Recently the Intimidate portion of the Antagonize feat has come up in play at my table, and as a newer GM who didn’t even know this feat existed until seeing it now – I’m having a bit of trouble deciding exactly what to do about it (if anything). On one hand, some of the current problems are certainly due to my own failings at reading the rules carefully during the session and I don’t want to take away something that the player is finding fun to use. On the other hand, the feat itself is giving me a bit of concern about how to rule it going forward and I’d love to hear other opinions about it. (& yes, I realize I’m diving face-first into a landmine of a topic here.)
First off, here is the feat in question,
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. 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 Intimidate checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. 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 the next minute, 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 flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
---
Things that I find difficult to rule:
You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.
What exactly is needed for make an opponent understand you? While I have seen some claim that a shared language is required, I know that my players are disputing this and claiming that acting in a hostile manner should be enough. [Character in question knows only Draconic (Kobold campaign) & is unlikely to learn more languages.] Should I force the feat to be language-dependent and say that he can’t use it unless he’s using a shared language? Allow use but with a penalty for not having a shared language? (& if so, what penalty? -5? More? Less?) Or just allow use with non-verbal actions as long as the opponent is intelligent enough?
The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire).
What exactly qualifies as harming a creature for the purposes of ending the antagonize effect? RAW only seems to specify terrain that is near-impassible already and does not address other situations. Is provoking attacks of opportunity enough to end the effect? Or only large terrain features like those described? What about uncertain harm like knowing there are traps in the area? Honestly, it almost feels like this is so vague that it could be interpreted to the point of making the feat useless (attacking PC would bring harm, thus can’t force them to attack). So what would be a good interpretation without harming the PC’s fun?
---
What has cause me to make this thread:
Looking at the feat, I’m having a hard time seeing how his actions should be able to make enemies behave completely out-of-character [guards abandoning guy they were hired to protect, enemies running through the entire party (while provoking) in order to hit him, panicked and fleeing opponents turning around to charge into (a rather brutal) death, non-combatives moving away from the people protecting them and into their enemies, etc.]
Additionally, I feel rather uneasy about an ability that can be used consistently (1/target/day) and doesn’t involve any type of save. Especially considering that I can’t see many ways to increase the difficulty of the check (10+BAB+WIS) other than just adding levels to the enemies (which creates other problems) and the current check seems rather easy to make. Compared to spells which have a multitude of traits, feats, items, and other spells which can boost saves or otherwise resist spells, it feels very off.
---
So in Conclusion: Should I change how I've been ruling this? Ban it? Add a houserule to it? (I do kind of like the idea of making it only work on targets that are already hostile/making attacks) Or am I just overreacting to something that isn’t a problem and/or will be inconsequential once the group gains a few more levels?
-
Full disclaimer: My failings in handling the feat thus far have been a result of not looking at the player’s combo close enough (unless I am somehow mistaken, the Intimidating Glare Rage Power should not allow STR to be used for the intimidate check of Antagonize, as it is not a check to demoralize a foe), and failing to see the other options for a successfully antagonized opponent in one instance (using spells if available instead of being forced into a melee/ranged weapon attack). The Party is currently only level 3 (soon to be 4), so my initial impressions have been based on that power level were magic has almost not come into play at all for the party.
You're finding the feat overpowered the way it's currently being played at your table. That alone is enough reason to rein it in.
It should absolutely be Language Dependant. There are magic spells that do something similar, and they are language dependant. Why should a feat be better than a spell?
"Harming a creature" is literally that - hit point loss or a detrimental condition. You might - MIGHT - allow the victim to perform an action that provokes an attack of opportunity without breaking the Antagonize, but if the AoO hits, that definitely breaks the power.
The point being, if YOU, the DM, think the feat is overpowered or being abused, you need to reduce its effectiveness.
Thank you for the response.
