A while ago, I had a disagreement with my DM about how to handle taunting an enemy to encourage it to go after you.
My character has a Familiar that is a wolf (it's a whole story), and is a rogue with the Booming Blade cantrip. We were fighting the ghost of an Ettin, and I tagged it with BB, and then had my familiar spend her action taunting the Ettin and then backing away, trying to get it to chase her.
Now, tactically, I get why a DM might want to avoid letting the enemy fall for a taunt, but ettins are classically very stupid, so I figured that good tactics weren't going to be a huge factor here, and I was right. We agreed that it wasn't smart enough to not follow something it wanted to smash just because there was a spell effect and potential opportunity attacks to consider, but we hit a snag when it came to resolving the action.
My DM called for an Intimidation check, with disadvantage, because the Ettin wouldn't normally perceive this creature as a threat. I was taken aback, and confused, and argued that threat level wasn't the point. She wasn't presenting herself as a threat, she was taunting him. What creature rushes toward a thing that has convinced them that they are a threat? I argued that it should be persuasion or deception (no better chance of success on a wolf, but for the general case it was important to distinguish) or a choice between them, depending on the approach being taken, and certainly not with disadvantage.
My theory, as a player and a DM, is that taunting can be about puffing your chest and challenging the target, BUT it can also be (and more often is IME) about harrying, annoying, or insulting the target. Making them angry, so they want to squish you, and potentially do something stupid as a result.
How would you respond? Would you go after the wolf that’s backing away without attacking or would you finish off it’s master who is in your face?
I'm not a negative Int and low wis ettin.
Also, real actual humans do stupid crap in the heat of the moment.
Most importantly, this sort of tactic is part of fictional stories, and should be available in DnD.
I really don't care about arguments that are just "I don't like the premise so I refuse to interact with the actual question". If you don't think taunting should work, this thread isn't for you.
Here is how this would break down at my table, I have had it happen before.
1. Is the rogue still in front of the creature, why move and smash when you can smash now?
2. If the rogue has moved away, is the wolf an actual threat, has it done any damage or anything else other than bark to appear threating? If no go after rogue. Why would anything stop attacking the thing hurting it for something making noise?
3. If both have caused damage, which is closer. I am lazy, so in general, I'll move to the closer target.
4. Lastly, if both have caused damage, both are the same distance away I will generally flip a coin.
Now you are going to ask, no of this has to do with your taunting. Well, that is because no one has tried that in my sessions yet. But I wanted to state those processes first. Everything would stay the same, the only thing that might change is step 3 and 4.
First I would change it so step 3 worked as:
3. If both have caused damage and the taunting creature isn't within the creatures base movement speed I would make a straight Charisma check at disadvantage. I would make it at disadvantage because you are trying to get the creature to move outside its range and forgo its attack. It would also be a Charisma check mostly because it is kinda hard to choose between Intimidation or Persuasion, but if I was forced me to pick one, I would say Intimidation over Persuasion. Simple, because it feels more right for the moment.
4. If both have caused damage and are within the creatures base movement I would say the same check but without disadvantage.
How would you respond? Would you go after the wolf that’s backing away without attacking or would you finish off it’s master who is in your face?
As a side note, he did ask a real question Would you go after the wolf that’s backing away without attacking or would you finish off it’s master who is in your face?
Personally, I don't care how dumb you are, technically if you are really dumb, I think you would be more inclined to smash the rogue in front of you than the wolf acting tough but not actually doing anything. if you are really dumb I might even argue that the wolf barking and growing might not even register as anything other than dumb dog making noise.
Your response to his legit questions was rude and rather off-putting. It sounds like you have your answer already and are looking for justification not a discussion.
Here is how this would break down at my table, I have had it happen before.
1. Is the rogue still in front of the creature, why move and smash when you can smash now?
2. If the rogue has moved away, is the wolf an actual threat, has it done any damage or anything else other than bark to appear threating? If no go after rogue. Why would anything stop attacking the thing hurting it for something making noise?
3. If both have caused damage, which is closer. I am lazy, so in general, I'll move to the closer target.
4. Lastly, if both have caused damage, both are the same distance away I will generally flip a coin.
Now you are going to ask, no of this has to do with your taunting. Well, that is because no one has tried that in my sessions yet. But I wanted to state those processes first. Everything would stay the same, the only thing that might change is step 3 and 4.
First I would change it so step 3 worked as:
3. If both have caused damage and the taunting creature isn't within the creatures base movement speed I would make a straight Charisma check at disadvantage. I would make it at disadvantage because you are trying to get the creature to move outside its range and forgo its attack. It would also be a Charisma check mostly because it is kinda hard to choose between Intimidation or Persuasion, but if I was forced me to pick one, I would say Intimidation over Persuasion. Simple, because it feels more right for the moment.
