A penalty is reasonable. Just because someone is determined to not be violent, have sex, and so on, that would not mean a desire will never be there. Being able to bring up that desire is something I can accept with suspension of belief, but violating that code is well beyond my suspension of belief, and it also leaves the choice with the character.
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...
First of all if Billy is 11 then the young template is not appropriate. That template is meant for a small child. It states your size is one smaller. For a human that means probably not more than 3 foot tall. In game terms a 15 year old is a full adult. So in 4 years Billy grows 3 feet?
Antagonize has two ways to use it. One uses diplomacy to cause someone to take penalties if they attack anyone else. The other is to use intimidate to cause them to attack you. You still have to use the appropriate skill.
Intimidate: This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
Since Billy probably not very good at the displays of prowess that leaves verbal threats. The threats also have to be something serious. So instead of Billy sticking out his tongue as taunting Biff. Billy is now saying we have your sister and if you don't do as I say we will kill her. Billy at this point is a not an innocent child but a criminal.
As to not doing full damage true you can't chose the roll but nothing in the rules says you have to use your full STR bonus for everything. So my damage went for 2d3+8 on a critical to 2d3. Even if Billy was a six year old that is still only 6 points of non lethal damage. While it would put him unconscious it is not going to do any permanent damage. After Biff knocks out Billy he can turn him over to the town watch for rehabilitation. So instead of killing an innocent child I have captured a known criminal and turned him over to the legitimate authority. No break of the code here.
While you fly into a rage it does not state that it is a BESERK rage. You are required to only to make a melee or ranged attack, or cast a spell that targets the person. If you can't attack or doing so will harm you the effect ends. Does not sound like a full all out berserk rage to me. You are still in control of how you attack the person. I would also say that a paladin losing his powers would be considered being harmed.
I am not saying that Billy can't get Biff to attack him. I am just saying that he can respond in a manner that will not cause him to lose his paladin abilities.
A penalty is reasonable. Just because someone is determined to not be violent, have sex, and so on, that would not mean a desire will never be there. Being able to bring up that desire is something I can accept with suspension of belief, but violating that code is well beyond my suspension of belief, and it also leaves the choice with the character.
Agreed. I really like the Diplomacy use of Antagonize. I even think it could be more powerful (maybe only need a swift action to use).
I am not saying that Billy can't get Biff to attack him. I am just saying that he can respond in a manner that will not cause him to lose his paladin abilities.
The bolded part is the important part to the discussion, the rest is just fluff for a particular example and does not mater. Arguing he wouldn't lose his paladin powers is like arguing "Why is a pregnant bard fighting an orc?" in a previous example. It completely misses the point and is but a distraction at best.
I would also say that a paladin losing his powers would be considered being harmed.....
I am not saying that Billy can't get Biff to attack him. I am just saying that he can respond in a manner that will not cause him to lose his paladin abilities.
So all anyone has to do is find a way that the feat would be harmful in any form, to say it does not work, but if they can't then they get to choose the attack.
As an example let's say the party cleric is down, and the NPC wizard intends to finish the cleric off**. The party fighter uses antagonize. The wizard stills want to kill the cleric, but is now affected by this feat. Would you say it is ok to launch a fireball to take care of the cleric and still meet the requirement of attacking the fighter?
**Feel free to make the wizard the PC if you wish.
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.
Again, demonstrating only that it was badly thought out.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might as well put my money where my mouth is.
Antagonize
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.Benefit: As a standard action, you may force a creature to make a Will save. (DC = 10 + half your level + your Cha modifier) As a swift action, you may make a DC 20 Intimidate or Diplomacy check to increase the save DC by 1/4 your character level (minimum 1). On a failed save, the creature takes a -4 penalty to all attack rolls that do not involve you, and incur 20% spell failure on any spells that do not target you. On subsequent rounds, as a standard action, you may increase the penalty and spell failure chance by -4 and 20% respectively.
