How Should Taunting Work?

Yunru said:

It's definitely Persuasion vs Insight.
As for how it should react, there's no one way even for a single species, let alone every create. Part of it also depends on what you're taunting it into doing.

Click to expand...

Great point on the reaction. Setting a specific behavior is more in line with 5e simplicity, but leaving it open ended works fine, as well.

A feint would be deceiving your opponent into thinking there's an opening that isn't actually there, and thus Deception.
A taunt is persuading your opponent to take a course of action, and thus Persuasion.

Both would have different outcomes. For instance, I can't see a feint granting disadvantage against other targets, because if the feint succeeds then the creature isn't going to be attacking other targets.

Click to expand...

Great points. A feint, IMO, is a move you do to get advantage against a creature, primarily, but I can also see using it to get them to overextend using their movement to come into a space they won't enjoy being in.

iserith said:

This is probably a little more complicated than I would generally like, especially if I'm making a ruling in the moment. I'd also prefer a static DC instead of a contest here. The DC I chose happens to be the ettin's passive Insight, for what it's worth.

Click to expand...

A check against passive insight works fine, for sure. A save IMO works just as well, set against a DC determined by the player's skill, but I'd prefer to make the roll, as a player.
Another way to deal with the ettin, if a DM wants to treat ettins differently, is to set two DCs. If you hit the higher one, you taunt both heads. If you hit the lower, only one falls for it. But, even that is something for DMs that want to have ettins work differently for this sort of thing.

I don't think disadvantage makes any sense for it, though. Having two heads makes ettins easier to confuse, not harder.

MechaTarrasque said:

I would say it is a performance check that focuses the monster's attention for 2 rounds.* But even the slowest monster notices when someone else is hurting it, and even the hungriest monster knows when it isn't catching the food (especially if the PC is the scrawny one), so you have to try again every other round, or it will look for easier (or more tasty) prey.

* the bard should be really good at taunting, and not just because of viscous mockery.

Click to expand...

I could roll with that. So, it works until the end of your next turn? Making it work for two rounds, as such, is wonky in play IME.

To the rest, I agree. My preference is repeated saves, but maybe it should just be 1 round, and then you can try again to keep it's attention, and if it's getting nothing out of chasing you the DC gets higher or it gets advantage to save/you get disad to the check.
Maybe a feat that lets you be extra good at it, with a +1 to cha, training in Performance if you don't have it, and the Taunted effect is ongoing with a save every round?

Greenstone.Walker said:

How would you prefer taunting to work against your PC? After all, if a ruling is made, it applies to every character in the game.

Click to expand...

2 things, in reverse order

A) No, it doesn't, necessarily. PC behavior can only be forced by magic, while NPC behavior can be determined by PC skill check success. The DM never, ever, gets to determine how the PC feels about anything. At all. Ever. Period.

however,

2) This is about, essentially, a combat manuever. The player can decide what it looks like when they fall for the ploy, without the mechanic stepping on their agency. Maybe they get angry, maybe they get distracted and don't realise how open they are leaving themselves by "swatting the fly", whatever. It's up to the player.

So, my answer is the same either way. As a DM, I don't use mechanics that force PC behavior much at all, including spells, but that's a DM preference. I'm not trying to make the game less fun for them, and it doesn't hurt my fun at all when they use hold person or crown of madness on the creatures I'm controlling.

If my rogue or his companion (lately more often in owl form, because we've been in the air a lot) can taunt an ettin by making a charisma (whatever) check against their passive Insight, then the enemy necromancer can do the same to my rogue.

doctorbadwolf said:

I don't think disadvantage makes any sense for it, though. Having two heads makes ettins easier to confuse, not harder.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. If it's a straight single roll to resolve uncertainty, an argument can be made that the difficulty comes in getting both of them to agree to the same course of action (put the whole at risk to go after the taunting wolf). "An ettin bullies and argues with itself constantly..."

As well, while the ettin's Two Heads trait does not address the issue of taunting specifically, it does make reference to it being harder to charm or frighten it. If a DM used that as a reason to justify disadvantage, I'd say that's fair enough.

iserith said:

I'm not so sure. If it's a straight single roll to resolve uncertainty, an argument can be made that the difficulty comes in getting both of them to agree to the same course of action (put the whole at risk to go after the taunting wolf). "An ettin bullies and argues with itself constantly..."