4. If both have caused damage and are within the creatures base movement I would say the same check but without disadvantage.
How would you respond? Would you go after the wolf that’s backing away without attacking or would you finish off it’s master who is in your face?
As a side note, he did ask a real question Would you go after the wolf that’s backing away without attacking or would you finish off it’s master who is in your face?
Personally, I don't care how dumb you are, technically if you are really dumb, I think you would be more inclined to smash the rogue in front of you than the wolf acting tough but not actually doing anything. if you are really dumb I might even argue that the wolf barking and growing might not even register as anything other than dumb dog making noise.
Your response to his legit questions was rude and rather off-putting. It sounds like you have your answer already and are looking for justification not a discussion.
No, he asked a question that bypasses the point of the thread. I didn't ask IF folks think taunting should work. The thread assumes it is a thing that can work. I asked HOW folks handle this sort of thing.
Literally all I'm interested in is how people handle, or would handle, a character taunting a creature in combat, not in a tank "you and me one on one" chest puffed up way, but harassing an enemy to try and piss them off so much they are tempted to try to kill you regardless of any tactical consideration. Nothing else is relevant to the thread.
You seem to be of the mindset that taunting needs to be about perception of threat, exclusively. There are poll options for that, and that is totally relevant to the thread. I'm interested in why, which I don't think you explained in your post, though.
Why does taunting need to have anything to do with the perception of threat? Do you not believe that creatures can be angered into doing stupid things that aren't good for them in the heat of the moment?
I don’t know about all the options in the poll, but my initial thought about if I were DMing the situation you laid out was: I’d ask how the wolf was going to taunt the ettin and use the substance of your response to set the DC for the ettin’s wisdom check. I don’t think anyone needs advantage in that situation. If you said the wolf was just going to growl and bark at him, I’d say it’d be pretty easy for the ettin to make that check. Maybe a DC10 to stay engaged with the rogue. If you said he was going to bark until he looked over, then pick up his dinner/treasure/whatever and make to run off with it, that’s a taunt that seems hard to ignore. Much higher DC.
The more I think about it though, I think players would prefer to have things decided by their own rolls rather than just create the conditions that NPCs react to, so maybe I ask how the taunt looks, then decide ADV/DisADV for a persuasion or performance check vs the ettin’s wisdom check.
But my first step would always be to ask the player what the heart of the action is and ask for the check most closely aligned with that intent or method. So in this case, I agree with you that intimidation would not be what I’d call for.
But between sitting through a game where we’re asked to make odd or inappropriate checks every so often or sitting through a game where a lot of time is spent trying to win arguments with the DM, I’ll take the odd checks. I trust you just offered the knowledge that you’re trying to pursuade or perform the role of a threat, then when the DM said “Nope. I’d like an intimidation check.” you just rolled with it until after the game.
No, he asked a question that bypasses the point of the thread. I didn't ask IF folks think taunting should work. The thread assumes it is a thing that can work. I asked HOW folks handle this sort of thing.
Literally all I'm interested in is how people handle, or would handle, a character taunting a creature in combat, not in a tank "you and me one on one" chest puffed up way, but harassing an enemy to try and piss them off so much they are tempted to try to kill you regardless of any tactical consideration. Nothing else is relevant to the thread.
You seem to be of the mindset that taunting needs to be about perception of threat, exclusively. There are poll options for that, and that is totally relevant to the thread. I'm interested in why, which I don't think you explained in your post, though.
Why does taunting need to have anything to do with the perception of threat? Do you not believe that creatures can be angered into doing stupid things that aren't good for them in the heat of the moment?
The question he asked is the focus of this thread at its core. He worded it using your example, but his question is basically: "How would something react when given a specific situation."
The specific situation being what your example was. How should something react when given two choices. For example, if a wolf was barking but not really doing much else and a humanoid was stabbing you, what would you do?
But back to my post and your response. You see my steps as the perception of threat. I see my steps are threat evaluation basically. So I'll try my best to break them down more explaining them.
But first, I am going to change the example being used because honestly, your example would never work in my campaign because I would never see a reason why a creature would turn its back on something currently stabbing it to chase something that is making noise. It one logically makes no sense in my mind, even mechanically it's a dumb choice because then you get a booming blade and an attack of opportunity. Not thinking Mechanically I personally think no matter the situation 99.9% of things are not going to turn and run after something that has 0 threat evaluation.