The target may reduce the penalty by 2 and the failure chance by 10% by taking action against you. (Attacking you, moving towards you, casting a spell at you, etc.) Otherwise the effects last for one minute per character level. If you use this feat on a target that is already antagonized by another creature, the penalties do not stack, and the target no longer suffers the penalties on actions directed toward you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want something to pull aggro during a fight (Which by the way, this phrase all on it's own makes me want to ban the feat for being too much a MUD or MMO concept), then this is what Antagonize should have been.
Antagonize
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making hostile creatures focus on you.Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make hostile creatures focus on you. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing 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 or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn (This check also, if successful, will alert you if they are not hostile enough for this feat to work). The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For a number of turns equal to your Charisma modifier, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: The creature is angered by your insults. The creature takes a -2 penalty to it's AC and attack rolls against any creature other than you as it's anger makes it lose it's focus in battle. This penalty lasts a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks you in any way that hurts you (be it a melee attack, spell, or ranged attack). Non-lethal attacks, and spells that hamper you (such as blindness or draining effects) are considered to hurt you for this effect. If the creature cannot possibly attack you (for example, it has no ranged weapons and you are on a wall) then the penalties are halved.
Special: A creature may be targeted by this feat more than once, by either the same creature, or multiple creatures. Each subsequent use of this feat within a 24 hour period on the target increase the user's DC for either the Diplomacy or Intimidate check by +5.
There, this is a feat that works only against things that don't like you (which gets around the whole kid vs paladin, or little old pacifist woman vs dragon, etc), it only imposes penalties. It spells out that you can't keep doing it over and over at the same easy DC, you eventually can't come up with new insults that enrage someone. It still draws the person into attacking you, and provides significant, but not outrageous, game mechanic effects.
The Spellfailure might be better represented as an increase DC to cast defensively or concentration check. But both of those version of the feat fixes everything I disliked about it.
I think the DC to concentrate on the spell is a good idea. For the cleric who is healing his buddy he still has to make a concentration check, but he does not have to leave his buddy unattended.
The following assumes--"This penalty lasts a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier."
I am not writing the following as it would appear in a rulebook, but as an early draft for the other devs(Assuming I was a dev) to look at.
The concentration check could be 15+spell level+charisma modifier. Each round after the first that you(the antagonizer) are not attacked the DC increases by another 5 for the concentration check.
What this does is make it harder for them to ignore you each round.
It makes sense too, a Cleric or spell caster would have a hard time concentrating on his spell if someone was talking about flaying their loved ones alive then defiling their corpses.
Such a cleric *might* even choose to fire off a blasting spell instead of healing their friends, but that would be a choice by the player of said cleric.
Mysterious Stranger:
You're still missing the point by arguing the details. It doesn't matter if Billy is young, or just has a low Con, or doesn't get killed by the blow. It was just an example. Even if you can prove definitively that this example doesn't work, I can come up with 100 more. The general case is what matters.
Antagonize uses the Intimidate skill. It does not mean that you are actually intimidating the opponent, rather you are using "biting remarks or hurtful words" so the enemy "flies into a rage".
As to not losing his Paladin abilities in that particular example, an evil spectator uses it while Biff is in a duel with a villain with the lives of innocent hostages in the balance. Biff chases his antagonizer and forfeits the duel by stepping out of the ring, and the hostages are immediately executed. Or something completely different; I could do this all day. When you can take control of someone's character, the possibilities are nearly endless.
Meepo's feat seems good. Well at least the target can shoot Billy with a crossbow instead of chase him.
Antagonize uses the Intimidate skill. It does not mean that you are actually intimidating the opponent, rather you are using "biting remarks or hurtful words" so the enemy "flies into a rage".
