Goad (A Rant About Its Usefulness, or Lack Thereof)

[VoxRationis]

Now, I'm not one to insist that there be viable methods of MMO-style tanking. I am more of the mind that running interference should be a matter of clever tactics. Yet I am still struck by the utter ridiculousness of the Goad feat (Complete Adventurer). To my recollection, the feat, after all the mechanical setup is over and done with, merely restricts the application of melee attacks, and melee attacks alone. It does nothing to restrict choice in targets with ranged attacks or spells. Not only does this heavily dilute the usefulness of the feat, but it makes no sense from an in-universe perspective. How do you make someone so angry that they can only attack you with their sword, but can, without any effort of will on their part, turn to shoot a third party some distance away, or muster the concentration to cast a spell of, say, invisibility purge? Why would you add the melee-only restriction when designing the feat?

[Cowardly Griffo]

Same reason everyone seems to knee-jerk-ban Tome of Battle: because martial classes aren't allowed to have nice things. -_-;

No but really, if someone took that feat in a game I was running it would work for every aggressive act. Then again, I would also be inclined to make it a skill check instead of a level check; intimidate, probably.

[Anlashok]

Pathfinder has Antagonize which is similar. It's an intimidate cheek rather than a will save and forces the target to attack you, but also works ok ranged attacks and spells. It still has issues because they can drop an area attack that just includes you and still be fine or full attack and just use their lowest BAB iterative on you.

It uses to he better and force the target to make a melee attack, but it was deemed OP because wizards couldn't automatically win against people using it.

[Cowardly Griffo]

I'm kind of in favor of that change; a single feat shouldn't be able to shut down an entire class. Same way as the old Crane Wing gave you a free melee deflect every turn without costing you anything, which wasn't hard to work into being unbeatable in melee, but now you have to use total defense to get the deflect going. Mind you, Flanking Foil is still an atrocity, but we're really going off on a tangent now...

Anyway. Antagonize seems okay, but it should really last longer than a round if it's limited to once per day per target; say, a number of rounds equal to your charisma modifier? Or one round plus one for every 5 by which you beat the DC, maybe.

Cavaliers can also be pretty good at 'pulling aggro,' depending on their order. Maybe it should be built into the base Challenge ability.

[The Random NPC]

I'm kind of in favor of that change; a single feat shouldn't be able to shut down an entire class. Same way as the old Crane Wing gave you a free melee deflect every turn without costing you anything, which wasn't hard to work into being unbeatable in melee, but now you have to use total defense to get the deflect going. Mind you, Flanking Foil is still an atrocity, but we're really going off on a tangent now...

Anyway. Antagonize seems okay, but it should really last longer than a round if it's limited to once per day per target; say, a number of rounds equal to your charisma modifier? Or one round plus one for every 5 by which you beat the DC, maybe.

Cavaliers can also be pretty good at 'pulling aggro,' depending on their order. Maybe it should be built into the base Challenge ability.

It cost you 2 feats and a -2 to attack.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

it makes no sense from an in-universe perspective. How do you make someone so angry that they can only attack you with their sword, but can, without any effort of will on their part, turn to shoot a third party some distance away, or muster the concentration to cast a spell of, say, invisibility purge? Why would you add the melee-only restriction when designing the feat?

Speaking from a purely in world perspective this actually makes sense. Making a melee fighter melee you when they should be attacking someone else is causing a tactical misjudgment on their part and could also be sold as footwork interposing when they try to make different attacks.

Using melee instead of their preffered tactic or casting/making ranged attacks in melee when they may not have feats/spells for the situation is downright suicidal. I'm not commenting on the game balance here, just saying that it is defensible "in-world".

[squiggit]

Making a melee fighter melee you when they should be attacking someone else is causing a tactical misjudgment on their part and could also be sold as footwork interposing when they try to make different attacks.
It could, but this particularly skill is fluffed as a taunt. Footwork forcing a will save doesn't make sense anyways.


Using melee instead of their preffered tactic or casting/making ranged attacks in melee when they may not have feats/spells for the situation is downright suicidal. I'm not commenting on the game balance here, just saying that it is defensible "in-world".

His complaint wasn't that it didn't force melee... but that you could goad someone into being so angry they can only swing their sword at you.. but if they pull out a throwing axe they suddenly don't care anymore (etc).

[ArqArturo]

Same reason everyone seems to knee-jerk-ban Tome of Battle: because martial classes aren't allowed to have nice things. -_-;

One DM called it "Creepy Anime Bullsh*t".

He also refereed to all the Complete books as "Complete Munchkin Handbooks" ¬¬.

[Cowardly Griffo]

It cost you 2 feats and a -2 to attack.Yellow flag. Referential ambiguity. :smalltongue:

Though if you're talking about Crane Wing, two feats to render single melee combat unlosable is still broken. I have similar complaints about Deflect Arrows, but that one's a lot easier to get around.


One DM called it "Creepy Anime Bullsh*t".Right, because when a crusty old man in a pointy hat fires lasers at someone by flapping his arms and shouting it's fine, but when a strapping young chap or lass with a sword does it it's just silly. And wizards don't exist in anime, obviously. ◔_◔

Spoiler warning: they do, and they and martial types are (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBunw-BxydQ) both awesome (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpzR100s5RY).

[The Random NPC]

Yes, I was referring to Crane Wing, and in my opinion, if the party is fighting one person focusing on melee, that person is screwed regardless.

[DarkSonic1337]

I had no problem with the pre-errata Crane Wing. Against multiple opponents it wasn't a big deal. It required 3 feats (4 when you include crane wing itself), required you to fight defensively (-2 to attack thanks to crane style), and required a free hand (unarmed fighting isn't particularly strong, and one handed combat is notoriously weak outside of Magus shenanigans).

For that you got to negate one attack per round. Against multiple opponents this is kinda meh, against single opponents it's amazing as a defense...until alternate attack modes come into play (spell like abilities, breath weapons, ranged attacks, ect). Even just having a natural attack routine makes the feat just useful instead of an encounter ender. It's only amazing against single opponents who's attack routines are single melee attacks (or perhaps melee attacks with itteratives at levels where AC is relevant), who also have no alternate attack methods.

Of course taking the hit to your offense makes you less of a threat and the enemy may simply have no reason to attack you (related to why traditional MMO style tanking is something D&D doesn't support).

It was a nice defensive feat that supported an underpowered style and didn't need to be changed imo.

[The Random NPC]

I had no problem with the pre-errata Crane Wing. Against multiple opponents it wasn't a big deal. It required 3 feats (4 when you include crane wing itself), required you to fight defensively (-2 to attack thanks to crane style), and required a free hand (unarmed fighting isn't particularly strong, and one handed combat is notoriously weak outside of Magus shenanigans).

For that you got to negate one attack per round. Against multiple opponents this is kinda meh, against single opponents it's amazing as a defense...until alternate attack modes come into play (spell like abilities, breath weapons, ranged attacks, ect). Even just having a natural attack routine makes the feat just useful instead of an encounter ender. It's only amazing against single opponents who's attack routines are single melee attacks (or perhaps melee attacks with itteratives at levels where AC is relevant), who also have no alternate attack methods.

Of course taking the hit to your offense makes you less of a threat and the enemy may simply have no reason to attack you (related to why traditional MMO style tanking is something D&D doesn't support).

It was a nice defensive feat that supported an underpowered style and didn't need to be changed imo.

Put better than I could have.