So let's go with something like this. You are fighting an Ettin and the rogue is up close and there is a ranger about 30 feet away. You stab the Ettin and using Booming Blade on it. Now for this, I am not even going to include the fact Booming Blade is there, because you are right the Ettin is probably too dumb to care. Then the ranger starts taunting the Ettin
Just a heads up this is going to be long...
Example 1
In the first example, let's say you stay right next to the Ettin because for whatever reason you can't move away. In my mind here is whats going to run through the Ettin head.
This dude just STABBED me! Smash this dude.
No further steps. I don't care what else is going on, if you stab me and don't kill me and are still right next to me after stabbing me, why would I care what someone is saying, when someone just stabbed me?
Example 2
In the second example, let's say you haven't used your movement so you just stabbed the Ettin so you disengage and then move your 30ft away from it. Here is going to be my thought process
This dude just stabbed me! Smash this dude.
Oh he ran away and I didn't get to smash,
Why is that dude yelling at me.
I can still reach and smash that guy who just STABBED me.
Go smash mean guy who STABBED me.
Example 3
In this example, let's say that in the previous round the ranger shot the Ettin in the back and then started yelling at it. After that you stabbed it. To the thought process
Awe that dude hit me with an arrow
Awe that dude just stabbed me
This dude is right in front of me and just STABBED.Yeah that dude back there shot me, but this guy is right in front of me.
Now to be clear a smarter creature may actually take the time to evaluate the threat from here and if they assumed the ranger was a higher risk of killing them, I may change the actions of the creature, but in our example, he is pretty dumb. So why would he leave the target directly infront of him?
Example 4
In this example, lets build of the example above, but lets say you disengaged and moved 30ft away.
Awe that dude hit me with an arrow
Awe that dude just stabbed me
Oh he ran away and I didn't get to smash
I can reach both of them
That guy back there is yelling stuff at me.
Make a Charisma roll to see if the stuff being yelled is going to influence the actions of the creature
On a Success
That guy is being mean, go Smash guy with bow
On a fail
Which one did more damage
Ranger
Go attack ranger
Rogue
Go attack rogue
Same Damage
Pick one randomly
Example 5
In this example, lets assume that the ranger hadn't attacked and was just saying mean things but the rogue did attack and then instead of disengaging he used a dash action to escape the range of the creature
Awe that dude just STABBED me
He ran away and I (either hit or missed doesn't really matter) him
Ettin turn
That guy STABBED me and ran away
That guy is still saying mean things
Charsima check to see if Ettin cares about things being said (very hard, probably a DC of 15 if not higher because the ranger hasn't actually done anything to put the Ettin in dangerwhere as the rogue stabbed him)
On Success
While he is closer and being annoying
On Failed
Ranger didn't hurt me but that guy just STABBED me
Go get guy who STABBED me
Example 6
In this example lets assume that the ranger had attacked and was yelling mean things and then the rogue stabbed the Ettin and dashed away.
Awe that dude just SHOT me
Awe that dude just STABBED me
He ran away and I (either hit or missed doesn't really matter) him
Go Smack ranger because the rogue is out of range
Alright, well that is six examples and I am getting tired of breaking down the logic. It really just boils down to this.
Is there a reason to see the thing taunting me as more dangerous than the thing that just stabbed me. If not then that taunt has no reason to work during that round. However, if the taunting creature has done something to the Ettin then things get a whole lot more complicated. Also if the creature is smarter than an Ettin it would become even more complicated because than that creature would take into account the threat level of both the ranger and the rogue.
But if we were just talking about the Ettin, IMO it would really boil down to who hurt it and how close each of those targets are.
I don’t know about all the options in the poll, but my initial thought about if I were DMing the situation you laid out was: I’d ask how the wolf was going to taunt the ettin and use the substance of your response to set the DC for the ettin’s wisdom check. I don’t think anyone needs advantage in that situation. If you said the wolf was just going to growl and bark at him, I’d say it’d be pretty easy for the ettin to make that check. Maybe a DC10 to stay engaged with the rogue. If you said he was going to bark until he looked over, then pick up his dinner/treasure/whatever and make to run off with it, that’s a taunt that seems hard to ignore. Much higher DC.
The more I think about it though, I think players would prefer to have things decided by their own rolls rather than just create the conditions that NPCs react to, so maybe I ask how the taunt looks, then decide ADV/DisADV for a persuasion or performance check vs the ettin’s wisdom check.
But my first step would always be to ask the player what the heart of the action is and ask for the check most closely aligned with that intent or method. So in this case, I agree with you that intimidation would not be what I’d call for.
But between sitting through a game where we’re asked to make odd or inappropriate checks every so often or sitting through a game where a lot of time is spent trying to win arguments with the DM, I’ll take the odd checks. I trust you just offered the knowledge that you’re trying to pursuade or perform the role of a threat, then when the DM said “Nope. I’d like an intimidation check.” you just rolled with it until after the game.
