How Should Taunting Work?

[billd91]

This has the potential to be a fairly potent ability, I'd stick a feat on it if you want it to really be a significant part of the character and consistently effective (plus, I think maybe +1 to Charisma as a second benefit of the feat). Consider modeling it on the antagonize feat from Pathfinder (link to antagonize).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's not my position in any case, as evidenced by my previous posts. The comment was made in jest.

What was your DM's reasoning for disadvantage on the check? Sometimes DMs do that so the task you're attempting isn't seen as a great option in the future.

The DM tends not to do that sort of thing. He is of the opinion that the only reason a creature would turn its attention to another creature is that it is the biggest threat. He doesn’t seem to view the common trope of the small guy talking crap to get the big guy’s attention as a legit thing.

That is just the example, though. I do view it as legit, and I also run three campaigns, but am not sure what the best mechanical method is to handle it.

Also; fair enough. Others weren’t joking, so I lumped you in with them. Apologies.

 

[Hussar]

A question might be though - is the dm allowed to use the same rules?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This has the potential to be a fairly potent ability, I'd stick a feat on it if you want it to really be a significant part of the character and consistently effective (plus, I think maybe +1 to Charisma as a second benefit of the feat). Consider modeling it on the antagonize feat from Pathfinder (link to antagonize).

Yeah, I’d definitely keep the skill version simple, and require an Action. A feat would make it a bonus action, and give that +1 Cha. Maybe the skill version only effects their next turn, while the feat version makes it an effect that lasts until they save.

I’ll check out that feat later. Thank you!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A question might be though - is the dm allowed to use the same rules?

I don’t think it has to, bc the rules aren’t the same for PCs and NPCs, but I’m not bothered by this one going both ways.

 

[iserith]

The DM tends not to do that sort of thing. He is of the opinion that the only reason a creature would turn its attention to another creature is that it is the biggest threat.

Ah I see. I think that's a common outcome of viewing things as as "would" rather than "could." It's a safer assertion to say that a reason a creature could turn its attention to another creature is if that it is the biggest threat. Or it could find the wolf annoying and go after it to its own detriment.

And that's really where the DM's and players' heads should be at in my view when playing this game. Could, not would. Might or may, not will or must. After all, it's a game of make-believe and it sure does make for better outcomes in my experience. There are many potential options - so it's a wonder why some people choose the one that's not very fun.

I think the best mechanical method to handle it is just going to vary a bit by the situation, of course. But ultimately I think an ability check against a set DC is the way to go, if mechanics need to be used at all. I'll certainly have a monster respond to PC smack talk without a check, especially after a few drinks.

 

[Shiroiken]

My view wasn't listed so...

As an action, you may Threaten a target that can hear and understand you. You make an opposed Cha/Intimidation check against their choice of Wis/Insight or Int/Investigation. If you succeed, the target considers you a higher threat, and attacks against targets other than them are at disadvantage. If you succeed by 5, the target will attack you (if able), even moving to provoke an opportunity attack or move through hazardous terrain. If you would not normally be considered a threat by the target, you have disadvantage on this check. If there is an obvious hazard in attacking you (attack of opportunity, or the Booming Blade example), the target has advantage.

As an action, you may Taunt a target that can hear and understand you. You make an opposed Cha/Deception check against their choice of Wis/Insight or Int/Investigation. If you succeed, the target considers you a higher priority due to the taunt, and attacks against targets other than them are at disadvantage. If you succeed by 5, the target will attack you (if able), even moving to provoke an opportunity attack or move through hazardous terrain. If you would not normally be considered a threat by the target, you have disadvantage on this check. If there is an obvious hazard in attacking you (attack of opportunity, or the Booming Blade example), the target has advantage.

Two different methods that can produce the same thing, but work slightly different ways. It's similar to the Help action (and the Hinder action from the playtest), but requires a contested check. The opponen's option of using either Int or Wis is similar to grapple using either Str or Dex (figuring out what their doing by either being smart enough to ignore it or to figure out what they're up to).

 

[bedir than]

How does a wolf taunt anything? Do they say something? Hand and arm signals?
If a player at my table tried to insist that their wolf could taunt a thinking, even if barely, creature into chasing it I might laugh at the player.
There wouldn't be a check. There's no possiblity of success

 

[S'mon]

Taunting - I'd let the player tell me what skill they're using. Trying to draw an Ettin to incur a bunch of obvious opportunity attacks to attack an annoying but non-threatening target would be a very high DC, though, probably around 25 - very hard.

Out of combat, drawing an ettin down a corridor into a hidden ambush would be much much easier, I'd probably use DC 10 (easy) as it has a +0 WIS.

 

[S'mon]

How does a wolf taunt anything? Do they say something? Hand and arm signals?
If a player at my table tried to insist that their wolf could taunt a thinking, even if barely, creature into chasing it I might laugh at the player.
There wouldn't be a check. There's no possiblity of success

Never been taunted by a cat? My old cat Bertie loved to taunt me!