How Should Taunting Work?

[Cap'n Kobold]

Really?

Wolf jumps toward and snaps at the target, then drops back. Pretty much classic animal behavior. Ever see a dog go forward and back on something? Seems pretty simple to me, to be honest.

I've seen a dog do that. I've never felt compelled to chase after it through a wall of fire or similarly dangerous situation when it did so.

I think the OP is talking about "Taunt" in the video game sense rather than common English. - As you say "Draw aggro" rather than just annoy them. The ogre isn't just distracted by the wolf, it would have to be completely incensed, to the point of its own detriment, and I think that that would require an ability to think about its mental state and communicate with it.

I mean, what does a house cat do to grant advantage to that fighter? What does that look like?

Depends where you throw it.

In situations like the house cat against the ancient red dragon, I'd listen to what the player is actually saying they are doing, but I might simply rule that a suitably powerful and arrogant creature may be able to resist the distraction, at the cost of taking a full attack routine from the creature taking the help action.

 

[Captain Panda]

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.

The difference is one is RAW, so rejecting the former requires an amendment to the rules and potentially a fight with the players who, justifiably, don't like their major class features being nerfed. The latter is not RAW, and involves adding in additional mechanics that are not intended in fifth edition and do not mesh well. Inviting in a messy idea that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and further strains immersion in fighting is different than accepting one that is already hard coded into the rules.

And honestly an owl flying into a dragon's face to slightly distract it makes a bit more sense than an owl taunting a dragon into attacking it.

 

[Krachek]

DnD is not a court of justice.
Players and Dm can agree for rules changes and rules addition.
Players are not all nasty kids that care only about their stack of goodies.
A wizard player can legitimately feel that help action for familiar is too much.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. I wish you folks would make up your mind. First I can't make skill rolls because the DM has to tell me when I can do that. Now, I have to justify using straight up mechanics? There's nothing in the rules that even hints that I need to do anything other than, "I help X". Yet, now, I have to detail how my house cat is granting advantage?

Certainly convenient for the DM I suppose.

And, seriously? Running through burning walls? What? Who is even ... where did that... Sheesh. Yeah. I'm done. Every example will just be twisted and this is pointless.



Look, if you don't want the players doing something, I hope you have the decency to just be straight up with the players instead of trying this passive aggressive justification stuff. To me, this is why players get all their creativity beaten out of them and stick to stuff that's explicitly written in the books.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Heh. I wish you folks would make up your mind. First I can't make skill rolls because the DM has to tell me when I can do that. Now, I have to justify using straight up mechanics? There's nothing in the rules that even hints that I need to do anything other than, "I help X". Yet, now, I have to detail how my house cat is granting advantage?

Certainly convenient for the DM I suppose.

And, seriously? Running through burning walls? What? Who is even ... where did that... Sheesh. Yeah. I'm done. Every example will just be twisted and this is pointless.



Look, if you don't want the players doing something, I hope you have the decency to just be straight up with the players instead of trying this passive aggressive justification stuff. To me, this is why players get all their creativity beaten out of them and stick to stuff that's explicitly written in the books.

Yeah, I don’t think anything more is going to come from this thread than has already. We aren’t going to convince folks who think that the idea of taunting working is absurd, and they aren’t going to convince us that it is absurd, and no one is proposing anything new in terms of actual adjudication, so we might as well pack up. Thanks for the interesting feedback, though!

 

[S'mon]

And honestly an owl flying into a dragon's face to slightly distract it makes a bit more sense than an owl taunting a dragon into attacking it.

I'm fine with the owl using a Help action to grant advtg on an attack vs the dragon. If the PC familiar is a toad, I may be a little sceptical. IME this does not actually come up though - PC Wizards always take flying familiars like owls, hawks, ravens etc that could quite plausibly fly into the face of a dragon.

I can imagine a few creatures like oozes where I might conceivably not allow a Help action, but they tend to have very low ACs anyway being just amorphous blobs. Letting the would-be Helper get a free attack routine instead (with advantage, since being ignored) seems fair in those cases. I think on balance I'd allow Help even vs an ochre jelly etc. Anything that would pay attention to the Helping/distracting animal and treat it as a threat.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Heh. I wish you folks would make up your mind. First I can't make skill rolls because the DM has to tell me when I can do that. Now, I have to justify using straight up mechanics? There's nothing in the rules that even hints that I need to do anything other than, "I help X". Yet, now, I have to detail how my house cat is granting advantage?

