|
The Antagonize feat has gained a lot of notoriety, but it is so far the only true "aggro" mechanic in Pathfinder, and while the majority of players will likely argue that roleplaying is sufficient to play a tank, this feat should be available for the times when it is not (for example, when facing an enemy who is racist towards one of your allies, who hates spellcasting, who targets women or men, or who is too afraid of you to engage you, etc).
There are three major problems with the Antagonize feat that I have seen so far, and I will attempt to fix them all here.
1. The Antagonize feat, as written, can force a completely peaceful person to engage with you for no reason, with no regard to the law or situation.
2. The Antagonize feat requires a skill check on the part of the initiator and does not allow any magical defenses on the part of the target. However, how the skill is used is not explained in any meaningful way, and creatures immune to fear are somehow immune to Antagonization (I guess).
3. The Antagonize feat, post-errata, will only protect your allies for a single turn against a caster or an archer. While this was changed largely because of the outcries against how the feat works on casters and archers, the new feat basically makes it so you can only soak damage for your party for a round, rather than forcing your enemy into a compromising position where you can control them.
So, let's fix this as such:
"I'm the one you want!"- Snow Villiers, Final Fantasy XIII
Your words and gestures bite through the enemy and force them to lash out at you rather than your allies.
Benefit: As a standard action, you may target a single creature within 100' of you. This creature must be able to see and hear you, and its attitude towards you may be no better than hostile. You make a combat maneuver check against the target's CMD. The target gets a +5 bonus to its effective CMD if it is immune to mind-affecting abilities, and/or a +5 bonus to its effective CMD if it does not understand the language you speak, and is immune if it is unable to inflict lethal damage upon you in any way, magical or mundane (for example, being an unarmed character without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat or any offensive spells prepared/known).
If you succeed the combat maneuver check, the creature must shift its focus towards you for the next 1d4 rounds, plus 1 round per 5 points you exceeded its CMD by. If the creature is a melee character, it must move to engage you in melee, but it will take the most logical path, avoiding all attacks of opportunity if able, and never knowingly taking a path that threatens its own life via environmental hazards. For the duration of the effect, the creature will engage you in melee with no regard for its current health or your allies, though it will always spend its move action/5' step to get into the most favorable position possible.
If the creature is a ranged character, it must direct every arrow/bolt it fires at you, as long as it can see you, for the duration. If the creature loses line of sight or line of effect to you, it will move in order to attempt to re-establish that line of sight/line of effect, with the same precautions mentioned above.
If the creature is a spellcaster, it must include you in all area-of-effect spells it casts, or target you with any spell it casts. For the duration of the effect, the caster may not cast defensive or utility spells on itself or its allies, and may only take offensive actions that include or target you. If the caster runs out of offensive spells to target you with, it will switch to its possessed weapon of choice. If the creature has no weapon, the effect is broken immediately.
Whether the combat maneuver check succeeds or fails, the creature becomes immune to the effects of this feat for 24 hours after it resolves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There. Now it's a combat maneuver check, which removes the skill tax and also can now be left up to personal interpretation and flavor. The duration is extended so that soaking damage from a ranged character or caster will actually allow your allies enough time to get the favorable position on them, while still not having the first version's problem of forcing the enemy to ignore its normal tactics.
Suggestions? Comments? Would you allow this feat now?
|
|
As for the Diplomacy part of the feat, I feel like that should be kept, improved, and made its own feat chain. So here we go:
Prerequisites: BAB +1, Intimidate 1 rank
Benefit: Whenever an enemy you threaten attacks one of your allies (not you), you may make an Intimidate check to demoralize the enemy as an immediate action. If you succeed, the penalties for the shaken condition apply to its attack roll (before it is compared to your ally's AC to see if it hits).
Prerequisites: BAB +6, Intimidate 6 ranks, Combat Reflexes, Menacing Glare
Benefit: Whenever you successfully leave a creature shaken with your Menacing Glare feat, that creature provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If your attack deals damage to that creature, its attack against your ally (if it hits) deals half damage to that ally.
