Why would threat be the only factor? It isn’t in real fights, regardless of what logically should drive fighting behavior.
I didn't say it was the only factor. I said it would be the factor in the example given.
If I were personally in a fist fight with somebody I wouldn't turn my back on him to chase a yapping chihuahua.
Threat is one determining factor. There are others which is why these things should be role played. There are powers and class skills that can be used as taunts. A skill roll should not duplicate these things.
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?"
Pathfinder had a specific rule about just such a situation, actually: "You cannot use Diplomacy (3.5th/PF's version of Persuasion) against a creature that does not understand you." The team at Paizo probably anticipated this exact debate we're having now, but WotC wrote 5e with much looser game rules. The rule is logically consistent, and while it's not an official rule in 5e, it would be very hard to sell to me as a DM the idea that you can attempt to persuade a creature, with reason and logic, whom you are completely incapable of communicating with beyond basic gestures.
You're trying to use a non-specific, general ruling in a situation where such a ruling should not logically apply. You're attempting to rules lawyer your way into making absolute nonsense occur in your DM's world, using rules that aren't actually written in the book at that. That's metagaming. That might even be meta-metagaming. I think your DM is entirely within rights to say "no".
Regardless of all this rules talk, wouldn't it have been easier on you to just go "darn, that's a waste of an action," and move on? I've done this numerous times while playing. Oh man, it bothered the bacon out of me when a DM of mine first ruled that grease made by the Grease spell wasn't flammable. It stings, but if it doesn't lead to a TPK, it's probably not really worth disputing past a couple sentences. You and the DM should be working together, using the rules as a framework to create a mildly consistent, fun story for you guys to enjoy, not bickering over passages of text in the RAW. Your DM just wants to have a good time with you, you'd do well to cherish that and try to relax a bit more at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PbP characters: Allison Adrova - Reign of the Dragon King Delilah Thorne - Eidolons of Eramyth Melody Velias (Spy) - Power Trip
Pathfinder had a specific rule about just such a situation, actually: "You cannot use Diplomacy (3.5th/PF's version of Persuasion) against a creature that does not understand you." The team at Paizo probably anticipated this exact debate we're having now, but WotC wrote 5e with much looser game rules. The rule is logically consistent, and while it's not an official rule in 5e, it would be very hard to sell to me as a DM the idea that you can attempt to persuade a creature, with reason and logic, whom you are completely incapable of communicating with beyond basic gestures.
You're trying to use a non-specific, general ruling in a situation where such a ruling should not logically apply. You're attempting to rules lawyer your way into making absolute nonsense occur in your DM's world, using rules that aren't actually written in the book at that. That's metagaming. That might even be meta-metagaming. I think your DM is entirely within rights to say "no".
Regardless of all this rules talk, wouldn't it have been easier on you to just go "darn, that's a waste of an action," and move on? I've done this numerous times while playing. Oh man, it bothered the bacon out of me when a DM of mine first ruled that grease made by the Grease spell wasn't flammable. It stings, but if it doesn't lead to a TPK, it's probably not really worth disputing past a couple sentences. You and the DM should be working together, using the rules as a framework to create a mildly consistent, fun story for you guys to enjoy, not bickering over passages of text in the RAW. Your DM just wants to have a good time with you, you'd do well to cherish that and try to relax a bit more at the table.
This is one of the weirdest posts I've seen on these forums.
Taunting doesn't involve logic and reason. There's no rules lawyering going on here. I can't even imagine what rules lawyering you're inventing in your mind to project onto this discussion. This isn't 3.5 or Pathfinder, and it's rules language is irrelevant. Such an attempt wouldn't even be Diplomacy in either of those games. Bluff or Performance maybe, but sure as hell not Diplomacy of all things. But the editions are different, and the skills don't work the same in 5e as they do in older editions and other games.
The last paragraph is just a lot of nonsensical attempts at lecturing someone you don't know anything about.
and like...there was no bickering about the rules as written. What the actual hell are you even talking about? Did you even read the OP? Are you responding to the wrong thread?
Like...what ruling do you think I'm trying to leverage into...I don't even know what. I literally can't figure out what the hell you're even responding to, or what you're trying to say.
Whenever you taunt a target, you are trying to get it to reasonably believe, in some way, that attacking you would be beneficial to it. This is even more true if you're trying to say that it's a persuasion or deception check.
This isn't 3.5 or Pathfinder, and it's rules language is irrelevant.