And this is what is wrong with the feat: it controls your character with no regard (in the RAW) to your character's nature. A zen master is not going to be as easy to drive into a rage as a proud barbarian, but by RAW there is no difference between the two. There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
Worse, this is not mind control. The feat description makes clear that they want to hit the Antognizer. This is taking control of what the character does or does not want to do away from them. With magical mind control, the character's basic drives and desires may be overridden, but are still present. This feat says no, the player has no control over what his character wants to do. To all intents and purposes, they become an NPC for one round, and then the player has to deal with the fall-out.
I can't think of anything that would tick off players more than this - not even destroying all their loot.
|
Antagonize uses the Intimidate skill. It does not mean that you are actually intimidating the opponent, rather you are using "biting remarks or hurtful words" so the enemy "flies into a rage".And this is what is wrong with the feat: it controls your character with no regard (in the RAW) to your character's nature. A zen master is not going to be as easy to drive into a rage as a proud barbarian, but by RAW there is no difference between the two. There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
Worse, this is not mind control. The feat description makes clear that they want to hit the Antognizer. This is taking control of what the character does or does not want to do away from them. With magical mind control, the character's basic drives and desires may be overridden, but are still present. This feat says no, the player has no control over what his character wants to do. To all intents and purposes, they become an NPC for one round, and then the player has to deal with the fall-out.
I can't think of anything that would tick off players more than this - not even destroying all their loot.
Ever heard of dominate spells? Heck, I can use that to force your Paladin into dropping his pants and attempt to sexually assault a nearby child, I guess that could tick off a player more than having to spend one round attacking somebody they didn't want to. Sure, he gets an extra save, but guess what, I'm one of those DC 30+ Wizards that are so easy to build and pull off without any major munchkinism. You're screwed, now let's hope your church buys the mind control story.
But yeah, I know, it's fine because it's magic. Magical effects get a free get out of the jail cards, anything that isn't magic instantly falls under obsessive scrutiny of Caster Fans who judge whether the effect is realistic and plausible enough not to be considered an attempt to step on caster toes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Never spent much time around kids, huh?
By the time they hit 11 or 12, I'm pretty sure all kids get Antagonize as a free feat. Just for being brats..er...kids.|
|
But yeah, I know, it's fine because it's magic. Magical effects get a free get out of the jail cards, anything that isn't magic instantly falls under obsessive scrutiny of Caster Fans who judge whether the effect is realistic and plausible enough not to be considered an attempt to step on caster toes.
Meanwhile, there's a sorcerer/wizard spell to stomp all over just about EVERY single niche that should belong to other classes. The only real holdout is healing magic...and I think there are a few minor examples of that in the campaign setting material (I seem to remember a spell called arcane healing). Oh, and these spells often are just as effective, if not moreso, than a character of the same level whose class is built around filling that niche.
|
|
Ever heard of dominate spells? Heck, I can use that to force your Paladin into dropping his pants and attempt to sexually assault a nearby child, I guess that could tick off a player more than having to spend one round attacking somebody they didn't want to. Sure, he gets an extra save, but guess what, I'm one of those DC 30+ Wizards that are so easy to build and pull off without any major munchkinism. You're screwed, now let's hope your church buys the mind control story.But yeah, I know, it's fine because it's magic. Magical effects get a free get out of the jail cards, anything that isn't magic instantly falls under obsessive scrutiny of Caster Fans who judge whether the effect is realistic and plausible enough not to be considered an attempt to step on caster toes.
If a player was worry about dominate or any other will save mind effecting spell enough, he can build his paladin to be practically immune to will save spells. He can start as a dwarf, grab steel soul, dip a level of monk, grab iron will and improve iron will and grab the trait for +2 compulsion. Now the player gets 3 rolls to save, with a massive bonus too.
How can a player if he wants to counter antagonize build his character to defend against it?
Your argument is a non-argument. It's along the way of saying "archer Fighters aren't an issue, because as a GM I can have every NPC run around with wind wall" or "Witch slumber hex is a non-issue because we can run an entire party of elves and half-elves". Your arguments assumes things that just don't happen, unless somebody has a rampant obsession with being hit with Will saves.