As well, while the ettin's Two Heads trait does not address the issue of taunting specifically, it does make reference to it being harder to charm or frighten it. If a DM used that as a reason to justify disadvantage, I'd say that's fair enough.

Click to expand...

I'd say that those are entirely different cases, however. Ettins aren't harder to trick. They don't have any bonus to insight, or even training in it. If having two heads made it harder to confuse them, trick them, or otherwise manipulate them, they'd have a bonus to insight, or a feature that actually referenced that, rather than just giving them a defense against charm and frighten. They can be marked just fine. The Battle Master doesn't have any penalty when using Goading Attack against them. Their heads can be tricked into distraction via fighting with eachother, etc.

doctorbadwolf said:

I'd say that those are entirely different cases, however. Ettins aren't harder to trick. They don't have any bonus to insight, or even training in it. If having two heads made it harder to confuse them, trick them, or otherwise manipulate them, they'd have a bonus to insight, or a feature that actually referenced that, rather than just giving them a defense against charm and frighten. They can be marked just fine. The Battle Master doesn't have any penalty when using Goading Attack against them. Their heads can be tricked into distraction via fighting with eachother, etc.

Click to expand...

Sounds like it's time to get your wolf familiar leveled up in battle master then.

iserith said:

Sounds like it's time to get your wolf familiar leveled up in battle master then.

Click to expand...

This is where I'd stand on the issue too. There are "Taunt type" abilities in the PHB, Goading attack is one, Compelled Duel spell is another. You shouldn't be able to duplicate those effects with a skill check.

I like option 2 just because it's more interesting.

iserith said:

Sounds like it's time to get your wolf familiar leveled up in battle master then.

Click to expand...

Nah. Taunting an enemy isn't something that should be only available to specialized fighters. And the thread is about how to resolve taunting as a general action, just like tripping someone, shoving them, etc. I'm genuinely not interested in "if you don't have an ability that specially makes you able to do it you can't" responses.

Torquar said:

This is where I'd stand on the issue too. There are "Taunt type" abilities in the PHB, Goading attack is one, Compelled Duel spell is another. You shouldn't be able to duplicate those effects with a skill check.

Click to expand...

Nope. Just like shoving a creature as an action doesn't duplicate the Shield Master feat benefit, taunting a creature doesn't duplicate goading attack or compelled duel or the level 9 swashbuckler archetype feature.

This argument you're both making falls apart upon cursory inspection, simply because it's the equivalent of claiming that PCs shouldn't be able to use skills to gain advantage on an attack because there are class features and spells that give advantage on an attack, except even less sensible, because goading attack is done as part of an attack, and adds extra damage to the attack!

Action A: Make a skill check. if Successful, the target tries to reach you in order to attack you on it's turn, or has disadvantage on attacks on it's next turn unless they're against you, or whatever similar mechanical resolution.

Action B: Same as above, except you do it as part of one attack, as part of a class that gets multiple attacks per attack action, and get extra damage, and only spend the limited resource to use this feature if the attack succeeds.

Yeah, no. A doesn't duplicate B.

Edit: Even better! Picking Locks shouldn't be part of an ability check with a tool proficiency, because the knock spell exists!

Better excise the ability to use Perception to keep a watch, since it obviates the Alarm spell. Can't have that!

et cetera

doctorbadwolf said:

Nah. Taunting an enemy isn't something that should be only available to specialized fighters. And the thread is about how to resolve taunting as a general action, just like tripping someone, shoving them, etc. I'm genuinely not interested in "if you don't have an ability that specially makes you able to do it you can't" responses.

Click to expand...

That's not my position in any case, as evidenced by my previous posts. The comment was made in jest.

What was your DM's reasoning for disadvantage on the check? Sometimes DMs do that so the task you're attempting isn't seen as a great option in the future.

Typically speaking, I run it in the same manner most video-games do in the background: the more damage you deal, the more you are perceived as a threat. I do this in part because in my experience it has discouraged basters from nova-ing the first round of combat. Let the fighters get in a few hits, throw a few minor spells, and when the time is right, STRIKE.

I'll allow for various inter-personal checks to move a character up the chart for a while. But mean words aren't going to distract the baddie from the rogue who keeps sneak-attacking for 6d6 in his backside for very long. They also aren't going to let you kite the baddie while a couple archers artillery it to death.

TLDR: damage is the easiest way to get an enemy's attention.

How should taunting work?

When posed with such tricky practical and philosophical questions, I always find that the lads at Monty Python have an answer.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar