Improved Antagonize

[SardineTheAncestor]

What about Antagonize getting Intimidate/Demoralise alongside Taunt to use as a defensive ability? This would not be a straight buff, but another tool for them to use. We were talking about mundanes and versatility and PHB. I would like to see a developer comment about the brigade on "fear effects" when we have Fear, Scare, Doom/Circle, Curse Song, etc. before this thread spirals out of control and is locked or everyone leaves because there's no PHB support and powerbuilding concerns keep coming up.

Taunt represents the "angering people into letting their guard down" thing, which is where the AC comes in. I think if we were to do intimidation with it we could use an ability that lowers the enemy's AB in the same way. It would become a fantastic party synergy & defensive option.

Your suggestion that Fighter gets it free gave me another idea. Something like epic reputation at a certain level of Fighter where you automatically get some Influence and Antagonize points.

For the first thing I posted, speaking of the PHB:

Demoralize Opponent: You can also use Intimidate to weaken an opponent's resolve in combat. To do so, make an Intimidate check opposed by the target's modified level check (see above). If you win, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. You can intimidate only an opponent that you threaten in melee combat and that can see you.

I don't know if I would make it a 1 round duration, maybe 5 rounds since that's how long Taunt lasts.

I searched for "Terrifying Rage" and "Shaken" but no results came up.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong--what makes scary things inappropriate to a setting that's all about scary things? Players already have Fear, Scare, Doom/Circle, etc. so that sort of precedent is confusing to me. Caliban, Evil, and Monstrous characters at their best are also supposed to be centered around horrifying elements of the setting.

[Nemesis 24]

If I could suggest -anything-, without looking through the various feats and other (often conflicting) splat books out there (and oh boy are there many) then I would be looking at synergestic feats that improve combat conditions, and since people call out for fighter buffs, its fighters who I would give it to.

For example, a fighter with 12+ charisma, 12 ranks in both antagonise 'and' influence could take 'Inspiring taunt' which, on a successful taunt, gives +1 AB and +1 saves to allies in radius, for the duration of the taunt.  Another, higher rank version would be 'Defensive taunt' which gives +1 Dodge AC to allies within range on top of the previous bonus.  Something like 14 charisam, 15 antagonise, 15 influence.  Again however, this is extremely speculative.  I'd personally prefer the topic to be shut down if anything, but it we're going to speculate, that's the sort of speculation I would rather see happening.

[StreetSamurai]

Interesting suggestion, Ken14.

It seems a well-intentioned post but there's a couple of wide-reaching implications if this were to be implemented that I'm not sure you considered when writing it. But don't worry, it's hard to keep in mind everything and it's why it's not at all enviable to be a developer because power creep is a genuine worry to consider when implementing abilities. Personally I'd like to see it implemented as someone that plays a melee character that invested in antagonize but it'd be extremely unfair to anyone I fight in both PvE and PvP.

Addressing the first question...

So I wondered: why isn't there any feats surrounding this ability to improve the sheer otency of how it rattles people?

Permit me to be a bit pedantic but there is two feats that help facilitate the use of antagonizing mobs: There is a Half-Orc specific ability here and you could argue that skill focus  is also another feat that plays off of this purpose  but I suspect that you already know about skill focuses at the very least. I suspect that there isn't any additional feats on top of that because itemization already provides an inherent problem for spellcasters because there's a multitude of items that provide sizable antagonize increase with minor debuffs (source: Ring of the Mouth/Revolutionary's Sash) and if we were to bring this theoretical fight to a higher level scheme enchanted equipment already provides +6 and +3 antagonize with certain popular linings that I'll keep FOIC out of respect of what the server is trying to cultivate.

Unfortunately for any spellcasters, they're in an inverse situation with absolutely no concentration gear that isn't above a +2 concentration and certainly no crafted gear to help them out. On top of that, skill focus is their only feat and it's a CON-based ability so at most inherently they have +3 or +4 bonus from their ability with +1 or +2 more from bear's endurance. Now also bear in mind that everything is equal footing for the attacker and the defender because they're still endowed with the bog-standard 23 points they get from 20 levels but things could also fluctuate because the focus isn't always on high-level play here. So already, we're looking at a lopsided bonus for one side over the other.

