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.
...but that would be harmful to the BBEG since it means he might lose the fight, and allow the wizard to get a spell off.
That is the problem with trying to arbitrarily define harmful outside of definite physical harm. Anyone can argue anything as being harmful with such a loose definition of the word.
PS:I don't think a GM that allowed this feat would allow my last "excuse" to work, but I don't think many of the others posted will fly either.
edit:So you are saying the feat falls very much under GM fiat? That means it is just broken in a different way.
Remember the epic scene at the end of the original Star Wars trilogy where the Emperor was taunting Luke about the death of his friends and stuff. So Luke insulted him and called him a bad name and it made him so made that he flew into a rage and Luke got an attack of opportunity on him and removed his head with a lightsaber?
I do.
I think it was in the special edition.
My point being, the idea that in 4 to 6 seconds you can unnerve the evil overlord so bad that he acts foolishly is silly to me, EVEN in a fantasy/sci fi film like that.
MassivePauldrons, would I be wrong in interpreting your position as "I can come up with a non-game-breaking use of this feat, therefore this feat is not broken"?
|
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.
Right so you agree with me about the feat works, but you would suggest that a red dragon should be sufficiently intelligent to know that if shouldn't attack the fighter first? Well perhaps, but such things would probably depend on the dragon's perception check to notice other members of the party.
A Great Wyrm red dragon only has an INT of 22 which is very smart yes, but still lower than the average party wizard around that level. Also dragons specifically reds are PER the lore very arrogant so it is feasible for a dragon who doesn't believe it is immediately threatened to assume eating the insolent little man in bright red armor might be an alright first choice. Especially if the insult was good enough to make it very angry! Represented by a high intimidate roll or the Player thinking up a particularly good insult for a dragon. It probably wouldn't take much more than the one turn of trying that before it realized that, continuing on that course of action may or may not be life threatening.
I would agree with you that this may not be a necessary feat, as these events could be roll-played out without need for the rule. However that is how the feat functions. Regardless it is your choice as a GM acting act the mind of the dragon whether or not that would be harmful course of action if you think the dragon could immediately discern that attacking the fighter would be life threatening, then don't have it attack the fighter.
Perhaps it is something that a young Red would do, but not a Wise old Wyrm?
Regardless hopefully I'm explaining how I believe by RAW the feat works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The feat is basically ignoring your characters motivations, personality and so on, and no matter your level of conviction he throws it all away in 6 seconds. That is far from realistic, and far from good RP.
Whoever reads this and still can't understand why it's a terribly designed feat, is a hopeless case.
Here, I'll even bold the most important parts:
The feat is basically ignoring your characters motivations, personality and so on,
no matter your level of conviction he throws it all away in 6 seconds. That is far from realistic, and far from good RP.
This is the case of a feat roleplaying your character for you. Antagonize's problem is not being too powerful, not anymore, at least. The problem is that it removes role playing from a role playing game!
Mind control is mind control, the target has no option, it's under control of another person.
This feat does not do that. It says the character makes a concient decision to attack someone. The target chose to attack someone of its own free will.
|
|
MassivePauldrons, would I be wrong in interpreting your position as "I can come up with a non-game-breaking use of this feat, therefore this feat is not broken"?
Perhaps I come of as a crazy person shaking a stick, and calling it a scepter but I believe that the following statement:
"The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it"
Makes this feat playable and prevents all the "game breaking" uses being described in this thread.
Please keep in mind the effect only lasts for 1 to 2 rounds.
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.
I've been physically attacked by a "pacifist". I maaaaay have been taunting them.
|
|
The feat is basically ignoring your characters motivations, personality and so on, and no matter your level of conviction he throws it all away in 6 seconds. That is far from realistic, and far from good RP.Whoever reasd this and still can't understand why it's a terribly designed feat, is a hopeless case.
Here, I'll even bold the most important parts:
The feat is basically ignoring your characters motivations, personality and so on,no matter your level of conviction he throws it all away in 6 seconds. That is far from realistic, and far from good RP.This is the case of a feat roleplaying your character for you. Antagonize's problem is not being too powerful, not anymore, at least. The problem is that it removes role playing from a role playing game!
Mind control is mind control, the target has no option, it's under control of another person.