I would like to agree with this, but WotC was purposefully very vague in writing about what each skill is used for and what it does in 5th ed. This is good overall, as it means less rules to memorize, but in cases where the vaguery leads to conflict over the rules, it may be helpful to look to similar skills in more fleshed out games for guidance on how these skills are meant to be utilized.
and like...there was no bickering about the rules as written. What the actual hell are you even talking about? Did you even read the OP? Are you responding to the wrong thread?
"I was taken aback, and confused, and argued that threat level wasn't the point."
Here's a quote from your OP, stating how you argued with your DM about how the rules work in this particular instance. You were clearly very frustrated by this argument, given that you saw fit to take it to the forums for validation and then start swearing at internet randoms who might disagree with you.
The last paragraph is just a lot of nonsensical attempts at lecturing someone you don't know anything about.
See above. That's what I know about you thus far. Said lecture fits when somebody is sabotaging their own enjoyment of the game.
I literally can't figure out what the hell you're even responding to, or what you're trying to say.
What I'm trying to say is twofold.
It's very difficult, if not near impossible, to persuade or deceive something that you can't communicate clearly with.
It's not worth having an argument with your DM over what is ultimately a minor ruling. If you kept the game moving and swallowed your feelings over it, there wouldn't have been an argument with your DM and both of you would've walked away from the last session having a better time.
I'mma pass out now. Goooood night.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PbP characters: Allison Adrova - Reign of the Dragon King Delilah Thorne - Eidolons of Eramyth Melody Velias (Spy) - Power Trip
Whenever you taunt a target, you are trying to get it to reasonably believe, in some way, that attacking you would be beneficial to it. This is even more true if you're trying to say that it's a persuasion or deception check.
This isn't 3.5 or Pathfinder, and it's rules language is irrelevant.
I would like to agree with this, but WotC was purposefully very vague in writing about what each skill is used for and what it does in 5th ed. This is good overall, as it means less rules to memorize, but in cases where the vaguery leads to conflict over the rules, it may be helpful to look to similar skills in more fleshed out games for guidance on how these skills are meant to be utilized.
and like...there was no bickering about the rules as written. What the actual hell are you even talking about? Did you even read the OP? Are you responding to the wrong thread?
"I was taken aback, and confused, and argued that threat level wasn't the point."
Here's a quote from your OP, stating how you argued with your DM about how the rules work in this particular instance. You were clearly very frustrated by this argument, given that you saw fit to take it to the forums for validation and then start swearing at internet randoms who might disagree with you.
The last paragraph is just a lot of nonsensical attempts at lecturing someone you don't know anything about.
See above. That's what I know about you thus far. Said lecture fits when somebody is sabotaging their own enjoyment of the game.
I literally can't figure out what the hell you're even responding to, or what you're trying to say.
What I'm trying to say is twofold.
It's very difficult, if not near impossible, to persuade or deceive something that you can't communicate clearly with.
It's not worth having an argument with your DM over what is ultimately a minor ruling. If you kept the game moving and swallowed your feelings over it, there wouldn't have been an argument with your DM and both of you would've walked away from the last session having a better time.
I'mma pass out now. Goooood night.
LOL My dude, no. You've no idea what you're on about.
You have very clearly projected table issues you've had at your own table onto what you've read in someone else's post. No enjoyment of the game was lost, but thanks for your fake concern trolling.
But to the actual argument you made in this post (unlike your last post, which contained nothing but weird lectures about nonsense, wholly unconnected to anything I ever said), taunting does not involving reasonably convincing the target that anything is beneficial to them. That is a nonsense idea. Pissing someone off until they lash out is not reasonable, logical, nor does it require any words. It does not interact with the concept of convincing anyone of anything, much less that lashing out will benefit them in any way other than perhaps immediate emotional satisfaction that comes with hitting the thing that is irritating you.
Flies don't talk smack to you. Or if they do, you don't understand it.
edit: Also, I forgot to mention. No, the rules from other "more fleshed out" games aren't relevant to making rulings on skills in 5e, unless a specific DM decides to use other games as a guidepost for making rulings. The rules for diplomacy in pathfinder has absolutely no bearing on how taunting can or should work in 5e.
First of all, the whole ‘Flies don’t talk smack’ thing you just said? It sounds like what he was trying to say. You can’t insult or otherwise harass something that can’t understand you, with words at least.
2nd, if it’s not intelligent enough to know that this is a Familiar, and if it isn’t Helping the owner attacking, then it would just focus on the thing in front of it stabbing it, you. If I flicked my middle finger at you as my best friend held a gun to your head, and you had a knife, who would you stab, me or my friend?
3rd, if it is, it would still just go after you, as if it knocks you out, the wolf cant do anything.
