Why do folks think Antagonize is a broken feat?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 636 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

TheRonin wrote:
redward wrote:
BltzKrg242 wrote:
Gignere wrote:
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.

Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:

1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.

I would respectfully submit that 2 applies to every aspect of Pathfinder. The game begins and ends with a social contract to not be a jerk. Poker is not broken just because I can hide an ace up my sleeve.
Yes but in Poker if someone calls you a dick you aren't forced by the rules to toss down your straight and attack them from across the table.

I think it would liven up the game if you were.


BltzKrg242 wrote:
Gignere wrote:
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.

Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:

1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.

This.

I maintain that there isn't a feat or a spell or an ability anywhere in this game pre or post errata that cannot be handled by a reasonable DM. Your word as DM is law, and sorry - but the game rules do not trump the DM.

If you, as a DM, think it's logical that a 70 year old lady charges an ogre because he's taunting her - great. Personally, if a player or a monster had Antagonize, it's usefulness would boil down to common sense.

Is a defenseless villager being beaten down by a thug? Antagonize him and draw his attention. Is the ogre looking to distract a guard while his goons attempt to sabotage the bridge he's guarding? They better hurry, they only have one round to do it before he realizes what's going on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:

All I'm trying to do is sort out what everyone actually has against this feat. I have heard lots of reasons. Few hold up.

1. "My pacifist character is now attacking this defenseless child of his own free will."
It is a mind-affecting effect. Are people not getting this? The character is not acting of his or her own free will. That's what that means.

A mind-affecting effect only means if affects minds. It does not automatically mean compulssion. Reading someones mind is a mind-affeting effect, but not compulsion. Shooting a psychic blast a la Charles Xavier too. Talking to someone could be considered a mind-affecting effect. Convincing someone is possible, forcing them to be conviced is a different matter.

redward wrote:

2. "It removes player agency."

This feat does not remove player agency. It just limits it to one of four options. And guess what? Two of those options aren't even explicitly attacks. Kid taunting your paladin? Target him with Virtue. How's that for turning the other cheek? Don't have any spells? Use a trip or disarm "in place of a melee attack." Choose to do nonlethal damage (-4). Choose to attack defensively (-4). Drop prone first (-4). Do all three (-12).

"There are ways around the problem, so there is no problem at all". The Paladin still decided that kid needed a smack. While I'm pretty sure a bastion of Order and (more importantly) Goodness, would simply dismiss the kid's commentary, no matter how low they are.

redward wrote:

3. "Anything that isn't hitting stuff should only be done with magic."

Yes, mind-affecting effects are usually the provenance of magic. However there is all kinds of precedent for extraordinary abilities achieving the same effect as supernatural and spell-like abilities or spells. And if it's that big a deal, just make it a supernatural mind-affecting effect. There's precedent for supernatural feats, too.

I never said anything like this. In fact, you'll most often see me saying the complete opposite. I'm all for giving more cool stuff for mundane characters! Not 2 weeks ago I created the "Why can't we trip Gargantuan creatures?" thread.

redward wrote:

4. "I don't like this"

This is reasonable.

Agreed.

redward wrote:

5. "I don't like this and no one else should have it"

This is, frankly, childish.

Also agreed, but you're simplifying and bending other people's words here.

redward wrote:

6. "It is mechanically flawed"

Also reasonable. And maybe even constructive! Once we've narrowed it down to a matter of implementation, we can try to fix it. Maybe it needs a Will save. Maybe...

With a will save, this feat would be less stupid, but still stupid IMO. This feat is one of those that actually removes an option, instead of adding one, by virtue of saying "now you need a feat to do this". The worst part? It removes a role-playing option! Not a mechanical one!


redward wrote:


Why can't this be role-playing? Your pacifist monk struggles to fight the rage growing inside him. He falls to the ground and lashes out weakly, desperately trying to temper the blow to avoid harming the Evil-GM-Character-breaking-Inexplicably-Trained-in-Intimidate-Homeless-Begg ar Boy.

Weren't people complaining about how this feat kills role-playing?

It is gaming the system disguised as RP. In short it is no better than the player whose character is a jerk, and he uses the "it is my character would do" excuse. If the word "attack" is going to be that broad then the feat will be virtually useless.

Quote:

This isn't a "GM should fix it" Feat. This is a "use responsibly" Feat. Which is a label that should be assumed for every aspect of the game. Because if someone is looking to abuse the system or ruin characters or break role-playing, the presence of this Feat is not going to change anything.

