Classic reply sir...
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.
The text of fireball doesn't say, "By the way, if the character's up to his shoulders in icy water, he should get a significant save bonus, and maybe even the effects of the Evasion feat or damage reduction, too, since it's so easy to avoid the fire by ducking." That's not because you shouldn't get such a bonus in such circumstances; it's because it's assumed GMs have brains.
Circumstance modifiers apply to every roll made in the game. That the feat doesn't call this out doesn't mean anything more than the fact that the feat doesn't specifically call out that you add your Charisma and favored class bonuses to your ranks in the skill for the check. You're supposed to know that sort of fundamental basic stuff about the game already.
The seduction feat example is also fine. You take it, you're Don Juan, James Bond, or Helen of Troy. Cool. The guy who's been keeping his vow for 60 years clearly gets a circumstance modifier that reduces your chances . . . but if you're good enough, yeah, you might actually be irresistible even to him. Congratulations, you're just that seductive; bards will tell legends of your ability for a thousand years.
The thing about using social skills is that these circumstances apply. If you use Bluff to try and say it wasn't you that stabbed and robbed the merchant when you were found standing over the body with the bloody dagger in one hand and his purse in the other, the guard are perfectly entitled to just not believe you regardless of your Bluff check.
Any PC you use a social skill on can in effect ignore the attempt. At the DM's discretion, so can NPCs. So if Antagonise is a social skill use under these rules, whether it will work or not is really down to DM fiat with the dice roll being a mere guideline.
I'm in the boat that says "Mind affecting = Not your fault." Frankly, no paladin should fall from something like this. The idea of the DM rolling the dice and saying 'you have no powers,' is ludicrous.
The Code and falling should ALWAYS be a Roleplaying action. A Players choice. Not decided by random dice. Whether it's antagonize, charm, or anything else... The paladin has to 'choose' to take these bad actions... and 'mind affecting' and DM dictation takes that 'choice' away.
So its a magical compulsion effect then?
Because in character "He used a feat on me I had no choice!" doesn't make any sense what so ever.
Frankly... yes. There are many, MANY mechanical things in this game that bother me based on the lack of common sense attached to it... This is just one of those ;)
If, if IIIIIIIIFFFFFFF, the DM wants to claim it was 'personal choice'... then at WORST, that Paladin should get a warning before he loses his powers.
Though I'm STILL in the camp that if the PLAYER can't make a choice... then the Paladin shouldn't be held accountable FOR that choice.
Seriously, THAT kind of game is the ultimate of DM Paladin traps. Create a bad situation... FORCE the players choice... Punish FOR that Choice.
The fact that he shouldn't be held responsible because the player had no choice, and yet has no way to explain what the hell happened in character other then "I flew into a rage and attacked someone when they mouthed off.*" is one of the biggest issues I have with this feat.
*But it was nonlethal and only for 6 seconds!
How did they deal with Kender back in the day? I seem to remember THEY had some kind of innate ability to Tick EVERYONE off and make them prime target #1.
Anyone remember what the mechanics were behind that?
How did they deal with Kender back in the day? I seem to remember THEY had some kind of innate ability to Tick EVERYONE off and make them prime target #1.
Anyone remember what the mechanics were behind that?
It made players punch the players with kender characters.
The text of fireball doesn't say, "By the way, if the character's up to his shoulders in icy water, he should get a significant save bonus, and maybe even the effects of the Evasion feat or damage reduction, too, since it's so easy to avoid the fire by ducking." That's not because you shouldn't get such a bonus in such circumstances; it's because it's assumed GMs have brains.
Actually it says exactly that in the Underwater Combat and Improved Cover sections.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, it's true that you often need to apply common sense or the rules break down. But the more you have to do that with a given rule, and the more of a gray area those judgment calls are, the more problematic the rule in question is, and I think that's the issue that people are having here (including myself). That Antagonize outlines specific mechanics for how it works but requires the GM to significantly alter them for any sort of outlier situation (for example using it on the king of the realm, or on the wise and peaceful hermit) is an issue. It relies too much on GM discretion for when and how it works.