The disadvantage was what I disagree with most, because the reason for it was that the wolf didn't present a credible threat, and I tried to clarify that I wasn't trying to present a threat. I was trying to harry the ettin (this is already how we flavour the wolf using the Help Action. it is making a bunch of attacks that don't deal damage, but distract the target and create an opening for another character) and dash away, risking opportunity attack but also having a chance to "pull" the ettin after her in angered annoyance.
When the DM responded that he didn't see any room for taunting that isn't intimidation based, I simply asked to revise the action declaration, since it was made without knowing that the type of thing I was attempted was effectively not allowed in this game, and he agreed, and she just used Help to give the archer advantage on her next attack instead.
The issue I have with this, in terms of this character, is that I want to be able to do this with my actual rogue, as well, and not being able to really screws with my image of the the character. At rogue level 9 I'll have a class feature that just does a very somewhat similar thing, but IMO the basic form of simply grabbing a creature's attention with a successful skill check by insulting their lineage or getting in their face and then darting away is just as basic a tactic as shoving, tripping, disarming, etc.
Over at enworld someone suggested that my familiar needs to having Goading Strike to do this, and I thought that was preposterous. Goading strike does this as part of an attack, with extra damage! I would never tell someone they can't trip someone because that would duplicate the fighter's ability to trip someone as part of a normal attack and add extra damage on top of it!
I don't know how to explain the evaluation of threat and perception of threat to you clearly. Or as I said before you are already locked into your own mindset and this whole discussion is pointless.
A perception of threat is a dog barking at you, yes it can be scary but when compared to someone stabbing you, its not really a threat
Now if you changed the story to a raving dog is rushing you with foam in its mouth and blood on its teeth, that is probably a threat you need to worry about and could change your current behavior.
Either way, I am unsubbing to this thread due to my first remark.
It seems like you are trying to give taunting (a skill check) the same power as a 1st level spell (Compelled Duel). Also, if taunting forces movement like in your 2nd option, Booming Blade won't trigger because it's not willing movement if it is forced to move as a result of the taunt.
I wouldn't make it a skill check. I'd let the situation dictate the terms and role play it out. In the example you gave, there is a real life threatening target in front of the ettin and a non-threat away from it. That's a bit obvious especially since the wolf has no way to taunt other than growl.
If the rogue was presenting a difficult target, and not doing damage, and the wolf was hurting the ettin, then there might be cause for the ettin to move.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As a houserule, I think all of the options presented in the initial poll are completely valid ways to handle it. I think instead of making a contested roll, I'd just set a save DC for the creature based on the taunter's Charisma. In your case, the Ettin should make a CHA or WIS (DM's choice) saving throw DC = 10 +/- wolf's CHA modifier. Separate example, a Paladin taunts a chimera to attack him (I don't care how he does it). The chimera makes a CHA or WIS saving throw DC = 13 (10 + Paladin's +3 CHA modifier).
As for the results. Again, they seem like fine ways for taunt to work. As a DM, I personally would lean more toward the creature "has disadvantage against targets other than you" over the "must move and attack you" because the latter could be abused by certain class / party combinations. Either way could be fun, though. I'd also add a limitation clause such as, "a creature can only be taunted by one creature at a time." or something like that.
All that said, my own personal house rule for taunting is this: "As an action you attempt to make yourself an appealing target to your enemies. Choose any number of hostile creatures you can see, melee and ranged attacks targeting you from the chosen creatures are made with advantage until the beginning of your next turn." This way, I don't grant the players a way to directly manipulate a creature, but an indirect way that requires some additional risk-reward assessment.
My theory, as a player and a DM, is that taunting can be about puffing your chest and challenging the target, BUT it can also be (and more often is IME) about harrying, annoying, or insulting the target. Making them angry, so they want to squish you, and potentially do something stupid as a result.
This is pretty much how I would rule it. After all, both intimidation and persuasion are basic attempts to control somebody's actions through reason.
But I wouldn't make taunting work the same way in every situation as your poll answers imply. Its effects should provide some clear benefit to the player, but I'm not sure having it instantly rush over in every situation, even if it's a dumb creature, would be a solid idea, because it makes combat too easily predictable if you can just control an NPCs actions by being mildly irritating or threatening from a distance. Magic is different, of course, it's magic. I think the much maligned 4e had quite a few mechanics like this and they really epitomized the "video game-y" feeling of the edition.
A successful taunt should make the target creature focus on you. Whatever that focus entails is up to the DM and dependent on the situation at hand, I'd think. This is where good roleplay can really come in handy, too.
