I think this is a great point about Help, although it didn't satisfy the OP (he was aiming for a positional advantage) it does provide a lot of the fantasy of having a smaller creature or even a PC be annoying to a point where there is a mechanical advantage.
Also agreed that animals aren't good targets for deception in a combat setting, but I don't know about absolutely impossible. High DCs exist for a reason. The rest is just adapting it to a narrative that does work for you. Not sure how we got on deceiving animals, though maybe I missed something.
Will admit, buzzing through this ancient necrotic corpse of a thread? Feels a whole lot like a player who's pissed off that he can't dictate to the DM what the enemies in a given encounter do. As a DM, I would be incredibly leery of allowing MMO-style "Taunting" the way it's been laid out and described in this thread, i.e. one creature does something largely irrelevant to combat in order to forcibly compel another creature to act blatantly against its own interests in that combat.
IF MMO-style "Taunting" must be included in a game, I would first of all demand that it requires someone's whole-ass action to do. You don't get to Taunt as a free action; you can lowercase-t taunt someone as a 'free' action if you aren't shouting anything else, but that's just for fun and flavor most of the time. As for what to do with a specific case of MMO Taunting? Were I inclined to allow players to dictate to me what the enemies in an encounter do, the check would be related to the type of creature being Taunted.
Trying to Taunt a beast? Roll Animal Handling, because the entire idea is "do you know enough about how this beast works to get it to act against its own self interest to chase you?"
Trying to Taunt a humanoid enemy? The precise method of Taunting will likely have an impact, but frankly I'm inclined to call that a Performance check. Can you make enough of a showboating ass of yourself to grab your audience's attention and force them to do something you're very much hoping will get them killed? That's not Intimidation, it's not really persuasion, it's sort-of-but-not-really Deception, but it is putting on a show and trying to woo hearts and minds with it. Performance fits better than anything else
Trying to Taunt demons, angels, and other beings of the Higher/Lower Planes? Religion.
Trying to Taunt outer-planar aberrations, monstrosities of the Elemental Planes, or other stuff Man Was Not Meant to Know? Arcana.
'Taunting', in this case, is about whether you know enough about the target to yank its levers enough to steer it into harming itself for your benefit. There is no one single number that covers this because every target is different, which means every attempt to Taunt a target is going to be its own different action resolution. And also if you're going to continually pull that kind of garbage I'm going to hit you with a Nerf sword and start asking you how you want me to handle NPCs Taunting you. Because anything you can do to the world, the world can do to you, and if the PCs can use random braggadocio to brain-control enemies into acting to their own obvious detriment? Well, let's see how long that lasts when you're making Wisdom saves to avoid having me dictate to you what your character does on their next combat turn.
MMO-style Aggro mechanics like "Taunting" don't belong in D&D. And if Brice wants to come back after three years and yell at me for saying so, he's more than welcome to.
Those are actually pretty good. A really good analysis of how to apply different skills in this situation, honestly.
For what it's worth, I don't know the OP and I know your stance is against including the ability to taunt, but I think your ideas are very solid for if it did come up.
There are already taunt abilities in the game. Cavalier fighter’s mark come to mind. And the spell compelled duel. Probably there’s others. Giving away those abilities with a skill check seems a bit much.
I realize cavaliers weren’t a thing when the thread started. I’m more talking to the people now.
No animal is going to be "deceived" by a taunt to ignore a real threat to go after an annoying barking thing.
Nor are they going to be "intimidated" into going after an annoying barking thing when there's something else that's larger and actually hurting them also present.
I think Help covers it, or they could distract the animal and create a disadvantage on the creature's attack of the Rogue's choice. Much more than that and you're substantially affecting the Familiar's power level...and I'm not sure there is justification in the description for more than that, since distracting the opponent is what Help essentially is.
The Help action is probably the best option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Rogue (Swashbuckler), Panache (this actually uses a skill check and is the closest thing to a taunt)
Feat: Sentinel
There are also a bunch of less specific abilities that limit who a monster can feasibly attack, such as grappling. I would not be always opposed to letting someone do something taunt-like with a skill check, but it would mostly be effective against foes that are currently not engaged with anyone.