Prerequisites: BAB +11, Intimidate 11 ranks, Combat Reflexes, Master Guardian, Menacing Glare
Benefit: If you successfully damage any creature with your Master Guardian feat, you may spend an additional attack of opportunity to make a combat maneuver check to bull rush, disarm, or trip that creature. This combat maneuver check does not provoke an attack of opportunity, and if you fail your opponent does not get to attempt to bull rush/disarm/trip you. If you succeed, resolve the maneuver before your enemy attacks your ally (the attack automatically fails if the enemy has no weapon or your ally is no longer within its reach).
|
Intimidate version comments:
I don't entirely like the switch to CMB. The use of social skills made those skills a little more interesting for a martial character. The switch to CMB doesn't just remove a "skills tax" but replaces a Cha component with a Str/Dex component, makes boosting the check a matter of boosting generic attack modifiers (which is boring), and disadvantages characters like Bards and Inquisitors who are likely to have high Intimidate but 3/4 BAB (lower CMB). CMD is also a little odd as a defense since it includes modifiers like size, str, dex, number of legs, and other elements that should be completely unrelated to one's ability to resist this goading.
I'd recommend allowing it to work on unfriendlies at a +5 difficulty. It's thematically interesting to allow a character to goad someone who might not ordinarily attack you but certainly doesn't like you into a fit of rage.
The separate descriptions of the exact tactics of melee, ranged, and spellcasting enemies seem like overkill, especially since many characters aren't easily classified. My first PF character, a druid, would have been difficult to define as melee or casting since she was a bit of a switch-hitter in that respect. Standard melee/range switch-hitters also present some difficulty. I'd use something like: "The target must attack you for the duration of the effect. It must target you exclusively with its mundane or magical attacks, or else use offensive area spells that include you in their area. It may not take defensive actions but may use the most tactically effective means at its disposal to attack you, whether that means magical or mundane, melee or ranged attacks. If it is not in a position to attack you using its preferred method the target may move into a position that allows it to do so, though it does not ignore severe hazards to approach you and avoids attacks of opportunity."
Diplomacy Chain comments:
This would have been really interesting on top of my Bodyguard Inquisitor. It's also a very intensive feat chain, which I normally dislike, but in this case it might be worth it. Maybe remove Combat Reflexes from the Prerequisites list - most characters with Master Guardian/Don't Touch Them will want it, but it's not strictly necessary to use the feats (even the two AoO from Don't Touch Them could theoretically be gained by class abilities like the Kensai's that grant extra AoO). Use of Intimidate makes sense based on the revised effect, but I miss the use of Diplomacy to fluster an opponent with witty quips, etc.
|
|
Intimidate version comments:
I don't entirely like the switch to CMB. The use of social skills made those skills a little more interesting for a martial character. The switch to CMB doesn't just remove a "skills tax" but replaces a Cha component with a Str/Dex component, makes boosting the check a matter of boosting generic attack modifiers (which is boring), and disadvantages characters like Bards and Inquisitors who are likely to have high Intimidate but 3/4 BAB (lower CMB). CMD is also a little odd as a defense since it includes modifiers like size, str, dex, number of legs, and other elements that should be completely unrelated to one's ability to resist this goading.
I'd recommend allowing it to work on unfriendlies at a +5 difficulty. It's thematically interesting to allow a character to goad someone who might not ordinarily attack you but certainly doesn't like you into a fit of rage.
The separate descriptions of the exact tactics of melee, ranged, and spellcasting enemies seem like overkill, especially since many characters aren't easily classified. My first PF character, a druid, would have been difficult to define as melee or casting since she was a bit of a switch-hitter in that respect. Standard melee/range switch-hitters also present some difficulty. I'd use something like: "The target must attack you for the duration of the effect. It must target you exclusively with its mundane or magical attacks, or else use offensive area spells that include you in their area. It may not take defensive actions but may use the most tactically effective means at its disposal to attack you, whether that means magical or mundane, melee or ranged attacks. If it is not in a position to attack you using its preferred method the target may move into a position that allows it to do so, though it does not ignore severe hazards to approach you and avoids attacks of opportunity."
I agree with all of your suggested changes, and defend my decision to switch it to a Str/Dex-based feature. Sure, it might be "boring", but I'm picturing the typical tank as a gruff, strong-but-silent type who would put his life on the line for his friends and let his actions speak louder than his words.
Making it a skill check is restrictive and confusing, as it seems to limit the usefulness of the feat. I believe I could certainly goad a paladin into attacking me (especially if I insulted his god), but if I use the Intimidate skill to do it, he's immune because he's immune to fear.
