PATHFINDER SOCIETY QUESTION.
I succesfully antagonized a babau that had just teleported away. The Dm chose for it to attack a party member on its next turn, forcing me to burn my next turn to keep it going because "it didnt want to burn a teleport to get to me" He claims he looked it up, and since it "
couldnt get to me" it was able to attack a party member instead. Is this legal?
Anatagonize states : 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.
I'm a little perturbed as i have burned 800 gold for this fight, as well as my entire feat selection to be good at antagonize and high ac. Thoughts?
So, it's difficult to adjudicate that particular feat sometimes. While I don't have the full story here, based on what you've said, it should have teleported next to you as its next action if you succeeded on the check. "It didn't want to" is not a valid answer when it comes to that feat. It COULD get to you using an At Will ability, therefore it should.
Re: burning your next turn, it would only eat your swift action for the round and nothing else.
Ah yes i forgot was only a swift for the follow up, but in the dark as we were i could not see, so i had nothing else to do, if it had teleported to me like it should have, then i could have attempted to hit it. That is why i say "wasting my second turn"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, it's difficult to adjudicate that particular feat sometimes. While I don't have the full story here, based on what you've said, it should have teleported next to you as its next action if you succeeded on the check. "It didn't want to" is not a valid answer when it comes to that feat. It COULD get to you using an At Will ability, therefore it should.
Re: burning your next turn, it would only eat your swift action for the round and nothing else.
Agreed that it's tricky to picture all the variables, but given that teleporting would prevent the creature from attacking that round, it seems like it actually does fall into the "If it cannot attack you on its turn". Even if so, "It didn't want to" wouldn't be the reason, the reason would be "It can't."
It could have, however, targeted him with dispel magic or darkness since Antagonize does not limit it's options to damaging spells. While not what the OP wanted, it would have kept the Babua from attacking his party member.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could have, however, targeted him with dispel magic or darkness since Antagonize does not limit it's options to damaging spells. While not what the OP wanted, it would have kept the Babua from attacking his party member.
Oddly, it couldn't have used darkness because that's a touch spell (I always wished it was AoE; would make it easier to adjudicate it), but it might have been able to use dispel magic; it depends on where it was positioned and whether it would be sufficient to be an attack (and presumably depending on there being something relevant and positive up on the PC to dispel, which there quite possibly would be at that level).
+5 alchemical and +10 circumstance both from potions bonus to my intimidate <_<
Yeah...seems like it should have just targeted you with it's at will Dispel Magic. It has an at will ranged magical attack, there isn't an excuse not to use it in the scenario. It didn't have to teleport to you because it would be unable to attack after doing so, and if it didn't have the ranged attack I would classify it as unable to attack you (if it was also not within movement range to successfully move and attack you).
But yes, as it is it should have targeted you with dispel magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless it was more than 50 feet away from you after teleporting, it could (and should have) picked up a nearby object and thrown it as an Improvised Weapon if it wasn't carrying an actual ranged weapon.
The Feat includes ranged attacks, and makes no provision regarding the creature having to be proficient in the attack used.
Unless it was more than 50 feet away from you after teleporting, it could (and should have) picked up a nearby object and thrown it as an Improvised Weapon if it wasn't carrying an actual ranged weapon.
The Feat includes ranged attacks, and makes no provision regarding the creature having to be proficient in the attack used.
It would definitely use it's at will dispel magic before doing that.
I realized another bizarre situation where it might not be able to use its dispel magic, since it's a demon and not a devil. Assuming it had to teleport up there because it was outside of charge range, it almost certainly couldn't see the PC to target it because the OP said it was dark, and that would be beyond its darkvision (it might have been able to move and then dispel though).
Of course, all this is speculation, but sometimes it's fun to speculate.
And if it had teleported to where it did not have line of sight? went around a few corners and a door, but was still within 40 feet of me.
|
Hi! I'm the GM for the scenario in question. The scenario was
In the fight with the demon, the sequence of turns ran as follows.
Bad Guy
Other People
Evilserran's character
Demon used it's greater teleport to hop to another location in the corridor behind the party.