The hottest take yet: It's not a skill check at all. For most cases, there's no skill check that would make sense for it to be. Maybe it's a Charisma check. But maybe it's not a check, it's just how the monster reacts to the way you're behaving. If you want to try to be irritating, you might get ignored, you might get a "I'll kill you last so you can watch your friends die." It's gonna depend entirely on the situation. Your skill really doesn't have anything to do with it imo.
Edit: These things are taking place over a matter of seconds. I'm not sure six seconds is enough time to make yourself really annoying in a fight.
I'm still not convinced that you're not overcomplicating this. Help covers a third party indirectly intervening in a fight:
"Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage."
Taunting, distracting or feinting are all similar ideas in terms of effect. I see no narrative reason why what is happening here would substantially change that. By DMs call, I'd say you could change it to disadvantage for the target, but it's absurd that an animal would switch targets from "big enemy that keeps stabbing me" to "smaller annoying barking thing". It's a distraction or annoyance, and advantage/disadvantage covers that plenty by RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The Familiar is helping the PC by distracting the opponent (which is explicitly what Help does). The fluff would be that the Familiar distracts the opponent as you attack (by, say, barking), making it harder to effectively defend themselves.
You are never going to persuade an animal that the small barking thing is the real threat while the big thing stabbing it with a sword should be ignored.
Help, with the potential modification to disadvantage on the opponent's attacks depending on when the distraction comes (upto the DM, since that is beyond RAW), is adequate to cover the scenario. No need to invent new abilities that break the balance built into the Familiar mechanics, when RAW covers this. The Familiar barking, feinting, or otherwise teaming up with the PC to fight the opponent is covered in RAW. That it's barking is just fluff for how it confers that advantage/disadvantage. It's not an action that is anything unaccounted for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Regardless of all the discussion and the OP's "whish", the OP wants to use a homebrew taunt ability to not only force the enemy to switch targets, but also to force movement (specifically because of Booming Blade).
This is even more powerful as the above mentioned class features.
I would so definetely not allow that to happen.
Disadvantage with a modified help action would also already be a loooong stretch.
Regardless of all the discussion and the OP's "whish", the OP wants to use a homebrew taunt ability to not only force the enemy to switch targets, but also to force movement (specifically because of Booming Blade).
This is even more powerful as the above mentioned class features.
I would so definetely not allow that to happen.
Disadvantage with a modified help action would also already be a loooong stretch.
Well it is very comparable with bestowing the Frightened condition, except compelling the target to move towards instead of away. And there are abilities and spells which can induce said condition.
Yes, spells and abilities. Not just a new "taunt" action everyone can use at will.
"To make your ally's attack more effective," again is not actually affecting the target.
Yes, the action is doing something that affects the target. If it's not affecting the target, no need to roll because nothing is happening. The whole situation is that the Familiar is barking, whatever, to cause the opponent to change its behaviour. The whole point of this thread is how to resolve it. A Familiar, which cannot Attack, will at most be able to distract an opponent, not convince them that they should attack the Familiar for pestering them with barking instead of that guy that just really hurt them.
And you are assuming that animals comprehend swords.
No, I'm assuming animals comprehend that being stabbed by a sword, as they've just experienced, is more of a threat and worthy of their attention, than being barked at. Any animal capable of putting up a fight like this and capable of taking a blow from a sword and keep coming, is also capable of realising that the enemy with can cause serious wounds presents a greater threat than something that barks but doesn't actually do anything.
Most animals are not going to choose rationally. They are going by proximity alone.
You literally contradict this in two sentences when you claim that they are.more likely to go for wounded than strong prey.
Fight or flight, nothing more complex than that. Instincts are much more likely to go for wounded prey than strong seeming prey.