Complaining that "jerks will be jerks with this" is pointless, because "jerks will be jerks". We don't ban underwear just because bullies give us wedgies.

Define "use responsibly". Would I be wrong to keep spamming the confusion spell as an example?

I never said jerks will be jerks. I am saying the feat is badly written just due to the fact that you can get evil looks just for using it. I don't have to moderate power attack, or the withdraw feat. They work just fine, as they are. If I go to buy a new car, and I am told I should only drive it 10 miles a day I will probably leave it on the parking lot. That is pretty much how you are describing this feat.


Fenzl wrote:
BltzKrg242 wrote:
Gignere wrote:
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.

Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:

1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.

This.

I maintain that there isn't a feat or a spell or an ability anywhere in this game pre or post errata that cannot be handled by a reasonable DM. Your word as DM is law, and sorry - but the game rules do not trump the DM.

If you, as a DM, think it's logical that a 70 year old lady charges an ogre because he's taunting her - great. Personally, if a player or a monster had Antagonize, it's usefulness would boil down to common sense.

Is a defenseless villager being beaten down by a thug? Antagonize him and draw his attention. Is the ogre looking to distract a guard while his goons attempt to sabotage the bridge he's guarding? They better hurry, they only have one round to do it before he realizes what's going on.

That only proves that rule 0 works, and the ability in question has issues. While many of us don't mind using it at times, rule 0 should not be the default answer to a feat.

GM:Damn, not that feat again. No it does not work.
GM:This time it does.
GM:Not this time.
GM:OK, it works.

If you(not any particular person) thinks an ability is ok because some GM's can just houserule it then nothing is ever broken(not referring to Overpowered, but any ability that should not reach the book).

Player:Hey Paizo has a feat called super charm that adds a +27 to my DC for Dominate Monster, and I can affect anyone even if they should be immune. I also have unlimited castings of dominate monster
Player 2: That is crazy.
GM:The feat is fine. I will just say it only adds +2. See the feat is perfectly fine.
or
GM:It is not broken as long as you limit your use of it.

Yeah I am exaggerating but the principle is the same.


TheRonin wrote:
Good point, I now see how viable and not-ridiculous this feat is!

So this is a common scenario in your games? Or was it hand-picked and delicately massaged to most fit your needs in making a point? We don't ban VCRs because they can be used to infringe on copyrights. We don't ban feats because they can be used to make pregnant bards who shouldn't be adventuring in the first place abandon their dying baby daddies.

Lemmy wrote:
With a will save, this feat would be less stupid, but still stupid IMO. This feat is one of those that actually removes an option, instead of adding one, by virtue of saying "now you need a feat to do this". The worst part? It removes a role-playing option! Not a mechanical one!

It doesn't remove a role-playing option. It reduces the time it takes from 1 min to a standard action. It's Improved Feint for Intimidate.

wraithstrike wrote:
Define "use responsibly". Would I be wrong to keep spamming the confusion spell as an example?

That depends. Is everyone having fun? If so, then spam away.

---

This is a skill check. Circumstance bonuses and penalties apply. If a character with +30 Diplomacy tells an NPC to kill its mother, the check is probably going to fail. If a character with +30 Intimidate tells an NPC to betray its evil, tortuous, all-powerful master, the skill check is probably going to fail.

And beyond that: "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion." That's from Diplomacy, but rule zero and common sense apply it to Intimidate as well.

A player shouldn't need Paizo to protect him from his GM, and a GM certainly shouldn't need Paizo to protect her from her players.


redward wrote:
TheRonin wrote:
Good point, I now see how viable and not-ridiculous this feat is!

So this is a common scenario in your games? Or was it hand-picked and delicately massaged to most fit your needs in making a point? We don't ban VCRs because they can be used to infringe on copyrights. We don't ban feats because they can be used to make pregnant bards who shouldn't be adventuring in the first place abandon their dying baby daddies.

The scenario shows why the feat is flawed. The scenario itself is unimportant. And its just one example. The feat can make player characters, decide of their own free will, with out player interaction or approval to abandon dying team mates and attack someone, despite being completely out of character.

And this feat gives us what? The ability to do something that should be role playable anyways? Terrible feat, terrible.


TheRonin wrote:
redward wrote:
TheRonin wrote:
Good point, I now see how viable and not-ridiculous this feat is!

