How Should Taunting Work?

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The premise of the thread is that it requires social Checks that won’t always work. Why would it always work?

I’m also unsure why a familiar couldn’t attempt it. Why would it require language?

You may not have caught it in the OP, but in this game we already flavour that when a familiar uses Help in combat; it is harrying the target with attacks that annoy, but don’t hurt enough to count as an “Attack”. Crows do this to eagles to distract them long enough to steal their food. A bird getting in your face and pecking at you annoyingly, and then circling you just out of immediate reach, absolutely could cause a creature to run at it and swat at it.

This is...like...classic story trope stuff, and exists IRL. I really don’t get why folks have such a problem with it.

 

[Hriston]

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 looks like it has been fixed now.

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

Speaking for myself, I gave the ettin-ghost advantage on its attack against the taunter in my ruling because compelling it to attack relied on it acting in accordance with one of its ideals, bonds, or flaws, so I felt it deserved to be awarded with "Inspiration" for doing so, and granting advantage on the attack was a de facto way of doing that. That part of my ruling was completely a DM's call, though. I realize that Inspiration is a player-side mechanic and that monsters don't typically get it, so feel free to ignore that part of my ruling.

The main point is that you're attempting to compel an action on the part of one of the DM's monsters through non-magical means. Typically, I'd allow that sort of thing through a successful Charisma check along the lines of what I described, but it requires the one making the check to speak a language the monster understands. I suppose a wolf could attempt to communicate non-verbally by making an Intelligence check. There are lots of possibilities for how this sort of thing could work.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It looks like it has been fixed now.

yeah. Not sure what happened, it’s not like I made the post on my phone, so I definitely didn’t accidentally hit something my a clumsy thumb. Either way, it’s fixed now.

Speaking for myself, I gave the ettin-ghost advantage on its attack against the taunter in my ruling because compelling it to attack relied on it acting in accordance with one of its ideals, bonds, or flaws, so I felt it deserved to be awarded with "Inspiration" for doing so, and granting advantage on the attack was a de facto way of doing that. That part of my ruling was completely a DM's call, though. I realize that Inspiration is a player-side mechanic and that monsters don't typically get it, so feel free to ignore that part of my ruling.

The main point is that you're attempting to compel an action on the part of one of the DM's monsters through non-magical means. Typically, I'd allow that sort of thing through a successful Charisma check along the lines of what I described, but it requires the one making the check to speak a language the monster understands. I suppose a wolf could attempt to communicate non-verbally by making an Intelligence check. There are lots of possibilities for how this sort of thing could work.

That’s fair. I viewed it as my familiar harrying the ettin ghost like it would another animal, and dashing just out of reach, but I wouldn’t have objected much if the argument had been that it’s harder for a wolf to taunt than a speaking creature.

 

[Hriston]

yeah. Not sure what happened, it’s not like I made the post on my phone, so I definitely didn’t accidentally hit something my a clumsy thumb. Either way, it’s fixed now.

On this note, I just wanted to add that my post was mostly in response to the thread's title rather than the specifics of your OP.

That’s fair. I viewed it as my familiar harrying the ettin ghost like it would another animal, and dashing just out of reach, but I wouldn’t have objected much if the argument had been that it’s harder for a wolf to taunt than a speaking creature.

I think I would resolve the wolf's harassment of the ghost-ettin as a use of the Help action, perhaps explained as drawing it out into a more vulnerable position.

 

[Satyrn]

I'd have the OP roll a Charisma check vs the ettins' passive insight, upping the DC by 2 for the danger of Booming Blade and 2 more for each opportunity attack it would suffer.

That’s a fair way to do it, though I sometimes require players to roll to know the dangers of a spell if they haven’t seen it before, and might do the same here. I also often let players make insight or investigation checks to figure out a tactical element of the fight, and might use a passive test of the higher of the two to see if a critter that I’m not sure about would understand the danger. Might be too complicated in play, though. I’d have to test it out.

When I suggested adding to the DC because of the danger of Booming Blade, it wasn't too account for the ettin knowing the effect of the spell. I hate trying to account for that sort of thing because it's so nebulous. No that's not quite the right way to say it. Upping the DC by 2 is what accounts for the possibility the ettin knows about the spell, instinctively senses its danger or is otherwise influenced by the spell's presence.

Quite simply, the spell is part of the scenario, intrinsic to the scenario even (it's the whole reason you want the ettin to move, after all), and so its presence should be accounted for regardless of the ettin's knowledge of the spell. +2 to the DC is significant enough without shutting down the player's chances.

 

[Hussar]

It's kinda funny when you think about it.

We have no problems with a house cat granting your fighter advantage while attacking a dragon, because the house cat is a familiar, and somehow it's able to draw enough of the dragon's attention to grant advantage to the fighter.

