NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6742711" data-attributes="member: 3400">That doesn't really answer the debate why should magic be involuntary but responses to some skills be strictly voluntary, particularly if both uses involve overcoming the target's defenses. This topic has generated some heated debate on the Paizo boards around a feat called Antagonize. With that feat, and a sufficient intimidation check, the antagonize draws an attack from his target. It is listed as a mind-affecting effect and the antagonist does need to overcome a DC based on the target's stats that's set at a reasonably high level for a skill check. So it's not like it doesn't overcome defenses in a way similar to a spell. There are some differences - no auto-success nor auto-fail - but it otherwise follows similar principles and offers some choice in how the attack should be made (could be a spell, ranged attack, or melee attack). Yet you'd think the feat were murdering some players' puppies because it's a mind-controlling skill rather than a spell.Personally, as long as the effect overcomes a reasonably appropriate defense, I don't see why magic and skills need to be so different that a skill can't impose an involuntary effect or even actions. In the debate above, with simple intimidation, if the PCs decided not to do as the intimidating enemy says, fine, but I'm still imposing the shaken status on anything the PCs do contrary to complying for the rest of the duration of the intimidate.</blockquote>

Verification