4th, if it isn’t intelligent enough for either 2 or 3, it’s still got instincts. Is a rabid dog going to attack the animal that hasn’t hurt it, or the man in front of it with no defenses?
That’s just my opinion.
To clarify, I think that even if it had a 0 in intelligence, it would still attack you, not the wolf familiar. That’s why there’s no taunting mechanic in DND. It just wouldn’t work, as any brute getting chopped up won’t chase after a barking puppy. So, I wouldnt handle it at all.
First of all, the whole ‘Flies don’t talk smack’ thing you just said? It sounds like what he was trying to say. You can’t insult or otherwise harass something that can’t understand you, with words at least.
2nd, if it’s not intelligent enough to know that this is a Familiar, and if it isn’t Helping the owner attacking, then it would just focus on the thing in front of it stabbing it, you. If I flicked my middle finger at you as my best friend held a gun to your head, and you had a knife, who would you stab, me or my friend?
3rd, if it is, it would still just go after you, as if it knocks you out, the wolf cant do anything.
4th, if it isn’t intelligent enough for either 2 or 3, it’s still got instincts. Is a rabid dog going to attack the animal that hasn’t hurt it, or the man in front of it with no defenses?
That’s just my opinion.
To clarify, I think that even if it had a 0 in intelligence, it would still attack you, not the wolf familiar. That’s why there’s no taunting mechanic in DND. It just wouldn’t work, as any brute getting chopped up won’t chase after a barking puppy. So, I wouldnt handle it at all.
(Also, I like your signature!)
Thank you!
1) My point is exactly that annoying and harassing a creature doesn’t require verbal communication, therefor taunting shouldn’t.
As for the rest, I’d simply ask you to reread the OP, and recall that I didn’t include “I don’t allow taunting to work” as an option, and trust that that isn’t because it never occurred to me that anyone would go that route. That simply isn’t part of the question. I’m asking how folks would handle allowing it. Telling me it shouldn’t work is off topic.
Respectfully, I don’t care that some folks think it shouldn’t work.
Sometimes, I allow my players to make a skill check as a free action to confuse/scare the opponent. The opponent contests, and I roll on a random effects table for the winner. On a 7-10, I just pick something, from something on the table, to something random (a hazard, free advantage, etc.). Not really taunting, but similar enough.
As for how I answered, I saw you said ‘Ettins are classically stupid’. That doesn’t mean that they will chase something when the master is in front of them, but since the DM allowed it, here’s what I would suggest.
Wolf rolls an Intimidation check, at disadvantage due to the lack of being able to attack, unless using up their action to look more threatening. (This is because an Ettin May be dumb, but has a 6 in intelligence, more than enough to notice the wolf hasn’t/can’t attack him.) Ettin makes either a Wisdom (Insight) check, or contests with a Charisma (Intimidation) check. If Wolf has the higher roll, the Ettin Chases, and will probably kill the wolf. If the Ettin wins, it doesn’t chase, and instead attacks you.
That's just how I would do so, as there’s really no rule anywhere and that’s all i’ve Got.
For me taunting works only good enough, if you can verbally communicate and therefore requires the taunted creature to understand the taunt. One round lasts 6 seconds. Tis time is barely sufficient to taunt. Doing it with actions would take more time (and could forfeit any other actions like moving). Yes, basic taunts like farting into a face can be done without communication, but it is way below generating aggro. So your DM is right not to allow it. By the way, your DM will always be right, regardless of what you think or say, because he‘s the DM and the rules clearly state so. And as you can see the majority of us think the same way.
I generally allow taunting as a way to influence the opponents decision-making within limits:
If a monster is adjacent to multiple targets, I'd allow an Intimidation roll (as part of an attack or hostile action) to make the monster prefer to attack one of those adjacent targets (not necessarily the intimidator, but that's usually how it plays out). If the monster is not adjacent to anyone, I'd allow an Intimidation roll to make the monster prefer to move towards a specific target in range (without putting itself in excess harm) or shoot a specific target with ranged attacks. If the monster is already adjacent to a target, I would not allow an Intimidation roll to try to make it move towards a more distant target or otherwise put itself in harms way.
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?
If you want to see how taunting should work in the game, check out the 9th level Rogue Swashbuckler feature Panache. I've quoted the relevant excerpt below:
make a Charisma (Persuasion) check contested by a creature’s Wisdom (Insight) check. The creature must be able to hear you, and the two of you must share a language.
If you succeed on the check and the creature is hostile to you, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you and can’t make opportunity attacks against targets other than you. This effect lasts for 1 minute, until one of your companions attacks the target or affects it with a spell, or until you and the target are more than 60 feet apart.