This feat does not do that. It says the character makes a concient decision to attack someone. The target chose to attack someone of its own free will.
Yes perhaps it's poorly written, but it is supremely obvious to me that this feat isn't for use by the DM on NPCS to taunt the players PC into non role-played actions. It's for PCs to add flavor to combat encounters. In which case the GM is adjudicating the state of the NPCs.
Like seriously people please show me this GM who is using antagonize against his players? It doesn't exist...
Oh I agree it should be possible for a character to get the attention of a bad guy through a charisma based skill. But the DC to taunt the big bad so he swings uselessly at your fighter instead of shutting down your Wizard who is about to end him should be ridiculously high.
It seems like the kind of thing that can be done in role play with out a mechanic, but if there is going to be a mechanic it needs to be better written and I can't for the life of me see why its a feat.
Remember the epic scene at the end of the original Star Wars trilogy where the Emperor was taunting Luke about the death of his friends and stuff. So Luke insulted him and called him a bad name and it made him so made that he flew into a rage and Luke got an attack of opportunity on him and removed his head with a lightsaber?
I do.
I think it was in the special edition.
My point being, the idea that in 4 to 6 seconds you can unnerve the evil overlord so bad that he acts foolishly is silly to me, EVEN in a fantasy/sci fi film like that.
That was more of a case of someone with a huge ego, and it is not like he considered Luke to be the danger that he was. That is far different than what antagonize does.
I already battled out the acceptability of this feat before it was nerfed into harmlessness, so I'll just say this:
1) Potential for abuse is not grounds for removal (see Synthesist, Summoner)
2) Feats that change the attitude of a target, or cause it to take an action it would not normally take are not without precedent (see Touch of Serenity or Deceptive Exchange)
3) If you are a GM afraid of players abusing this feat, there is a great deal of latitude built into its description for you to rule appropriately
4) If you are a player afraid of GMs abusing this feat, find a different GM. Seriously. If your GM wants to make your Paladin fall, he doesn't need a feat. Removing this will not save you.
5) The outcome of this feat can already be accomplished using magic
If you can agree with all of the above and you still have a problem with the feat, it's probably down to the mechanics (skill check vs. saving throw, DC scalability, etc.). I admit that some tweaking there wouldn't hurt. But I don't think the feat is in any way fundamentally broken.
|
|
...but that would be harmful to the BBEG since it means he might lose the fight, and allow the wizard to get a spell off.
That is the problem with trying to arbitrarily define harmful outside of definite physical harm. Anyone can argue anything as being harmful with such a loose definition of the word.
PS:I don't think a GM that allowed this feat would allow my last "excuse"...
edit:So you are saying the feat falls very much under GM fiat? That means it is just broken in a different way.
Yes, but being insulted might have distracted him.
I dunno anything that would harm the character that in it's current enraged state it would recognize as being harmful, such as getting separated from it's group ext...
Probably not.
Yes, but so does a spells like Gate. A lot of this game just doesn't function in a vacuum.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stay classy folks.
"I don't always pick on game-damaging feats, but when I do I pick on Antagonize."
Wraithstrike, Umbral Reaver, and damn near everyone else pretty much have it covered, but I did want to respond to this:
For everyone else I must say, get over it. Antagonists are a thing. If you roll played your character well you would likely never see a GM take this feat. Its more of a sign that you're a poor role player then much else.
This is an appropriate typo, because Antagonize is, as written(and that's what's being discussed here), toxic to roleplaying.
1. It makes the in-game world ridiculous. It turns heroic fantasy into some sort of black comedy reprise of Keystone Cops, regardless of the nature of the characters involved.
2. It wrecks character concepts, PC and NPC alike. The feat doesn't care about motives, personality, or the target's nature(even dominate does that). A character's backstory, goals, and everything else doesn't matter once they get hit by this feat. If the character was meant to be the most enlightened Vow of Peace-havin' pacifist in the setting, that goes right down the drain. It makes characters forget about endangered PCs or NPCs that are more important to them than their own lives, all so they can go herpderppunch their taunter. It makes samurai wind up needing to commit seppuku after shaming themselves in court. It turns otherwise respectable villains into bumbling fools.