There is a bit of role play involved in how taunts are handled. In the case of a stupid creature like an Ettin, I agree with those who say it should be based on threat and opportunity.
With smarter enemies, this could change. A gnome might moon a bunch of goblins for a successful taunt. Insulting someone's god or leader might get attention as well.
Good roleplay can greatly impact taunt effectiveness, but the original question is based around a wolf familiar doing the taunt attempt. As an INT 3 creature, it's pretty much limited to snarling/threatening or whimpering/cowering. Not much in the way of RP possibilities.
Good roleplay can greatly impact taunt effectiveness, but the original question is based around a wolf familiar doing the taunt attempt. As an INT 3 creature, it's pretty much limited to snarling/threatening or whimpering/cowering. Not much in the way of RP possibilities.
Nah. A familiar isn’t just any beast, it’s a Fey spirit in the body of a beast. Int score nonwistanding.
Also, actual wolves are absolutely smart enough to taunt other creatures, play tricks, etc. Therefor, Int 3 includes that intelligence.
I wouldn't make it a skill check. I'd let the situation dictate the terms and role play it out. In the example you gave, there is a real life threatening target in front of the ettin and a non-threat away from it. That's a bit obvious especially since the wolf has no way to taunt other than growl.
If the rogue was presenting a difficult target, and not doing damage, and the wolf was hurting the ettin, then there might be cause for the ettin to move.
Why would threat be the only factor? It isn’t in real fights, regardless of what logically should drive fighting behavior.
My theory, as a player and a DM, is that taunting can be about puffing your chest and challenging the target, BUT it can also be (and more often is IME) about harrying, annoying, or insulting the target. Making them angry, so they want to squish you, and potentially do something stupid as a result.
This is pretty much how I would rule it. After all, both intimidation and persuasion are basic attempts to control somebody's actions through reason.
But I wouldn't make taunting work the same way in every situation as your poll answers imply. Its effects should provide some clear benefit to the player, but I'm not sure having it instantly rush over in every situation, even if it's a dumb creature, would be a solid idea, because it makes combat too easily predictable if you can just control an NPCs actions by being mildly irritating or threatening from a distance. Magic is different, of course, it's magic. I think the much maligned 4e had quite a few mechanics like this and they really epitomized the "video game-y" feeling of the edition.
A successful taunt should make the target creature focus on you. Whatever that focus entails is up to the DM and dependent on the situation at hand, I'd think. This is where good roleplay can really come in handy, too
That is actually what I’ve come around to, as well. The target focuses on you. How that plays out is up to the DMs understanding of how the creature would act out that focus.
Though I do think that treating Taunt Action as the Trip Action to the Battlemaster’s Goading Strike works too. (Ie, non BMs can trip as their action, while a BM can use a maneuver to do it as part of an attack during the attack action, and add a die of damage on top of it. In the same way, why not allow the Taunt Action, which gives the target disadvantage on attacks that don’t include the Taunting creature on a success, ending either when the targets next turn ends, or when it successfully damages the Taunter, whichever comes first.)
I was responding to the comment about taunting including insults about someone's god or leader as an example of RP. A wolf can't do that. And I find it amusing that you are quick to point out what a 3 INT can do, yet the whole basis of your question is around the "classically very stupid" creature with a 6 INT. You're assuming more of a low stat when it suits you, and assuming less of a higher stat when it suits you. You're picking and choosing rules when if suits you, and then picking and choosing "real life" examples to argue your case. Looking at the comments, just about everyone is siding with your DM's ruling. You seem to have started the poll asking for opinions, but when someone gives their opinion you jump all over it if it is different than yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A while ago, I had a disagreement with my DM about how to handle taunting an enemy to encourage it to go after you.
My character has a Familiar that is a wolf (it's a whole story), and is a rogue with the Booming Blade cantrip. We were fighting the ghost of an Ettin, and I tagged it with BB, and then had my familiar spend her action taunting the Ettin and then backing away, trying to get it to chase her.
Now, tactically, I get why a DM might want to avoid letting the enemy fall for a taunt, but ettins are classically very stupid, so I figured that good tactics weren't going to be a huge factor here, and I was right. We agreed that it wasn't smart enough to not follow something it wanted to smash just because there was a spell effect and potential opportunity attacks to consider, but we hit a snag when it came to resolving the action.
My DM called for an Intimidation check, with disadvantage, because the Ettin wouldn't normally perceive this creature as a threat. I was taken aback, and confused, and argued that threat level wasn't the point. She wasn't presenting herself as a threat, she was taunting him. What creature rushes toward a thing that has convinced them that they are a threat? I argued that it should be persuasion or deception (no better chance of success on a wolf, but for the general case it was important to distinguish) or a choice between them, depending on the approach being taken, and certainly not with disadvantage.