So this is a common scenario in your games? Or was it hand-picked and delicately massaged to most fit your needs in making a point? We don't ban VCRs because they can be used to infringe on copyrights. We don't ban feats because they can be used to make pregnant bards who shouldn't be adventuring in the first place abandon their dying baby daddies.

The scenario shows why the feat is flawed. The scenario itself is unimportant. And its just one example. The feat can make player characters, decide of their own free will, with out player interaction or approval to abandon dying team mates and attack someone, despite being completely out of character.

And this feat gives us what? The ability to do something that should be role playable anyways? Terrible feat, terrible.

(emphasis mine)

If we can't come to agreement on what constitutes "free will" we're not going to get anywhere. For me, the words "make" and "must" are pretty clearly not choices. For you, apparently anything that isn't explicitly a magical compulsion is. Not much point in arguing this any further.


Which if you were paying attention is the ENITRE point of the scenario I posted. How does the bard in character explain they had no choice? Please explain this to me so I can understand your point of view better. What does she tell her teammates? How does she explain this?


wraithstrike wrote:
Fenzl wrote:
BltzKrg242 wrote:
Gignere wrote:
Then you agree antagonize as written now is broken. Why are we even arguing? The OP just asked is the feat broken and the answer is yes. He didn't even ask for how to fix the feat.

Actually I asked why people thought it was broken. I have learned that:

1. With a reasonable GM, it's a weak feat at best.
2. With a powergamer/ruleslawyer player with no GM control, it appears to be broken.

This.

I maintain that there isn't a feat or a spell or an ability anywhere in this game pre or post errata that cannot be handled by a reasonable DM. Your word as DM is law, and sorry - but the game rules do not trump the DM.

If you, as a DM, think it's logical that a 70 year old lady charges an ogre because he's taunting her - great. Personally, if a player or a monster had Antagonize, it's usefulness would boil down to common sense.

Is a defenseless villager being beaten down by a thug? Antagonize him and draw his attention. Is the ogre looking to distract a guard while his goons attempt to sabotage the bridge he's guarding? They better hurry, they only have one round to do it before he realizes what's going on.

That only proves that rule 0 works, and the ability in question has issues. While many of us don't mind using it at times, rule 0 should not be the default answer to a feat.

GM:Damn, not that feat again. No it does not work.
GM:This time it does.
GM:Not this time.
GM:OK, it works.

If you(not any particular person) thinks an ability is ok because some GM's can just houserule it then nothing is ever broken(not referring to Overpowered, but any ability that should not reach the book).

Player:Hey Paizo has a feat called super charm that adds a +27 to my DC for Dominate Monster, and I can affect anyone even if they should be immune. I also have unlimited castings of dominate monster
Player 2: That is crazy.
GM:The feat is fine. I will just say it only adds +2. See the feat is perfectly fine.
or...

What is "rule 0"? I've never heard that term before. Ah. Okay, I looked it up. Praise Google. The DM is always right. Got it.

The game system provides for us a means to an end - a framework with which to create consistency. However, the game rules and the human element are not mutually exclusive. We are not computers running a program.

Let's look at this another way. Fireball. A 5th level PC could saunter into a crowded market, drop a Fireball, and kill a large amount of innocent people. What is preventing him from doing so? There is no game rule stopping him from doing it. Not even alignment stops him from doing it. If the player says he does it, he does it.

Does that mean Fireball is broken because it can kill indiscriminately a group of people with literally no hope to survive it? The game, despite what most people would say, does assume a measure of common sense and personal restraint. It is the most difficult thing for new players to both realize and master.

Most new players to the game, in my experience, don't do much their first few times playing because they don't realize they can do almost anything. Are there consequences to their actions? Certainly. Is there common sense that says you can or can't do something? Always.

In the end, what am I trying to say?

Is Antagonize broken? In a void without the human element? Perhaps. Is the feat broken when you include common sense and reason? Absolutely not.


redward wrote:
TheRonin wrote:
Good point, I now see how viable and not-ridiculous this feat is!
So this is a common scenario in your games? Or was it hand-picked and delicately massaged to most fit your needs in making a point? We don't ban VCRs because they can be used to infringe on copyrights. We don't ban feats because they can be used to make pregnant bards who shouldn't be adventuring in the first place abandon their dying baby daddies.

You seem to be a smart person so I am sure you are getting the point of the story. With that said the point since you want to pretend to not get it is that it forces you into a nonsensical action.

