|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Arcane Spell-casters are jealous of anyone who rains on their hurf durf "I'm the best at battlefield control, taunt mechanics shouldn't exist in table top rpgs unless they're in the form of a spell cast by me!" mentality.
I didn't realize fictional game constructs could be jealous about game mechanics.
For me, it has nothing to do with Arcane jealous. I prefer playing fighters over casters any day. To me, martial classes are more fun. But I also don't think that spells that can warp reality and people's minds should be compared to mundane versions. Antagonize shouldn't be compared to Command or Compel Hostility because magic by very definition should bend reality. Or else, why call it magic?
I don't have an issue with Antagonize post errata, but I do wish it had a similar caveat like Dominate Person about forcing someone to go against their personality. Sure, big, dumb, and ugly would hate being called a lard head and attack you. And sure, that arrogant wizard would hate some whelp calling his robes a dress and attack him. That would all make sense. But would a coward attack you if you antagonized him? Maybe. A player trying to save his friend from failing off a ledge? No way.
I think that might be my problem. I actually see Antagonize as more of a GM abuse than player. But that's just me. I'd adjudicate the feat accordingly to the situation.
Antagonize isn't super-powerful. It's silly.
I happen to want fighters and other melee characters to be more powerful than they are compared to casters. For instance, I want vital strike to work with charge and spring attack.
But I hate Antagonize, and will never allow it in my games. If it had any sort of save attached to it, then it might be okay (like a save with the DC set by the Intimidate check result). You know, like all those spells whose existence supposedly mean this feat is fine.
***
As for the flavor-aspect: If someone in my games taunts their opponents well, they'll get the desired result of Antagonize without the silliness attached to the feat.
|
Can it really be considered being forced? I mean its just an insult so nasty the target loses its cool and attacks.Even non-lethal the paladin will fall because he probably broke a law. It won't be a costly atonement but he will still need one.
The only thing I don't like about it is that there is no counter. Even for spells like charm person, dominate you can counter with another spell. There are even outs within the spell to allow a second save.
Short of knocking the person being antagonized unconscious there is literally nothing you can do to stop him. There needs to be some kind of mechanical counter to antagonize in the game rules but there are none.
1. Breaking the law does NOT necessarily cause a paladin to fall.
2. Being forced to do something is NOT doing it because of your free will. Whether the forcing is magical or not is irrelevant.
Too be honest though it's not like the paladin has suddenly been stricken with a un-quenchable lust for heckler blood, he just wants to give jackass a resounding thump to the head. Yeah that's maybe a act he'll need to repent for, but I doubt it will get his abilities stripped form him not unless Iomaedae woke up on the wrong side of the bed today or something.
Antagonize isn't super-powerful. It's silly.
I happen to want fighters and other melee characters to be more powerful than they are compared to casters. For instance, I want vital strike to work with charge and spring attack.
But I hate Antagonize, and will never allow it in my games. If it had any sort of save attached to it, then it might be okay (like a save with the DC set by the Intimidate check result). You know, like all those spells whose existence supposedly mean this feat is fine.
***
As for the flavor-aspect: If someone in my games taunts their opponents well, they'll get the desired result of Antagonize without the silliness attached to the feat.
I can honestly agree with that sentiment. I might do that in future games.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My version of Antagonize would force a Will save on the target, DC10 + Half ranks in relevant skill + Cha. If it failed the save, the target would take a penalty to all actions that do not involve harming the antagonizer. Each such action would reduce the penalty by a certain amount. The antagonizer could continue to take actions to increase the penalty each round.
Too be honest though it's not like the paladin has suddenly been stricken with a un-quenchable lust for heckler blood, he just wants to give jackass a resounding thump to the head. Yeah that's maybe a act he'll need to repent for, but I doubt it will get his abilities stripped form him not unless Iomaedae woke up on the wrong side of the bed today or something.Can it really be considered being forced? I mean its just an insult so nasty the target loses its cool and attacks.Even non-lethal the paladin will fall because he probably broke a law. It won't be a costly atonement but he will still need one.
The only thing I don't like about it is that there is no counter. Even for spells like charm person, dominate you can counter with another spell. There are even outs within the spell to allow a second save.