A Paladin is not going to fall just for punching someone who provoked him, that is complete BS. Punching someone who is insulting you deity is not an evil act. The feat allows you to roll sense motive to gain a bonus to the roll. This means you are tailoring your words to the opponents weak spots. The Obvious way to anger a paladin is to insult his deity. A paladin of Sarenrae that hears you yell that Sarenrae F**k goats is not going to fall for punching your lights out.
It also takes a willing EVIL act to cause a paladin to fall, not a chaotic one. I would also say that insulting a paladins responding to an insult to his deity is acting in a lawful manner. This is not a modern setting until very recently defending your honor was your right. Even using lethal force when doing so was acceptable.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
A paladin does not have to willingly commit evil to lose powers, and going around and beating unarmed civilians because of anger is definitely not living up to his code of conduct.
Here is the base code for a paladin.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Nowhere in the code does it say that the paladin can't defend his honor when insulted. As a matter of fact it say he must act with honor, which would imply defending his honor. So say you use antagonize to cause me to attack you. Nowhere in the feat does it say that the attack has to be with using a weapon. All it states is you must make an attack on the person. He can throw down the gauntlet to challenge a person. So he "accidently" hits the person in the teeth instead of it landing at his feet.
Here is a quote from the code of Iomedea.
I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
I will suffer death before dishonor
Paladins do not have to be nice guys and take anything anyone wants to dish out. Also to cause someone to attack you have to be using intimidate. That could be considered threatening. A paladin walking down the street counts as an innocent. So you have just threatened an innocent and need to be punished.
I don't think even the intimidate skill used to demoralize is a fear effect.I'm aware. But it would be at my table.Probably a wise ruling, but Antagonize isn't actually a fear effect.Intimidate is normally a Fear effect. Which Paladins are immune to.
I'd rule this the same.
Its not, but the shaken condition, which is applied by demoralize, is a fear effect. So paladins are technically immune to being demoralized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mysterious Stranger:
Running with your gauntlet example we have Billy the Orphan, a lvl 1 CG Rogue who (incorrectly) blames the church of Iomedae along with other authority figures for the death of his parents. Not especially wise, he sees Biff the Paladin (a lvl 4 pally) walking in his part of town and Antagonizes him (calling him a coward who hides in the nearby whorehouse instead of fighting evil), hoping to show all nearby onlookers the hypocrisy and violence inherent in the system. Biff is also not especially wise (+0), making the DC 14 which Billy easily passes. Biff strikes Billy with his gauntlet, rolls a crit, and kills him in a single blow.
Here you have a Paladin who flew into a rage and killed someone who mocked him (not to mention "accidentally" doing that violates "not lying/cheating"). Now, a better idea would be to attack for nonlethal damage. But even then, punching someone because they insulted you is hardly respectful of the law or a just and honorable response to a threatening challenger. A paladin who goes around decking mouthy orphans is not going to stay a paladin.
Mysterious Stranger:
Running with your gauntlet example we have Billy the Orphan, a lvl 1 CG Rogue who (incorrectly) blames the church of Iomedae along with other authority figures for the death of his parents. Not especially wise, he sees Biff the Paladin (a lvl 4 pally) walking in his part of town and Antagonizes him (calling him a coward who hides in the nearby whorehouse instead of fighting evil), hoping to show all nearby onlookers the hypocrisy and violence inherent in the system. Biff is also not especially wise (+0), making the DC 14 which Billy easily passes. Biff strikes Billy with his gauntlet, rolls a crit, and kills him in a single blow.Here you have a Paladin who flew into a rage and killed someone who mocked him (not to mention "accidentally" doing that violates "not lying/cheating"). Now, a better idea would be to attack for nonlethal damage. But even then, punching someone because they insulted you is hardly respectful of the law or a just and honorable response to a threatening challenger. A paladin who goes around decking mouthy orphans is not going to stay a paladin.
Don't worry though my good sir Moglun! For Biff the Paladin (Who hates manure I suspect) can just explain to Iomedae that he had no choice! For Biff used a feat on him!
Was billy the orphan already wounded? Gauntlets show as d3 damage... so Criting and max would be 6? + strength bonus?
I don't see biff 'smite eviling' him... and he's gotta get to -con...