Are there any other opinions about this? I'm trying to be very careful with how I handle things since I'm still new to gming and don't want to end up being seen as GM Badwrongfun. (Player + Me already have very different opinions on the whole Martial vs. Caster debate and I don't want to come off as trying to harm martials even more)
|
You're finding the feat overpowered the way it's currently being played at your table. That alone is enough reason to rein it in.
It should absolutely be Language Dependant. There are magic spells that do something similar, and they are language dependant. Why should a feat be better than a spell?
Why should a spell always be inherently better than a feat?
It does not say it is language dependent - therefore it is NOT language dependent.
Of note though - the DC isn't 10+BAB+Wis mod - it's 10+HD+Wis mod (often considerably higher). In addition - normal intimidation modifiers apply. (as a kobold likely the -4 if smaller than target would apply)
Note: Antagonize DOES NOT mean that the foe has to attack you in melee. It means they have to attack or cast a spell at you at all.
It could be throwing a rock at you.
It could be spitting at you from long range and no chance of hitting.
It could be casting Silent Image with you in the general area.
It Antagonize useful? Yes. But it's not game-breaking. Let the martial have nice things.
The Diplomacy skill has the exact same line about "You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less." It does not say "language-dependent." Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure it is, and therefore that that's mostly what that line means.
It does not say it is language dependent - therefore it is NOT language dependent.
If not language dependant, then what would you say would qualify as understanding for this purpose? Any creature with Intelligence >3 than can hear and/or see them?
Of note though - the DC isn't 10+BAB+Wis mod - it's 10+HD+Wis mod (often considerably higher). In addition - normal intimidation modifiers apply. (as a kobold likely the -4 if smaller than target would apply)
Whoops, I meant 10+HD+WIS, don't know how I managed to type that wrong.
Didn't know about the size penalty though, will have to make sure to keep it in mind in the future, thanks. (keeping track of small rules like that is something I know I need to work on as a GM)Note: Antagonize DOES NOT mean that the foe has to attack you in melee. It means they have to attack or cast a spell at you at all.
It could be throwing a rock at you.
It could be spitting at you from long range and no chance of hitting.
It could be casting Silent Image with you in the general area.
While I certainly agree I ran this wrong previously and agree with most of this - is it just me or would something like "spitting at them" seem to just be the GM being mean? (As in, target has no real way to attack other than to run up+punch, but GM doesn't want that and makes something useless just to thwart the player's feat.)
While I certainly agree I ran this wrong previously and agree with most of this - is it just me or would something like "spitting at them" seem to just be the GM being mean? (As in, target has no real way to attack other than to run up+punch, but GM doesn't want that and makes something useless just to thwart the player's feat.)Note: Antagonize DOES NOT mean that the foe has to attack you in melee. It means they have to attack or cast a spell at you at all.
It could be throwing a rock at you.
It could be spitting at you from long range and no chance of hitting.
It could be casting Silent Image with you in the general area.
It's not just you. Spitting is not an attack, unless your saliva is poisonous or acidic or something---and even then, it shouldn't count if it's from out of range.
|
|
If not language dependant, then what would you say would qualify as understanding for this purpose? Any creature with Intelligence >3 than can hear and/or see them?
Mostly - at least so long as they have a somewhat shared culture.
I mean - I could get someone mad at me by giving them the finger or some other vulgar motion without knowing the same language. But doing that wouldn't work on a naga.
I might generally hold them to language for the Diplomacy portion of Antagonize.
|
|
It's not just you. Spitting is not an attack, unless your saliva is poisonous or acidic or something---and even then, it shouldn't count if it's from out of range.
Attacks don't have to deal damage to be attack rolls. Though I do agree - it'd have to be within max range - probably pretty short for spitting. I'd use spitting if a player used Antagonize to try to pick a fight with a guard or some such and say "he started it!".
Picking up and throwing a rock or clod of dirt might be the better option in combat if they lack a ranged weapon. Though for NPCs - most should at least have a dagger or javelin to throw.