Short of knocking the person being antagonized unconscious there is literally nothing you can do to stop him. There needs to be some kind of mechanical counter to antagonize in the game rules but there are none.
1. Breaking the law does NOT necessarily cause a paladin to fall.
2. Being forced to do something is NOT doing it because of your free will. Whether the forcing is magical or not is irrelevant.
If your party's Paladin is stripped of his powers because he smacked a guy upside the head once then It's time to dust off the "Red Mantis Jokes" or something similarly distasteful.
But I don't see mechanically how it wouldn't be the Paladin at fault for his actions.
Maybe thats part of why people have an issue with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Antagonize isn't super-powerful. It's silly.
I happen to want fighters and other melee characters to be more powerful than they are compared to casters. For instance, I want vital strike to work with charge and spring attack.
But I hate Antagonize, and will never allow it in my games. If it had any sort of save attached to it, then it might be okay (like a save with the DC set by the Intimidate check result). You know, like all those spells whose existence supposedly mean this feat is fine.
***
As for the flavor-aspect: If someone in my games taunts their opponents well, they'll get the desired result of Antagonize without the silliness attached to the feat.
I couldn't have said it better.
Are nailed it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can it really be considered being forced? I mean its just an insult so nasty the target loses its cool and attacks.1. Breaking the law does NOT necessarily cause a paladin to fall.
2. Being forced to do something is NOT doing it because of your free will. Whether the forcing is magical or not is irrelevant.
If it's not forced, the paladin can just decide not to do it. If ze can't decide not to do it, it's forced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Antagonize can just be used to set up way too many silly situations. Children charging dragons, heroes that let the BBEG burn down an orphanage because his minions keep taunting them, wizards that float just at the top of a jumping fighter's reach so he has to sepnd 2 rounds trying for a 20 on a jump, that sort of thing. Somewhere on the boards there is a wonderful story about a village torn apart by an orc horde with Antagonize. It describes old women leaving their grandchildren to die in order to run into the orc army and get torn apart. There is no way to defend against it, no way to build up resistance to it, and the DC is trivial for a dedicated character and easy for a dilettante.
Tabletop RPGs don't need a taunt mechanic. Computer games have them because AI isn't very good at true threat assessment or tactics. The characters in a tabletop game are controlled by a person. Would you think it fair that your PC not be allowed to attack an enemy spellcaster until the big brute with ridiculous AC and saves had fallen? Any taunt mechanic should be evaluated on the assumption it will be used against players by the GM. If it passes that test then it might be okay. Antagonize really fails that test.
It is a bit dodgy yeah. I actually like taunting feats, things like the old goad, but taunting is best done as a part of rp, to show off a char, demonstrate their bravo attitude, and bring enemies to try and tear their head off. Makes fights more real, personal, and a little less mechanical for a moment.
|
|
Antagonize isn't super-powerful. It's silly.
I happen to want fighters and other melee characters to be more powerful than they are compared to casters. For instance, I want vital strike to work with charge and spring attack.
But I hate Antagonize, and will never allow it in my games. If it had any sort of save attached to it, then it might be okay (like a save with the DC set by the Intimidate check result). You know, like all those spells whose existence supposedly mean this feat is fine.
***
As for the flavor-aspect: If someone in my games taunts their opponents well, they'll get the desired result of Antagonize without the silliness attached to the feat.
I'm confused though the ability has to hit a target DC of 10+(hit dice)+Wisdom modifier. This is effectively speaking a save, are you saying that it should also require Will save or that the target dc should be removed in favor of a will save? The ability last 1 or 2 rounds at most and can only affect a target once ever 24 hours. Are you unhappy with how this can eventually become an auto-pass? Keep in mind that if the DC was set by the intimidate roll total it would become an auto-pass even faster with some feat investment. A unoptimized level 6 Half Orc Fighter with 18 STR, 10 CHA, and intimidating prowess would have an average DC of 25 which is basically auto success either way.
Do you also ban dazzling display and cornugan smash as these are much more effective, "mundane" debuff abilities.
It is significantly worse than just about any dominate spell because the target will "attack" you with whatever the its most effective ability is. Including save or suck spells and area of effect that still hits the rest of the party. This feat doesn't somehow make the enemy useless for those one to two rounds.