3. It takes away player agency, and this includes the GM's. How you wanted to play your character doesn't matter if you get hit by Antagonize. With supernatural mind-affecting attacks, one at least has the comfort of knowing an outside force forced the them to act out of character. Not with Antagonize. The fault for whatever tragedy, trouble, etc. that comes about because of their disastrous move falls entirely on them in-setting.
It is equivalent to a GM telling a player, "No, your character does this." Or a player telling the GM the same.
That's why it's one of the few things our entire group has said "DO NOT WANT" to and banned as one.
If one needed an "aggro" tool for fighter-types, there are many ways to do it that don't break the social contract of the game. Some of them have been put forth in this very thread.
Personally, I'd chop off the Intimidate portion of the feat and erase it from memory. Take and adjust the Diplomacy section. Replace the Diplomacy skill check for that with Intimidate. Pretty much done. If that targets the person trying to stop the love of their life from bleeding out and penalties cause him to flub his Heal check, it's tragic, relatable, and makes sense. It doesn't cause the jarring scene of them abandoning their patient to hit someone.
But there's also this:
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.
Recently in one game I talked all sorts of @#$% to an Erinyes that had us a bit on the ropes. She targetted me, nearly killing me while leaving herself vulnerable to the actual fightin' guys nearby. No feat needed to do it. My taunts were in character and made sense in context. Her reaction was in character and made sense in context.
I would not expect that tactic to work on a more self-controlled target, or one that was tending to dying loved ones or comrades.
Synthesist and Master Summoner have been banned from PFS. James Jacobs himself has said he doesn't like Summoner.
How's that for removing potential abuse?
|
|
Like seriously people please show me this GM who is using antagonize against his players? It doesn't exist...The fact that you are saying 'no reasonable GM would use it like that' instead of 'you can't use it like that' tells me the feat is borked.
This is the best argument I've seen so far for me to stop playing devil's advocate. Congratulations I now feel sort of stupid =].
Stay classy folks.
Thanks you sexual dynamo!
Right so you agree with me about the feat works, but you would suggest that a red dragon should be sufficiently intelligent to know that if shouldn't attack the fighter first? Well perhaps, but such things would probably depend on the dragon's perception check to notice other members of the party.
Why would it need a perception check unless they were hiding?
My point was that it would attack anyone that is weilding a weapon or magic before it would go after some random peasant.
A Great Wyrm red dragon only has an INT of 22 which is very smart yes, but still lower than the average party wizard around that level. Also dragons specifically reds are PER the lore very arrogant so it is feasible for a dragon who doesn't believe it is immediately threatened to assume eating the insolent little man in bright red armor might be an alright first choice. Especially if the insult was good enough to make it very angry! Represented by a high intimidate roll or the Player thinking up a particularly good insult for a dragon. It probably wouldn't take much more than the one turn of trying that before it realized that, continuing on that course of action may or may not be life threatening.
Only a 22? That 22 most likely genius level. The red dragon is arrogant, but they are also smart. They may think these people are annoying him will die quickly, but they are smart enough I would think to not give free attacks away.
I would agree with you that this may not be a necessary feat, as these events could be roll-played out without need for the rule. However that is how the feat functions. Regardless it is your choice as a GM acting act the mind of the dragon whether or not that would be harmful course of action if you think the dragon could immediately discern that attacking the fighter would be life threatening, then don't have it attack the fighter.
Perhaps it is something that a young Red would do, but not a Wise old Wyrm?
Regardless hopefully I'm explaining how I believe by RAW the feat works.
It seems like your interpretation is resorting to GM Fiat which is basically saying the feat has no set rule, except for the formula that is written down of course. I know rule 0 has its place, but I don't think the feat was intended to have that much table variance as you are saying it might have.
I've been physically attacked by a "pacifist". I maaaaay have been taunting 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.
I am sure you know what I mean. I mean someone whose entire life is dedicated to it, and would rather die, and allow friends to die, per my example, and harm someone. Basically the person is fanatically in that belief. If they can be taunted in 6 seconds or less their belief was really not that strong. :)
Yes perhaps it's poorly written, but it is supremely obvious to me that this feat isn't for use by the DM on NPCS to taunt the players PC into non role-played actions. It's for PCs to add flavor to combat encounters. In which case the GM is adjudicating the state of the NPCs.