My theory, as a player and a DM, is that taunting can be about puffing your chest and challenging the target, BUT it can also be (and more often is IME) about harrying, annoying, or insulting the target. Making them angry, so they want to squish you, and potentially do something stupid as a result.
What do you think?
We do bones, motherf***ker!
How would you respond? Would you go after the wolf that’s backing away without attacking or would you finish off it’s master who is in your face?
Professional computer geek
I'm not a negative Int and low wis ettin.
Also, real actual humans do stupid crap in the heat of the moment.
Most importantly, this sort of tactic is part of fictional stories, and should be available in DnD.
I really don't care about arguments that are just "I don't like the premise so I refuse to interact with the actual question". If you don't think taunting should work, this thread isn't for you.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Here is how this would break down at my table, I have had it happen before.
1. Is the rogue still in front of the creature, why move and smash when you can smash now?
2. If the rogue has moved away, is the wolf an actual threat, has it done any damage or anything else other than bark to appear threating? If no go after rogue. Why would anything stop attacking the thing hurting it for something making noise?
3. If both have caused damage, which is closer. I am lazy, so in general, I'll move to the closer target.
4. Lastly, if both have caused damage, both are the same distance away I will generally flip a coin.
Now you are going to ask, no of this has to do with your taunting. Well, that is because no one has tried that in my sessions yet. But I wanted to state those processes first. Everything would stay the same, the only thing that might change is step 3 and 4.
First I would change it so step 3 worked as:
3. If both have caused damage and the taunting creature isn't within the creatures base movement speed I would make a straight Charisma check at disadvantage. I would make it at disadvantage because you are trying to get the creature to move outside its range and forgo its attack. It would also be a Charisma check mostly because it is kinda hard to choose between Intimidation or Persuasion, but if I was forced me to pick one, I would say Intimidation over Persuasion. Simple, because it feels more right for the moment.
4. If both have caused damage and are within the creatures base movement I would say the same check but without disadvantage.
As a side note, he did ask a real question Would you go after the wolf that’s backing away without attacking or would you finish off it’s master who is in your face?
Personally, I don't care how dumb you are, technically if you are really dumb, I think you would be more inclined to smash the rogue in front of you than the wolf acting tough but not actually doing anything. if you are really dumb I might even argue that the wolf barking and growing might not even register as anything other than dumb dog making noise.
Your response to his legit questions was rude and rather off-putting. It sounds like you have your answer already and are looking for justification not a discussion.
No, he asked a question that bypasses the point of the thread. I didn't ask IF folks think taunting should work. The thread assumes it is a thing that can work. I asked HOW folks handle this sort of thing.
Literally all I'm interested in is how people handle, or would handle, a character taunting a creature in combat, not in a tank "you and me one on one" chest puffed up way, but harassing an enemy to try and piss them off so much they are tempted to try to kill you regardless of any tactical consideration. Nothing else is relevant to the thread.
You seem to be of the mindset that taunting needs to be about perception of threat, exclusively. There are poll options for that, and that is totally relevant to the thread. I'm interested in why, which I don't think you explained in your post, though.
Why does taunting need to have anything to do with the perception of threat? Do you not believe that creatures can be angered into doing stupid things that aren't good for them in the heat of the moment?
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I don’t know about all the options in the poll, but my initial thought about if I were DMing the situation you laid out was: I’d ask how the wolf was going to taunt the ettin and use the substance of your response to set the DC for the ettin’s wisdom check. I don’t think anyone needs advantage in that situation. If you said the wolf was just going to growl and bark at him, I’d say it’d be pretty easy for the ettin to make that check. Maybe a DC10 to stay engaged with the rogue. If you said he was going to bark until he looked over, then pick up his dinner/treasure/whatever and make to run off with it, that’s a taunt that seems hard to ignore. Much higher DC.
The more I think about it though, I think players would prefer to have things decided by their own rolls rather than just create the conditions that NPCs react to, so maybe I ask how the taunt looks, then decide ADV/DisADV for a persuasion or performance check vs the ettin’s wisdom check.
But my first step would always be to ask the player what the heart of the action is and ask for the check most closely aligned with that intent or method. So in this case, I agree with you that intimidation would not be what I’d call for.
But between sitting through a game where we’re asked to make odd or inappropriate checks every so often or sitting through a game where a lot of time is spent trying to win arguments with the DM, I’ll take the odd checks. I trust you just offered the knowledge that you’re trying to pursuade or perform the role of a threat, then when the DM said “Nope. I’d like an intimidation check.” you just rolled with it until after the game.