Also it should be noted this isn't about house rules this is about RAW, I do personally agree with you about not requiring a feat to taunt and using vital strike with charge and spring attack. However if I want my mouthy bard with preform comedy to distract the baddy with a choice insult and I'm playing in PFS I don't really have another choice. I'm also sacrificing a standard action with which I probably could've done something more useful than make the enemies heavy hitter attack me.
At the end of the day I just really don't understand why people think this ability is so poorly written. In it's current form it's pretty damn limited in what it can do other than give a party member a brief reprieve to live by distracting the Big Bad. Which seems to me to be the entire purpose of the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin issue is pretty easily explained.
Whoever created the feat assumed that the feat itself would be used in combat. It's basically a feat that enables tanking by taunting.
Just houserule it like this, because this is how it was likely intended to work in the first place: It only works against an opponent who is already in combat against you or one of your allies.
I'm confused though the ability has to hit a target DC of 10+(hit dice)+Wisdom modifier. This is effectively speaking a save, are you saying that it should also require Will save or that the target dc should be removed in favor of a will save?
I would prefer to see the target DC removed in favor of setting a DC for a Will save. It would still be very easy to get the Intimidate skill high enough that it would almost always succeed, but at least if it was a Will save, the opponent would always have the chance to roll a 20 to avoid it.
Both Dazzling Display and Cornugon Smash simply allow additional methods to demoralize one or more opponents. Demoralize isn't a problem; being dazzling enough or intimidating enough that foes are slightly weakened is a perfectly fine mundane ability.
How effective the feat is doesn't really matter. I think the effect is silly, and the many hyperbolic examples people have posted in this thread just prove that silliness.
Another way the feat would have perfectly fine (even without a save) is if it had been written more like the compel hostility spell. If it only worked against people who were already trying to attack one of your allies (and activated as an immediate action), that would have solved all the issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay but why does it need to be a feat? Can a character not insult an opponent with out a feat and a rule?
If it weren't rude, I would repost this in bold and bigger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay but why does it need to be a feat? Can a character not insult an opponent with out a feat and a rule?If it weren't rude, I would repost this in bold and bigger.
I really wasn't trying to be rude. Honest!
If it's not forced, the paladin can just decide not to do it. If ze can't decide not to do it, it's forced.Can it really be considered being forced? I mean its just an insult so nasty the target loses its cool and attacks.1. Breaking the law does NOT necessarily cause a paladin to fall.
2. Being forced to do something is NOT doing it because of your free will. Whether the forcing is magical or not is irrelevant.
What, aside from the game mechanics is forcing them? Is it a super natural ability?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cheesy as it may be, we have plenty of instances in film and literature where one character antagonizes another into performing an ill-conceived action, whether that's attacking when they shouldn't, moving out of position, or ignoring the greater threat, and I think it's worth reproducing this in a D&D-type setting. Not to mention that high-AC characters need a little help, since they typically are far less threatening than damage-oriented, easily hit characters, which is somewhat contrary to realism, depending on the situation.
So, given that we kind of all agree that Antagonize has problems...how would you fix them?
I for one agree that the use of this skill against a flat DC is a problem, but what do you replace it with? An opposed Sense Motive check? A Will save?
Also, while I happen to like the Diplomacy effect, the Intimidate seems rather weak over all: it requires a standard action, only lasts for one or two rounds, if you spend your immediate action to keep it up, and then cannot be used again thereafter. I'd be happier with this having a more elaborate duration...maybe number of rounds based on degree of success, requiring a Swift or Immediate action spent each round to keep the effect up (you continue to taunt your opponent), maybe with new checks being made if they manage to hit you, or someone else hits them?
Film arguments don't translate to the game well. I will also add that the feat works no matter how devout someone is to nonviolence, as an example, just by using a 6 second taunt.
If the character is against violence, and you massacre the village, and belittle for him being coward endlessly, that makes sense. If the character has refused to act in a violent matter for 75 years and has some idea that everyone dies when it is their time you should not be able to get past that in six seconds.
I would make it a will save based on Charisma*. The opponent would get circumstance modifiers just like people do for the charm and dominate spells.