Like seriously people please show me this GM who is using antagonize against his players? It doesn't exist...
Feats are not needed for flavor. They are there for mechanical reasons only. There is also nothing that says this is for PC's only, or that it is not to be used on PC's with certain motivations. At the same time there is nothing saying it is to not be used on NPC's with certain motivations. That is a good houserule, but nothing that is written supports it. If you believe this is just a case of the RAW not matching the RAI then I would implore you to open a thread, and FAQ it, but it seems that most of the people that do and don't like it have the same reading of it.
edit:Many of the GM's I know just ban the feat. The ones that allow it, well you would have to ask them if they use it or not.
I am also looking at the feat as a player using it. It is not any better from that direction either.
I already battled out the acceptability of this feat before it was nerfed into harmlessness, so I'll just say this:
1) Potential for abuse is not grounds for removal (see Synthesist, Summoner)
2) Feats that change the attitude of a target, or cause it to take an action it would not normally take are not without precedent (see Touch of Serenity or Deceptive Exchange)
3) If you are a GM afraid of players abusing this feat, there is a great deal of latitude built into its description for you to rule appropriately
4) If you are a player afraid of GMs abusing this feat, find a different GM. Seriously. If your GM wants to make your Paladin fall, he doesn't need a feat. Removing this will not save you.
5) The outcome of this feat can already be accomplished using magicIf you can agree with all of the above and you still have a problem with the feat, it's probably down to the mechanics (skill check vs. saving throw, DC scalability, etc.). I admit that some tweaking there wouldn't hurt. But I don't think the feat is in any way fundamentally broken.
1. Potential for abuse is subjective. A silly keep that kills immersion with bad mechanics is a different story.
2. The Serenity feat is not forcing you to change your attitude. It is basically putting you into a trance. The other feat is somewhat silly, but it is not affecting anyone's attitude.
3. What latitude is that, pretend that harm has a wide meaning when you don't want it to work? That reminds me of GM's who fudge dice against SoD casters. It is better to just tell me as a player to not use that type of character than it is to waste my actions.
4. Who said anything about paladins? The feat jacks up any character potentially, and it won't even make sense at time.
5. Magic makes sense, and it is not so much that you are being forced to attack. Your mind is saying no, but you do it anyway. The issue with the feat it that it forces to want to do it. That is an RP failure.
If the feat was some sort of mind control, and the formula was better it would not be so bad, but as written people don't like for their character to make decisions when the player has no input. Once again compare to dominate type spells when the decision is made for you by the enemy. There is a world of difference.
edit:The same goes for NPC's.
Exactly that, and more besides.It is largely unused because it breaks verisimilitude. It is still way too easy to use antagonize (after errata) to force a pacifist, law abiding player to attack anywhere.
It doesn't even have to a paladin, anyone who wants to play a good law abiding character can be auto d*cked around by this feat.
There is nothing you can do to defend it, you can't really up your saves, get SR,even cancel it with a spell.
Basically another character just takes control of your character, and there isn't even a mechanical thing you can do to defend against it.
What Gignere said.
Also:
If an injured child is about to bleed out at her mother's feet and her mother is holding a healer's kit, no feat should exist that can convince the mother to throw her healer's kit as an improvised ranged weapon instead of using it to save her child's life. (Note that Antagonize would convince the mother to let her child die, not force her to do it.)
This is the exact sort of nonsense behavior that Rule 0 exists for. Any GM that can't put on his/her big-boy pants/big-girl panties and deal with this, well, frankly they deserve what they get.
1. Potential for abuse is subjective. A silly keep that kills immersion with bad mechanics is a different story.
So you're saying the latter is not subjective?
2. The Serenity feat is not forcing you to change your attitude. It is basically putting you into a trance. The other feat is somewhat silly, but it is not affecting anyone's attitude.
Are you willing to agree that they both affect player/GM agency? One is forcing a character to do something it would not normally do. The other is barring a creature from doing something it (presumably) is attempting.
3. What latitude is that, pretend that harm has a wide meaning when you don't want it to work? That reminds me of GM's who fudge dice against SoD casters. It is better to just tell me as a player to not use that type of character than it is to waste my actions.
How about this latitude? "This man has dedicated himself to peace since childhood. He will not be so easily swayed."