Lemmy wrote:
With a will save, this feat would be less stupid, but still stupid IMO. This feat is one of those that actually removes an option, instead of adding one, by virtue of saying "now you need a feat to do this". The worst part? It removes a role-playing option! Not a mechanical one!
Quote:


It doesn't remove a role-playing option. It reduces the time it takes from 1 min to a standard action. It's Improved Feint for Intimidate.

Intimidate can make you attack people you really should not be fighting?

wraithstrike wrote:
Define "use responsibly". Would I be wrong to keep spamming the confusion spell as an example?
Quote:
That depends. Is everyone having fun? If so, then spam away.

So if another player does not like the feat I should not use it?

Quote:

This is a skill check. Circumstance bonuses and penalties apply. If a character with +30 Diplomacy tells an NPC to kill its mother, the check is probably going to fail. If a character with +30 Intimidate tells an NPC to betray its evil, tortuous, all-powerful master, the skill check is probably going to fail.

The feat has not such provisions.

Quote:


And beyond that: "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion." That's from Diplomacy, but rule zero and common sense apply it to Intimidate as well.

Common sense is not so common, and rule zero is a terrible defense for regular use of any ability. If it was a corner case people would understand.

Quote:


A player shouldn't need Paizo to protect him from his GM, and a GM certainly shouldn't need Paizo to protect her from her players.

You are correct, but both the player and GM should expect for an ability to work without having to limit its use, or depend on rule zero. The better and more precisely an ability is written the less there will be a chance for GM or player abuse. Of course if the regular use of an ability is abuse......


redward wrote:
If we can't come to agreement on what constitutes "free will" we're not going to get anywhere. For me, the words "make" and "must" are pretty clearly not choices. For you, apparently anything that isn't explicitly a magical compulsion is. Not much point in arguing this any further.

It's the difference between murder and convincing someone to commit suicide.

Mind-control of any kind is like murder, the person don't want to die, but it doesn't matter, because you just stabbed her in the neck.

Antagonize is like (in less than 6 seconds), convicing the most fun-loving life-celebrating hippie that suicide is such a good idea, that it should be done right now.


[sarcasm]With all the antagonize hate, I have to believe there's a lot of other skill-based behavior modification hate as well, right? So no intimidate, diplomacy (wild empathy), or bluff at all. After all, if we can't have antagonize determining an aspect of the BBEG's behavior, we can't have diplomacy/wild empathy making the creature you're negotiating with you see you in such a favorable light that he loses his hostility. We shouldn't have an intimidation check browbeating someone else into giving us favorable treatment. And we sure couldn't have a successful bluff forcing us into being vulnerable to a sneak attack.[/sarcasm]

For what it's worth, I think I'd prefer to have the antagonize mechanic setting a DC that the target saves against because then it's possible for the target (if a PC) to throw an action point at it to improve his save and there is the potential for auto-success and auto-fail. But that's the way I generally approach targeting creatures with things that aren't attacks - I don't like static defenses very much compared to saves.

And that's pretty much my opposition to antagonize. I don't think it's otherwise problematic now that it's been edited.


Brain in a Jar wrote:
That would be true if we all had reasonable Game-masters who allowed such a thing to happen. Not every Game-master would let it happen unless there is a mechanic sadly.

That doesn't mean it needs to be a feat. They could easily have made it a new type of combat maneuver (or, rather, a combat-maneuver-ish-thing like Feint). You can make something a mechanic without making everyone burn a precious feat to do something so basic.


redward, what do you think about this feat?

BOOMBOOM
Benefit: As a standard action, you may deal 3d6 damage/level to all enemies within 60 ft. Certain enemies may be immune or have damage reduction against this effect, as determined by the DM.

Isn't this a feat that will work well as long as you have a reasonable DM? After all, anyone out to game the system can do so anyway so allowing this feat won't change anything?


TheRonin wrote:
Which if you were paying attention is the ENITRE point of the scenario I posted. How does the bard in character explain they had no choice? Please explain this to me so I can understand your point of view better. What does she tell her teammates? How does she explain this?

How is a character being able to explain something suddenly a prerequisite for a Feat?

"What happened? You totally just wailed on that guy, Pacifist Character Who Is Totally Appropriate for Pathfinder?"
"I don't know...he started saying those terrible things and I just...snapped. I can't explain it."
"Well we didn't Detect any Magic and I didn't identify any kind of Spellcraft. So we as a party have decided that you are too unstable to adventure with us. You make bad choices."
"It wasn't a choice!"
"Well it wasn't magic. There is only magic and free will in our world. So this is goodbye."