Nonsense. If they're hunting for food, yes, they'll go for the weakest first in the hopes of grabbing it before a confrontation happens and they can avoid injury. This isn't a hunting situation in that sense. It's them standing their ground and deciding that they'll fight you. In that situation, aggressive animals (and they'll have to be aggressive animals) will generally go for the biggest threat to subdue it. They're not going to fight mosquitoes just because they're closer or weaker, when there is a sodding grizzly bear threatening them. If they haven't "fly'd" from the threat, they're aiming to fight and therefore kill the threat. The threat very much being the one that just stabbed them, not the one that is just being a bit noisy.
The strongest opponent is far more likely to trigger flight instinct. It is the wounded, weak prey that is vulnerable and can be taken down easily.
And they've already decided to fight, so flight is irrelevant. They've already decided that flight is not an option or isn't needed.
Here's an experiment. Take a noisy kid you don't like, go down the local park, and find a dog that isn't on a lead. Persuade the kid to tease the dog, then you hit it, either by punching it or throwing stones at it, until it gets aggressive. Then see who it goes for first. Actually, don't, because there are people who are cruel enough to do it. But I guarantee you that the dog would go for.you and not the kid. You're the threat and while the kid is weak and annoying, you're what has made it feel the need to defend itself by hurting it.
It will take more than a bit of barking to persuade an animal to change targets from a genuine threat. It can distract the animal, which is what the Help action is for, but it's not going to cause the animal to change targets, at least, certainly not in a single turn.
That's without going into balance. There's a reason why this kind of action is a class ability or requires a spell slot, like Compelled Duel - and even that doesn't actually force the target into changing targets, it just penalises them. And that's with a spell slot! Allowing a Familiar to do it for free...just because the player wants to exploit their cantrip...is a really bad idea. And that's even if it made sense in terms of the narrative, which it doesn't.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't really formalize this sort of thing. If a character says or does something in RP during their turn that might provoke an enemy, I'll handle it case by case. An undisciplined mercenary might fall for a taunt and go after someone else. A more experienced soldier might be harder. A disciplined assassin after a specific target likely isn't going to fall for a taunt and stop trying to kill their intended target.
Depending on what the character did and the enemy in question, I might have them switch targets without a roll, call for a charisma roll depending on the way they tried to get said attention, or just say it isn't feasible for this enemy.
I don 't use a structured system for this sort thing unless a character has an actual feature with rules drawing agro to themselves.
I don't really formalize this sort of thing. If a character says or does something in RP during their turn that might provoke an enemy, I'll handle it case by case. An undisciplined mercenary might fall for a taunt and go after someone else. A more experienced soldier might be harder. A disciplined assassin after a specific target likely isn't going to fall for a taunt and stop trying to kill their intended target.
Depending on what the character did and the enemy in question, I might have them switch targets without a roll, call for a charisma roll depending on the way they tried to get said attention, or just say it isn't feasible for this enemy.
I don 't use a structured system for this sort thing unless a character has an actual feature with rules drawing agro to themselves.
Same, as you pointed out, I think how the enemy reacts to taunting depends on how disciplined + smart they are.
I don't usually do taunting as an action, but if a player tried it, I'd probably play it by ear and situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
First of all, what part of 'Most' is difficult for you to understand?
Most animals wouldn't even be in the fight in the first place. The ones that would, are the ones that are going after threats. Subhuman intelligence doesn't mean terminally stupid.
Most does not equal all. And I say 'most' because most creatures (including most sentient and sapient creatures) are not going to have perfect combat awareness. There is typically a lot going on in melee. In real life, no one gets to see results of any blow measured out numerically.
Nice hyperbole. There is a lot going on melee, which is why animals focus on threats. It's a simple enough ability to cut through the confusion. They can easily tell the difference between "stabbing me with something that really hurts and does a lot of damage" and "makes an annoying noise".
Why would animals only go for the weakest when hunting for food? The weakest in terms of hps/vulnerability is likely not hitting much lighter than the strongest.
If you can drop an enemy, that is one less enemy and dropping one might cause your opponents to flee. And those are decisions that need not be made rationally. They can be made instinctively, or quasi-rationally from experience from battles the pack has fought in earlier years.