There are dozens of spells and abilities that can screw things over far more that Antagonize ever will. Sleep-susceptible creatures vs. Witch with slumber hex. Low ref save melee vs. grease. Melee vs. flying of any sort. Archers vs. wind wall. Rogues vs. concealment of any sort. Etc etc etc.
However, it is Antagonize that makes people claw their eyes in terror. Go figure.
Ever heard of dominate spells?Antagonize uses the Intimidate skill. It does not mean that you are actually intimidating the opponent, rather you are using "biting remarks or hurtful words" so the enemy "flies into a rage".And this is what is wrong with the feat: it controls your character with no regard (in the RAW) to your character's nature. A zen master is not going to be as easy to drive into a rage as a proud barbarian, but by RAW there is no difference between the two. There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
Worse, this is not mind control. The feat description makes clear that they want to hit the Antognizer. This is taking control of what the character does or does not want to do away from them. With magical mind control, the character's basic drives and desires may be overridden, but are still present. This feat says no, the player has no control over what his character wants to do. To all intents and purposes, they become an NPC for one round, and then the player has to deal with the fall-out.
I can't think of anything that would tick off players more than this - not even destroying all their loot.
Yes I have. The thing is, the Dominate spells do not change what your character wants to do. When pushed to do something against your nature you get extra saving throws, and bonuses on those saving throws.
Antagonize takes no account of what your character's nature is, and allows no saving throw. What is more, it controls what you want to do.
Heck, I can use that to force your Paladin into dropping his pants and attempt to sexually assault a nearby child, I guess that could tick off a player more than having to spend one round attacking somebody they didn't want to.
You'd have a hard job getting that to work through an Aura of Resolve. Yet despite being so resolved that no power of domination can control them, said paladin flies into a rage when some kid goes "Neener neener neener!" at them.
Sure, he gets an extra save, but guess what, I'm one of those DC 30+ Wizards that are so easy to build and pull off without any major munchkinism. You're screwed, now let's hope your church buys the mind control story.
No need, Aura of Resolve by the time you get your DC up that high. Plus there are other methods of blocking for other characters - add a cloak of resistance, high scores, circumstance bonuses and that DC30 save isn't so tough any more.
But yeah, I know, it's fine because it's magic.
No, it's OK because the mechanics take other factors into account like circumstance, nature, strength of will and so on. You can rave on about magic this and magic that as much as you like, magic is not the point. Bad mechanics and lack of saves are the point.
If Antagonize allows a saving throw, took into account that certain character types are less likely to be effected than others, took into account nature of the target and the antagonizer, and allowed the target to vent their rage in their own way, then it would be fine, but it doesn't and that's the problem with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a full round of "sticks and stones", counter antagonize?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does a full round of "sticks and stones", counter antagonize?
Why not? I have no problem with Antagonize throwing people off their stride, wasting a round or whatever, it's the automatic "You WANT to attack this person!" rule that's broken to me.
Instead of completely rewriting the feat. Just add a single sentence to it. After the "the target must spend a round trying to attack the person using this feat." Add "If they choose not to attack the person who used this feat, they take -2 to all rolls for the next round."
That's an improvement. The target number for the success could be amended to 10 + HD + Will save. Not unreasonable considering that you can boost a skill more than you can boost the other factors.
Does a full round of "sticks and stones", counter antagonize?Why not? I have no problem with Antagonize throwing people off their stride, wasting a round or whatever, it's the automatic "You WANT to attack this person!" rule that's broken to me.
Exactly. If it had a save and as listed was a compulsion effect, it'd maybe be acceptable.
My original post was in response to someone claiming that with Antagonize anyone could instantly cause a paladin to fall. That is utter BS. My arguments fall into two different categories. First is with the code itself. The second is with the mechanics of the feat.