As Bill Dunn said above, there is already an existing mechanic for skills changing behavior. So is the problem that they can now affect the special flower that is the PC? Is the problem that in very narrow circumstances, for 1 round a day, a player has to play by the same rules as an NPC? Is that it?


stringburka wrote:

redward, what do you think about this feat?

BOOMBOOM
Benefit: As a standard action, you may deal 3d6 damage/level to all enemies within 60 ft. Certain enemies may be immune or have damage reduction against this effect, as determined by the DM.

Isn't this a feat that will work well as long as you have a reasonable DM? After all, anyone out to game the system can do so anyway so allowing this feat won't change anything?

I'd probably make it a full round action for balance.


redward wrote:
stringburka wrote:

redward, what do you think about this feat?

BOOMBOOM
Benefit: As a standard action, you may deal 3d6 damage/level to all enemies within 60 ft. Certain enemies may be immune or have damage reduction against this effect, as determined by the DM.

Isn't this a feat that will work well as long as you have a reasonable DM? After all, anyone out to game the system can do so anyway so allowing this feat won't change anything?

I'd probably make it a full round action for balance.

Do you think it's a balanced feat as is? If not, why not?


stringburka wrote:
redward wrote:
stringburka wrote:

redward, what do you think about this feat?

BOOMBOOM
Benefit: As a standard action, you may deal 3d6 damage/level to all enemies within 60 ft. Certain enemies may be immune or have damage reduction against this effect, as determined by the DM.

Isn't this a feat that will work well as long as you have a reasonable DM? After all, anyone out to game the system can do so anyway so allowing this feat won't change anything?

I'd probably make it a full round action for balance.
Do you think it's a balanced feat as is? If not, why not?

Completely irrelevant. The discussion here involves Pathfinder published material.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Obviously, this feat leaves too much to DM discretion.

If he never disallows this feat from working, it is too strong.

If he always disallows this feat from working, it is useless.


redward wrote:
TheRonin wrote:
Which if you were paying attention is the ENITRE point of the scenario I posted. How does the bard in character explain they had no choice? Please explain this to me so I can understand your point of view better. What does she tell her teammates? How does she explain this?

How is a character being able to explain something suddenly a prerequisite for a Feat?

"What happened? You totally just wailed on that guy, Pacifist Character Who Is Totally Appropriate for Pathfinder?"
"I don't know...he started saying those terrible things and I just...snapped. I can't explain it."
"Well we didn't Detect any Magic and I didn't identify any kind of Spellcraft. So we as a party have decided that you are too unstable to adventure with us. You make bad choices."
"It wasn't a choice!"
"Well it wasn't magic. There is only magic and free will in our world. So this is goodbye."

As Bill Dunn said above, there is already an existing mechanic for skills changing behavior. So is the problem that they can now affect the special flower that is the PC? Is the problem that in very narrow circumstances, for 1 round a day, a player has to play by the same rules as an NPC? Is that it?

See now I suspect you are being dense on purpose.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so you think Antagonize is fine? Let's create a new feat using nearly-identical mechanics:

New Feat: Seduction:
Whether using body language or sultry words, you are adept at at seducing adult humanoids.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy checks to make adult humanoids respond to you with wanton desire. Seducing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10+ the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you. Before you make this check, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on the check equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn.
If your Diplomacy check succeeds, the target is overcome by sexual desire. On its next turn, the target must attempt fornicate with you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from doing so, or if attempting to do so would harm it. You may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature has spent at least one action fornicating with you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day. This is a mind-affecting effect.

And you know what? This Antagonize-like Seduction feat is patently absurd to the point of broken. It forces your character to do something completely out of character with minimal justification.

But magic can do that. In fact, there's one spell that does almost exactly what this feat does.

Magic is an outside force that overrides your character's will. This feat is just someone talking for six seconds and somehow redefining your character's entire personality in the process.

You just don't want non-casters to have nice things.

No. I just want non-casters to have nice things that actually make sense. The Seduction feat described above doesn't make sense because it's directly based on the Antagonize feat.

But the Seduction feat does make sense. There are plenty of scenes in movies and literature where a sexy character seduces someone.

Yes, there are scenes where specific characters in specific situations end up acting in ways that emphasize their character flaws, and this sometimes plays into the hands of a seductive character. But that should be handled by roleplaying, not a feat that takes away player agency.