But, apparently a 150 pound wolf cannot possibly draw aggro from an opponent because that would be unbalancing and totally unbelievable.

People really set very strange bars to their belief.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The premise of the thread is that it requires social Checks that won’t always work. Why would it always work?

I’m also unsure why a familiar couldn’t attempt it. Why would it require language?

You may not have caught it in the OP, but in this game we already flavour that when a familiar uses Help in combat; it is harrying the target with attacks that annoy, but don’t hurt enough to count as an “Attack”. Crows do this to eagles to distract them long enough to steal their food. A bird getting in your face and pecking at you annoyingly, and then circling you just out of immediate reach, absolutely could cause a creature to run at it and swat at it.

This is...like...classic story trope stuff, and exists IRL. I really don’t get why folks have such a problem with it.

Largely the problem is that it's an annoyance that causes the target to ignore serious threats, like triggering damage effects and taking OAs, just to get at the annoyance. That doesn't happen IRL or in tropes, except as a special talent of a chatacter.

Taunting is one thing; getting an unengaged foe to target you sounds outstanding. But, if a simple social check can force a creature to willingly accept damage, that's a bit broken, especially considering the ways off-turn danage can be stacked to take advantage of it (off-turn sneak attack by the famaliar owner or rogue ally, BB, sentinel OAs, etc.). As proposed, the idea is overpowered for characters. Letting familiars do it for "free" is exceptionally broken.

If I were writing it, it would be: a CHA (Intimidate) check against contested WIS (Insight). A success causes the target to have to include you in the first attack or harmful effect it uses on its turn. If the target cannot reach you using its Move, the effect fails. If the target would take damage from terrain or ongoing effect, this effect fails. The target cannot be forced to take OAs. If no path exists without taking an OA, the effect fails.

Little clunky, needs a few more smoothing passes, but addresses the abuse points while allowing taunting. If you are unhappy with this, you need to be upfront that it's not a taunt you want, but an effect that forces creatures to accept your BB secondary and take OAs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Largely the problem is that it's an annoyance that causes the target to ignore serious threats, like triggering damage effects and taking OAs, just to get at the annoyance. That doesn't happen IRL or in tropes, except as a special talent of a chatacter.

Taunting is one thing; getting an unengaged foe to target you sounds outstanding. But, if a simple social check can force a creature to willingly accept damage, that's a bit broken, especially considering the ways off-turn danage can be stacked to take advantage of it (off-turn sneak attack by the famaliar owner or rogue ally, BB, sentinel OAs, etc.). As proposed, the idea is overpowered for characters. Letting familiars do it for "free" is exceptionally broken.

If I were writing it, it would be: a CHA (Intimidate) check against contested WIS (Insight). A success causes the target to have to include you in the first attack or harmful effect it uses on its turn. If the target cannot reach you using its Move, the effect fails. If the target would take damage from terrain or ongoing effect, this effect fails. The target cannot be forced to take OAs. If no path exists without taking an OA, the effect fails.

Little clunky, needs a few more smoothing passes, but addresses the abuse points while allowing taunting. If you are unhappy with this, you need to be upfront that it's not a taunt you want, but an effect that forces creatures to accept your BB secondary and take OAs.

It’s weird to see you quote me from several posts, lecture on balance of one of the two options I suggested as if it were my entire suggestion, and then present a thing along the same lines that I’ve been discussing with other posters as if it’s a new idea.

I’m confused. Genuinely.

But your final sentence reveals that you made an assumption about my motivation here, and then constructed a response based primarily on that false assumption.

Edit: also, that is absurdly clunky, weirdly constructed, and far more limited than effects almost ever are. Much simpler to just not say anything about movement, and also just impose disadvantage on attacks that don’t include you.

Like Ive already suggested in this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's kinda funny when you think about it.

We have no problems with a house cat granting your fighter advantage while attacking a dragon, because the house cat is a familiar, and somehow it's able to draw enough of the dragon's attention to grant advantage to the fighter.

But, apparently a 150 pound wolf cannot possibly draw aggro from an opponent because that would be unbalancing and totally unbelievable.

People really set very strange bars to their belief.

I agree. I’m obviously all for working out the mechanics to find a reasonably balanced solution, but we are balancing against granting advantage to an ally on their next attack without needing to make any sort of roll, every round, with a creature summoned by a 10 gold ritual.

Now, causing willing movement is something that should probably require a feat. Encouraging it by imposing disadvantage against other creatures, and imposing a vague “angry at this thing” effect, is probably fine.

 

[Krachek]

An example.
A wizard ask its rat familiar to taunt a iron golem, and he succeed.

Some table and DM may be completely ashamed of this non sense behavior.
Some table and DM may find the situation hilarious, the Dm describe in detail how the golem notice and smash the familiar. Two weeks later they are still laughing at it.

Taunt is a matter of taste, play style and fun. It should remain DM controlled.