So now they've.gone from not being able to tell the difference in threat level from a creature stabbing it with a sword and a barking thing, to.being able to form tactical plans on the fly in the confusion of combat? That's a massive leap.
You keep coming back to the Help action as if it is the only thing in the game. That is a red herring. The existence of the Help action does not mean skills do not exist.
No, I keep coming back to the RAW and RAI answer. Skill checks aren't intended to allow you to get even better effects than Compelled Duel without having to:
Choose a class that is able to learn and cast it.
Being of a level that gets the spell slot to cast it.
Use up a spell known/prepared in order to have it ready.
Use a spell slot to actually cast it.
Why would my Paladin bother leaning Compelled Duel when I can get a better effect without using my precious spell slots, when I can just do a Charisma (Performance) or Charisma (Intimidation) check instead? If you don't like Help and want to give a superpowered version that lets you mimic a levelled spell, go ahead. But if I come asking how I can cast a L8 spell or lower without material components, then no matter how much I want to just do an Int (Arcana) check, the answer is what will be coming up time and time again: Take an appropriate full caster class upto L17 so they get a 9th level slot, learn and then cast Wish. The same here. The OP is asking for the effects of Compelled Duel. If he wants the effects, he has to do the work for it. Take a level in a class that knows it, learn it and persuade the DM to allow it to be cast by the Familiar. Allowing characters to have the effects of spells through a mere skill check is a bad idea. Having his Familiar taunt an enemy and their reaction to it is modelled in that Action which you hate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't really formalize this sort of thing. If a character says or does something in RP during their turn that might provoke an enemy, I'll handle it case by case. An undisciplined mercenary might fall for a taunt and go after someone else. A more experienced soldier might be harder. A disciplined assassin after a specific target likely isn't going to fall for a taunt and stop trying to kill their intended target.
Depending on what the character did and the enemy in question, I might have them switch targets without a roll, call for a charisma roll depending on the way they tried to get said attention, or just say it isn't feasible for this enemy.
I don 't use a structured system for this sort thing unless a character has an actual feature with rules drawing agro to themselves.
Same, as you pointed out, I think how the enemy reacts to taunting depends on how disciplined + smart they are.
I don't usually do taunting as an action, but if a player tried it, I'd probably play it by ear and situation.
I could see that working if the two PCs were approximately equal. If a Fighter and a Paladin come across a dumb Merc, and the Paladin taunts him, I can see the Merc being goaded into attacking the Paladin rather than the Fighter (he has to be dumb to not figure out that he's being played).
That's fairly constrained though. If he's in a deadly fight with the Fighter, he's not going to be goaded into dropping the fight with the Fighter by a chihuahua yapping at him, nor indeed a "Yo Mama!" joke by the Paladin. It just depends on the situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
And while enemies don't know the numbers behind things, they can pick up on some things.
A grown dragon can tell the difference between a bard hitting it for 8 damage with a crossbow and a rogue sneak attack crit or a paladin smite crit etc. But a gelatinous cube will just keep trying to eat with little sense of self preservation or tacitcs. The way I run games, enemies don't know the exact numbers but they can pick out to an extent who the bigger threat is if there's a big divide in damage/effects, or if one pc is having back luck and keeps missing while another is consistently landing hits.
A Gelatinous Cube hasn't even got a brain so far as I'm aware, and has an Int 1 and a Wis 6. The Ettin in the OP has an Int of 6 and a Wis of 10, a Wolf has Int 3 and Wis 12. While I question the relative scores - a Wolf should be far, far more intelligent than a brainless cube, but probably would be less wise than a commoner, and brainless cube shouldn't be rivalling anyone in Wisdom - I'd agree with you, GCs would just mindlessly go after the nearest enemy. However, wolves, bears, people, etc, while they might not Sun Tzu or Magnus Carlsen, would still be able to know that bigger threats are either to be dealt with or avoided, rather than ignored.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A Gelatinous Cube hasn't even got a brain so far as I'm aware, and has an Int 1 and a Wis 6. The Ettin in the OP has an Int of 6 and a Wis of 10, a Wolf has Int 3 and Wis 12. While I question the relative scores - a Wolf should be far, far more intelligent than a brainless cube, but probably would be less wise than a commoner, and brainless cube shouldn't be rivalling anyone in Wisdom - I'd agree with you, GCs would just mindlessly go after the nearest enemy. However, wolves, bears, people, etc, while they might not Sun Tzu or Magnus Carlsen, would still be able to know that bigger threats are either to be dealt with or avoided, rather than ignored.