Sooooo I'm sure there are a lot of hypothetical modifiers people can use to boost damage... but it seems kinda far fetched for a 'guantlet slap' to have gotten him from 6 to -8 or so with a single D3 attack...
As a PC I would question all these +1 children with class levels and feats...
On a seperate note... 'Antagonize' is an action with the EXPRESS purpose of drawing an attack. It's a challenge for combat. Hard to claim 'innocent bystander' when you are the one who initiated combat.
Billy the Orphan can annoy, mock and demeant Paladins all he wants, without activating the 'Hit me' feat.
But if he does it's alright so long as Billy doesn't die, or if Billy does die Iomedae will let it slide because she understands it's just a feat and the Paladin had no choice?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that gets me about the Seduction feat is how it leads directly to some of the anecdotes over in the "Vent about bad GM experiences" thread.*
A player that wants to play a truly chaste nun or an exclusively lesbian character or someone that simply and absolutely is not in the mood doesn't warrant a circumstance bonus to resisting some guy with that feat. It simply should not affect them.
Same thing with Antagonize targetting pacifists. Or people that are busy trying to keep loved ones from bleeding out. Or a mother trying carry her baby out of a burning building. Circumstance modifiers don't even begin to cover it.
Stuff like that winds up making PCs and NPCs feel less like people and more like buggy, mood-swingy Skyrim NPCs. That's not healthy for immersion, and personally it doesn't create a world I'd be interested in playing in.
*srsly, Epic Meepo, we've got to keep that one safely locked away where the skeevier sorts discussed in that thread can't find it. I think...I think you've created a monster. It can't be left out in the wild. We're gonna have to do this end-of-Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark style at the very least.**
**The warehouse part, I mean. Not the melty-explody Nazis part.
Billy has a base Con of 10 plus the Young template, for a net Con of 6. As a level one Rogue he ends up with 6 hp, dies at -6, so 12 damage kills him outright. Biff has Str 18, crits for 2d3+8 damage, easily enough to take him out.
If you don't like the Rogue level, he could be a Commoner or Expert instead, making him even weaker. Everyone has feats (unless they're mindless) and levels (or hit dice). And as I said, Billy intended to provoke an attack to make the Paladin look bad. He is not an "innocent bystander", but he is a misguided child with a good alignment, and whether the Paladin actually kills him or just hurt him really badly is beside the point. Regardless, I could come up with a dozen other examples. The specifics aren't important, the idea that you force someone to behave uncharacteristically with a very low DC skill check is.
The thing that gets me about the Seduction feat is how it leads directly to some of the anecdotes over in the "Vent about bad GM experiences" thread.
A player that wants to play a truly chaste nun or an exclusively lesbian character or someone that simply and absolutely is not in the mood doesn't warrant a circumstance bonus to resisting some guy with that feat. It simply should not affect them.
Same thing with Antagonize targetting pacifists. Or people that are busy trying to keep loved ones from bleeding out. Or a mother trying carry her baby out of a burning building. Circumstance modifiers don't even begin to cover it.
Stuff like that winds up making PCs and NPCs feel less like people and more like buggy, mood-swingy Skyrim NPCs. That's not healthy for immersion, and personally it doesn't create a world I'd be interested in playing in.
Here's the thing Mikaze: have you actually ever had a problem with Antagonize involving pacifists, loved ones or mothers?
I think Antagonize is a feat that looks game breaking on paper but is pretty well useless in play.
|
|
Here's the thing Mikaze: have you actually ever had a problem with Antagonize involving pacifists, loved ones or mothers?
I think Antagonize is a feat that looks game breaking on paper but is pretty well useless in play.
No, but this is at least in part due to us locking the feat out of our games. We've known too many players that would use it in a disruptive, character-breaking manner.
And it's not just pacifists, loved ones, and mothers. It's the core of the thing. It's a character swiper with no in-setting justification. And it's another example of something being a feat that doesn't need to be a feat. Like I mentioned upthread, I taunted an enemy into a bad situation when it made sense for my character, and it only worked when it made sense for the target. It wasn't a matter of the NPC having to attack me alone, it was a choice freely made that remained in-character for her.