BTW, browsing through older threads on this topic, it seems many people ban it at their tables, so if you end up doing that you shouldn't feel like an ogre.
|
|
BTW, browsing through older threads on this topic, it seems many people ban it at their tables, so if you end up doing that you shouldn't feel like an ogre.
If you go too old - they might be referencing the original version - which was OP. It required a melee attack - which was stupid and OP against a wizard or some such.
It was (for obvious reasons) errata'd and fixed in later printings.
I like to visualize Antagonize as using Intimidate to convince your target that you are his new worst enemy and must be annihilated immediately. For example, my wife's lyrakien bard character used Antagonize against the final boss of an Adventure Path. She roleplayed the Antagonize by pretending that she was in charge of the adventuring party that had thwarted his minions repeatedly and explicitly calling out how she had foiled some of them. "It was me! All along I was stopping you!"
It was beautiful and she barely survived the spell and the quickened spell the evil wizard threw at her. But it also prevented him from re-establishing his defenses before the party attacked him again.
Convincing someone that you are their highest priority is not a matter of merely acting hostile. Players act hostile all the time. A successful Antagonize must hit a sensitive nerve. And that requires enough communication to find the sensitive topic.
The errata'ed Antagonize is better than the original, because it lets the angered character use a realistic attack. But I still dislike the DC of 10 + hit dice + Wis modifier. A lifelong pacifist is as likely to attack you as the evil cleric of the god of violence? A player struggling to heal his badly bleeding unconscious buddy is as likely to drop that task and attack as an enemy who was about to attack the buddy to your left? That is unrealistic.
However, GMs are allowed to apply circumstance modifiers to skill rolls. The enemy was going to attack the party member anyway? Tell the Antagonizing player to add +5 circumstance bonus to the Intimidate roll. The enemy is fleeing for his life? Tell the Antagonizing player to subtract a -5 circumstance penalty. (Kept the penalties and bonuses balanced, to avoid nerfing the feat.)
And if the players insist that Antagonize makes sense only their way, then throw an enemy optimized for successful Antagonize against them to change their minds. "The Winter Wolf barked at you menacingly. You feel compelled to attack it immediately, no other actions! Ignore the two other Winter Wolves flanking the path toward it."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally probably rule that 'understand you' generally means you have to share a language. I would probably allow a knowledge check of 5 higher than the base DC to identify a creature (i.e. the equivalent of knowing 2 pieces of useful information) to identify specific gestures or sounds that would piss it off and let you use the feat without a language in that case. Giving someone the finger (the example above) is part of cultural context, not some sort of universal symbol. That would, in my mind be a good compromise of 'able to understand' that is a little more open, but not a lot, than 'language dependent.'
AS for what constitutes 'Harm' I would say any reasonable chance to inflict damage without taking it would not be harm. If they are going to take Attacks of Opportunity, it would be 'harm' to attempt to move up to melee. If though they have a reasonable tumble skill, the creature could attempt that and it would. If they can't move in without harm, they should make the best ranged attack they have. If they don't have any realistic ranged attack, then you get the check to try for next round. Of course any opponent that preferred ranged attacks would take those rather than trying for melee in most circumstances (an archer that couldn't get out of threat range to attack would not be able to make a range attack without 'harm').
I think this is a good feat, but it certainly isn't more powerful than a lot of things out there, and is a nice option for martial characters to do things that for the most part only magic can do in the system. I don't think you will find it to be really broken.
If you find it too disruptive in your games, but don't want to Ban it entirely, you could add a Will Save to negate after a successful role by the character using the feat. An appropriate DC would be either 1/2 the first roll (which would be variable and swingy) or 10 + 1/2 the skill modifier used. This would be roughly equivalent to the 10 + 1/2 level + stat DC for most supernatural abilities for a character that kept max ranks in the relevant skill (you only get 1/2 your stat with this formula, but probably a + 1.5 for class skill and possibly an additional bonus for feats, racial abilities etc and skills are generally quite cheap to enhance). This would of course be quite a nerf to the feat, and if you make this change you should certainly allow any player that took the original a free retraining.