +16, needs to get a 27... rolled an 8. Well, failing provokes so... Okay, you hit him again... okay he's dead."
Following Step + Crane Stance + Panther Stance + Step Up and Strike on a melee opponent is brutal but very difficult to make happen. Move, provoke, parry, hit him for attacking, hit him again. If your goal in having these feats is to be full attacked by your enemy until you are dead, you have surpassed it in spades.
Step Up and Strike, in conjunction with anything that activates on attacks of opportunity including Spellbreaker, can just be stupid devastating. It changes the game entirely at the base assumption. All spellcasters go from being legitimate threats to "fighter and forget."
"The wizard five-foot steps away... and gets hit for 2d6+22 damage. Okay. He tries to cast defensively... you give him a -4 on that. He rolls 11 for level, plus five for int, plus 4... now neg four... so +16, needs to get a 27... rolled an 8. Well, failing provokes so... Okay, you hit him again... okay he's dead."
Following Step + Crane Stance + Panther Stance + Step Up and Strike on a melee opponent is brutal but very difficult to make happen. Move, provoke, parry, hit him for attacking, hit him again. If your goal in having these feats is to be full attacked by your enemy until you are dead, you have surpassed it in spades.
Doez failing a concentration check for casting defensively provoke? I thought you only lost the spell?
stuff
Everything, and I mean everything you just provided as an example, requires that there is more than just one person around to make Antagonize do anything worthwhile, and that you don't have any allies to assist you at all. Whether or not you might think the feat is unrealistic is not the issue here, it's whether or not the feat is troublesome, and it's not. No more than a Sleep, or a Charm Person, or a Color Spray, or any other Save or Suck at any given level is. It doesn't work against anyone that can't understand you, and it's a single round.
Things like this have always existed in the game, just because martial types can now even the playing field a bit against a caster doesn't mean it's overpowered.
Doez failing a concentration check for casting defensively provoke? I thought you only lost the spell?
Usually, you are right. However...
You can strike at enemy spellcasters who fail to cast defensively when you threaten them.
Prerequisites: Disruptive, 10th-level fighter.
Benefit: Enemies in your threatened area that fail their checks to cast spells defensively provoke attacks of opportunity from you.
Normal: Enemies that fail to cast spells defensively do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Since APG, Barbarians get access to a rage power with the same effect.