Again, the Diplomacy portion of the feat is salvagable, and a lot closer to what I'd actually look for in an "aggro" mechanic. If Antagonize was actually split up into two feats, one that was the distracting debuff-unless-you-attack-me and the other that was the you-have-to-attack-me-now, as a player and a GM I would only ever choose the first. I wouldn't want players forced to go OOC, and I wouldn't want the world I'm playing in going OOC either.
The thing that gets me about the Seduction feat is how it leads directly to some of the anecdotes over in the "Vent about bad GM experiences" thread.
A player that wants to play a truly chaste nun or an exclusively lesbian character or someone that simply and absolutely is not in the mood doesn't warrant a circumstance bonus to resisting some guy with that feat. It simply should not affect them.
Same thing with Antagonize targetting pacifists. Or people that are busy trying to keep loved ones from bleeding out. Or a mother trying carry her baby out of a burning building. Circumstance modifiers don't even begin to cover it.
Stuff like that winds up making PCs and NPCs feel less like people and more like buggy, mood-swingy Skyrim NPCs. That's not healthy for immersion, and personally it doesn't create a world I'd be interested in playing in.
Here's the thing Mikaze: have you actually ever had a problem with Antagonize involving pacifists, loved ones or mothers?
I think Antagonize is a feat that looks game breaking on paper but is pretty well useless in play.
I've never been gunned down by a machine gun before, but I'd still be unnerved by my neighbor pointing one at me.
I'm not even a big gun-control guy and I would still be on the phone to the cops!
What's this seduction feat and where is it found?
My group felt that it would be best used to play AoO ping pong; make a 10' space and have the 'taunter' draw the bad guy out 10' to engage and have him provoke AoO's by doing so, could get pretty ugly. Then just follow him all of 5' and put that whack back in next round, or someone in the initial group Taunts and pulls him back so he draws more AoO's.
Simply put, it was a tool to a lot of cheap shots in close combat.
Thanks for that link Mikaze, it was pretty funny :)
Huh. How'd I miss that one?
Seduction is just another use of bluff. :P
I use Seduction on the Queen!
6 seconds later.
"Well your majesty we've already gone this far why stop now?"
And it's another example of something being a feat that doesn't need to be a feat.
THIS is probably the best arguement I've seen AGAINST it, and really the kind of thinking I like to see!! :)
This game has a LOT of feats and rules that I don't think should be quantified and broken to pieces requiring character resources (i.e. Feats) in order to try.
Swinging with whip... Using a gun to shoot a lock.. heck using the hot barrel to cauterize a bleed effect.
these things are such common tropes, the player SHOULD be allowed to 'try them' without being told 'nope. Can't do it without XXXXX.'
That said, while I don't think Antagonize should be a Feat... I also don't think it's 'broken' any more then the other dozen rules that get in the way of logical thought.
Still twitch a little finding out that the 10' constrictor snake provided soft cover to opponents on the other side of it from archers... And that a snake and a person can 'grapple'... but each stay in their own individual squares...
First of all if Billy is so young he probably should not have a feat like antagonize. I don't really see a 6 year old child having the ability to cause anyone to get that angry. Also the feat say that you have to make an attack it does not say that you have to use your full damage. If for some reason Billy did have antagonize Biff could simply slap him for 1pt of non lethal damage. Even Billy can handle this. Biff could also cast Knights Calling on him and make him come to me. If Biff does this then the spell fulfills the requirements and Biff can no longer be affected by any further antagonize from Billy for the next day.
The feat only makes you have to attack or cast a spell on the person. It does not cause you to go into a berserk rage ignoring your alignment or automatically breaking your code. You are still able to respond appropriately based on the target
Billy is also not a legitimate authority figure nor a worthy enemy so does not deserve respect. Again directly from the Iomedia paladin code.
I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to
worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.
Slapping Billy for insulting Biff is showing contempt so is not breaking the code.
Did you also apply the -4 penalty to intimidate due to being smaller than Biff?
Arguments for why the feat works should not be based on loopholes in the Paladin code! That's so far from the point of the paladin scenario that it's round and not sharp and not pointy at all.
Sigh, just, double sigh! Nay! I say thee TRIPPLE SIGH!
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?
