How Should Taunting Work?

[doctorbadwolf]

I’d treat it as a social interaction challenge. Since the ettin is almost certainly hostile to the PCs, it being in combat with them, to successfully provoke it at all would require a taunt which touches upon some ideal, bond, or flaw it has. To discover what is going to get under its skin requires knowing how to speak Giant or Orc, and using an improvised action to interact with the ettin enough to make a Wisdom (Insight) check. (I think I’d set the DC at 9 due to the ettin’s low Charisma.) Success on the check would reveal a personal characteristic of the ettin which could then be used to taunt it (on a subsequent turn) by making a DC 20 Charisma (Intimidation) check. If successful, the ettin uses its next action to attack the speaker with advantage.

edit: This is why I voted for the second option.

That seems to me like a stealth “no”. Why not just say “no”, instead?

Taking an action in combat that has some genuine tactical payoff potential should generally, if successful, provide an actual benefit. Two actions just to give an enemy advantage against you is...the same as saying no, but with a punitive excercise in teaching the player not to ask.

 

[Hriston]

That seems to me like a stealth “no”. Why not just say “no”, instead?

Taking an action in combat that has some genuine tactical payoff potential should generally, if successful, provide an actual benefit. Two actions just to give an enemy advantage against you is...the same as saying no, but with a punitive excercise in teaching the player not to ask.

Oh dear. That’s not the response I was expecting. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish.

edit: I admit I didn’t read your OP more than once due to it being written in black ink on (for me) a black background, so I think I missed some of the finer details. Apologies.

 

[Saeviomagy]

That seems to me like a stealth “no”. Why not just say “no”, instead?

Taking an action in combat that has some genuine tactical payoff potential should generally, if successful, provide an actual benefit. Two actions just to give an enemy advantage against you is...the same as saying no, but with a punitive excercise in teaching the player not to ask.

It's only punitive if you don't tell the player the mechanic before time.

As written, it's a niche ability that doesn't get used every round, only when it's important.

Personally I might go with
"As a free action, you may select a foe and grant them advantage on their next attack against you for the following round. Foes are aware that you have done so, and will take this into account when deciding on tactics."

 

[Guest 6801328]

"Mash a keybind; 6 second cooldown."

Oh, wait...wrong game.

My answer is "none of the above" on the survey, especially if it's meant to suggest that simply using a skill has this powerful of an effect. Skills are not spells. Not even cantrips.

I could see a subclass ability that required an Intimidation roll, but not one that could be spammed at will.

EDIT: To elaborate, if a skill were given a clearly defined mechanical use like the ones proposed in the survey, it would suddenly become absolutely mandatory for anybody who wanted a "tanky" build of any class. So would Charisma. Maybe even a level dip of Rogue or Bard.

 

[Yunru]

Skills are not spells. Not even cantrips.

Well that's just Magicist

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh dear. That’s not the response I was expecting. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish.

edit: I admit I didn’t read your OP more than once due to it being written in black ink on (for me) a black background, so I think I missed some of the finer details. Apologies.

Huh. I wrote it using the default settings. If it shows up otherwise that’s either a forum glitch or a clash of settings.

It's only punitive if you don't tell the player the mechanic before time.

As written, it's a niche ability that doesn't get used every round, only when it's important.

Personally I might go with
"As a free action, you may select a foe and grant them advantage on their next attack against you for the following round. Foes are aware that you have done so, and will take this into account when deciding on tactics."

Why would the enemy have advantage? I don’t understand why that would be the mechanical resolution.

"Mash a keybind; 6 second cooldown."

Oh, wait...wrong game.

My answer is "none of the above" on the survey, especially if it's meant to suggest that simply using a skill has this powerful of an effect. Skills are not spells. Not even cantrips.

I could see a subclass ability that required an Intimidation roll, but not one that could be spammed at will.

Skills do more powerful stuff all the time. Hiding is much more powerful than either option I presented. Knocking an enemy down is just as powerful if you’ve got melee Allies who go before the enemy.

And even the suggested result doesn’t guarantee opportunity attacks. The creature can disengage. They could also try to throw something. They just want to smash this particular combatant.

Hell, in addition to eating an action that could have been used to give a paladin Advantage, it also opened the wolf up to an opportunity attack.

Not sure what you’re trying to say with the video game speak. This tactic is a trope that goes back before video games existed in any meaningful form, just speaking of modern fantasy fiction.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

EDIT: To elaborate, if a skill were given a clearly defined mechanical use like the ones proposed in the survey, it would suddenly become absolutely mandatory for anybody who wanted a "tanky" build of any class. So would Charisma. Maybe even a level dip of Rogue or Bard.

Even in games that are easy going about the rules interpretation, I’ve never seen a rogue take Shield Master. Even though gaining Advantage as a bonus action is really good for any rogue that isn’t a permastealth build, or in a game with Flanking.

There is no “mandatory”.

I’m happy to hear any actual ideas about a benefit gained for successful taunting, if you think “the creature makes you their next target, moving to you if they can” or “the target has disadvantage on attack rolls on its next turn that don’t include you” are just wildly overpowered.

If your whole opinion on the matter is just that it shouldn’t work no matter what, I’m not particularly interested. With respect, If I cared about that discussion, I’d have included it in the OP. I value the POVs of the forum, but I made the thread with a particular set of parameters for a reason.

I wonder if I’d explicitly titled it, “Assuming that you allow taunting to work, how do you think it should work?”, would I have gotten any less of these “it shouldn’t work” replies.

 

[iserith]

I wonder if I’d explicitly titled it, “Assuming that you allow taunting to work, how do you think it should work?”, would I have gotten any less of these “it shouldn’t work” replies.

If anything, you'd have gotten more of them because internet.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If anything, you'd have gotten more of them because internet.

You're absolutely right!

Oh well, you and others in the thread have provided excellent thoughts on the subject, and I thank you!

I think Cha [Skill per description] vs higher or Passive Insight or Wisdom Save +10 (to account for monsters’ lack of skills), forcing disadvantage on attacks next turn that don’t include the taunter, works for me. At least as a playtest starting point.

my initial inclination is just to handle it via role playing, but in 5e tactical skill use is always an action unless it’s movement or part of a feature that specifies otherwise, so I’m fine with requiring the player to take the Taunt Action to do it.

A feat would be

+1 Cha

You can perform the Taunt Action as a Bonus Action on your turn. When you do so and succeed, in addition to the normal effects, the target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be enraged. An enraged creature must try to move toward the object of its rage on its turn. If it takes damage as a result of this movement, it can repeat the saving throw with advantage. If it succeeds, it is no longer enraged, but it still has disadvantage on attack rolls that don’t include you until either it’s turn ends, or it successfully deals damage to you.

Obviously the the wording is a late night rough draft. I don’t have rules lawyers at my table, either, so I’m not that worried about it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Why would the enemy have advantage? I don’t understand why that would be the mechanical resolution.

You lower your guard, they become more likely to attack you, even potentially at the expense of consequences depending on the character of your target. Otherwise you're going to need some social checks that won't always work, and probably can't be attempted by a wolf.