This feat isn't taking away player agency. It's forcing your character to do something against your character's will.

Look, it just doesn't make sense that an aged priest who swore a vow of chastity sixty years ago and has upheld it faithfully since that time would suddenly get it on with a sultry vixen just because she spends six seconds talking dirty. Nor does it make sense for a woman who's been happily married for forty years to suddenly have a fling with Mr. Sexy Pants just because he wiggled his hips and said something suggestive.

Maybe the time required is a bit too short, but the principal is still good. Haven't you ever heard of someone being seduced before? It happens all the time.

Not to the extent caused by the Seduction feat described above. Because it works like Antagonize, a person with the Seduction feat can use it to provoke a lewd response in, say, the middle of a church sermon, and the provoked character would be unable to restrain himself.

But no one would hold the seduced character responsible for fornicating on the altar in the middle of a church service. I mean, everyone there saw the sultry vixen hop up there first and egg him on. He was clearly provoked, and must therefore be innocent of any wrongdoing.

What about a caring mother trying to prevent her own child from bleeding out on the ground? "Sorry little one, but you had to die. Mr. Sexy Pants was just so hot, I had to jump him right there in the middle of Main Street, even though it meant letting you die."

Now you're just blowing things way out of proportion.

No. If I were blowing things way out of proportion, I would observe that Mr. Sexy Pants could use the Antagonize-like Seduction feat described above to make a hetero manly-man character get it on with another man.

But this is a fantasy world. Since we're creating larger than life characters, maybe Mr. Sexy Pants is so sexy he can turn straight men gay. I mean, who's to say that can't happen in a magical world?

Okay, what about awakened goats? What do they get to do with this feat?

Oh, now you're just being ridiculous. Common sense says that wouldn't work.

Common sense isn't a game rule. Like the mechanics of various spells, the RAW mechanics of feats can overrule common sense in the context of action resolution within the game. In the case of spells, you have magic as an excuse for this lack of sense; in the case of feats, you just have the fact that the feat is badly written.

But no reasonable GM would ever give this feat to awakened goats.

You're right. A reasonable GM would look at the game-world consequences of this new feat, realize that it's just as broken as Antagonize because it uses the same mechanics, and ban it immediately. If there's a feat that everyone agrees would be nonsensical in the hands of certain NPCs, then the feat needs to be completely reworked.

But the GM could just overrule the feat whenever it makes sense to do so.

Then what's the point of having the feat? We already have a mechanic where GMs and players at the table decide characters' actions based upon what makes sense for those characters. It's called roleplaying. And if you want to use your character's ranks in Diplomacy and Intimidate to supplement roleplaying, we already have rules for that right there in the descriptions of the Diplomacy and Intimidate skills.

Or am I wrong? For anyone out there who thinks Antagonize is a reasonable feat, I'd love to hear your argument in support of the Seduction feat described above. After all, Seduction uses game mechanics nearly identical to those of Antagonize, so you can't support one and reject the other as unreasonable.


Fenzl wrote:
stringburka wrote:
redward wrote:
stringburka wrote:

redward, what do you think about this feat?

BOOMBOOM
Benefit: As a standard action, you may deal 3d6 damage/level to all enemies within 60 ft. Certain enemies may be immune or have damage reduction against this effect, as determined by the DM.

Isn't this a feat that will work well as long as you have a reasonable DM? After all, anyone out to game the system can do so anyway so allowing this feat won't change anything?

I'd probably make it a full round action for balance.
Do you think it's a balanced feat as is? If not, why not?
Completely irrelevant. The discussion here involves Pathfinder published material.

As much the same argument that is used by redward to defend Antagonize as not-a-badly-designed-feat applies equally as well to this feat, it is relevant in evaluating the validness of the arguments at hand.


Epic Meepo you are f'in brilliant, you know that?


So now we're just making shit up to compare it to feats that are actual products and asking to make that leap to saying if you can't have made up feat X then you can't possibly have printed/published feat Y?


All he did was change the effect from "Stab with Sword" to "Stab with Manparts". If Antagonize is fine, then such a similar feat should also be fine.


Sure if you can do X you can do Y... Anything similar should fly.


I want "Tickle me Elmo" as a feat.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes.

Benefit: When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn from laughing as you tickle him mercilessness. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move or stop giggling. it does not matter what he is wearing or what his skin is made of, your tickling WILL work. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an attack of opportunity.