Some people seem to think that if a paladin sneezes wrong that he falls from grace. It takes a deliberately evil action willingly done to cause this. Another way he can fall is if his alignment changes from Lawful Good to anything else. It takes a lot more than a single action to change an alignment so a single chaotic or neutral act does not cause a fall. Most people are also seem to take the idea if a particular action is not good it has to be evil. Most actions are actually neutral.
People are also going on the assumption that if a paladin breaks any law that causes an instant fall. Again this is not the case. If that were the case then there would be no paladins in any lands dominated by evil. Let's say Cheliax wants to get rid of all those pesky paladins all they have to do is to pass a law forbidding the worship of any deity but Amodeous and every paladin in Cheliax instantly falls. I don't think so. A paladin follow the laws of his deity above all else.
As to the mechanics of the feat keep in mind there are two ways to use the feat. One is by using diplomacy to distract the target and the other by using intimidate to cause the target to attack you. That means more than just choosing which skill to roll. It means you are using the appropriate taunts to get the reaction you want. The kid yelling Neener neener neener is not going to get the same result as threatening to kill your little sister. The way I would say the feat is used is to ask the player what they are saying and then the GM choses the appropriate skill. Come on this is a role playing game so can we have some role playing. changing the wording a little to take into account most of us do not have many ranks in diplomacy and especially intimidate.
The second thing is whether someone under antagonize is acting under their own free will. To me this is cut and dry. If a person is acting under their own free will the GM can't over rule their actions. So in the case of Billy and Biff this is not free will. GM to Biff's player a 11 year old kid call out you are a coward just like your father. Player to GM I ignore him and continue on. GM no you have to attack him. Not free will. Will he take a hit to his reputation maybe, will he fall from grace NO.
Is the feat overpowered maybe but I think this is more of how people interpret it. I think the feat can easily be abused.
Instead of completely rewriting the feat. Just add a single sentence to it. After the "the target must spend a round trying to attack the person using this feat." Add "If they choose not to attack the person who used this feat, they take -2 to all rolls for the next round."
That would make the feat next to worthless. Why not use a regular Intimidate check, which has an easier DC and a potentially longer duration of the "-2 to everything" penalty?
The penalty would have to be at least -4, perhaps with additional -2's for each 5 by which the check beat the DC.
|
The penalty is the same penalty for the "Flustered" condition given by using the diplomacy angle.
And the intimidate skill causes a target to be "shaken". And that is only a -2 to all rolls for the length of time it lasts.
And a regular intimate check does not have an easier DC, it has the exact same one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's lazy roleplaying, and it engenders the whole video-game mentality of "I'll taunt while the wizard nukes". Even worse, it encourages the kind of roleplaying I try to discourage.
If the fighter wants to taunt his opponents, let him do so in-character.
If the thief wants to antagonize the town paladin, let him do so.
I don't want a mechanism in the game that obligates me to play TO the player's antagonism because it's a Feat.
-2 to rolls penalties penalize only those who rely on d20 rolls in combat, read: non-casters. Casters are still fully functional.
If it forced a concentration check on the casters to cast their spells (at a suitable penalty, too) would that make you feel better about them not being forced to abandon their safe place at the back of the party and try and assault armoured juggernauts with a dagger?
|
|
-2 to rolls penalties penalize only those who rely on d20 rolls in combat, read: non-casters. Casters are still fully functional.If it forced a concentration check on the casters to cast their spells (at a suitable penalty, too) would that make you feel better about them not being forced to abandon their safe place at the back of the party and try and assault armoured juggernauts with a dagger?
You are aware of the errated Antagonize text where the subject is forced to target the antagonizer with a spell? The feat doesn't anymore require casters to go knife fighting? Or are you arguing the feat without knowing what it currently says, because that would be turbo hilarious in itself.
And the intimidate skill causes a target to be "shaken". And that is only a -2 to all rolls for the length of time it lasts.
Yes, but your suggested fix means the feat does one of two things:
1: the target attacks you at full power, if that's what it wants.