Red Antaganonize forces the character to make a willful choice. No other skill does that to players. I don't even like doing it to NPC's because it makes no sense. Diplomacy changes your attitude, but just because you like someone that does not mean you have to help them.
My main beef with this feat is that it forces an action without giving the target a chance to avoid or resist. I'd hate it if it was used on one of my characters. This should have a saving throw for the target.
By having this as a skill check it opens it up for abuse. I thought PF had shifted away from skill check based abilities that negatively effect other creatures because of the exploitive potential. The Bard's Fascinate, Suggestion, Frightening Tune and Deadly Performance abilities don't use performance checks to determine success. They use a Will save that is determined by the Bard's level and Charisma. Why shouldn't this feat be the same?
In its current form I think Antagonise needs a save. Alternatively it could be toned down where instead of forcing an action the target suffers drawbacks for not attacking the antagoniser. These could be penalties to d20 rolls that aren't attacks against the antagoniser and other creatures could get a bonus to attack the target (even if just being flatfooted). There's still significant benefits without making it force an action on another (be it a PC, NPC, or monster). Maybe this form would be too wordy and is the reason why the designers went for the simplier forced action.
I must admit this feat feels very WoW'y to me and I'd prefer my tabletop games not to feel like computer games. In saying that I don't mind designers exploring options for martial battlefield control. I just don't want abilities that force actions without some sort of save or way to avoid it - not in my tabletop games. I don't think the initial version or even the errata version is the ideal form and it needs more work. I think it should have been put out in an open play test before putting it in print.
Completely irrelevant. The discussion here involves Pathfinder published material.Do you think it's a balanced feat as is? If not, why not?I'd probably make it a full round action for balance.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?
Actually it is not irrelevant. String's point was that he wanted to see how much GM Fiat Red was willing to work with. I thought that would have been obvious.
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.
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.
No. I just want non-casters to have nice things that actually make sense. The Seduction feat described above doesn't make...
Good Stuff. :)
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 have not met some of the women I have met. I am pretty laid back so I don't get angry quickly, but I am single...
If your life ever depends on me being angry or seduced first, I suggest you bet on the female trying to seduce me.
First of all if Billy is so young he probably should not have a feat like antagonize. I don't really see a 6 year old child having the ability to cause anyone to get that angry.
...
Did you also apply the -4 penalty to intimidate due to being smaller than Biff?
Billy is 11, he's anti-authority due to his troubled past. He's part of a gang of orphans; his job is to taunt street vendors to incite them to chase while his cohorts steal food from their carts.
One rank, class skill, Charisma mod of +2, human bonus feat is Persuasive. He can take 10 even with the size penalty. Anyway, I just made him a child for fun. He could just as easily be an adult, an old man, whatever. The point you're ignoring is that even at three levels lower he can easily force Biff to attack him, and regardless of whether Biff has sworn an oath to do no violence in the city unless lives are at risk, or is in hot pursuit of a murderer, or is on fire, Biff has no choice but to stop whatever he's doing and slap him.Also the feat say that you have to make an attack it does not say that you have to use your full damage. If for some reason Billy did have antagonize Biff could simply slap him for 1pt of non lethal damage. Even Billy can handle this. Biff could also cast Knights Calling on him and make him come to me. If Biff does this then the spell fulfills the requirements and Biff can no longer be affected by any further antagonize from Billy for the next day.
You can't choose to do minimum damage any more than you can choose to do maximum damage. The closest thing is nonlethal. And again, you're missing the point by arguing the details (and using hypotheticals which support your argument while ignoring alternatives - a Paladin of Sarenrae, for example, or one who abandons his post to attack an enemy that Antagonized). The point is that the Paladin or anyone else, even if his personality, code, or circumstances should make it ridiculous, can be incited to attack by three seconds of mockery.
The feat only makes you have to attack or cast a spell on the person. It does not cause you to go into a berserk rage ignoring your alignment or automatically breaking your code. You are still able to respond appropriately based on the target
"Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage."
So yes, you do go into a rage. And while you can pull your punches in various ways, the fact that you have to instead of just choosing not to attack when it's inappropriate is the problem.