BltzKrg242 wrote:
So now we're just making s$~$ up to compare it to feats that are actual products and asking to make that leap to saying if you can't have made up feat X then you can't possibly have printed/published feat Y?

No begging the question.

If you support the antagonize feat, express what makes this different!


For fun flavor I would also like "Squirrel!" as a feat
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes.

Benefit: When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you pull out a shiny bauble and dangle it in front of them. You can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn as forget what they were doing and stare gape-jawed at your bauble. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move or stop staring. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an attack of opportunity.


Epic Meepo wrote:

Okay, so you think Antagonize is fine? Let's create a new feat using nearly-identical mechanics:

** spoiler omitted **

And you know what? This Antagonize-like Seduction feat is patently absurd to the point of broken. It forces your character to do something completely out of character with minimal justification.

Just for the sake of carnal curiosity, what does the intimidate half of Seduction do? :P


Both of my fun feats ruin your "free will" and do not provide savings throws.. are they broken?

By free will of course I mean.. you don't get to do what you want to.


BltzKrg242 wrote:

Both of my fun feats ruin your "free will" and do not provide savings throws.. are they broken?

By free will of course I mean.. you don't get to do what you want to.

I'm not concerned with free will at all.

It's that the mechanic is more powerful than a powerful spell, it uses the wrong mechanics (really should be a will save) and contains no provisions that allow for a natural seeming response in many situations (commoner v. dragon).

It is poor design that fails to balance the non-combat applications of social skills.


"Follow Me Big Boy" Feat
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.

You can attempt to make a character follow you as a standard action. You can only use "Follow Me Big Boy" on an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. The aim of this feat is to have someone follow you in a straight line behind you without doing any harm. If you do not have the "Follow Me Big Boy" feat or a similar ability, initiating this feat provokes an attack of opportunity from the target.

It does not matter if you are a male or a female nor if they are. If you succeed they want to follow you. There is no Free will, there is no saving throw.

Roll a CMB against opponent's CMD. If your roll is successful, both you and your target move 5 feet back, with your opponent occupying your original space and you in the space behind that in a straight line. For every 5 by which your come-hither look and crooked finger exceeds your opponent's CMD, you can make the target follow you an additional 5 feet. You must be able to move with the target to perform this maneuver. If you do not have enough movement, the feat goes to the maximum amount of movement available to you and ends.

An enemy being moved by this feat does not provoke an attack of opportunity because of the movement. You cannot have a creature move into a square that is occupied by a solid object or obstacle. If there is another creature in the way of your movement, the feat ends adjacent to that creature.


I'm fine with the Seduction feat. But it would be about as effective as Prone Shooter, so it's kind of a trap.

Epic Meepo wrote:

But the GM could just overrule the feat whenever it makes sense to do so.

Then what's the point of having the feat? We already have a mechanic where GMs and players at the table decide characters' actions based upon what makes sense for those characters. It's called roleplaying. And if you want to use your character's ranks in Diplomacy and Intimidate to supplement roleplaying, we already have rules for that right there in the descriptions of the Diplomacy and Intimidate skills.

That mechanic only works out of combat. Using Intimidate (other than to Demoralize) and Diplomacy to influence attitudes usually takes 1 min and can't be done in combat. Antagonize lets players use it in combat.

That's the point of the feat.

But it's still a skill check.

So the normal restrictions, bonuses, and penalties still apply except where explicitly altered within the feat. Same with your proposed Seduction Feat. Diplomacy. "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

---

You know what? Never mind.

The problem with Antagonize is clearly that "it might be used on me."


redward wrote:

You know what? Never mind.

The problem with Antagonize is clearly that "it might be used on me."

You guys aren't listening.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Ad hominems, dodging of questions, general obtuseness...

Yep, it's an Antagonize thread for sure! Let's get 600 posts!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the current incarnation of Antagonize isn't necessarily broken, but it will still be banned at my games. Here's why:

It has nothing to do with the wording of the current feat or any future wordings. My printed copy of Ultimate Magic and my players' printed copies of Ultimate Magic all present Antagonize with the "old" broken wording. Also, most (if not all) of the pdf copies of Ultimate Magic in my group also have the broken wording. So, I keep the feat banned to prevent the in-game, rules-lawyering, yelling, screaming, and crying argument that will come from allowing the feat and then trying to enforce the current wording when nearly every "official" source supports the broken wording.