If it was kept to a skill then I would still provide cirsumstance modifiers to the potential victim. People who play their characters in a violent manner may get a penalty. Players that refuse to fight or tend to think everything over get bonus. I would also change the formula to make the base DC harder.
Either way I would make it a supernatural affect. I know this is fantasy, but some things just can't be done while keeping verisimilitude especially in a 6 second span.
PS:The ability should be applying a penalty to attack rolls or AC instead. One version would signify someone being so afraid while attacking they were not measuring their strikes correctly. The other could represent someone so upset they were not trying as hard to defend themselves. <--Just an example.
It could be classified as a non-magical (non-supernatural) Compulsion effect.
I think giving bonuses or penalties based on the target character's inclinations is reasonable. Charm already has this by raising the DC by 4, which seems like a fine solution. If we're not looking at a flat DC. It could be opposed by a Sense Motive or Will save (whichever is higher) that uses Wis or Cha (whichever is higher), or {i}both[/i] Wis and Cha?
For examples of what I see this as...imagine any of the numerous cop/lawyer shows on TV where a suspect is goaded into attacking somebody with a couple of well-placed verbal barbs. I see no reason for this to NOT work similarly, and 6 seconds seems like a fair amount of time to manage this, especially with the "curve" of this being for a turn-based game. In Star Wars Saga Edition, I'd maybe change this to costing 3 Swift actions, where you could spend your whole turn doing this, or build up to it over 2 or 3 turns, but then it would probably have a longer duration.
Maybe +4 if the action is against a person's nature, +2 if they weren't already hostile (unfriendly), +2 if they weren't already unfriendly (indifferent), +2 if they weren't already indifferent (friendly), +2 if they are helpful. -2 if they are hostile toward you, -2 if you're already engaged in combat, -2 if they have already attacked you at least once during the encounter/in the last minute/hour/day.
The more difficult it becomes to perform, the longer I think it should last, though. That is, if the check is designed to be difficult, the effect should last more than 1 round (or 2 with an action), otherwise it ends up being quite a lot of effort (spend a feat, give up your attacks/spells for a round, invest heavily in intimidate) to do almost nothing. Maybe the effect can be extended each round as a swift or immediate action for a number of rounds equal to your Cha modifier? Or it lasts for 1 round, plus 1 round per 5 points you beat the opposed roll by, with the option of extending the duration by 1 round with that immediate action? If another character harms the affected enemy, they get a new save/roll at a +4 bonus.
How does that mess of text look, when viewed from the stance that we WANT a taunt ability?
Come to think of it, a monk build built entirely around the antagonize feat would be both effective and quite amusing.
Just antagonize all the enemies, and then use your 60 ft/round movement speed, high jumps, slow fall, ect to just keep running giant circles around the battlefield as all the enemies chase you (but can never catch you). The rest of the party can then can easily drop all the enemies with arrows, spells, and attacks of opportunity while they're helplessly running in circles trying to catch the monk.
I'm going to call it the "insult comic monk". ;)
See? I think the first part of that makes sense. Just not once your party starts attacking the guys chasing after you angrily...at that point, they should rein up and start gunning for the guy that hit them while they were chasing the guy that really pissed them off--few things are as rage-inducing as having someone else interfere with your trying to get at/hurt the target of your ire.
That said, I can see someone being driven to such a blind rage that they may even ignore other attacks to get at their antagonist, if sufficiently goaded.
A lot of people know that some people can't simply be taunted, and this feat ignores that, while some others are just very difficult to taunt. The fact that the feat ignores RP is not a bonus. Charm and Dominate make you do things, but at least your character is not choosing to do them. This feat makes the choice for you. The fact that you are supposed to make your own decision is why the game does allows you to diplomacy other PC's.
PS:I am not saying anyone is incapable of feeling frustration, but doing so to the point of risking your life is an entirely other thing. That is just one example. There was another long thread with many more.
PS:As another example I will never leave the safety of a bunker to charge a machine gun nest just because the machine gunner is running his mouth. This feat makes you do that.
Your Will save is higher than his Intimidate, obviously.
