Attercop Attercop from Taunting to - Come and Get it.

AbdulAlhazred · Jul 4, 2018

Garthanos said:
perhaps a distortion of "edderkopp" - norwegian for spider.... oh wait humor.

Attercop was Anglo Saxon for spider IIRC. That's why Tolkien had Bilbo run around saying it.

Garthanos · Jul 13, 2018

Garthanos said:
4e may well split it up into a lot of places.

Here is a trick 4e has a universal option of aiding another's Defense, or Attack or Skill use. However in their base form they just arent worth the Standard Action to perform even though the action benefit for attacks and defenses are automatic.

However if we change it to a minor action they would simply be too useful at least at lower levels where there isnt much competition for minor actions , especially if that combined with the various other enhancements to aid actions the game has.

So my idea is as THIS form is a deception a way to represent the limitation I call "fool me once shame on you" is to make the minor action a once per encounter feature. This is not quite functional however as you need to be able to do all of this at range which none of the standard aid moves allow. (the AID defense improves the subjects defenses by 2)

Now we are talking! something that is getting valuable! lets call it 10 squares, let it affect any of the 3 AIDs and this function could even be allowed all the time where you either talk your ally into doing it right or beleaguer your enemy (but you have to spend a standard after the first time)

Although your Hey ugly isnt exactly the same as the aid stealth skill, perhaps we could add a clause to enable it.

Note if the ability lets you Aid Defense has some interesting if subtle effects - if you aide an allies defense you in general become a generally better target for an enemy (this is a component of 4es marking mechanic actually).

While the above doesnt give you a pull in 4e pulls are generally part of class/race OR skill powers.

A skill power in bluffing called "What are you Chicken" might work very well.

I think this isnt a bad analysis for 4e - but so far the taunts on here miss out on a lot.

However the everyman abilities lack something that is implied in Bilbos taunt and it was affecting multiple opponents in a way to help allies escape (marking is certainly power oriented version)

NOTE technically if someone can affect multiple enemies with intimidation telling them to attack you instead because you are the dangerous one a bluff seems entirely appropriate to do something similar and either might do something like a basic distraction effect which could allow allies to escape. I missposted the thought in another thread and [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] brought up a power to look at.

Garthanos said:
A taunt which just caused your enemy to not be able to take an opportunity attack against your ally might be very useful. It would be a good distraction effect. To help enable escape... if it worked on multiple opponents similar to how an intimidation can.

darkbard said:
Wizard's AW Winged Horde immediately jumps to mind as a model for balance purposes.

Garthanos · Jul 14, 2018

One problem of leveraging intimidate? it's almost totally open ended... Ignoring that

OK so the direction this is going is that Taunting could easily be a function of Intimidate (fighters might like that a lot - a rogue or bard might get some skill swap or not ) so let's examine the root effect.

For those who like a visual - Verbalization as a standard action might be something akin to loud snort and
"You dumb knobbers shouldn't worry about them I am going to rip you new holes.", drawing weapon or similar minor action perhaps breaking something loudly for visual effect.

I think An enemy already being hostile is something this trick shouldnt be bothered by at least not very much so maybe at most a +5 if they have an ally of yours next to them or if they are marked. This is a DM call pretty much though.
This is not going to be a knocked out of the battle effect so it obviously wouldnt require the bloodied enemy.
The Intimidate ability normally forces a target to take an action and by extension not take an action so we are not at all warping what intimidate does out of proportion. Just defining more clearly a plausible effect of doing so in combat.

So making THIS Taunting a function of intimidate is really just defining a type of action "paying attention to the taunter" which lasts til the end of the taunters next turn and should reasonably be defined as preventing the subject from taking an opportunity action during that time. (perhaps inducing a 2 pt penalty for perception or insight attempts as well)

The action is effectively forcing them to take an opportunity action ie each affected uses the action to pay attention to the Taunter instead of the taunters allies til the end of next turn so any opportunity not provoked by the one is missed.

The above is pretty close to just an interpretation of existing rules. AND by the rules could be attempted even without training with a failure against a given enemy resulting in no more attempts against them they have decided you are basically not significant.