Evilserran's character used his antagonize feat (which by the way he was able to taunt a guy in 7 different languages in one round). Makes his check with flying colors.
Demon hears him but cannot attack him in the same turn. Evilserran is hidden behind twists and turns of the corridor, thus out of range and out of sight for a dispel. Thus he begins moving forward, with the intent to attack him, and in so doing attacks a Pathfinder along the way.
Now the way Evilserran would have had me rule this, from what I understand, I would have greater teleported the demon back and just sat there waiting to get hit in the face. Is it seriously being suggested that an Int 11 creature is going to waste its turn to not even get a chance to do what the feat demands he do, i.e. attempt to hit him?
I think an important distinction is that the feat states "The creature flies into a rage."
It's not so much that the feat is creating a specific restriction, it's that he wants to smash you! Yes it has int 11... but logic and reason don't often take a front seat in your mind when you're hulking out, you know?
If I were DM'ing for a game when that feat was used, I would personally treat it as a temporary "aggro" thing. The guy will use his turn to attack the user of the feat, and if he can't, he'll be damned if he doesn't try his darndest to do so anyway before coming to his senses.
Agreed that it's tricky to picture all the variables, but given that teleporting would prevent the creature from attacking that round, it seems like it actually does fall into the "If it cannot attack you on its turn". Even if so, "It didn't want to" wouldn't be the reason, the reason would be "It can't."So, it's difficult to adjudicate that particular feat sometimes. While I don't have the full story here, based on what you've said, it should have teleported next to you as its next action if you succeeded on the check. "It didn't want to" is not a valid answer when it comes to that feat. It COULD get to you using an At Will ability, therefore it should.
Re: burning your next turn, it would only eat your swift action for the round and nothing else.
"It can't" doesn't allow for the creature to ignore the user, particularly if they spend an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round. Stopping to attack another PC is diminishing the use of an already convoluted feat. My logic chain for the situation would be:
- Creature is affected by the initial check
- Creature's turn starts and can't immediately attack this turn
- Immediate Action to maintain for 1 round
- Creature acts with the intent to attack next round, including teleport/double move during the current round.
Based on the incoming situation details from the GM, the big question that comes to mind is whether the babau could both see and hear Evilserran's character at the initial check. That makes a pretty big difference, given that Intimidate can only be used in combat on creatures that can both see and hear you. I don't see anything that changes that in the Antagonize feat, leading me to believe that those restrictions still are in place. Upaynao says that Evilserran's character was not visible when the creature's turn came up, but that shouldn't necessarily stop the Antagonize functionality from working.
|
|
The creature could hear Evilserran, but not see him. But I'm having trouble with something here. Evilserran's character can insult a character in 7 languages within 6 seconds in a manner that makes it fly into a rage, and I'm the one not following the spirit of the rules?
With that said, I am seeing the point here. I will not make the same mistake again.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well there's a significant disconnect here then. The text of the feat says that I must attempt to attack him in the same round, and if I cannot, the person antagonizing can attempt another check as an immediate action next turn. The rage thing is a nonmechanical descriptor. That's it.
So if insulting someone in 7 languages in 6 seconds is OK per the rules, I'm not seeing where there is a problem. Antagonise does not say "the creature becomes a mindless schlub". I moved in the direction of Evilserran, with the purpose of getting nearby the next round and having a standard to use to wreck some form of havoc on him. Still having a standard this turn, I used it to make sure he didn't have a ally with the ability to see in the dark that could tell him where the bad guy was.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to poke the bear with too hard of a stick, one of my next items soon as i can afford it, will be a ring of eloquence, so i can add four more languages... Also side note, I got no hard feelings, things are grey, and rulings be rulings, i was salty last night, better now. I think it's fairly clear based on others posts, if you disagree I will respect your decision, and just play a different character at your table. End goal should be we both have fun. While the incident quite obviously stole my fun for about a half hour or so,i know it did the same to yours, as a fellow dm that stuff can be hard/annoying/frustrating. So we can discuss the outcome next week before we die in Bonekeep. you are still my second favorite DM UPAYNAO! ((Sorry but no one is knocking out Fred when he let us IED a monstrous scorpion with a mule covered in alchemist fire...))