The question he asked is the focus of this thread at its core. He worded it using your example, but his question is basically: "How would something react when given a specific situation."
The specific situation being what your example was. How should something react when given two choices. For example, if a wolf was barking but not really doing much else and a humanoid was stabbing you, what would you do?
But back to my post and your response. You see my steps as the perception of threat. I see my steps are threat evaluation basically. So I'll try my best to break them down more explaining them.
But first, I am going to change the example being used because honestly, your example would never work in my campaign because I would never see a reason why a creature would turn its back on something currently stabbing it to chase something that is making noise. It one logically makes no sense in my mind, even mechanically it's a dumb choice because then you get a booming blade and an attack of opportunity. Not thinking Mechanically I personally think no matter the situation 99.9% of things are not going to turn and run after something that has 0 threat evaluation.
So let's go with something like this. You are fighting an Ettin and the rogue is up close and there is a ranger about 30 feet away. You stab the Ettin and using Booming Blade on it. Now for this, I am not even going to include the fact Booming Blade is there, because you are right the Ettin is probably too dumb to care. Then the ranger starts taunting the Ettin
Just a heads up this is going to be long...
Example 1
In the first example, let's say you stay right next to the Ettin because for whatever reason you can't move away. In my mind here is whats going to run through the Ettin head.
No further steps. I don't care what else is going on, if you stab me and don't kill me and are still right next to me after stabbing me, why would I care what someone is saying, when someone just stabbed me?
Example 2
In the second example, let's say you haven't used your movement so you just stabbed the Ettin so you disengage and then move your 30ft away from it. Here is going to be my thought process
Example 3
In this example, let's say that in the previous round the ranger shot the Ettin in the back and then started yelling at it. After that you stabbed it. To the thought process
Example 4
In this example, lets build of the example above, but lets say you disengaged and moved 30ft away.
Example 5
In this example, lets assume that the ranger hadn't attacked and was just saying mean things but the rogue did attack and then instead of disengaging he used a dash action to escape the range of the creature
Example 6
In this example lets assume that the ranger had attacked and was yelling mean things and then the rogue stabbed the Ettin and dashed away.
Alright, well that is six examples and I am getting tired of breaking down the logic. It really just boils down to this.
Is there a reason to see the thing taunting me as more dangerous than the thing that just stabbed me. If not then that taunt has no reason to work during that round. However, if the taunting creature has done something to the Ettin then things get a whole lot more complicated. Also if the creature is smarter than an Ettin it would become even more complicated because than that creature would take into account the threat level of both the ranger and the rogue.
But if we were just talking about the Ettin, IMO it would really boil down to who hurt it and how close each of those targets are.
The disadvantage was what I disagree with most, because the reason for it was that the wolf didn't present a credible threat, and I tried to clarify that I wasn't trying to present a threat. I was trying to harry the ettin (this is already how we flavour the wolf using the Help Action. it is making a bunch of attacks that don't deal damage, but distract the target and create an opening for another character) and dash away, risking opportunity attack but also having a chance to "pull" the ettin after her in angered annoyance.
When the DM responded that he didn't see any room for taunting that isn't intimidation based, I simply asked to revise the action declaration, since it was made without knowing that the type of thing I was attempted was effectively not allowed in this game, and he agreed, and she just used Help to give the archer advantage on her next attack instead.
The issue I have with this, in terms of this character, is that I want to be able to do this with my actual rogue, as well, and not being able to really screws with my image of the the character. At rogue level 9 I'll have a class feature that just does a very somewhat similar thing, but IMO the basic form of simply grabbing a creature's attention with a successful skill check by insulting their lineage or getting in their face and then darting away is just as basic a tactic as shoving, tripping, disarming, etc.
Over at enworld someone suggested that my familiar needs to having Goading Strike to do this, and I thought that was preposterous. Goading strike does this as part of an attack, with extra damage! I would never tell someone they can't trip someone because that would duplicate the fighter's ability to trip someone as part of a normal attack and add extra damage on top of it!
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Mouse: So, perception of threat. Got it.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I don't know how to explain the evaluation of threat and perception of threat to you clearly. Or as I said before you are already locked into your own mindset and this whole discussion is pointless.
A perception of threat is a dog barking at you, yes it can be scary but when compared to someone stabbing you, its not really a threat
Now if you changed the story to a raving dog is rushing you with foam in its mouth and blood on its teeth, that is probably a threat you need to worry about and could change your current behavior.
Either way, I am unsubbing to this thread due to my first remark.