How would they know the bigger threat? Magical 'wolf sense?' They are NPC's and the DM knows so they must? They can see every attack, its source and analyze it rationally, even with respect to blows hitting a different wolf? PC's even get more info than they likely should, since they hear each other's damage rolls and can do math in their heads.
You're seriously asking why a wolf, Ettin, etc would think that a guy that just stabbed it with a sword is a bigger threat than a yapping dog?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To everyone who wouldn't allow taunting... What if all those spells and class features didn't exist? In other words, is your concern about the narrative, or are you using the narrative to justify your concerns about game balance?
I'm not sure anyone would disallow it. The problems are:
It's already covered by RAW.
The desired result is not a logical consequence of the proposed action.
The desired result is very much in excess of the scope given for Familiars (without further enhancements)..
The desired result was locked behind quite significant investments, which speaks to its effect on balance, even apart from the concept of "stealing an effect of a spell without paying the cost".
You can have your Familiar taunt all you like. That provides a distraction and, as per RAW, provides you with advantage on your next attack against that creature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this is a great point about Help, although it didn't satisfy the OP (he was aiming for a positional advantage) it does provide a lot of the fantasy of having a smaller creature or even a PC be annoying to a point where there is a mechanical advantage.
Also agreed that animals aren't good targets for deception in a combat setting, but I don't know about absolutely impossible. High DCs exist for a reason. The rest is just adapting it to a narrative that does work for you. Not sure how we got on deceiving animals, though maybe I missed something.
Those are actually pretty good. A really good analysis of how to apply different skills in this situation, honestly.
For what it's worth, I don't know the OP and I know your stance is against including the ability to taunt, but I think your ideas are very solid for if it did come up.
There are already taunt abilities in the game. Cavalier fighter’s mark come to mind. And the spell compelled duel. Probably there’s others. Giving away those abilities with a skill check seems a bit much.
I realize cavaliers weren’t a thing when the thread started. I’m more talking to the people now.
Nor are they going to be "intimidated" into going after an annoying barking thing when there's something else that's larger and actually hurting them also present.
The Help action is probably the best option.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Abilities in game that have effects similar to a taunt:
There are also a bunch of less specific abilities that limit who a monster can feasibly attack, such as grappling. I would not be always opposed to letting someone do something taunt-like with a skill check, but it would mostly be effective against foes that are currently not engaged with anyone.
The hottest take yet: It's not a skill check at all. For most cases, there's no skill check that would make sense for it to be. Maybe it's a Charisma check. But maybe it's not a check, it's just how the monster reacts to the way you're behaving. If you want to try to be irritating, you might get ignored, you might get a "I'll kill you last so you can watch your friends die." It's gonna depend entirely on the situation. Your skill really doesn't have anything to do with it imo.
Edit: These things are taking place over a matter of seconds. I'm not sure six seconds is enough time to make yourself really annoying in a fight.
I'm still not convinced that you're not overcomplicating this. Help covers a third party indirectly intervening in a fight:
"Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage."
Taunting, distracting or feinting are all similar ideas in terms of effect. I see no narrative reason why what is happening here would substantially change that. By DMs call, I'd say you could change it to disadvantage for the target, but it's absurd that an animal would switch targets from "big enemy that keeps stabbing me" to "smaller annoying barking thing". It's a distraction or annoyance, and advantage/disadvantage covers that plenty by RAW.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The Familiar is helping the PC by distracting the opponent (which is explicitly what Help does). The fluff would be that the Familiar distracts the opponent as you attack (by, say, barking), making it harder to effectively defend themselves.