In a nut-shell, I don't want to spend hours of game time arguing over it when that time could be spent actually playing the game. It would not surprise me if other GMs are doing the same thing.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know, guys. Maybe the Antagonize feat is realistic. I've only read through the arguments in favor of Antagonize as written one time and I'm already tempted to go kick a puppy. So if it's possible for an opponent to recite the full text of the Antagonize feat as a standard action, my pacifist character may very well choose to go berserk and punch that opponent in the face.


There is a considerable non-equivalency between antagonize and seduction as proposed by Epic Meepo. The victim of antagonize's intimidate option must attack in some way... but that way is wide open to characteristic variations including non-lethal or fruitless attacks (or fruitful if you throw rotten tomatoes).

To be more equivalent, the seduction feat would have to allow for such variations, preferably by wording the feat so that the target must act with sexual desire.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

BltzKrg242 wrote:
Tickle Me Elmo, Squirrel, Come Here Big Boy

Stand Still allows you to perform a physical action that prevents an opponent from moving. Improved Drag allows you to perform a physical action that drags an opponent. Neither allows you to force an opponent to perform a specific action. Any new feat that allows you force a creature to perform an action is doing something that isn't even remotely part of the mechanics of either Stand Still or Improved Drag, so your argument by analogy fails.

redward wrote:
So the normal restrictions, bonuses, and penalties still apply except where explicitly altered within the feat. Same with your proposed Seduction Feat. Diplomacy. "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

That restriction applies to Diplomacy checks made to make requests. Diplomacy checks made to Antagonize are not Diplomacy checks made to make requests. If the Antagonize feat had included that restriction, it would no longer be farcical, but Antagonize as written does not include that restriction.


Epic Meepo wrote:
I don't know, guys. Maybe the Antagonize feat is realistic. I've only read through the arguments in favor of Antagonize as written one time and I'm already tempted to go kick a puppy. So if it's possible for an opponent to recite the full text of the Antagonize feat as a standard action, my pacifist character may very well choose to go berserk and punch that opponent in the face.

It is MUCH easier to anger someone than it is to seduce someone. Anyone that drives can tell you that.


Fenzl wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
I don't know, guys. Maybe the Antagonize feat is realistic. I've only read through the arguments in favor of Antagonize as written one time and I'm already tempted to go kick a puppy. So if it's possible for an opponent to recite the full text of the Antagonize feat as a standard action, my pacifist character may very well choose to go berserk and punch that opponent in the face.
It is MUCH easier to anger someone than it is to seduce someone. Anyone that drives can tell you that.

You've obviously never seen me drive.


I don't know, I am pretty easily seduced.


Hahaha - redward, TheRonin - you made me smile :)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Bill Dunn wrote:

There is a considerable non-equivalency between antagonize and seduction as proposed by Epic Meepo. The victim of antagonize's intimidate option must attack in some way... but that way is wide open to characteristic variations including non-lethal or fruitless attacks (or fruitful if you throw rotten tomatoes).

To be more equivalent, the seduction feat would have to allow for such variations, preferably by wording the feat so that the target must act with sexual desire.

Very well. Let's say Seduction allows a character to choose between four particular acts of gratification vis-a-vis the seductive character. (I obviously can't describe those acts on a family-friendly messageboard, but suffice it to say they provide a wide range of options, including some that do not require approaching or touching the seductive character).

Oh, but the feat still causes the target to experience uncontrolled sexual desire for the seductive character, whatever act the target chooses to perform, just as Antagonize causes the target to experience uncontrolled rage. The target isn't just mechanically performing the act. The target is actually experiencing emotions that prompt the act.

That still leaves us with non-magical mind control in six seconds or less.


Even a succubus might need more than 6 seconds to spin her charms with out magic! Though again on me, maybe not, but a pious celibate priest? Or a character who is completely asexual? or Someone in a committed relationship with their significant other right there, that seems like not enough time!


Epic Meepo wrote:


That still leaves us with non-magical mind control in six seconds or less.

And keep in mind that it only lasts for six seconds as well. That significantly limits the practical effects of the seduction as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:


That still leaves us with non-magical mind control in six seconds or less.
And keep in mind that it only lasts for six seconds as well. That significantly limits the practical effects of the seduction as well.

Speak for yourself =)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post and some replies to it. Chill. Also, flag it and move on.

201 to 250 of 636 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do folks think Antagonize is a broken feat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.