Demoralize, yes, anatagonize is its own ability, and does not state the have to see you, just understand you.
|
I have to agree with Upaynao. The feat states that the target has to attempt to attack that round, and gives examples of things that satisfy the attack, including targeting withe spells.
There is nothing that states the target has to move towards the user of the feat if doing so doesn't result in the ability to attack that round. If the Babau could move and attack, sure; if he could charge, sure. However, the Babau's at-will Teleport is a standard action. If he uses it, there is no way he can make an attack (he doesn't have any move or swift action offensive abilities).
If the Babau were in a position to launch a ranged attack, he should have. However, it appears the user of the skill was not in a position where the Babau could launch any attacks. There is nothing in the wording of the feat that indicates an affected target forgoes all actions to move as effectively as possible towards the user of the feat if an attack cannot be launched that turn. It doesn't say it ignores all other creatures besides the user of the feat.
The thing is, if the creature can not attack this turn the effect can be extended by a round. Which would mean the creature would have to move to a place where it could attack the character next turn. If a creature must attack then it must also move to attack if that is what is required to attack. Much as in how confusion works when you roll to attack the nearest creature.
The creature could hear Evilserran, but not see him. But I'm having trouble with something here. Evilserran's character can insult a character in 7 languages within 6 seconds in a manner that makes it fly into a rage, and I'm the one not following the spirit of the rules?
With that said, I am seeing the point here. I will not make the same mistake again.
Without the ability to see the character, I don't think the PC can make the check and have it work. Regarding languages, that's part of the "how many free actions can I take in a round?" and you have the right as the GM to limit that. It's just a matter of saying "that's too many words for 6 seconds."
Antagonize is a really weird feat. A lot of people have had a lot of adjudication issues come up with it. My providing an interpretation is not meant as a personal attack.
Having read the full story, I think the Babau demon would have used his actions to move into a position where he could have made an attack.
Antagonize says "on the creature's next turn" and the effect can be extended if the creature is unable to attack. In this case, what should have happened is:
1) Babau teleports down the hall out of sight of future target
2) Other people go
3) Antagonize happens
4) Babaus next turn happens, he must make an effort to attack the target. He needs to either use both move and standard actions to move toward the target or teleport near where he suspect the target is and move into an attack position. The babau is not required to end it's turn next to the enemy and let itself be smacked in it's face, nor is it required to provoke attacks to reach the enemy.
5) Assuming the babau did not make an attack because it couldn't reach the enemy and attack on it's turn, the antagonize user can extend the effect for one more round. On this round the babau should be able to use dispel magic or move and make an attack against the antagonist.
I think the important part that Upaynao may have missed or misinterpreted is that Antagonize specifies the creature's next turn, and has nothing to do with what round the antagonize happens on.
Not being able to see, i skipped the sense motive section as i could not see it, but knowing there is an enemy there, as it had just attacked me after my last turn and antagonizing only limiting it to understanding and int higher then 3, the lack of visibility is moot RAW. Celestial is also third on my list, so if even three languages had been allowed, i would have managed to taunt it that turn, this by the way, i did leave for DM discretion and wouldn't have fought on if he limited me. I also did not choose which of the two i was technically taunting as i could not see, so i simply taunted where the one had just been, and let the dm decide which was affected. I then asked after they both moved and attacked, if i had been unsuccessful then, he said no, i had, and that's when i questioned its ability to attack my party instead of coming for me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Demoralize, yes, anatagonize is its own ability, and does not state the have to see you, just understand you.
Not true:
Antagonize
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 Intimitade 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.
You have to make a Intimidate check. And to do it you must fulfill all the requirement for the check.
Included the little thing that it is a targeted effect, not an AoE effect. You can't try to antagonize/intimidate someone/something that you can't see.
|
For what it's worth, here's how I would have ruled it.