You are never going to persuade an animal that the small barking thing is the real threat while the big thing stabbing it with a sword should be ignored.
Help, with the potential modification to disadvantage on the opponent's attacks depending on when the distraction comes (upto the DM, since that is beyond RAW), is adequate to cover the scenario. No need to invent new abilities that break the balance built into the Familiar mechanics, when RAW covers this. The Familiar barking, feinting, or otherwise teaming up with the PC to fight the opponent is covered in RAW. That it's barking is just fluff for how it confers that advantage/disadvantage. It's not an action that is anything unaccounted for.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Regardless of all the discussion and the OP's "whish", the OP wants to use a homebrew taunt ability to not only force the enemy to switch targets, but also to force movement (specifically because of Booming Blade).
This is even more powerful as the above mentioned class features.
I would so definetely not allow that to happen.
Disadvantage with a modified help action would also already be a loooong stretch.
Yes, spells and abilities. Not just a new "taunt" action everyone can use at will.
Yes, the action is doing something that affects the target. If it's not affecting the target, no need to roll because nothing is happening. The whole situation is that the Familiar is barking, whatever, to cause the opponent to change its behaviour. The whole point of this thread is how to resolve it. A Familiar, which cannot Attack, will at most be able to distract an opponent, not convince them that they should attack the Familiar for pestering them with barking instead of that guy that just really hurt them.
No, I'm assuming animals comprehend that being stabbed by a sword, as they've just experienced, is more of a threat and worthy of their attention, than being barked at. Any animal capable of putting up a fight like this and capable of taking a blow from a sword and keep coming, is also capable of realising that the enemy with can cause serious wounds presents a greater threat than something that barks but doesn't actually do anything.
You literally contradict this in two sentences when you claim that they are.more likely to go for wounded than strong prey.
Nonsense. If they're hunting for food, yes, they'll go for the weakest first in the hopes of grabbing it before a confrontation happens and they can avoid injury. This isn't a hunting situation in that sense. It's them standing their ground and deciding that they'll fight you. In that situation, aggressive animals (and they'll have to be aggressive animals) will generally go for the biggest threat to subdue it. They're not going to fight mosquitoes just because they're closer or weaker, when there is a sodding grizzly bear threatening them. If they haven't "fly'd" from the threat, they're aiming to fight and therefore kill the threat. The threat very much being the one that just stabbed them, not the one that is just being a bit noisy.
And they've already decided to fight, so flight is irrelevant. They've already decided that flight is not an option or isn't needed.
Here's an experiment. Take a noisy kid you don't like, go down the local park, and find a dog that isn't on a lead. Persuade the kid to tease the dog, then you hit it, either by punching it or throwing stones at it, until it gets aggressive. Then see who it goes for first. Actually, don't, because there are people who are cruel enough to do it. But I guarantee you that the dog would go for.you and not the kid. You're the threat and while the kid is weak and annoying, you're what has made it feel the need to defend itself by hurting it.
It will take more than a bit of barking to persuade an animal to change targets from a genuine threat. It can distract the animal, which is what the Help action is for, but it's not going to cause the animal to change targets, at least, certainly not in a single turn.
That's without going into balance. There's a reason why this kind of action is a class ability or requires a spell slot, like Compelled Duel - and even that doesn't actually force the target into changing targets, it just penalises them. And that's with a spell slot! Allowing a Familiar to do it for free...just because the player wants to exploit their cantrip...is a really bad idea. And that's even if it made sense in terms of the narrative, which it doesn't.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I don't really formalize this sort of thing. If a character says or does something in RP during their turn that might provoke an enemy, I'll handle it case by case. An undisciplined mercenary might fall for a taunt and go after someone else. A more experienced soldier might be harder. A disciplined assassin after a specific target likely isn't going to fall for a taunt and stop trying to kill their intended target.
Depending on what the character did and the enemy in question, I might have them switch targets without a roll, call for a charisma roll depending on the way they tried to get said attention, or just say it isn't feasible for this enemy.