Which ties into the second point...

Like, for example, an ability that you can use several times per day that can do a deficit of up to 10 AC, and perhaps an increased spell failure chance of 100% for 6 rounds? At the cost of needing to overcome an increased DC?

A round is six seconds so six rounds would be thirty seconds which already makes me all hot and bothered here. Why? Because I invested the points and stripping 10 AC is essentially invaldied improved expertise for the cost of one feat or if it's a free class ability, even better, as opposed to their two invested feats which is a fairly big feat investment for some builds like bard. Against melees, it's promised to work until people start to feel obligated to invest another skill, concentrate, in a manner akin to how we treat discipline currently which would ruffle some feathers because the big three (tumble, discipline, spellcraft) would become the big four and it could very well consume some builds whole and leave them dry on skill points which further makes fighters even more one-dimensional. That doesn't mean they're bad but we are kicking that class a little more if we implemented it.

But what against spellcasters? With this implemented, I would triple down on my skill and start getting all the antagonize gear to overrun the wizard's fully invest concentration (and not all wizards are promised to have concentration FYI) because success means I invalidate all of their wizard levels for 30 seconds. 30 seconds they have -10 ac, a d4 hit die, and 100% spell failure while I lay down about 30 attacks by the time that's over... Unless, you know, I reapply it and they aren't already dead. Now you might be thinking of a PvP situation and while you'd be correct I would also start applying this in PvE as much as I can now because I'd be invalidating scary wizard NPCs that probably aren't going to get re-adjusted across the board for this. So if they did implement it, the developers would also have to debate whether or not they want to spend a day off fixing every single wizard mob and rebalancing dungeons.

Sorry it's a bit lengthy but I hope it gives some insight and you could see the other side of the proverbial aisle.

[APorg]

This must be a Joke ending Y, but Y not? Believe the original poster was looking into suggestions and even asked for examples. But given some of the posts and statements if we were to present something that would be in D&D or D20 Cannon it could be utilize correct? The suggestions made seem more in general than class specific. With so much knowledge of the Dev's and the system I'm surprise more people don't help in constructive idea building to these suggestions.

"Hey, Mage spells could be more fun. As a suggestion, I think we should make Time Stop last three times longer."

"No, that's ridiculous."

"Aww, come on, let's have a constructive discussion -- how about just twice longer?"

[BraveSirRobin]

Why is everyone ridiculing these people instead of suggesting alternatives? You’ve voiced your disapproval, there’s no need to try to drown out any potential discussion on whatever could be implemented — At the Dev’s discretion (They will usually post their thoughts on the matter eventually) — By repeatedly posting your disapproval or disinterest. It just discourages further discussion in general.

[EO]

Taunt is essentially hardcoded so it’s a moot point. That being said I agree that it’s already powerful enough as is. A -6AC debuff is a lot.

If we add more combat feats they’ll be directed at fighters rather than bards/barbarians.

[APorg]

Why is everyone ridiculing these people instead of suggesting alternatives?

To suggest alternatives, we have to accept the premise of the suggestion -- that Antagonize needs to be improved.  I don't mean to ridicule anyone, but I think it's disingenuous to tell me I'm not being constructive when there's no foundation for a debate to be had.

[Alan Hunter]

Why is everyone ridiculing these people instead of suggesting alternatives?

To suggest alternatives, we have to accept the premise of the suggestion -- that Antagonize needs to be improved.  I don't mean to ridicule anyone, but I think it's disingenuous to tell me I'm not being constructive when there's no foundation for a debate to be had.

But to disenfranchising the facts of premise to accepting you already accepted the suggestion existed in the first place to make a retort. By  "Me" you mean "you" feel. And I'm sorry you feel as if you may be targeted. It wasn't my intention as I spoke in general. Though I do feel it is ingenious of these folks for trying to bring a bit of change and positivity to the subject.

