D&D 5E 11/1/13 google hangout with

[ZombieRoboNinja]

It's true. I wanted to tease out Taunt specifically because it specifically doesn't quite mesh with what I enjoy, and because it was mentioned in the podcast. Most of the other abilities are OK in my book -- they don't violate control of decision points.

What if Taunt worked like this?

Taunt: As an action, you can spend your skill die to taunt a creature. Choose a creature within 30 feet of you that can see or hear you, and contest your Charisma against its Wisdom. The creature automatically wins the contest if it is immune to being charmed. If it loses, the creature has disadvantage on any action it takes in its next turn (and grants its opponents advantage on saves against its attacks) if it does not first use its move to approach you as close as possible while avoiding dangerous terrain.

Obviously I just pasted together the current Taunt and Distract here, but would this work for you? The downside, of course, it that it's quite a bit more complex than the current Taunt.

I still think the original design is fine, but I certainly wouldn't mind a compromise on cases like this where some minor adjustments satisfy a broader swath of players.

The trickier challenge is stuff like martial healing, where there really isn't much of a workable middle ground. I'm thinking their best bet is to cordon off those more controversial mechanics to particular classes (like the warlord), so that a group that despises inspirational healing can just ban those classes.

 

[Manbearcat]

double post

 

[Manbearcat]

It would be a wonderful thing if the presuppositions of "taunt paradigms and resources" in TTRPGs could be broadened to include more than just "GET OVER HERE" challenges and Charisma contests. It seems like this is what people reflexively think of when they think of melee defender control.

I don't think of that. That is a subset but I actually perceive that as a peripheral element of the paradigm. This is why I really appreciate 4e melee marking, combat challenge and superiority. To me, it finally hearkens to what I think of:

- Basketball Centers protecting the rim; controlling penetrating defenders into missed shots or not taking shots in the paint at all.

- Hockey Defensemen doing the exact same thing just outside the crease or in the slot to Centers and Wingers.

- Football Safeties doing the same thing to Wide Receivers and Tight Ends over the middle (until Roger Goodell and our overzealous, litigious society fully ruins the game).

All of those guys are Defenders; in the D&D sense of the word. They impose their will upon multiple enemies. They control the flow of the game (combat) around them. Enemies suffer inaccuracies (negatives to hit) when they are patrolling their respective areas and if full attention is not heeded to them, enemies pay the price (blocked shots completely negating offense, bone crunching hits completely negating offense and wiping you out of the play or dislodging the puck/ball). They all do it through size, strength, speed, agility, awareness, technique. Later on, they gain notoriety and something like charisma comes into play by proxy of reputation...but that is a 2nd order function of their "Defending"...the first order is the physical attributes and technique.

That is what "Defending" is. Making folks pay specific and/or complete attention to you not through social interchange (an outlier amongst the skill set) but through physical interchange.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

That is what "Defending" is. Making folks pay specific and/or complete attention to you not through social interchange (an outlier amongst the skill set) but through physical interchange.

I think there's room for both. It makes sense to me that a dashing rogue would use his charm and wits to trick enemies into making mistakes, whereas, say, a fighter might depend more on physical dominance. The current playtest could definitely use some more feats/maneuvers/class abilities to that end. Here's one I suggested in the WOTC forums as a basic class ability for fighters:

Combat Domination: When an adjacent enemy makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee attack against them as a reaction.

And here's another, more defensive version of the same thing:

Combat Distraction: When an adjacent enemy makes an attack that does not include you, you can grant them disadvantage on that attack as a reaction. (The problem here is that it wouldn't be effective against spellcasters who force saves rather than making attack rolls.)

Again, both of these could easily be adapted to work as feats or as maneuvers, and I think they'd fill some of the gap you see in defending capacity.

 

[Wyckedemus]

So, I'm seeing people complain that martial abilities should not be "charming" and forcing opponents to do certain things against their will. And in extreme cases I agree. Even though 4E had some blatant powers I did not agree with, like "Come and Get It," 4th edition did a very good job with some of their martial concepts. Let's take a look at one of them.

Why not have Taunt use 4E's "mark" mechanic? "Your opponent has a -2 penalty to any attacks that do not include you". Essentially, your opponent is so distracted by you that he has a hard time focusing on other opponents. The benefits include:

A) It supports a storytelling function that you are getting the opponent's attention. (Good for the verisimilitude lovers.)
B) It gives the opponent "incentive" to attack the Taunter rather than forcing an opponent to do something (Good for those who prefer the martial/magic differentiation, and for those who want logic to influence an interaction instead of a gamist ruling saying what happens.)
C) You are still providing a mechanical penalty to your opponent that is not up to the DM's adjudication (Good for those who hate "Mother May I".)
D) With D&D Next's bounded accuracy, the -2 to attacks is more impactful than it was in 4E. (For those that want the ability to matter.)
E) It's easy. (For those who like it easy.)

A more severe (or higher level) version of this would be to give the enemy disadvantage on attacks against people other than you.

What do you guys think?

 

[Manbearcat]

@ZombieRoboNinja Yup. I absolutely agree that both need to be supported. And I think the disadvantage/advantage mechanic is an user-friendly way to actualize the "compel/incentive" (coupled with MBAs) Defender control. So good stuff there, as always.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Why not have Taunt use 4E's "mark" mechanic? "Your opponent has a -2 penalty to any attacks that do not include you". Essentially, your opponent is so distracted by you that he has a hard time focusing on other opponents.
...
A more severe (or higher level) version of this would be to give the enemy disadvantage on attacks against people other than you.

What do you guys think?

As others on this thread have mentioned, this is the exact way that the Distract skill trick works. I think it's pretty cool, but incentivizing an enemy to attack you is different from forcing them to move towards you. (For example, you would want to Taunt an archer to lure them into melee range.)

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As others on this thread have mentioned, this is the exact way that the Distract skill trick works. I think it's pretty cool, but incentivizing an enemy to attack you is different from forcing them to move towards you. (For example, you would want to Taunt an archer to lure them into melee range.)

You may WANT to, but when you make fun of the guy with a projectile, he's just going to shoot you. You wouldn't taunt a guy in real life if he's got a gun and you've got a knife and expect him to rush you.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

You may WANT to, but when you make fun of the guy with a projectile, he's just going to shoot you. You wouldn't taunt a guy in real life if he's got a gun and you've got a knife and expect him to rush you.

But you could throw a bottle of acid at his face and then duck behind a corner, or pretend to surrender and turn over your weapon to him, or trick him into thinking you're a powerful wizard blocking his projectiles with magic, or whatever.

Yeah, it requires some careful situational roleplaying to make it work. Maybe it's too much of a stretch, especially if the rogue player doesn't feel motivated to come up with a reasonable justification every time.

 

[Klaus]

As others on this thread have mentioned, this is the exact way that the Distract skill trick works. I think it's pretty cool, but incentivizing an enemy to attack you is different from forcing them to move towards you. (For example, you would want to Taunt an archer to lure them into melee range.)

That's why, when I suggested the mark mechanic, I included the word "melee" in the attack that bypasses the mark. You want the enemy to move towards you, anything less won't do.

"You ugly, long-eared, fancy-pants momma's elf! You put that bow down and come face me like a real man! What, afraid you're gonna mess up your ponytail?" :shakes fist: