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

[ZombieRoboNinja]

[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION] - that would work too, but I doubt it'd be any more palatable to people like Vyvyan.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This version of taunt that's being discussed wouldn't really cut it in my games, either. I'm not against taunting, but the "move" part is what's tripping me up. Okay, he's taunted. Or distracted, or whatever. The compulsion (forced or not) to move is what's throwing me off. I agree: that guy with the bow is just going to shoot you. Maybe the taunt/distraction messed up his aim (penalty on attacks), but yeah, you wouldn't taunt a guy with a gun in real life, so you wouldn't really go that route in-game, from where I'm sitting.

As for the acid/cover, etc., I think that's fine, but those seems like "action+move" to me. "I'll throw acid at him, and hide behind the desk for cover." That's not so much a maneuver, in my book. But, that's me. As always, play what you like

 

[Manbearcat]

I think all martial classes in 5e should have an At-Will that lets them polymorph or create an illusory image of themselves as an irresistible, ridiculously comfy recliner with a soft, folded quilt and a good book on the armrest. This would be a mundane effect though, of course.

 

[Klaus]

This version of taunt that's being discussed wouldn't really cut it in my games, either. I'm not against taunting, but the "move" part is what's tripping me up. Okay, he's taunted. Or distracted, or whatever. The compulsion (forced or not) to move is what's throwing me off. I agree: that guy with the bow is just going to shoot you. Maybe the taunt/distraction messed up his aim (penalty on attacks), but yeah, you wouldn't taunt a guy with a gun in real life, so you wouldn't really go that route in-game, from where I'm sitting.

But that's the thing: there's no *compulsion*. He has the choice to shoot the PC in the face, albeit at a penalty, because that is hardly as visceral and fulfilling as walking up to the PC and punching his teeth in. In game terms: -2 penalty to his attacks that aren't melee attacks against the taunting PC.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But that's the thing: there's no *compulsion*. He has the choice to shoot the PC in the face, albeit at a penalty, because that is hardly as visceral and fulfilling as walking up to the PC and punching his teeth in. In game terms: -2 penalty to his attacks that aren't melee attacks against the taunting PC.

It seemed to be worded as "-2 to attacks against someone else, unless he moves to you." That would provide incentive for him to move. Thus, compulsion, to an extent (you'll note I did say "not forced").

If it's "you taunted him, and he gets a -2 penalty against everyone on all attacks", then it's more "distract" than "taunt" in my mind (or should be, though the distraction might be a taunt, as appropriate). Which is fine; you describe how you're distracting someone, and it takes a penalty.

But to make the penalty purely melee against you? I'm still having the same disconnect. As always, play what you like

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Ain't a perfect game mechanic, but it's conceptually on a lot more stable ground with me. I still get to play the game -- I still get to make the choice. So, cool!

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.)

Here's where we get into some dissociation, of having the goal of the action (get something to move toward you) trump the way that action is done (taunting).

If the goal is to support the archetype of a tricky, manipulative scoundrel by letting them annoy the enemy in a way that gives them some advantage, we've got a lot of different ways to meet that goal. Taunt-as-mark, Taunt-as-Distract, Taunt-as-"you get a bonus to hit me, but I get to hit you!", etc. These, as part of their effect, may end up moving enemies around the battlefield, but that is part of the strategy of the ability's use that follows from the logic of what it means in the world. Don't taunt the guy with the gun. Don't taunt the guy you can't dodge. Taunt the big dumb guy, the guy with the melee weapon, the guy who your Fighter friend just broke the bow of. This makes sense because that's how you'd imagine a taunt to be effective: you do it to enrage a target who can't hit you.

If the goal is to allow a rogue to explicitly move enemies around the battlefield, then "taunting" might not be the way to do it. You'd have to give the rogue an ability that lets them do that in a way that made sense, and didn't rely on taking control away from the players (including the DM). That's kind of a tall order, but I imagine that, used strategically, there's potential for abilities that do that. Klaus's version of Taunt, for instance, encourages melee attacks, and that can make some sense: you're too annoyed to calmly aim a ranged attack. But if you wanted to make one, you still could.

 

[Klaus]

Klaus's version of Taunt, for instance, encourages melee attacks, and that can make some sense: you're too annoyed to calmly aim a ranged attack. But if you wanted to make one, you still could.

Yep!

The thing with stuff like Taunt, or Distract, or Move Enemies, is that the enemy has to perceive an advantage on the action you want him to take. Of course, his perceived advantage is false, as it puts the enemy in a precarious position, or negates an advantage the enemy had (like luring a bow-wielding enemy to move within melee reach).

 

[mlund]

Have taunt (if you win the contest) give the enemy Disadvantage on his next attack that doesn't include you as a target until the end of his next turn. If the enemy is a melee-type, he'll run you down. If he's a ranged type he'll target you. No Wizards running into melee necessary. It still has a function against characters that don't come to you in melee (taunt from behind cover). Done.

- Marty Lund