A lot of people know that some people can't simply be taunted, and this feat ignores that, while some others are just very difficult to taunt. The fact that the feat ignores RP is not a bonus. Charm and Dominate make you do things, but at least your character is not choosing to do them. This feat makes the choice for you. The fact that you are supposed to make your own decision is why the game does allows you to diplomacy other PC's.
PS:I am not saying anyone is incapable of feeling frustration, but doing so to the point of risking your life is an entirely other thing. That is just one example. There was another long thread with many more.
PS:As another example I will never leave the safety of a bunker to charge a machine gun nest just because the machine gunner is running his mouth. This feat makes you do that.
The Machine Gunner is running his mouth? That son of a... Lets get 'em!
Your Will save is higher than his Intimidate, obviously.
I don't need a will save to know machine guns are not my friends.
I think the circumstance modifier to "not want to die" or due to "fear of death" is trumping anything he can say. :)
|
|
PS:As another example I will never leave the safety of a bunker to charge a machine gun nest just because the machine gunner is running his mouth. This feat makes you do that.
No it doesn't what feat are you reading, like seriously you guys have never used this feat in an actual game before have you!?
First off you would attempt to shoot the machine gunner with whatever ranged weapon you had on hand as per the rules of the feat, secondly if this wasn't possible you'd stay in the bunker and not die as per the feat.
"The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire)."
Please read that whole paragraph, thank you very much.
It still means unarmed peasants charge dragons or throw improvised healing kits at them instead of tending to their dying children.
Unless you'd like to interpret 'attempt' as meaning very little, i.e. the target must make the very least attempt to make an attack, allowing the peasant to flee at top speed, attempt to make an attack and fail due to not having any actions left.
PS:As another example I will never leave the safety of a bunker to charge a machine gun nest just because the machine gunner is running his mouth. This feat makes you do that.No it doesn't what feat are you reading, like seriously you guys have never used this feat in an actual game before have you!?
First off you would attempt to shoot the machine gunner with whatever ranged weapon you had on hand as per the rules of the feat, secondly if this wasn't possible you'd stay in the bunker and not die as per the feat.
"The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire)."
Please read that whole paragraph, thank you very much.
In the actual game there is no guarantee I would get shot if PF had machine guns, just like there is no guarantee the barbarian that is taunting me will hit me with it's weapons if I engage it in melee. Running into a chasm(falling damage) or through fire is pretty much definite harm. The feat, by my reading of it does not account for possible harm.
PS: I don't need to use a feat to be able to read it. Don't be snarky if you are the one not reading the feat.
If you are going to argue that "possible" harm stops the feat then I would like to hear your reasoning however.
ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD READ THE ACTUAL RULES FOR ANTAGONIZE ALERT ALERT
If you are going to be a jerk at least be correct and don't argue with people who know the rules better than you. Thanks.
Now we can be civil or we can not be civil. How do you want to be?
It depends on the target's opinion, now? In that case, any action that would be prompted by antagonise is more harmful than not acting according to its demands, and therefore antagonise does nothing at all.
You are free to act as you please. The antagoniser wasted a feat. And honestly, screw that guy. He deserves to lose the feat for wanting antagonise.
It still means unarmed peasants charge dragons or throw improvised healing kits at them instead of tending to their dying children.When How Who What and Why?
Uh oh. It seem MP has not read the feat. The feat forces you to make an attack of some sort. Your buddy is bleeding. Forget that cure spell. You must attack. You are about to secure artifact X. Forget that you must attack. In short the feat cancels out logic.
|
|
Unless you'd like to interpret 'attempt' as meaning very little, i.e. the target must make the very least attempt to make an attack, allowing the peasant to flee at top speed, attempt to make an attack and fail due to not having any actions left.
Oh boy all those custom built dragons with Antagonize that you made too show Paizo whos boss for writing this rule! You sure got'em there cuz.
And yes I can think of nothing more harmful to a "caring" parent than willfully endangering their child. Unless it made sense for the NPC to think that attacking the dragon was the best way to save their kid I'd just rule that they were too terrified to move, as regular peasants would be.
You guys need to stop throwing out ridiculous arbitrary situations that never happen in game as your claim for why this feat is bad. No DM would actually use this against his players in the ways that are being described is clearly a PC tool feat.