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.The text of fireball doesn't say, "By the way, if the character's up to his shoulders in icy water, he should get a significant save bonus, and maybe even the effects of the Evasion feat or damage reduction, too, since it's so easy to avoid the fire by ducking." That's not because you shouldn't get such a bonus in such circumstances; it's because it's assumed GMs have brains.
Circumstance modifiers apply to every roll made in the game. That the feat doesn't call this out doesn't mean anything more than the fact that the feat doesn't specifically call out that you add your Charisma and favored class bonuses to your ranks in the skill for the check. You're supposed to know that sort of fundamental basic stuff about the game already.
The seduction feat example is also fine. You take it, you're Don Juan, James Bond, or Helen of Troy. Cool. The guy who's been keeping his vow for 60 years clearly gets a circumstance modifier that reduces your chances . . . but if you're good enough, yeah, you might actually be irresistible even to him. Congratulations, you're just that seductive; bards will tell legends of your ability for a thousand years.
Actually the base rules for the game say that if a target has cover they get a bonus to reflex saves. See no house rule needed.
If the fireball is detonated overhead I could see a GM allowing the spell to work as is. It just depends on his idea of how the spell works in fantasy land. Your idea listed above is your personal opinion(GM Fiat).
That is the problem with Antagonize. Every time you use it you must resort to rule 0, according to yourself and Red. Other abilities take care of themselves for the most part.
In short there is a big difference between "I must resort to rule 0 this time", and "I must resort to rule 0 all the time."
I'm in the boat that says "Mind affecting = Not your fault." Frankly, no paladin should fall from something like this. The idea of the DM rolling the dice and saying 'you have no powers,' is ludicrous.
The Code and falling should ALWAYS be a Roleplaying action. A Players choice. Not decided by random dice. Whether it's antagonize, charm, or anything else... The paladin has to 'choose' to take these bad actions... and 'mind affecting' and DM dictation takes that 'choice' away.
So its a magical compulsion effect then?
Because in character "He used a feat on me I had no choice!" doesn't make any sense what so ever.
Frankly... yes. There are many, MANY mechanical things in this game that bother me based on the lack of common sense attached to it... This is just one of those ;)
If, if IIIIIIIIFFFFFFF, the DM wants to claim it was 'personal choice'... then at WORST, that Paladin should get a warning before he loses his powers.
Though I'm STILL in the camp that if the PLAYER can't make a choice... then the Paladin shouldn't be held accountable FOR that choice.
Seriously, THAT kind of game is the ultimate of DM Paladin traps. Create a bad situation... FORCE the players choice... Punish FOR that Choice.
The paladin actively made the choice. He has no defense. It does not even have to be a paladin. It could be a cleric, or an inquisitor also, even though they get more chances to mess up before getting in trouble.
A Paladin is not going to fall just for punching someone who provoked him, that is complete BS. Punching someone who is insulting you deity is not an evil act. The feat allows you to roll sense motive to gain a bonus to the roll. This means you are tailoring your words to the opponents weak spots. The Obvious way to anger a paladin is to insult his deity. A paladin of Sarenrae that hears you yell that Sarenrae F**k goats is not going to fall for punching your lights out.
It also takes a willing EVIL act to cause a paladin to fall, not a chaotic one. I would also say that insulting a paladins responding to an insult to his deity is acting in a lawful manner. This is not a modern setting until very recently defending your honor was your right. Even using lethal force when doing so was acceptable.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
A paladin does not have to willingly commit evil to lose powers, and going around and beating unarmed civilians because of anger is definitely not living up to his code of conduct.
Here is the base code for a paladin.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Nowhere in the code does it say that the paladin can't defend his honor when insulted. As a matter of fact it say he must act with honor, which would imply defending his honor. So say you use antagonize to...
Defending your honor does not mean using violence is ok, and since the paladin is not above the law he could be thrown in jail. There is also the fact that honor may include not being unnecessarily violent, setting the proper example. Punching people in the face, even using nonlethal damage is not exactly looked upon favorably(as honorable) over an insult. If the person throwing the insult is some elderly person the paladin will possibly take a hit(no pun intended) to his reputation, even if his deity does not step in.