Garthanos · Jul 14, 2018

Just paying attention to the taunter is kind of a basic success I am thinking a bloodied opponent might do the full switch targets and considered marked, ie if primarily a melee combatant rushing away without shifting at the taunter next turn in addition to losing opportunities as described.

I am now thinking about [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] and his Homl with different degrees of success.'

I think bloodied being a condition for some "absolute" success for skill based actions targetting enemies is interesting.

AbdulAlhazred · Jul 14, 2018

Garthanos said:
I think this isnt a bad analysis for 4e - but so far the taunts on here miss out on a lot.

However the everyman abilities lack something that is implied in Bilbos taunt and it was affecting multiple opponents in a way to help allies escape (marking is certainly power oriented version)

NOTE technically if someone can affect multiple enemies with intimidation telling them to attack you instead because you are the dangerous one a bluff seems entirely appropriate to do something similar and either might do something like a basic distraction effect which could allow allies to escape. I missposted the thought in another thread and @darkbard brought up a power to look at.

How about a general action that anyone can use:

distract - standard action, you may mark any opponent within 10 squares of you.

The name here is just generic, you can color this as a taunt or whatever you want. It gets the job done and seems hardly likely to cause any issues in play. Its a weak move, but now and then it would probably be worthwhile.

Garthanos · Jul 14, 2018

AbdulAlhazred said:
How about a general action that anyone can use:

distract - standard action, you may mark any opponent within 10 squares of you.

The name here is just generic, you can color this as a taunt or whatever you want. It gets the job done and seems hardly likely to cause any issues in play. Its a weak move, but now and then it would probably be worthwhile.

Remember a fighter can throw an improvised rock and mark an enemy while delivering damage.

If we want that to be valuable for them... it will take more. (d4 psychic damage +?)

Or perhaps it can cause the enemy to grant combat advantage to adjacent creatures

AbdulAlhazred · Jul 14, 2018

Garthanos said:
Remember a fighter can throw an improvised rock and mark an enemy while delivering damage.

If we want that to be valuable for them... it will take more. (d4 psychic damage +?)

Or perhaps it can cause the enemy to grant combat advantage to adjacent creatures

A fighter wouldn't probably use this option, but a wizard might, or a cleric, etc. It might especially be interesting in cases where there are narrative reasons to want to divert an opponent from making an attack on your ally. I would note that it effectively obsoletes the 'defensive aid another' option, at least in many cases. TBH I think that was a worthless non-option anyway (trade your turn for a mere possibility that you grant an ally a +2 to all defenses, not really that great). Here you're trading your turn for a 100% chance of effectively granting all your allies a +2 to all defenses vs this one opponent. Most of the time this will get you what you want.

Garthanos · Jul 14, 2018

AbdulAlhazred said:
A fighter wouldn't probably use this option,

Give a fighter something to boost it up was my thought.

AbdulAlhazred said:
but a wizard might, or a cleric, etc. It might especially be interesting in cases where there are narrative reasons to want to divert an opponent from making an attack on your ally. I would note that it effectively obsoletes the 'defensive aid another' option, at least in many cases. TBH I think that was a worthless non-option anyway (trade your turn for a mere possibility that you grant an ally a +2 to all defenses, not really that great). Here you're trading your turn for a 100% chance of effectively granting all your allies a +2 to all defenses vs this one opponent. Most of the time this will get you what you want.

True about the obsolescence of Aid Defense but they already made it automatic no roll with errata.

AbdulAlhazred · Jul 14, 2018

Garthanos said:
Give a fighter something to boost it up was my thought.

True about the obsolescence of Aid Defense but they already made it automatic no roll with errata.

Yeah, I think I'm starting to forget a few of those tweaks, its hard to remember them all unless you play constantly.

I would just give the fighter a nice power, and/or practice, to boost up 'distract'. In HoML the basic fighter stuff often reads like "I'm just right up in your grill, you can't ignore me." (which I guess is what 4e was mostly going for as well).

Garthanos · Jul 14, 2018

Aid defense should affect defense against all enemies if you still wanted it.

I think they forgot from the ground up that the everyman abilities would effectively compete in the action economy with at-wills.