4. Who said anything about paladins? The feat jacks up any character potentially, and it won't even make sense at time.
"It still a bad feat since it is a surefire way to make a paladin fall."
"But I don't see mechanically how it wouldn't be the Paladin at fault for his actions."...
5. Magic makes sense, and it is not so much that you are being forced to attack. Your mind is saying no, but you do it anyway. The issue with the feat it that it forces to want to do it. That is an RP failure.
Magic makes sense? Seriously?
If the feat was some sort of mind control, and the formula was better it would not be so bad, but as written people don't like for their character to make decisions when the player has no input. Once again compare to dominate type spells when the decision is made for you by the enemy. There is a world of difference.
...This is a mind-affecting effect.
5. Magic makes sense, and it is not so much that you are being forced to attack. Your mind is saying no, but you do it anyway. The issue with the feat it that it forces to want to do it. That is an RP failure.
If the feat was some sort of mind control, and the formula was better it would not be so bad, but as written people don't like for their character to make decisions when the player has no input. Once again compare to dominate type spells when the decision is made for you by the enemy. There is a world of difference.
The inherently poor mechanics aside, consider that manipulation of one's psychology can be as powerful as magic. Hypnosis can be used to prod someone to do something they wouldn't normally do, or make them forget something, or believe something is real that isn't, and doesn't require Enchantment or Illusion spells to do it.
It's certainly possible to press someone's buttons just so to send them into a thoughtless rage, at least for a few moments. Should this take 6 seconds? Probably not, but it's not entirely unreasonable for it to do so.
Have you ever watched, The Mentalist? Jane pushes people to blurt out deeply held secrets, or spring to violent action, with seemingly little effort, and often in very little time.
The example of Luke and Emperor Palpatine given focuses on the end of the encounter, but what about earlier, when the Emperor pushes Luke to attack him, despite Luke's trying very hard to maintain his calm and not give into his dark emotions?
There are plenty of examples of one person taunting another in order to let his or her partner get away, steal something, or get in a debilitating or killing blow. Numerous instances where someone has been antagonized to such a degree that they will give up the "win" that is within their grasp just to shut up the loudmouth, and not just in fantasy and science fiction--this stuff happens in the real world.
You say, "but what about someone who has dedicated their life to peace?" I ask why they've done so. What is it that spurred them down that road? Was it the death of a loved one? A bad experience in their youth? Maybe a good one? Is the subject a sensitive one? Or would you react to someone saying that all of the good works you've done have amounted to absolutely nothing? Who knows what might push your buttons, but it's harder for me to believe that someone has no buttons to be pushed, than that someone can push them. There's nothing that says that the affected character can't use Touch of Calm or whatever as their attack, in order to silence the taunter, or trip them, or hit them with Silence, or attempt to stun them, or knock them out with nonlethal damage. Perhaps your Gandhi sees the antagonist as someone in need of a harsh lesson in the ways of peace and whaps him into a peaceful state.
The mechanics as written suck, but the basic principle doesn't appear to be irredeemable. I'm tired of seeing people using the argument that Dominate and Suggestion could have this effect because they're MAGIC, and this is a mundane ability--people have been manipulating others in unexpected ways for all of human history, and without the aid of magic or machinery, so why shouldn't a feat be able to replicate such abilities, albeit it in a rather temporary fashion?
This is the exact sort of nonsense behavior that Rule 0 exists for. Any GM that can't put on his/her big-boy pants/big-girl panties and deal with this, well, frankly they deserve what they get.Exactly that, and more besides.It is largely unused because it breaks verisimilitude. It is still way too easy to use antagonize (after errata) to force a pacifist, law abiding player to attack anywhere.
It doesn't even have to a paladin, anyone who wants to play a good law abiding character can be auto d*cked around by this feat.
There is nothing you can do to defend it, you can't really up your saves, get SR,even cancel it with a spell.
Basically another character just takes control of your character, and there isn't even a mechanical thing you can do to defend against it.
What Gignere said.
Also:
If an injured child is about to bleed out at her mother's feet and her mother is holding a healer's kit, no feat should exist that can convince the mother to throw her healer's kit as an improvised ranged weapon instead of using it to save her child's life. (Note that Antagonize would convince the mother to let her child die, not force her to do it.)