A Paladin is not going to fall just for punching someone who provoked him, that is complete BS. Punching someone who is insulting you deity is not an evil act. The feat allows you to roll sense motive to gain a bonus to the roll. This means you are tailoring your words to the opponents weak spots. The Obvious way to anger a paladin is to insult his deity. A paladin of Sarenrae that hears you yell that Sarenrae F**k goats is not going to fall for punching your lights out.
It also takes a willing EVIL act to cause a paladin to fall, not a chaotic one. I would also say that insulting a paladins responding to an insult to his deity is acting in a lawful manner. This is not a modern setting until very recently defending your honor was your right. Even using lethal force when doing so was acceptable.
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see atonement), as appropriate.
A paladin does not have to willingly commit evil to lose powers, and going around and beating unarmed civilians because of anger is definitely not living up to his code of conduct.
Here is the base code for a paladin.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.Nowhere in the code does it say that the paladin can't defend his honor when insulted. As a matter of fact it say he must act with honor, which would imply defending his honor. So say you use antagonize to...
Once again the feat is not telling you to use intimidate as written in the skill section. You are just using intimidate's modifiers to goad someone.
"You scared to fight Paladin. You are worthless just like your father, coward."
That is more like how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, maybe this is the test of the starstone! It uses Antognize on you and you have to find a way to resist! Also it has 38 ranks in intimidate and skill focus(Intimidate).
Cayden Caliean was to drunk to respond, so thats how he got in. Unknown about the rest.
Was billy the orphan already wounded? Gauntlets show as d3 damage... so Criting and max would be 6? + strength bonus?
I don't see biff 'smite eviling' him... and he's gotta get to -con...
Sooooo I'm sure there are a lot of hypothetical modifiers people can use to boost damage... but it seems kinda far fetched for a 'guantlet slap' to have gotten him from 6 to -8 or so with a single D3 attack...
As a PC I would question all these +1 children with class levels and feats...
On a seperate note... 'Antagonize' is an action with the EXPRESS purpose of drawing an attack. It's a challenge for combat. Hard to claim 'innocent bystander' when you are the one who initiated combat.
Billy the Orphan can annoy, mock and demeant Paladins all he wants, without activating the 'Hit me' feat.
He could bleed out if he had a con score of 11 or less.
The thing that gets me about the Seduction feat is how it leads directly to some of the anecdotes over in the "Vent about bad GM experiences" thread.
A player that wants to play a truly chaste nun or an exclusively lesbian character or someone that simply and absolutely is not in the mood doesn't warrant a circumstance bonus to resisting some guy with that feat. It simply should not affect them.
Same thing with Antagonize targetting pacifists. Or people that are busy trying to keep loved ones from bleeding out. Or a mother trying carry her baby out of a burning building. Circumstance modifiers don't even begin to cover it.
Stuff like that winds up making PCs and NPCs feel less like people and more like buggy, mood-swingy Skyrim NPCs. That's not healthy for immersion, and personally it doesn't create a world I'd be interested in playing in.
Here's the thing Mikaze: have you actually ever had a problem with Antagonize involving pacifists, loved ones or mothers?
I think Antagonize is a feat that looks game breaking on paper but is pretty well useless in play.
"Broken" is a term that can mean OP, and it can mean just a terribly written ability.
For the most part we were discussing the 2nd definition, not that the 1st one, does not have merit.
The feat RAW and RAI kills immersion, and forces the character to make decisions he would not make, in a manner that does not make sense.
The feat is far from useless in gameplay. I have seen bad players make terrible decisions at the table. This feat can make a good player's character make some of those bad decisions, such as leaving cover for no reason, or attacking the wrong enemy as far as tactics go.
First of all if Billy is so young he probably should not have a feat like antagonize. I don't really see a 6 year old child having the ability to cause anyone to get that angry. Also the feat say that you have to make an attack it does not say that you have to use your full damage. If for some reason Billy did have antagonize Biff could simply slap him for 1pt of non lethal damage. Even Billy can handle this. Biff could also cast Knights Calling on him and make him come to me. If Biff does this then the spell fulfills the requirements and Biff can no longer be affected by any further antagonize from Billy for the next day.