Because the demon cannot attack, it gets to decide how best to approach for an attack next turn. If it can run there in one turn, that is just as good an answer as teleporting, particularly if it doesn't know at this point its way is blocked.
However, the only attack I would make against someone else on the way is an overrun or bull rush against someone blocking my path -- and if they will allow me to move through their squares, I wouldn't even do that.
If that turn proves that I can't get past the party on the ground, and the effect is extended again, and I can't target the antagonizer with another attack on that turn *then* I teleport.
Again you are adding in something to the phrasing, it does not say that i must see them. Yes it is targeted because it only affects one person and not all of them, hence why not an AoE, however, by your logic i cannot talk to you through a door, because i cannot see you, therefor i cannot address you. Prettysure, i could say some pretty insulting things here, now, on my keyboard, and piss someone off without ever having seen them. The ability quite clearly states its defining can't actions.
b You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.
Not necessarily. Sometimes the rules state restrictions as reminders, but don't necessarily include all restrictions (which can make things confusing).
I'm not certain about whether or not Antagonize requires LOS to work.
But for example, the demoralize function of intimidate does, but does not require the same language to function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are the rules for the demon even knowing where or who the person antagonized him is? I also agree that the check is limited by the required skill check, so you have to see your target to make it work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this thread. It taught me that that if someone uses the antagonize feat against me, I can use an intimidate check to demoralize back, as it's an offensive combat action. Thank you.
...I have nothing of use to add regarding the topic at hand.
The demon had been standing right next to me on its last turn, and it can see in the dark as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this thread. It taught me that that if someone uses the antagonize feat against me, I can use an intimidate check to demoralize back, as it's an offensive combat action. Thank you.
...I have nothing of use to add regarding the topic at hand.
Uhh...I think surprisingly, that is valid.
The demon had been standing right next to me on its last turn, and it can see in the dark as well.
It doesn't know where you may have moved or anything else you may have done. It has an idea of where you were, but not where you are. At best it has a rough idea of the vicinity you may be in since it had to hear you and knows where you were before.
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
There is absolutely NOTHING in the feat text that indicates that if it cannot make an attack this round it must use all its actions to move into a position to make an attack later. If the effect is extended to the next round, all it does is recheck to see if it can attack on that subsequent turn.
I think that's inherent in making an effort to make an attack. If for example, a PC antagonized an enemy in view and then ducked behind a corner, I think we'd agree that the antagonize feat pretty much required the target to try to move around the corner to attack (assuming he doesn't have a fireball to lob at the corner, hoping to catch the PC in the area). In this case, having teleported down the hall, the demon has to move back up the hall to try to get into position to launch any sort of attack. This, in fact, may be the only way for the target of the antagonize spell to even know he can't make an attack that first turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The demon had been standing right next to me on its last turn, and it can see in the dark as well.
Did it hear your voice while it had line of sight on you? If someone yells some profanity at me across a wall I might run around to challenge whoever it was, but I'm not going to randomly attack one of the suspects. Or necessarily the only suspect if it's possible the actual perpetrator broke line of sight while I was moving around the wall. So maybe given that I won't bother moving after all.
It requires a diplomacy or intimidate check. Those require line of sight. Apply that to the antagonize check.
|
|
The demon had been standing right next to me on its last turn, and it can see in the dark as well.Did it hear your voice while it had line of sight on you? If someone yells some profanity at me across a wall I might run around to challenge whoever it was, but I'm not going to randomly attack one of the suspects. Or necessarily the only suspect if it's possible the actual perpetrator broke line of sight while I was moving around the wall. So maybe given that I won't bother moving after all.
It requires a diplomacy or intimidate check. Those require line of sight. Apply that to the antagonize check.
It did not. Evilserran was in one room, the demon was in an entirely different room.
|
my 2cp:
The Antagonise feat requires that you target a creature. Targeting a creature requires line of effect. In this case it looks like there were multiple enemies, and the PC was not able to distinguish between them. Antagonise is not an AoE action. Therefore, in this example, I do not think that Antagonise could have been used.