It seems like you are trying to give taunting (a skill check) the same power as a 1st level spell (Compelled Duel). Also, if taunting forces movement like in your 2nd option, Booming Blade won't trigger because it's not willing movement if it is forced to move as a result of the taunt.
I wouldn't make it a skill check. I'd let the situation dictate the terms and role play it out. In the example you gave, there is a real life threatening target in front of the ettin and a non-threat away from it. That's a bit obvious especially since the wolf has no way to taunt other than growl.
If the rogue was presenting a difficult target, and not doing damage, and the wolf was hurting the ettin, then there might be cause for the ettin to move.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
As a houserule, I think all of the options presented in the initial poll are completely valid ways to handle it. I think instead of making a contested roll, I'd just set a save DC for the creature based on the taunter's Charisma. In your case, the Ettin should make a CHA or WIS (DM's choice) saving throw DC = 10 +/- wolf's CHA modifier. Separate example, a Paladin taunts a chimera to attack him (I don't care how he does it). The chimera makes a CHA or WIS saving throw DC = 13 (10 + Paladin's +3 CHA modifier).
As for the results. Again, they seem like fine ways for taunt to work. As a DM, I personally would lean more toward the creature "has disadvantage against targets other than you" over the "must move and attack you" because the latter could be abused by certain class / party combinations. Either way could be fun, though. I'd also add a limitation clause such as, "a creature can only be taunted by one creature at a time." or something like that.
All that said, my own personal house rule for taunting is this: "As an action you attempt to make yourself an appealing target to your enemies. Choose any number of hostile creatures you can see, melee and ranged attacks targeting you from the chosen creatures are made with advantage until the beginning of your next turn." This way, I don't grant the players a way to directly manipulate a creature, but an indirect way that requires some additional risk-reward assessment.
This is pretty much how I would rule it. After all, both intimidation and persuasion are basic attempts to control somebody's actions through reason.
But I wouldn't make taunting work the same way in every situation as your poll answers imply. Its effects should provide some clear benefit to the player, but I'm not sure having it instantly rush over in every situation, even if it's a dumb creature, would be a solid idea, because it makes combat too easily predictable if you can just control an NPCs actions by being mildly irritating or threatening from a distance. Magic is different, of course, it's magic. I think the much maligned 4e had quite a few mechanics like this and they really epitomized the "video game-y" feeling of the edition.
A successful taunt should make the target creature focus on you. Whatever that focus entails is up to the DM and dependent on the situation at hand, I'd think. This is where good roleplay can really come in handy, too.
PbP characters:
Allison Adrova - Reign of the Dragon King
Delilah Thorne - Eidolons of Eramyth
Melody Velias (Spy) - Power Trip
There is a bit of role play involved in how taunts are handled. In the case of a stupid creature like an Ettin, I agree with those who say it should be based on threat and opportunity.
With smarter enemies, this could change. A gnome might moon a bunch of goblins for a successful taunt. Insulting someone's god or leader might get attention as well.
Good roleplay can greatly impact taunt effectiveness, but the original question is based around a wolf familiar doing the taunt attempt. As an INT 3 creature, it's pretty much limited to snarling/threatening or whimpering/cowering. Not much in the way of RP possibilities.
Nah. A familiar isn’t just any beast, it’s a Fey spirit in the body of a beast. Int score nonwistanding.
Also, actual wolves are absolutely smart enough to taunt other creatures, play tricks, etc. Therefor, Int 3 includes that intelligence.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Why would threat be the only factor? It isn’t in real fights, regardless of what logically should drive fighting behavior.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
That is actually what I’ve come around to, as well. The target focuses on you. How that plays out is up to the DMs understanding of how the creature would act out that focus.
Though I do think that treating Taunt Action as the Trip Action to the Battlemaster’s Goading Strike works too. (Ie, non BMs can trip as their action, while a BM can use a maneuver to do it as part of an attack during the attack action, and add a die of damage on top of it. In the same way, why not allow the Taunt Action, which gives the target disadvantage on attacks that don’t include the Taunting creature on a success, ending either when the targets next turn ends, or when it successfully damages the Taunter, whichever comes first.)
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I was responding to the comment about taunting including insults about someone's god or leader as an example of RP. A wolf can't do that. And I find it amusing that you are quick to point out what a 3 INT can do, yet the whole basis of your question is around the "classically very stupid" creature with a 6 INT. You're assuming more of a low stat when it suits you, and assuming less of a higher stat when it suits you. You're picking and choosing rules when if suits you, and then picking and choosing "real life" examples to argue your case. Looking at the comments, just about everyone is siding with your DM's ruling. You seem to have started the poll asking for opinions, but when someone gives their opinion you jump all over it if it is different than yours.