2: the target acts as if intimidated normally for 1 round.
So by your version, the feat gives you a short-duration intimidate effect, which the target can choose to forego by attacking you. That makes it worse than a regular intimidate check.
And a regular intimate check does not have an easier DC, it has the exact same one.
Yes, sorry. That part of my post was in response to Dabbler's post below yours.
You are aware of the errated Antagonize text where the subject is forced to target the antagonizer with a spell? The feat doesn't anymore require casters to go knife fighting? Or are you arguing the feat without knowing what it currently says, because that would be turbo hilarious in itself.-2 to rolls penalties penalize only those who rely on d20 rolls in combat, read: non-casters. Casters are still fully functional.If it forced a concentration check on the casters to cast their spells (at a suitable penalty, too) would that make you feel better about them not being forced to abandon their safe place at the back of the party and try and assault armoured juggernauts with a dagger?
I know what the current feat says, I was just stealing a page from your posting-style book. I think it worked as well for me as it does for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But yeah, I know, it's fine because it's magic. Magical effects get a free get out of the jail cards, anything that isn't magic instantly falls under obsessive scrutiny of Caster Fans who judge whether the effect is realistic and plausible enough not to be considered an attempt to step on caster toes.
Flawed reasoning (and trolling to boot). A fighter cannot use mundane means to dominate a paladin into doing wrong without it completely destroying the game's verisimilitude.
You are essentially arguing that people should be able to fly without magic or machines. Once that happens, there is nothing to relate to any more, as the game's mundane elements are no longer representative* of what we know of in reality.
* I say "representative" because I'm well aware that not everything can be perfectly duplicated/made perfectly realistic within the rules.
Furthermore no domination effect causes the target to choose of his own free will to act a certain way. Thats what this does.
Furthermore being magic or super natural DOES give it some about of logic in universe. Where as this has none. See the pregnant bard example and her attempt to explain why she did what she did to her party's fighter for further details.
just because it's not magic doesn't mean it's not supernatural.
i would like to see non-casters get their own supernatural gifts.
mostly the ability to perform feats from anime, wuxia movies, and mythology.
just because it's not magic doesn't mean it's not supernatural.
But it doesn't mean it is, either.
i would like to see non-casters get their own supernatural gifts.
mostly the ability to perform feats from anime, wuxia movies, and mythology.
No argument from me there, however that doesn't detract from the fact that Antagonize is badly designed and implemented.
There may very well be a need and a market for supernatural non-magical feats. But this feat is neither, its six seconds of insults.
Antagonize uses the Intimidate skill. It does not mean that you are actually intimidating the opponent, rather you are using "biting remarks or hurtful words" so the enemy "flies into a rage".And this is what is wrong with the feat: it controls your character with no regard (in the RAW) to your character's nature. A zen master is not going to be as easy to drive into a rage as a proud barbarian, but by RAW there is no difference between the two. There is no real accounting in the feat for willpower, self-discipline or philosophy.
Worse, this is not mind control. The feat description makes clear that they want to hit the Antognizer. This is taking control of what the character does or does not want to do away from them. With magical mind control, the character's basic drives and desires may be overridden, but are still present. This feat says no, the player has no control over what his character wants to do. To all intents and purposes, they become an NPC for one round, and then the player has to deal with the fall-out.
I can't think of anything that would tick off players more than this - not even destroying all their loot.
Ever heard of dominate spells? Heck, I can use that to force your Paladin into dropping his pants and attempt to sexually assault a nearby child, I guess that could tick off a player more than having to spend one round attacking somebody they didn't want to. Sure, he gets an extra save, but guess what, I'm one of those DC 30+ Wizards that are so easy to build and pull off without any major munchkinism. You're screwed, now let's hope your church buys the mind control story.
But yeah, I know, it's fine because it's magic. Magical effects get a free get out of the jail cards, anything that isn't magic instantly falls under obsessive scrutiny of Caster Fans who judge whether the effect is realistic and plausible enough not to be considered an attempt to step on caster toes.
