| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people don't like the idea of a mechanic to govern "aggro". The very word makes some pen-and-paper purist's skin crawl. If that's you, move along. There's nothing for you here. I totally relate to your position.
I don't feel a pressing need to include an aggro mechanic in Pathfinder, but someone did, and that's why we have Antagonize. We won't be discussing the issues around Antagonize here (there are like 1000 threads for that) — but it is important to carry some lessons away from that feat for our present task. Please do not defend or attack the Antagonize feat in this thread. I welcome criticism of the new rule presented here, though.
Like diplomacy, this feat should make special allowance for NPC interactions with PCs.
Goading your opponent is something anyone should be able to attempt — the Antagonize Feat should make you better at Goading.
The feat DC was poorly scaled in my opinion. Because it was a function of HD and Wisdom only, many characters with defenses against manipulation weren't able to use those defenses. Only really really high wisdom stood a chance. I think a fixed goad mechanic should use a traditional will save.
This is the biggest issue, IMO. There should be an option other than attacking the opponent, so that we can avoid suicidal and potentially ruinous behavior, especially in non-combat scenarios. Only sociopaths would lash out with physical violence at insult — and not even they if the violence was predicted to be ineffectual. Yes, many adventurers are sociopaths... but many NPCs are not adventurers.
This is just a first crack at it, I'm at work and a little distracted. Does anyone see any serious issues with the DC?
I agree with all of what you wrote (though I don't really mind a "threat" mechanic as long as it's considered a "mind-affecting" ability). My only question regards the DC (not a serious issue though). When you compare 10 + 1/2 intimidate + modifier with 10 + 1/2 level + modifier, you get some close results at levels 1/5/10/15/20 and end up at the same place (assuming my math is right) by 20th. The disparity is a little more obvious when you compare full skill vs full level. Adding in the skill focus bit and the numbers are very different.
Out of curiosity, why did you select the use of the skill over the level variations?
To quote myself:
You could add the following options for tankybusiness without breaking verisimilitude:
Interpose
Anyone may use a ready action to prepare to interpose (a standard action usable only in response to an attack) against an incoming attack that you are aware of. When you ready to interpose, you do not have to declare what kind of attack you will interpose or which attacker you will interpose against; merely that you wish to interpose.
While readied to interpose, if an ally is attacked and before the attack is resolved, you may interpose to make yourself the target instead. This functions only if you are adjacent to the ally and are also a legal target of the attack. The attack is resolved against you instead. If the effect would attack your ally and you simultaneously, you cannot interpose against the part of the attack targeting your ally.
Improved Interpose (Combat Feat)
Benefit: You may interpose as an immediate action, even if you have not readied to interpose. This allows you to interpose twice in one round if you ready to interpose.
There! The beefy fighter wearing tons of metal can soak attacks without crazy mind control violations of self and will! It's not a 'make targets angry' ability, but it achieves the result of making a 'tank' role viable and useful.
I don't know, it's a nice idea, but it still does feel a bit unnatural for me.
I think a better way to do it would be making it so attacking the tanks becomes more attractive. The diplomacy option for Antagonize was a good example, but too weak.
Let's say, if you succeeds at goading an opponent, it gets a +2 to attacks against you, but a -2 to attacks against all other targets, or has to make a concentration cast spells on other people.
That said, this goading mechanic you created seems solid enough. I don't think it suffers from any of the problems that made Antagonize stupid.
|
i am toying with a mechanic that creates incentives to behavior, rather than 'enforcing' a course or numeric penalty (another +2 or -2 to remember). they are in the form of conditions. as far as means of delivery, this is why i am posting this here.
Taunted
(Mind-Affecting)
If somebody successfully Taunts you, part of your focus on other people diminishes as you seethe with annoyance, frustration, or hate for your Taunter.
You may not confirm critical hits, unless they are made against the person who Taunted you.
Intimidated
(Fear)
If somebody successfully Intimidates you, they strike an unnerving chord within your heart that causes your body to move into physiological flight mode, even if you stand your ground.
You may not confirm critical hits against the person who Intimidates you.
Out of curiosity, why did you select the use of the skill over the level variations?
Well, as I said, this is a sloppy first draft.
The reason I prefer the full skill bonus is the same reason I dislike the original Antagonize DC. In that scenario, someone with an Iron Will doesn't benefit against simple insults. Someone with Skill Focus (Intimidate) ought to benefit from all uses of the skill, they shouldn't be undercut by random mechanics.
Accounting for that makes our lives a little less convenient as designers, it's true. But from my perspective, the only compelling reason to include an aggro mechanic (especially one that affects NPCs) is that a player would want to build around it. These things should be fun options for players. That's why I tried to have a feat specifically for goading that did something a little different than a +x bonus. Skill focus gives the +x bonus, and applies to many situations. Antagonize changes the bonus calculation, but only applies to goading.
I admit that the formula with the feat that I presented is probably way too good. I'm open to critiques along those lines... but I figure the character with both a high Intimidate and enough AC/HP to weather a serious goading build really ought to have the tactic work.
I like some of the other posters' suggestions, but I have no specific feedback at this time.
I definitely believe there should be some mechanic by which Fighter-types can force-- or at least strongly encourage-- opponents to pay attention to them. I'm just not so certain that it should be linked to skills, which are one of the Fighter's biggest weaknesses.
Perhaps there can be a bonus giving to the Goading player based on doing damage to the target of the taunt?
Personally, I don't think any mechanic that "rewards" attacking the goader will work.
Presuming the goader is built so that he either has enough HP or AC to make this tactic a sane one, you're going to see a lot of NPCs choosing to eat the penalty rather than waste an action attacking a tank. If all you're really doing is adding a penalty, why not just demoralize?
No, here I think we are creating a combat option that is actually robbing the target of the option to attack other characters. Using a proper will save in the rule goes a long way toward fairness. Including the option to just not attack anyone solves the many silly problems that arise with forcing attacks, and it remains a very good tactical option.
Actually, what I meant was, would the goader get a bonus for doing damage to the target of the goad. Not the other way around.
Ah. Well, in that case, still no, in my opinion.
Controlling enemy actions is very powerful. Alone, it validates high-AC builds that have previously been kind of irrelevant on the battlefield... and come-and-get-me barbarians are already pretty great.
It's a good option without any extras, I think. Would have to playtest to be certain, but that goes without saying.
There are rules for taunts and the bluff skill, basically you use bluff to taunt the target, opposed by a sense motive check. If the bluff wins out, the target gets a -1 on attack rolls and AC till the next turn. It's a standard action, doesn't provoke AoO.
You could modify it, say if you win out with bluff X number of rounds, it makes the target focus on you for a least 1 round, or something like that possibly?
I have to agree with Evil Lincoln on it being a powerful thing to do, and that's from both being a player and GM for 20 years+.
I couldn't find any link to it, nor i'm going to write it in its entirety,but the Everquest RPG has the Taunt skill,which is a move action and is resolved as a contest of Taunt vs Sense Motive of the target.
The target gets several bonuses depending on the distance, the diversity of the species,the language used and whether attacking the taunter can be wise or not, but if successful the target has to change enemy and run toward the taunter.
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.
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.
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.
To quote myself... Although Evil Lincolns statement that anyone who thinks 'pull aggro' is a gamist phrase shouldn't post probably should have made me not post. Oh well, you don't get to dictate who posts in your thread.
Just as long as you don't derail the constructive vibe, I won't complain.