That said, if the GM was happy that Antagonise could be used, the Babau so affected was not able to attack the PC on its turn. The PC could have used an immediate action (not clear if he did or not) to extend the effect for 1 round, meaning that the Babau would need to check again on its next turn to see if it could attack the PC. A targeted dispel magic would qualify as an attack, absolutely, so would throwing something as an improvised ranged weapon, if the Babau could have physically moved into a position from which it could target the PC with one of these options then it should have done so (assuming Antagonise could be used in the first place).
I think the DM should make a more storytelling approach.
You antagonize the demon
It's starts charging toward you
Runs into someone
Bullrush/knock aside that person
Keep going until it reaches you (in a later turn)
I would keep the demon after the antagonizer until something else interferes.
Really shouldn't piss off something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are the rules for the demon even knowing where or who the person antagonized him is?
"All right, who am I mad at? I know I'm mad at someone, but who?"
What are the rules for the demon even knowing where or who the person antagonized him is?"All right, who am I mad at? I know I'm mad at someone, but who?"
More like this.
By the rules of the Feat, the GM did make a legal action. That's pretty much it for a rules discussion. I'm going to spoil the rest of this, as it falls outside of a rules question.
Whether this violates the SPIRIT of the Feat, or it's intent, is another matter entirely. I think it's a good thing to step back a bit and ask yourself how you would rule this scenario if an NPC was using the Feat, and a player said "Well, since I can't reach him, I'll at least move in his direction, but I'm going to use my action to attack someone else, since there's no way I could attack him".
I've had issues with GM's along these lines before, like the time I was hit by a Suggestion, and I followed the exact words the NPC used, instead of the intent. I thought I was rather clever, and the GM thought I was being a bastard. I think we were both right, lol. But I then offered to change my action if he felt I was abusing the intent of the spell.
If you feel that you'd be ok with a player styming the intent of the Feat, or that you feel the Feat's mechanics ARE the intent of the Feat, that's perfectly fine and valid.
The only other thing to really consider as a GM is if that ruling adds to the fun (or at least, doesn't detract from the fun) of the game. Which should be the highest priority.
|
|
Again you are adding in something to the phrasing, it does not say that i must see them. Yes it is targeted because it only affects one person and not all of them, hence why not an AoE, however, by your logic i cannot talk to you through a door, because i cannot see you, therefor i cannot address you. Prettysure, i could say some pretty insulting things here, now, on my keyboard, and piss someone off without ever having seen them. The ability quite clearly states its defining can't actions.
b You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower.
Basic game rules: if you can't see someone, you can't target him.
You can't use a targeted effect as a AoE.
The demon had been standing right next to me on its last turn, and it can see in the dark as well.
You are conveniently forgetting that there were walls between him and you when you used antagonize, and that you could have moved from your last position.
I am not conveniently forgetting anything, at the time the post was made, whether the DM mis-spoke or not, it was told to me, the second demon, one which had been in the hallway had been the target, which he had allowed, if that was in error due to your ruling/interpretation of requiring LoS or not, it had been ruled legal at the time, his explanation for the attack was it "chose not to teleport" and therefor opened a door and attacked an ally, i then moved and extended it, deemed to be legal. After this post, several rounds later, he clarified it was the one that teleported into the other room on the other side of the door.
The LoS question was not the question for this post, but, can a creature that has been Antagonized be able to target a different person, rather then do it's best to "get to/attack" the target of the demoralize. While most posts do seem to lean in my favor, there are enough voting for the way he opted to do it. Therefor, as there is no cut and dry to it, seemingly, it will be a table standard that we discuss in person when next we meet. We will also discuss the LoS effect, which will not usually be an issue I am sure. While all the posts have been helpful in one way or another, many have also detracted from the original question, so i am going to consider this post closed. Worst case scenario, i run a different character when it appears it may be an issue.
As an aside however, when you strike someone in melee, you are targeting that person. you can swing a melee weapon while blinded with a miss-chance to hit, therefor have you targeted something you cannot see. I'msure if given enough time, i could find severalmore obvious interactions that show the statement to be false, but again, thatwas not the intent of this post. If you want to argue it more with me, i can make another one.