Not even a valid comparison. Dominate makes you do it, but at least you can says guys I was dominated. I did not want to. With the feat, you(the character) actually want to do it. You lose the ability to decide. Dominate does not take away your ability to decide. You can decide to not attack the party wizard, but dominate makes you do it, even if you don't want to. It is also not realistic, and at least saying "its magic" can make it more plausible.
My original post was in response to someone claiming that with Antagonize anyone could instantly cause a paladin to fall. That is utter BS.
No it isn't and your solution is entirely dependent upon GM Fiat. I am not saying it will always make a pally fall, but it is possible, not that I think that argument is even needed to show how hard the feat fails.
How is saying that you need to use the right skill to get the right result GM fiat. So what you are saying I can use either skill to get either result. What I suggested is that the appropriate skill be used for the correct result. I think reasonable for the GM to want to know what the player using the feat says rather than just saying I use Antagonize.
As to free will I will stand by what I said. When the player decides to do something that is free will. When the GM takes over the character and causes him to do something against his will whether by magic or by feat free will does not exist. A lower level paladin under the influence of a domination spell does not fall, because his actions are not under his control. If the feat is going to duplicate that condition or create a similar effect the same rules should apply. Notice in the code it says willingly, not while not under magical control.
In the real world there are plenty of circumstances where someone being forced to act in a certain manner is a valid legal defense. I don't think that anyone on these boards think magic is real outside the game so to state that the only if magic is not involved it is not free will is nonsense.
The feat as originally written was broken beyond doubt, but it is a little better now. I think it still needs some clarification to avoid some of the situation on this thread.
@Mysterious Stranger
You bring up an apple/oranges comparison. Yes, there are things in reality that are valid defenses, and those that are not.
A) I'm sorry your honor, I didn't want to punch the 14yo girl in the nose, but that guy over there (points to the defense table) pointed a gun at her and said if I didn't punch her, he was going to shoot her.
B) I'm sorry your honor, I didn't want to punch the 14yo girl in the nose, but she said I had a tiny member, and I just had to. She had it coming, you see that right? She antagonized me into doing it!
Which of those two things is going to keep you out of jail?
My point was there are thing besides magic that can interfere with free will. The way the feat is currently written it takes away free will. This means that a paladin has not broken his code.
I would say that the person using your first example had used intimidate to antagonize. The second would be an example of using diplomacy. In the first case the paladin would attack the person, the second he would be pissed off and distracted, but would not attack her.
A Paladins fall should be a major event in a campaign, not a skill roll made by someone else. Now if after the feat has ended a paladin continues to act in an inappropriate manner that is another thing.
The feat DOESNT take away free wil. The Character makes a willful choice to attack the target. Nothing in the mechanics or fluff implies otherwise.
It takes away player agency, but thats not the same thing.
So if someone uses this feat on my Paladin I can chose to ignore it and not attack him?
You completely ignored the two setups. Yes, the first one, person A intimidated person B into attacking Person C. That one, you got correct, and the judge would not send the poor schmuck B to jail.
You then changed B to make your argument look better. There was no diplomacy, a little girl said something insulting to a grown man, and he punched her in the nose. Then he said she had it coming. No, there was no defense, and the guy would go to jail for assault and child abuse.
And I think that a Paladin's fall should be because the Paladin's player made decisions that caused him to fall. This feat, unfortunately, as it's written, causes it because it makes you decide to do something. That is, at the foundation, why it's broken, and no amount of you trying to wish that away is going to change it. The feat, as written, is borked and bad game design and bad roleplaying. If you want to force someone to act a certain way, then use something that forces your will on them, not some skill check that makes them choose to behave a different way.
So if someone uses this feat on my Paladin I can chose to ignore it and not attack him?
No you as a player can not.
That does not change the fact that in game your Paladin decided to smack the person using the feat on him.