For the sake of argument lets say you are only enraged enough to use a ranged attack, well now you have left cover, which is no better than leaving the bunker, and you are still open to an assault that would never have taken place otherwise. Barbarians charging, archers waiting put arrows into you, and so on. Not getting close enough to shake the enemy's hand does not really mean you are not putting yourself in danger.
|
|
For the sake of argument lets say you are only enraged enough to use a ranged attack, well now you have left cover, which is no better than leaving the bunker, and you are still open to an assault that would never have taken place otherwise. Barbarians charging, archers waiting put arrows into you, and so on. Not getting close enough to shake the enemy's hand does not really mean you are not putting yourself in danger.
"The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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)."
Let's look at this piece. It's very ambiguous, and whether you are for or against antagonise, it's bad design either way.
If we removed the example and read it as text alone, it means near to nothing at all, as anything, including non-damaging effect could be considered harmful to your morale, to your plan or tactics.
Or, if it only includes specifically moving into damaging terrain, then what of stuff like this? You are on fire. You are antagonised. You must attack, because attacking does not move you into additional harm; it merely prevents you from removing an existing source of harm (putting out a fire is a full-action).
Antagonise is as bad for its proponents as it is for its detractors.
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.
Unless you'd like to interpret 'attempt' as meaning very little, i.e. the target must make the very least attempt to make an attack, allowing the peasant to flee at top speed, attempt to make an attack and fail due to not having any actions left.Oh boy all those custom built dragons with Antagonize that you made too show Paizo whos boss for writing this rule! You sure got'em there cuz.
And yes I can think of nothing more harmful to a "caring" parent than willfully endangering their child. Unless it made sense for the NPC to think that attacking the dragon was the best way to save their kid I'd just rule that they were too terrified to move, as regular peasants would be.
You guys need to stop throwing out ridiculous arbitrary situations that never happen in game as your claim for why this feat is bad. No DM would actually use this against his players in the ways that are being described is clearly a PC tool feat.
1.Why would it never happen?
2.Who says the dragon has to be the one to use antaganize, and who even says it has to be a dragon?3.It is common knowledge that single boss fights are not as hard as a lower CR boss with minions. The minion can have antagonize, and the boss can take advantage of it.
Just to be clear if the choices are
1.Monster X CR 13
2.Monster X CR 11 + minions equalling CR 11.
Number 2 is normally a harder fight due to action economy.
If harmful is going to be defined as harm other than physical then the feat can always be ignored. If I am a pacifist monk/cleric I can say it is harmful to my character's mental well being if he is forced to attack someone. If I am about to heal a party member I can say it is harmful to the relationship with my deity, and the party if the feat is allowed to work. If I am making a strategic attack, and I am subject to antagonize I can say it is harmful to me psychologically to know that my bad decision put a party member in danger. The list goes on...
Are you going to now give us a list of harmful situations that can be supported by the rules as reasons to ignore the feat, if no physical harm is about to happen?
edit:
"The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it"For the sake of argument lets say you are only enraged enough to use a ranged attack, well now you have left cover, which is no better than leaving the bunker, and you are still open to an assault that would never have taken place otherwise. Barbarians charging, archers waiting put arrows into you, and so on. Not getting close enough to shake the enemy's hand does not really mean you are not putting yourself in danger.
It seems you are trying to say you are not allowed to take any chance of putting yourself in harm. In short possible harm also shuts the feat down by your opinion. Well others that support the feat liked it because it put people in possible harm. Now if you interpretation was the popular or even correct one by the rules I would not have banned the feat, but then I don't think anyone would take it.
|
|
"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)."
Let's look at this piece. It's very ambiguous, and whether you are for or against antagonise, it's bad design either way.
If we removed the example and read it as text alone, it means near to nothing at all, as anything, including non-damaging effect could be considered harmful to your morale, to your plan or tactics.
Or, if it only includes specifically moving into damaging terrain, then what of stuff like this? You are on fire. You are antagonised. You must attack, because attacking does not move you into additional harm; it merely prevents you from removing an existing source of harm (putting out a fire is a full-action).
Antagonise is as bad for its proponents as it is for its detractors.
Here is how Antagonize works and why it's a bad but not overpowered feat.
Hero and buddies approach a town being attacked by an arrogant Red Dragon.