Or the feat could be better written. Rule 0 can fix a lot of things, but when you have to constantly call for rule 0 due to ability X.....
Or the feat could be better written. Rule 0 can fix a lot of things, but when you have to constantly call for rule 0 due to ability X.....
I don't have any special insight into the minds of the designers, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that the rules for the game are not written to protect against misanthropic players and GMs. They are a guideline on how to cooperatively tell a story with a shared set of rules.
If one of those rules doesn't appeal to you, by all means, remove it from your play. But maybe leave it around for the grown-ups who can handle it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're saying the latter is not subjective?
I meant to say feat not keep, but with that aside it depends on the situation. If the feat as written kills RP without like this one does then no. It is objectively written badly. I should not need rule 0 to keep an ability in check the way this one does. Rule 0 is not the answer for well written abilities.
Are you willing to agree that they both affect player/GM agency? One is forcing a character to do something it would not normally do. The other is barring a creature from doing something it (presumably) is attempting.
You seem to be missing our point. Stopping someone from doing something or making them do it an of itself is not the issue. The way that it happens is the issue. As an example stunning fist can stop you from doing something. If stunning fist made you decide not to help then it would be a bad feat, especially if it was really easy to make happen.
How about this latitude? "This man has dedicated himself to peace since childhood. He will not be so easily swayed."
Nope. That still means it is possible, and it still depends on rule 0. If Paizo makes a feat that says I can do +100000 damage per round, and I houserule it to be +10 I can't say, say "rule 0", and expect for the feat to be ok.
4. Who said anything about paladins? The feat jacks up any character potentially, and it won't even make sense at time.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6hif?Why-do-folks-think-Antogonize-is-a-br oken-feat#10
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz6hif?Why-do-folks-think-Antogonize-is-a-broken- feat#50...
Fair enough, but they are not the main subject here. They are just good examples.
Magic makes sense? Seriously?
The feat still fails because the it is too easy, and it makes the choice for you. It gets 1 out of 3, not good odds.
Get it? because if you don't agree then you aren't a grown up.
The inherently poor mechanics aside
Thanks, that is enough to have the feat done away with by itself
, consider that manipulation of one's psychology can be as powerful as magic. Hypnosis can be used to prod someone to do something they wouldn't normally do, or make them forget something, or believe something is real that isn't, and doesn't require Enchantment or Illusion spells to do it.
Not everyone can be hypnotized, and it takes more than a 2 seconds or even 6.
It's certainly possible to press someone's buttons just so to send them into a thoughtless rage, at least for a few moments. Should this take 6 seconds? Probably not, but it's not entirely unreasonable for it to do so.
It depends on the person and the circumstance. This feat bypasses all of that.
Have you ever watched, The Mentalist? Jane pushes people to blurt out deeply held secrets, or spring to violent action, with seemingly little effort, and often in very little time.
It is a TV show and has no game relevance. It is no better than trying to convince me that your drow character should have a dex of 22 at 1st level because Drizzt does.
The example of Luke and Emperor Palpatine given focuses on the end of the encounter, but what about earlier, when the Emperor pushes Luke to attack him, despite Luke's trying very hard to maintain his calm and not give into his dark emotions?
That goes back into my circumstances and person example, which the feat ignores.
There are plenty of examples of one person taunting another in order to let his or her partner get away, steal something, or get in a debilitating or killing blow. Numerous instances where someone has been antagonized to such a degree that they will give up the "win" that is within their grasp just to shut up the loudmouth, and not just in fantasy and science fiction--this stuff happens in the real world.
The principle of the feat sucks because it applies to everyone, and not everyone can be manipulated in any situation. As an example an insult might get one person to act, but a bribe might work for another person. As for all those questions you asked they are good questions, but the feat does not care about them, and that is one of the main issues.
Get it? because if you don't agree then you aren't a grown up.
Nope:
"We house-ruled it out because we don't think it is mechanically sound." A-okay.
"We house-ruled it out because one or more of us can't be trusted to not abuse it." You're treating the symptom.
Who are you people playing with that you can't have a grown-up(!) conversation with each other and agree upon reasonable play? Because a game where you have to constantly pad the furniture doesn't sound like a fun game to me.
the PRE-Errata antagonize was what martials needed to keep up with casters. force the lowly wizard to charge your fighter and waste a turn. the only rule i would place is that it is a mind effecting compulsion effect.