[SardineTheAncestor]

Maybe there's no debate to be had, but I still want to know why Demoralise Opponent, directly from the PHB, is regarded as a "fear" effect, where Fear, Scare, Doom/Circle, Curse Song, and probably other effects I'm forgetting, are not considered that.

EDIT: Preferably from the developer who supposedly shot the idea down originally. There is no record of it that I can find through the forum search.

[Ken14]

Actually, the premise was 'Why isn't there any feats that modify Antagonize? If you think it could be done, chime in with suggestions!'.

EO just recently answered this. It's hardcoded and they think it's fine as-is. So there, most of the question has been answered. Thanks!

One thing however:
The 'ludicrous' example was just that, an example. I never said that it's what I thought was viable or even allowable. It -was- meant to provoke others into giving what they deemed to be fairer additions , because I don't consider myself the premier expert on balance. I guess it worked 

[APorg]

Actually, the premise was 'Why isn't there any feats that modify Antagonize? If you think it could be done, chime in with suggestions!'.

I realise it's not your intent to imply that myself, Nem and others are misrepresenting you, but you did in fact use the word "improve" both in the original post and in the thread title...

[Ken14]

Actually, the premise was 'Why isn't there any feats that modify Antagonize? If you think it could be done, chime in with suggestions!'.

I realise it's not your intent to imply that myself, Nem and others are misrepresenting you, but you did in fact use the word "improve" both in the original post and in the thread title...

That...is a fair point. Suppose that would be rather misleading, yeah. I guess 'Modified Antagonize' sounded off as a thread title.

[Hypatia]

Why does everyone want Charisma stuff for fighters? No one's asking for a bunch of strength based stuff for Wizards, or dex stuff for clerics. Fighters are already weaker than every other class, I just don't see the thinking here. Fighters are supposed to fight well.. its going to be a lot harder to do that if you dump your physicals into Charisma to get feats that won't make up for the lost strength. Not everyone has RP justification to dip into spell casting or stealthy classes.

Taunt is amazing, I agree, but considering the ACs people can get too on here with magic, it kinda has to be. I mean we have spell casting classes here that get +8 to strength and bonuses to other stats and AC too.  AC 40 is everywhere. There are enough massive Armor class boosts with durations that take them all the way through the rest timer that having a reliable way to bring them down into hittable range is pretty important if you want fighters to be even worth considering. That said, I think the skill really is good enough as is, and there's plenty of gear.  I sure don't want to see any help resisting it because for us pure melee classes, its all we got to try to do something about the astronomical AC bonuses pretty much every other class can get.

I don't think a feat that allows a fighter to use Str. instead of Cha for antagonize is unreasonable. Maybe have it at the end of a few prerequisite feats, such as "skill focus; antagonize" and "thug" or something. If barbarians are super powered, fine make it for fighters. Maybe that would be a good incentive to stay a pure fighter, because right now, as everyone knows fighters are only good if multiclassed. 

Also, why does the "thug" feat give you a +2 to influence instead of antagonize?  Is that a glitch?

[SardineTheAncestor]

You have a knack for getting the jump on the competition and pushing other people around. While others debate, you act.

Benefit

You gain a +2 bonus on initiative checks and a +2 bonus on Appraise and Intimidate checks.

Not PHB, but Player's Guide to Faerun is an official 3.5 source.
 
NWN thing I guess.

[APorg]

I don't think a feat that allows a fighter to use Str. instead of Cha for antagonize is unreasonable. Maybe have it at the end of a few prerequisite feats, such as "skill focus; antagonize" and "thug" or something. If barbarians are super powered, fine make it for fighters. Maybe that would be a good incentive to stay a pure fighter, because right now, as everyone knows fighters are only good if multiclassed.

Actually, I agree with you.  A feat allowing STR to be used instead of CHA for a Barbarian or Paladin would be too much; but allowing it as a pure Fighter feat is reasonable.