I don 't use a structured system for this sort thing unless a character has an actual feature with rules drawing agro to themselves.
Same, as you pointed out, I think how the enemy reacts to taunting depends on how disciplined + smart they are.
I don't usually do taunting as an action, but if a player tried it, I'd probably play it by ear and situation.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Most animals wouldn't even be in the fight in the first place. The ones that would, are the ones that are going after threats. Subhuman intelligence doesn't mean terminally stupid.
Nice hyperbole. There is a lot going on melee, which is why animals focus on threats. It's a simple enough ability to cut through the confusion. They can easily tell the difference between "stabbing me with something that really hurts and does a lot of damage" and "makes an annoying noise".
So now they've.gone from not being able to tell the difference in threat level from a creature stabbing it with a sword and a barking thing, to.being able to form tactical plans on the fly in the confusion of combat? That's a massive leap.
No, I keep coming back to the RAW and RAI answer. Skill checks aren't intended to allow you to get even better effects than Compelled Duel without having to:
Why would my Paladin bother leaning Compelled Duel when I can get a better effect without using my precious spell slots, when I can just do a Charisma (Performance) or Charisma (Intimidation) check instead? If you don't like Help and want to give a superpowered version that lets you mimic a levelled spell, go ahead. But if I come asking how I can cast a L8 spell or lower without material components, then no matter how much I want to just do an Int (Arcana) check, the answer is what will be coming up time and time again: Take an appropriate full caster class upto L17 so they get a 9th level slot, learn and then cast Wish. The same here. The OP is asking for the effects of Compelled Duel. If he wants the effects, he has to do the work for it. Take a level in a class that knows it, learn it and persuade the DM to allow it to be cast by the Familiar. Allowing characters to have the effects of spells through a mere skill check is a bad idea. Having his Familiar taunt an enemy and their reaction to it is modelled in that Action which you hate.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I could see that working if the two PCs were approximately equal. If a Fighter and a Paladin come across a dumb Merc, and the Paladin taunts him, I can see the Merc being goaded into attacking the Paladin rather than the Fighter (he has to be dumb to not figure out that he's being played).
That's fairly constrained though. If he's in a deadly fight with the Fighter, he's not going to be goaded into dropping the fight with the Fighter by a chihuahua yapping at him, nor indeed a "Yo Mama!" joke by the Paladin. It just depends on the situation.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
And while enemies don't know the numbers behind things, they can pick up on some things.
A grown dragon can tell the difference between a bard hitting it for 8 damage with a crossbow and a rogue sneak attack crit or a paladin smite crit etc. But a gelatinous cube will just keep trying to eat with little sense of self preservation or tacitcs. The way I run games, enemies don't know the exact numbers but they can pick out to an extent who the bigger threat is if there's a big divide in damage/effects, or if one pc is having back luck and keeps missing while another is consistently landing hits.
Really it all comes down to context.
A Gelatinous Cube hasn't even got a brain so far as I'm aware, and has an Int 1 and a Wis 6. The Ettin in the OP has an Int of 6 and a Wis of 10, a Wolf has Int 3 and Wis 12. While I question the relative scores - a Wolf should be far, far more intelligent than a brainless cube, but probably would be less wise than a commoner, and brainless cube shouldn't be rivalling anyone in Wisdom - I'd agree with you, GCs would just mindlessly go after the nearest enemy. However, wolves, bears, people, etc, while they might not Sun Tzu or Magnus Carlsen, would still be able to know that bigger threats are either to be dealt with or avoided, rather than ignored.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You're seriously asking why a wolf, Ettin, etc would think that a guy that just stabbed it with a sword is a bigger threat than a yapping dog?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To everyone who wouldn't allow taunting... What if all those spells and class features didn't exist? In other words, is your concern about the narrative, or are you using the narrative to justify your concerns about game balance?
Just trying to narrow down the issue here.
I'm not sure anyone would disallow it. The problems are:
You can have your Familiar taunt all you like. That provides a distraction and, as per RAW, provides you with advantage on your next attack against that creature.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.