I'm not sure that I've ever said anything about when you get to make skill rolls here. Was it in another thread?
(I mean, yes, you should tell your DM what you're trying to do and wait for them to decide what sort of roll to make if its not a cut-and-dried situation like shoving for example. I do know one player who will interrupt a room or NPC description with "I make a X roll!" while bowling their D20 across the table. Getting them to backtrack and explain what they are trying to do, resolving it, then continuing with the description can be a pain sometimes.)

And, seriously? Running through burning walls? What? Who is even ... where did that... Sheesh. Yeah. I'm done. Every example will just be twisted and this is pointless.

The OP is talking about an ability that will cause a creature to focus on and move to the user even if that would cause them damage through attacks of opportunity or movement-induced damage effects (such as booming blade if its not the fiirst time that have been affected by it.) The wall of fire was a convenient example of roughly equivalent potential damage. Feel free to substitute "past several armed opponents without taking precautions to stop them from stabbing me" if that particular example is problematic.

Look, if you don't want the players doing something, I hope you have the decency to just be straight up with the players instead of trying this passive aggressive justification stuff. To me, this is why players get all their creativity beaten out of them and stick to stuff that's explicitly written in the books.

No, I am genuinely interested in how an animal-intelligence creature with no shared language might be able to perform a Warcraft-style Taunt, and what that would actually look like in the reality of the world. Hence why I asked.
I'd probably handle taunting as the OP defines it by an opposed Charisma vs Wisdom check personally, with advantage/disadvantage assigned appropriately.

Yeah, I don’t think anything more is going to come from this thread than has already. We aren’t going to convince folks who think that the idea of taunting working is absurd, and they aren’t going to convince us that it is absurd, and no one is proposing anything new in terms of actual adjudication, so we might as well pack up. Thanks for the interesting feedback, though!

I think that there might have been some initial confusion as to whether you meant the general usage of simply mocking an opponent or the WoW Warrior ability use of the word.
It is evident that other people have different opinions than you as to how they would handle it, and what restrictions they would put upon its use. Very few have said that they would outright not allow it at all though.

 

[5ekyu]

Confession, i haven't read much of the thread beyond the first page and this one so here are some of my takes.

1 - What does intimidation do? its a social skill so it shifts the attitude of the opponent toward a degree you prefer. its Dc is based on the circumstances and such, set by the GM. I have no idea how a wolf would "taunt" an ettin to walk through "" an effect of "sheathed in booming energy" that as you willingly move through it it causes harm. In my games, obvious and harmful effects are treated like fire or acid and they have obvious tells that it can hurt you. So, i would not rule a creature even an animal stuck inside that effect gets no clue that moving through it is harmful. I can see wolves intimidating you to think they are a danger but to chase them down when they back away? nope. So i too would have given a disadvantage on an intimidation roll by a wolf to get them to walk through the booming due to obvious risk and presence of other threats.

This would come as no surprise to my players because they are well used ton the notion that one of the "An element of the plan or description of an action makes success less likely." criteria i use in my games for social checks to get folks to do stuff is in fact "they can see they will take direct harm if they do so."

2 - For social checks in particular, it is needed for the player to provide a bit of input as to the direction they are trying to influence the NPC. Just like if they "shoved" a character they would need to tell the Gm "to which square" or "to the ground" if a character is trying to do the. frankly,. equivalent of a "social shove" through intimidation they need to give some idea as |to where".

In our last game, the druid iirc was surrounded by three bad guys INT 6. The barbarian came rushing up from the outskirts of the fight but could not get there so he "tried an intimidate check" on the closest. I it "seemed like" the intent was to draw its attention off the druid, making himself the target, based on circumstances and i described that happening and he was fine with that. The BG had not acted yet.

Then another PC moved to engage that taunted BG. Struck, hit i think, and positioned himself *between* the Bg and the barbarian.

So between the intimidate and the Bg action, it had a new enemy move in, position itself between then and strike at it.

So, when the BG time to act came up, it struck at the new guy instead of rushing out taking AO to go after the barbie, ignoring its new foe right there, etc.

This led the barie player to gripe a bit - passing not discussion - that his success/action to intimidate was utterly useless.

my comment later when it was brought up was pretty much what i described here - it was the changing circumstances and the actions of the later character that changed the result and the expected actions.

That said, had his attempt been to "drive it off" as in make it scared and needing to leave, then that could have worked and the arrival of a new swinger would not have hurt, because the disengage would be an option as would dodge which i find is often superior to disengage.

So, yeah, "i shove" needs a "where?" and "i intimidate" or taunt needs a "where" too. But the circumstances really affect the outcomes very solidly.

3 - help vs taunt (where help is distracting the target to advantage an attack and taunt is defined as forcing the other character's next action choice (case in point pursue through a known hazard)) - IMO those are as close to "the same thing" as an automobile and a tree. neither would be used mechanically as basis for resolving the other.