Now admittedly, this is a high level ability, but we can use it to make deductions about something that might be more limited and therefore accessible to other creatures. However, even in those cases, I think that the basic limitations should apply - the creature must be able to hear you and the two of you must share a language. This seems reasonable, because taunting is effectively using communication and psychology to redirect an opponents focus and actions.
I struggle to imagine a scenario where a wolf (that has an INT of 3 and speaks no language - all still true despite its supernatural nature) would be able to achieve anything approaching this effect from any range beyond which it was clearly able to present a threat. In other words, a wolf snarling or snapping at a target (including an ettin) from a distance beyond which it could actually bite probably wouldn't accomplish anything, especially when that target has something that is a more immediate and obvious threat at a much closer range.
Like many others in this thread, I don't think there's any reasonable argument to be made that this situation should have worked as you hoped it would. In addition, I think your DM's ruling was probably on the generous side, because even though Intimidation may not have been the best skill choice (vs. Persuasion or Deception), the DM is also empowered to just rule that something can't possibly work and therefore no check is required.
As for how to implement taunting during the game, I think the framework of the Panache ability is a good place to start, albeit with significantly limited scope in terms of effects and duration. Probably something like an action to force an ability (skill) contest that, if successful, results in the target having disadvantage to attack opponents other than the one doing the taunting for one round. Again, this is provided that the target can hear and understand the creature doing the taunting, and would probably end early under conditions similar to those described in the Panache feature.
For me taunting works only good enough, if you can verbally communicate and therefore requires the taunted creature to understand the taunt. One round lasts 6 seconds. Tis time is barely sufficient to taunt. Doing it with actions would take more time (and could forfeit any other actions like moving). Yes, basic taunts like farting into a face can be done without communication, but it is way below generating aggro. So your DM is right not to allow it. By the way, your DM will always be right, regardless of what you think or say, because he‘s the DM and the rules clearly state so. And as you can see the majority of us think the same way.
LOL being DM doesn’t make anyone always right. As a DM, this is the single most important thing I know about being a DM.
As for your “majority”, I made a similar thread on Enworld, and the majority of votes were in the opposite direction. Trying to act like a majority of such a tiny number of people is significant.
I want to drop my two cents on this even though it is a little over three years old, but I apologize if necroing this inconveniences anyone.
Overall, I agree with the OP. Seems like a bit of a hot take in here but I feel like this thread was derailed a bit by the argument that taunting shouldn't work and/or the assumption that the OP was actively bickering with the DM. But let's pack that away, because it wasn't conducive to discussing the actual topic: how would you handle taunting when you are granting the player that opportunity?
it's an interesting topic, IMO. There is definitely a case for Intimidation (threat) being the driving factor, but I do feel that taunting is contextual. It would seem given this thread's trajectory that it was the prevailing opinion that it required some type of shared communication, and given the Swashbuckler feature Panache (as previously mentioned) that has some framework supporting it.
However, you could just as easily point to another framework that suggests differently. See goading attack. There isn't any indication that you need to share a language to perform this attack. Given hit point abstraction, the attack could be a slap with the flat of the blade or a disrespectful cut on the cheek. Again, contextual, and not necessarily tied to the idea of threat, just the ability to piss someone/something off. This is why the OP's comparison to swatting flies was apt. Goading is synonymous with annoying.
Unfortunately, that puts a player back in a sort of no man's land where there isn't really a check supporting what they want to do. There is, of course, Improvise Action as a legitimate path to get a player at least far enough to start a discussion about a check, but we're really not looking at deception or persuasion, either, at least not in any obvious way. If a wolf nips at your ankle (something my cat does to annoy me into giving her food/attention) it is more akin to a goading attack than panache or any other communication based approach.
So what to do?
On the DM side of things, it feels right to me to get a DC out in the open and explain the reasoning. This would be to both temper expectations to a degree but also allow the player to have agency in the situation before the roll. So, for example, it might be stated that the taunt is DC 20 intimidation on the grounds that the familiar isn't very threatening at all in terms of attack power and positioning. The player may push back (as the OP did) saying that they were aiming for trickery and cite their fey origin. Cool, DC 15 deception (trickery) but now the DM pushes back on the grounds that the creature has Int 3 regardless. DC goes up by 2 to 17. Then, the DM may state that because of the positioning, the ettin will still only chase if the check succeeds by 5 or more. Perhaps the player pushes back because the ettin is classically stupid and asks the DM to consider a -2 to DC, but the DM perhaps overrules that because the ettin turns out to have more Int than the familiar. Tough luck with the way the statblocks stacked against each other, but there is at least room for success after assessing both sides, with a grand total of DC 22 to get all the desired effects. A fair assessment, imo.