The feat only makes you have to attack or cast a spell on the person. It does not cause you to go into a berserk rage ignoring your alignment or automatically breaking your code. You are still able to respond appropriately based on the target
Billy is also not a legitimate authority figure nor a worthy enemy so does not deserve respect. Again directly from the Iomedia paladin code.
I will never refuse a challenge from an equal. I will give honor to
worthy enemies, and contempt to the rest.Slapping Billy for insulting Biff is showing contempt so is not breaking the code.
Did you also apply the -4 penalty to intimidate due to being smaller than Biff?
Billy could be 14, and still have the young template. You also keep getting stuck on numbers. I can tell you that we can make the numbers work. The idea is the problem here. Give Billy skill focus(intimidate) since has had to live on the streets since his parents died. That -4 is now only a -1.
If we are going to assume attacks include any attack, just as we are going to give "harm" a broad definition then people can just game the system. If I am behind cover I just throw something over the top of the wall if I am behind a wall. Now since I can't see the person I probably won't hit them, but I did attack them like the feat says I have to do.
At the very least though the feat can cause you to waste actions with no in-game explanation.
Really no matter how you look at it, the feat needs a rewrite or to be done away with.
A broad definition of harm makes it useless, and so does attack. Using the conventional terms makes it problematic. Requiring GM Fiat for every use of it also makes it look bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It works against 1 foe and only provokes aggro or hampers them a little. A ton of spells do much better job of this?
Please review the feat as it is CURRENTLY written before posting. It seems to have been reworked not so long ago?
As currently written (post errata), the feat would be a must have for every petty crook and street gang in a city.
A) Get the kid in the gang to learn it, put him 55 feet from an open market vendor. Have him yell an insult at the vendor after his companions move within 10 feet. Then when the vendor runs away from his stall to attack the boy, grab his stuff and run. The boy runs too, having his move action remaining and ready to run when the guy get's close. Also works on people that sell things like glass, or jewelry, or anything else valuable.
B) The thieves guild has very fast runners who all know this feat, and they taunt guards around shops and banks to lure them away from their watch and into ambushes, always a double move away.
C) Low level casters know the feat, and use Ventriloquism to start bar fights, riots, and other commotions to cover thefts. Plus they don't get attacked, the guy they made it sound like said the insulting phrases get's attacked.
Yeah, banned it hard when it first came out, read the errata, never looked back.
Alternatively it could be toned down where instead of forcing an action the target suffers drawbacks for not attacking the antagoniser.
That would be better. The diplomacy version is ok because there are penalties for not attacking the antagoniser.
It works against 1 foe and only provokes aggro or hampers them a little. A ton of spells do much better job of this?
Please review the feat as it is CURRENTLY written before posting. It seems to have been reworked not so long ago?
As currently written (post errata), the feat would be a must have for every petty crook and street gang in a city.
A) Get the kid in the gang to learn it, put him 55 feet from an open market vendor. Have him yell an insult at the vendor after his companions move within 10 feet. Then when the vendor runs away from his stall to attack the boy, grab his stuff and run. The boy runs too, having his move action remaining and ready to run when the guy get's close. Also works on people that sell things like glass, or jewelry, or anything else valuable.
B) The thieves guild has very fast runners who all know this feat, and they taunt guards around shops and banks to lure them away from their watch and into ambushes, always a double move away.
Yeah... when you put it THAT way... it almost sounds like a Trope of every movie involving young thieves ;)
I think 90% of peoples problems with this is that they don't specify that it is a 'combat' feat. It's designed to pull aggro in a fight... most of the complaints are about what happens when people walk down the street innocently.
If they specified that it could only be used 'once combat starts' It'd be fine.
Antagonize (post-errata) is weak for its intended purpose.
But it's extremelly broken when it comes to role playing. It effectivelly makes a role playing choice for another character. I can't remember another feat that does that.
It's not about how powerful it is. It's about what its power does.
|
My version of Antagonize would force a Will save on the target, DC10 + Half ranks in relevant skill + Cha. If it failed the save, the target would take a penalty to all actions that do not involve harming the antagonizer. Each such action would reduce the penalty by a certain amount. The antagonizer could continue to take actions to increase the penalty each round.