Red Dragon is currently considering whether or not to eat the peasant brandishing a Healer's kit at it in a way that is certainly more appetizing than threatening.
Hero notes the situation and being Heroic decides it's time to come to the rescue.
Seeking to distract the terrifying beast the hero says in Draconian, "I wouldn't eat that if I were you, you bloated worm you might burst a scale" rolls intimidate check "check passes"
Red Dragon seeing no real immediate difference between disposing of one lesser creature or another regardless of how admittedly well armed the puny creature is decides in it's rage that eating the disrespectful warrior first is the best course of action; which also won't immediately endanger it because in all it's years it has very rarely been threatened severely by a impudent group of medium sized creatures.
If the dragon was driven away but not slain, next time it might decide that attacking the 54 AC 40 Fire Resist extremely hard to swallow fighter for the first two turns might not be in it's best interest and wont be affected by the feat.
"Viola, how Antagonize works!"
Hero saves villagers for the moment!
|
|
It seems you are trying to say you are not allowed to take any chance of putting yourself in harm. In short possible harm also shuts the feat down by your opinion. Well others that support the feat liked it because it put people in possible harm. Now if you interpretation was the popular or even correct one by the rules I would not have banned the feat, but then I don't think anyone would take it."The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it"For the sake of argument lets say you are only enraged enough to use a ranged attack, well now you have left cover, which is no better than leaving the bunker, and you are still open to an assault that would never have taken place otherwise. Barbarians charging, archers waiting put arrows into you, and so on. Not getting close enough to shake the enemy's hand does not really mean you are not putting yourself in danger.
The feat exists to interrupt the arrogant BBEG in his moment of glory and thus force him to do something stupid that he wouldn't immediately consider harmful, like violently beat the fighter while the wizard secretly casts a spell.
It is not an ability that allows the player to control what the NPC does, that is still your call as GM. IE. If you can hurt/hinder the person who insulted you without it being life threatening to your or your compatriots then that is what you do. If it is immediately life threatening the NPCs reasoning should kick in and they won't do it.
"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)."
Let's look at this piece. It's very ambiguous, and whether you are for or against antagonise, it's bad design either way.
If we removed the example and read it as text alone, it means near to nothing at all, as anything, including non-damaging effect could be considered harmful to your morale, to your plan or tactics.
Or, if it only includes specifically moving into damaging terrain, then what of stuff like this? You are on fire. You are antagonised. You must attack, because attacking does not move you into additional harm; it merely prevents you from removing an existing source of harm (putting out a fire is a full-action).
Antagonise is as bad for its proponents as it is for its detractors.
Here is how Antagonize works and why it's a bad but not overpowered feat.
Hero and buddies approach a town being attacked by an arrogant Red Dragon.
Red Dragon is currently considering whether or not to eat the peasant brandishing a Healer's kit at it in a way that is certainly more appetizing than threatening.
Hero notes the situation and being Heroic decides it's time to come to the rescue.
Seeking to distract the terrifying beast the hero says in Draconian, "I wouldn't eat that if I were you, you bloated worm you might burst a scale" rolls intimidate check "check passes"
Red Dragon seeing no real immediate difference between disposing of one lesser creature or another regardless of how admittedly well armed the puny creature is decides in it's rage that eating the disrespectful warrior first is the best course of action; which also won't immediately endanger it because in all it's years it has very rarely been threatened severely by a impudent group of medium sized creatures.
If the dragon was driven away but not slain, next time it might decide that attacking the 54 AC 40 Fire Resist extremely hard to swallow fighter for the first two turns might not be in it's best interest and wont be affected by the feat.
"Viola, how Antagonize works!"
Hero saves villagers for the moment!
Wrong!!
Adventures have been known to kill dragons so the party is at least a possible threat, and since dragons have high mental stats they know random peasant 1 is not at the top of the threat list*. Antagonize is not even needed to know the people with weapons and magic need to be dealt with. I am sure that if the dragon were to try to eat the peasant the party would attack. In game terms it most likely amounts to a free round, and that is never a good idea for any creature.So yeah if your dragon is a white dragon(the dumber ones) that might happen, but not the others.
*Good tactics tell you to take out any real threats first.