Similarly, Diplomacy doesn't make sense, as Diplomacy is pretty much language-dependent, and I don't really know how you'd try to diplomatize a creature with body language.
Bluff could work, I guess, but then you have to rely on a DC that does not scale with the enemy's combat prowess, similarly to the feat beforehand. Why should the enemy's Wisdom score allow it to ignore your taunting? Why should a creature with higher hit dice be less vulnerable to your goading (with no regard for your own hit dice in comparison, unless you have maxed your Bluff skill in which case it could be considered a "Hit Dice V Hit Dice" check, and in that case the only thing that matters is if your Cha is higher than their Wis).
One of the best things about Pathfinder is its streamlined Combat Maneuver system, so why don't we just keep using that? My version of the feat benefits the stereotypical tank more and makes it more challenging for those who wouldn't normally tank (such as bards or inquisitors) to be considered a threat by their enemies (makes sense, since the less martial characters would naturally pose less physical threat).
So, here is the new feat:
"I'm the one you want!"- Snow Villiers, Final Fantasy XIII
Your words and gestures bite through the enemy and force them to lash out at you rather than your allies.
Benefit: As a standard action, you may target a single creature within 100' of you. This creature must be able to see and hear you, and its attitude towards you may be no better than unfriendly. You make a combat maneuver check against the target's CMD. The target gets a +5 bonus to its effective CMD if it is immune to mind-affecting abilities, a +5 bonus if its attitude towards you is better than hostile, and/or a +5 bonus to its effective CMD if it does not understand the language you speak, and is immune if it is unable to inflict lethal damage upon you in any way, magical or mundane (for example, being an unarmed character without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat or any offensive spells prepared/known).
If the check succeeds, the target must attack you for the duration of the effect. It must target you exclusively with its mundane or magical attacks, or else use offensive area spells that include you in their area. It may not take defensive actions but may use the most tactically effective means at its disposal to attack you, whether that means magical or mundane, melee or ranged attacks. If it is not in a position to attack you using its preferred method the target may move into a position that allows it to do so, though it does not ignore severe hazards to approach you and avoids attacks of opportunity.
The creature is affected as above for 1d4 rounds, plus 1 additional round per 5 points you exceeded their CMD by. Regardless of whether the combat maneuver check succeeded or failed, after the effects of this feat resolves, the creature is immune to being Antagonized for 24 hours.
Diplomacy Chain comments:This would have been really interesting on top of my Bodyguard Inquisitor. It's also a very intensive feat chain, which I normally dislike, but in this case it might be worth it. Maybe remove Combat Reflexes from the Prerequisites list - most characters with Master Guardian/Don't Touch Them will want it, but it's not strictly necessary to use the feats (even the two AoO from Don't Touch Them could theoretically be gained by class abilities like the Kensai's that grant extra AoO). Use of Intimidate makes sense based on the revised effect, but I miss the use of Diplomacy to fluster an opponent with witty quips, etc.
I'm sorry, but one or two existing class feature options does not change the general prerequisite of the two attacks of opportunity per round by Combat Reflexes. Additionally, almost all feats that modify attacks of opportunity in some way require Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite.
|
|
I agree with all of your suggested changes, and defend my decision to switch it to a Str/Dex-based feature. Sure, it might be "boring", but I'm picturing the typical tank as a gruff, strong-but-silent type who would put his life on the line for his friends and let his actions speak louder than his words.
But that archetype shouldn't invalidate the fast-talking bard or rogue who draws fire and then evades it through artful dodging or magic such as Displacement. Intimidate is also perfectly useful for the character with a really mean glare, even if he's not the talky type (and this is what Intimidating Prowess was supposed to represent).
Making it a skill check is restrictive and confusing, as it seems to limit the usefulness of the feat. I believe I could certainly goad a paladin into attacking me (especially if I insulted his god), but if I use the Intimidate skill to do it, he's immune because he's immune to fear.
That example is probably using Diplomacy to goad the Paladin into attacking you - the skill involves knowing how not to offend people, so it absolutely must entail a good understanding of the worst insults.
Similarly, Diplomacy doesn't make sense, as Diplomacy is pretty much language-dependent, and I don't really know how you'd try to diplomatize a creature with body language.
By holding your hands in front of you nonthreateningly to signal "we come in peace"? Not exactly Antagonize material, though.