Yeah I feel the sarcasm in my Luke and Emperor example was missed, There was never an actual scene where Luke insulted the emperor in such a way that the emperor attacked Luke in a blind rage and Luke decapitated him. I mentioned this because someone brought up an example of taunting the big bad into a rage.
Indeed we DO see the Emperor trying this to Luke, and it takes him minutes and minutes and Luke's friends lives on the line and many taunts to get Luke, the young inexperienced Jedi to loose his cool.
But 6 seconds? 6 seconds for the hero to taunt the Dark Overlord into flying into a rage? Give me a break.
Or the feat could be better written. Rule 0 can fix a lot of things, but when you have to constantly call for rule 0 due to ability X.....I don't have any special insight into the minds of the designers, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that the rules for the game are not written to protect against misanthropic players and GMs. They are a guideline on how to cooperatively tell a story with a shared set of rules.
If one of those rules doesn't appeal to you, by all means, remove it from your play. But maybe leave it around for the grown-ups who can handle it.
The rules assume level headed people are playing. What they don't assume is that the GM should have to use rule 0 as the way to decide on a feat every time it is used. The fact that GM fiat is not needed so much is one reason PF is so popular. There are also no guidelines on telling a story. They are just mechanics that a group is expected to use to have fun together. It is also about not being an adult, or not being able to handle it. Being adult means being able to see things objectively, and not just judge things based on your view. As an example I generally run difficult games, but I would never say someone is not an adult because they really dislike character death. You like the feat, and you don't mind using rule 0 every time it might be used. There is nothing wrong with that, but many of us don't like to depend on arbitrary decisions every time a certain ability is used. To us it speaks of bad mechanics, and our preference does not make us any less of an adult.
the PRE-Errata antagonize was what martials needed to keep up with casters. force the lowly wizard to charge your fighter and waste a turn. the only rule i would place is that it is a mind effecting compulsion effect.
This is a mind-affecting effect.
You like the feat...
I never said that I did. I just don't understand why it is villainized just because a bad GM or player might do something bad with it.
To us it speaks of bad mechanics, and our preference does not make us any less of an adult.
"We house-ruled it out because we don't think it is mechanically sound." A-okay.
Hey! I agree with you!
Get it? because if you don't agree then you aren't a grown up.Nope:
"We house-ruled it out because we don't think it is mechanically sound." A-okay.
"We house-ruled it out because one or more of us can't be trusted to not abuse it." You're treating the symptom.
Who are you people playing with that you can't have a grown-up(!) conversation with each other and agree upon reasonable play? Because a game where you have to constantly pad the furniture doesn't sound like a fun game to me.
If I have an ability sucks so bad that I have to not use it...
In other words most abilities are meant to allow you to do something, and using that ability when you want is not an issue. This feat runs counter to that. Nobody complains if I power attack all the time. Nobody complains if I like to rage as a barbarian, or cast a quickened spell.
If you can't/don't use ability X because you are worried about the rest of the table giving you evil looks, even though it is advantageous for you to do so....
Just to be clear we don't think it is mechanically sound. That has been the argument the entire time.
Please stop your lies. Nobody is constantly padding the furniture. This feat just sucks.
If you want a feat that like this, and you think it is mechanically sound then go ahead and use it, but if I have to watch for evil looks at my table, or even people I don't know, if I am the new guy then the feat should probably go away.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's put it like this...
Mind control forces the character to do something.
Antagonize forces the character to choose to do something. This is not something that should be possible in a RPG.
A character's choices should only affected by her player's choice. You can convince someone of something, but you can't actually make the choice for them.
You like the feat...I never said that I did. I just don't understand why it is villainized just because a bad GM or player might do something bad with it.
I am of the belief, and so are many others that the feat just fails by RAW and RAI. Badly written feats/abilities such Vow of Poverty don't get spoken of well.
I could not use it as GM to not make a player violate RP, and the players could limit their use of it, but at that point they are probably better off taking something they can use more often.
You don't even have to be a bad player or GM to cause issues with it.
Let's put it like this...
Mind control forces the character to do something.