Bluff could work, I guess, but then you have to rely on a DC that does not scale with the enemy's combat prowess, similarly to the feat beforehand. Why should the enemy's Wisdom score allow it to ignore your taunting? Why should a creature with higher hit dice be less vulnerable to your goading (with no regard for your own hit dice in comparison, unless you have maxed your Bluff skill in which case it could be considered a "Hit Dice V Hit Dice" check, and in that case the only thing that matters is if your Cha is higher than their Wis).
One of the best things about Pathfinder is its streamlined Combat Maneuver system, so why don't we just keep using that?
Combat maneuvers are great for representing your ability to physically manipulate your opponent. However, Antagonize is about mentally manipulating your opponent. This is the domain of either Wisdom (eg Will saves, recognizing feints) or Charisma (eg resisting magical commands when charmed).
My version of the feat benefits the stereotypical tank more and makes it more challenging for those who wouldn't normally tank (such as bards or inquisitors) to be considered a threat by their enemies (makes sense, since the less martial characters would naturally pose less physical threat).
The thing is that what you're doing with Antagonize isn't necessarily convincing someone that you're the bigger threat (which anyway should be based on Intimidate) - it's convincing someone that they'd rather attack you than your allies. And less martial characters can still push those buttons if they're socially skilled.
I would suggest allowing the Antagonizer to use their choice of CMB, Diplomacy, or Intimidate, with the latter two limited by language and fear immunity as normal. The DC could be 10+BAB+Wis+Cha or else 10+Will Save modifier+Cha, whichever is higher in the case of the target. This is inspired by the feint difficulty which is 10+BAB+Wis or 10+Sense Motive modifier, whichever is higher. After all, Antagonize is a bit like a very specialized feint which causes the target to ignore real threats.
The modified feat works, though.
I'm sorry, but one or two existing class feature options does not change the general prerequisite of the two attacks of opportunity per round by Combat Reflexes. Additionally, almost all feats that modify attacks of opportunity in some way require Combat Reflexes as a prerequisite.
I personally dislike long feat trees. A few days ago I had a conversation with a more experienced GM and we both decided to remove the Power Attack/Combat Expertise prerequisites for Combat Maneuver feats and to reduce normal/improved/greater TWF and Vital Strike into single feats that give scaling benefits according to BAB.
The thing about the feat chain you've presented is that while it is impressive, it is reliant on a specific set of circumstances to work. The full use of this feat tree requires that you
(1) threaten an opponent who attacks your ally
(2) succeed at an intimidate check (and you can only attempt one/round)
(3) hit with an AoO
(4) succeed at a CMB vs CMD check
After the first attack or two the opponent might just attack the tank. The tank probably won't mind this, but a tank who spends 4 feats on the chain is likely to miss out on feats like Toughness, Shield Focus, or Dodge that improve their ability to actually survive this assault (or feats like Power Attack or Weapon Focus that enable him to do solid damage while he takes hits). Alternatively, if the opponent just gets out of the threatened range of the tank or otherwise prevents him from taking AoO all the tank's feats are useless.
It's a little like the Dimensional Agility chain - very cool when you pull it off, but it takes a lot of investment and you probably won't use it very often.
That's why I'm suggesting reducing the investment required. Removing Combat Reflexes might not be the best way to do that, but that was the first thing that came to mind.
|
i this the correct (errata'd) version of Antagonize?
anyhow, i tend to agree with Weirdo about the defense score in that Feinting should be the operating model.
this begs the question "what are the factors in this interaction?"
i, too, would also like to see a mechanic like this for all three social skills.
Neoseraphi, are you opposed to an 'antagonize' mechanic that rather than forcing an action of it's victim on a success, that it uses an choice incentive on it's victim on a success?
ex:
Menacing Glare (Combat, Teamwork)
Prerequisites: BAB +1, Intimidate 1 rank
Benefit: Whenever an enemy you threaten is about to attack one of your allies, you may make an Intimidate check to demoralize him as an immediate action. If you succeed, the demoralization takes immediate effect, and the enemy can choose to attack you instead. If he scores a hit against you, now or on a later turn, the shaken condition ends prematurely.