Antagonize forces the character to choose to do something. This is not something that should be possible in a RPG.
A character's choices should only affected by her player's choice. You can convince someone of something, but you can't actually make the choice for them.
+1 That is how the feat fails conceptually.
Mechanically it is too easy to make this happen.
Let's put it like this...
Mind control forces the character to do something.
Antagonize forces the character to choose to do something. This is not something that should be possible in a RPG.
A character's choices should only affected by her player's choice. You can convince someone of something, but you can't actually make the choice for them.
This is a mind-affecting effect.
You like the feat...I never said that I did. I just don't understand why it is villainized just because a bad GM or player might do something bad with it.
To us it speaks of bad mechanics, and our preference does not make us any less of an adult."We house-ruled it out because we don't think it is mechanically sound." A-okay.Hey! I agree with you!
I did not know that was my quote. I don't remember everything I write. :)
Please stop your lies.
Well, if this was ever a constructive conversation it has ceased to be. I'm out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a mind-affecting effect.
And yet, there is no save. The target is not being forced to attack by an outside influence that took control of its mind. No, sir, the target actually decided that hitting the Antagonizer in the face is the best course of action.
Old man who spent the last 60 years mantaining a Vow of Peace? He chooses, of his own free will, to kick someone in the head.
Little girl who is extremelly scared of strangers? She just decided, of her own free will to punch the Half-Orc in a full plate.
Guy who suffers of intense aracnophonia? Suddenly he is throwing punches at a drider. OF HIS OWN FREE WILL.
Bah, let me change that, even if there was a save, this feat would be stupid.
Again, it's not about how powerful the feat is, it's about how it works and what it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please stop your lies.Well, if this was ever a constructive conversation it has ceased to be. I'm out.
The "pad the furniture" and "adult" statements did not go over well. I assumed you were trying to be insulting so I felt the need to defend myself. Oh well..
edit:to correct quotes.
This is a mind-affecting effect.And yet, there is no save. The target is not being forced to attack by an outside influence that took control of its mind. No, sir, the target actually decided that hitting the Antagonizer in the face is the best course of action.
Old man who spent the last 60 years mantaining a Vow of Peace? He chooses, of his own free will, to kick someone in the head.
Little girl who is extremelly scared of strangers? She just decided, of her own free will to punch the Half-Orc in a full plate.
Guy who suffers of intense aracnophonia? Suddenly he is throwing punches at a drider. OF HIS OWN FREE WILL.
Bah, let me change that, even if there was a save, this feat would be stupid.
Again, it's not about how powerful the feat is, it's about how it works and what it does.
My character, of her own free will decides to leave the side of her dying love interest. Not using her Cure Spell on him, but instead decides to attack the villain who insulted her. Sadly as she was disarmed moments earlier her weapon is on the other side of the room. Oh look now hes dead and my character is also being cut down.
yep, this was a fun role play session.
I mean glad she decided those things.
Maaaan this is a strange feat.
This is a mind-affecting effect.And yet, there is no save. The target is not being forced to attack by an outside influence that took control of its mind. No, sir, the target actually decided that hitting the Antagonizer in the face is the best course of action.
Old man who spent the last 60 years mantaining a Vow of Peace? He chooses, of his own free will, to kick someone in the head.
Little girl who is extremelly scared of strangers? She just decided, of her own free will to punch the Half-Orc in a full plate.
Guy who suffers of intense aracnophonia? Suddenly he is throwing punches at a drider. OF HIS OWN FREE WILL.
Bah, let me change that, even if there was a save, this feat would be stupid.
Again, it's not about how powerful the feat is, it's about how it works and what it does.
My character, of her own free will decides to leave the side of her dying love interest. Not using her Cure Spell on him, but instead decides to attack the villain who insulted her. Sadly as she was disarmed moments earlier her weapon is on the other side of the room. Oh look now hes dead and my character is also being cut down.
yep, this was a fun role play session.
I mean glad she decided those things.
Maaaan this is a strange feat.
A good GM would not use that feat against you so that means it is ok, and you will never have to make that decision or have it made for you.
[/sarcasm] :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would cry, manly manly tears.
Uhg I came into this thread completely unbiased too and just, man, Who thought this was good? at least with magic its not my characters fault.