Master Guardian (Combat, Teamwork)
Prerequisites: BAB +6, Intimidate 6 ranks, Menacing Glare
Benefit: Whenever any creature with the shaken condition (from your successful use of Intimidate) attacks an ally of yours, that creature provokes an attack of opportunity from you and/or your allies, so long as you and/or your allies are currently threatening it.
Don't Touch Them! (Combat, Teamwork)
Prerequisites: BAB +11, Intimidate 11 ranks, Master Guardian, Menacing Glare
Benefit: Whenever you and/or your allies are taking an attack of opportunity granted by the Master Guardian feat, you can all make a combat maneuver check as a free action in addition to your attack roll. These combat maneuvers do not in turn grant an attack of opportunity to your enemy, even if they normally would.
|
|
I don't like the idea of making them teamwork feats. Sure, the way you've worded them seems to side-step the Teamwork issue, but the standard rule here is that a Teamwork feat only works when used in conjunction with other allies who have the same feat. So your version would only be useful to a cavalier or an inquisitor.
The issue I have with the Intimidate and Diplomacy skills as used for the Antagonize feat is that the skills themselves are generally used to improve the attitude of the target. Somehow using them in reverse to increase the creature's hostility towards you seems odd.
|
|
point taken concerning teamwork feats (i have not done a thorough read through of them yet). i didn't know they had that caveat.
but no way!
Diplomacy is used to influence (perceived prospect of gain)
Intimidate is used to coerce (perceived threat of violence)
Bluff is used to trick (mis-perception through misdirection)
using any of these trained techniques can bring about cooperation or incite hostility. the only difference is in the means. they are all forms of manipulation.
what i could see is allowing a knowledge check to assist one of these forms, which provides a +2 (or -2) to the manipulation.
|
|
using any of these trained techniques can bring about cooperation or incite hostility. the only difference is in the means. they are all forms of manipulation.
Exactly. The social skills are usually used to improve the target's attitude because usually it's beneficial to make people like you. But there's no reason that you couldn't induce hostility with the same skill set. It's the "what can heal, can harm" principle - generally, torture makes use of the Heal skill (see 3rd party rules at bottom).
|
|
Alright. Here's the new rules. Add this line to the end of the feat:
When using this feat, you may choose to make a skill check based on the situation rather than a combat maneuver check. This skill check is subject to approval by your DM, but otherwise may be chosen between Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy. The Diplomacy check automatically fails if the target has animal intelligence, and the Intimidate check automatically fails if the target is immune to fear. The checks are otherwise subject to the same penalties and restrictions listed above for the combat maneuver check. The DC for a skill check for this feat is 10+target's HD+ target's Wisdom modifier. If the target has any ranks in Sense Motive, it may instead make an opposed Sense Motive check, but only if the skill you are using is Bluff.
|
I don't like the way Antagonize completely overrides someone's will, but a way to taunt that gets results without being quite so close to mind control would be nice.
I think the Menacing Glare idea is interesting, although I don't see why allies should get AoOs. I was thinking more along the lines of carrot-stick methods though;
By insulting, presenting an easier or more threatening target, you entice enemies to attack you instead of your allies.
Prerequisites: Charisma 13
Benefits: As a swift action you may invite attack from an enemy, and roll Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate (DC 10 + subject's HD + subject's Wis modifier, or 10+subject's Sense Motive rating, whichever is higher). The subject may choose to let you take 20 on this roll.
If you succeed, for the next round, the subject gets -2 to hit on any attacks that don't also target you, and it's spells and spell-like abilities that don't target you have a 10% chance to fail. However, any attack by the subject that also targets you gets a +2 morale bonus to hit, and all saving throw DCs against the attack are at +1 difficulty.
For each 5 by which you succeeded, the effect lasts another round.
This is a mind-affecting ability. If you use Intimidate, it is considered a fear effect. Using Bluff or Diplomacy is at -5 if you and the subject do not share a language. Creatures that cannot gain morale bonuses are immune to this ability.
A subject can be taunted by only one person at a time; if another attempt is made, it fails if the skill check doesn't exceed the current taunt, or replaces the current taunt if it scores higher.
If at the start of the subject's turn, he is unable to attack you with any attack that he has reason to believe will hurt you, the effect ends immediately. (For example, because you're too far away to charge, he's being grappled and can't reach you, you're on the other side of a ravine too wide to safely jump across and he doesn't have ranged attacks, or if you have DR he can't penetrate with any attack.)