First, we got a check submitted. Perhaps the default. Then it progressed into something else based on the discussion. The starting DCs here were just examples and could have been set lower to begin, but the +2/-2 modifiers are from 3.5e (or 3e, even, unsure) and feel like a good basis for adjusting DCs when assessing valid arguments on either side. The extra effect on a success of 5 or more...I don't recall where I picked that up but it makes sense to fit it here. On a regular success, I would say disadvantage on other targets or next attack is appropriate (probably could have started this post off with that, lol) and the major success yields an extra effect on top, which would be the desired chase.
On the player side of things, it may make more sense to regard the DM as the opponent and not the creatures. Sometimes, I mean. They won't always grant a check for a taunt, especially if it's an enemy type that logically wouldn't react to any such thing. So sometimes you might engage them in a more psychological way, and fortunately d&d supports that. Using Goading Attack and Panache as reference, they are only soft taunts. That's really all 5e provides in regard to taunting, probability-based disincentives. So really you're just playing a psychological game against them because generally there's nothing stopping them from attacking the undesired target anyway.
Recognizing that, it has been my experience that leaning into that is a roundabout way of getting to the desired taunt effects. Dropping big damage on an enemy, telegraphing a big move, going for a highly advantageous position, being a healer, concentrating on a big spell, etc, all of these can serve as a type of "threat" or soft taunt. Another form of this that I have used in the past is to have pets in just the right spots at the right time. Sometimes they just become meatshields and/or too sweet to pass up for the DM. This is probably not what the OP had in mind but it does work in practice.
Anyway, this has been helpful for me, if only to just organize my thoughts on the topic. Hence the necro.
Since this thread is already necroed, you're trying to make the target angry enough to make mistakes, not afraid of you. That's a Deception check, not Intimidation.
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.
While I'm continuing to gather my thoughts, I feel it's worth mentioning that I think the original DM probably made a good decision regarding disadvantage - if they were running it as a contested roll. Contested rolls being as swingy as they are, it really doesn't give you fine control over your DCs, but it does leave open the advantage/disadvantage card and it does feel appropriate to make this a relatively difficult test.
I can't remember if this has been discussed here but I think it would be contested against Insight in practically any case. And if so, would they be running it with the benefit of passive insight, which is supposed to be the skill floor a la Jeremy Crawford? Not one of his more popular takes, if I recall, but ironically it does feel appropriate here in this context to eliminate some swinginess.
Personally, if I were to go the contested roll route, I would pick either disadvantage or use the passive skill floor, not both.
No animal is going to be "deceived" by a taunt to ignore a real threat to go after an annoying barking thing.
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.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I didn't say it was the only factor. I said it would be the factor in the example given.
If I were personally in a fist fight with somebody I wouldn't turn my back on him to chase a yapping chihuahua.
Threat is one determining factor. There are others which is why these things should be role played. There are powers and class skills that can be used as taunts. A skill roll should not duplicate these things.
"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
Your poll is bad, and it sounds like you were metagaming.
How was I meta-gaming, exactly?
It's literally an in character tactic.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Pathfinder had a specific rule about just such a situation, actually: "You cannot use Diplomacy (3.5th/PF's version of Persuasion) against a creature that does not understand you." The team at Paizo probably anticipated this exact debate we're having now, but WotC wrote 5e with much looser game rules. The rule is logically consistent, and while it's not an official rule in 5e, it would be very hard to sell to me as a DM the idea that you can attempt to persuade a creature, with reason and logic, whom you are completely incapable of communicating with beyond basic gestures.
You're trying to use a non-specific, general ruling in a situation where such a ruling should not logically apply. You're attempting to rules lawyer your way into making absolute nonsense occur in your DM's world, using rules that aren't actually written in the book at that. That's metagaming. That might even be meta-metagaming. I think your DM is entirely within rights to say "no".
Regardless of all this rules talk, wouldn't it have been easier on you to just go "darn, that's a waste of an action," and move on? I've done this numerous times while playing. Oh man, it bothered the bacon out of me when a DM of mine first ruled that grease made by the Grease spell wasn't flammable. It stings, but if it doesn't lead to a TPK, it's probably not really worth disputing past a couple sentences. You and the DM should be working together, using the rules as a framework to create a mildly consistent, fun story for you guys to enjoy, not bickering over passages of text in the RAW. Your DM just wants to have a good time with you, you'd do well to cherish that and try to relax a bit more at the table.
PbP characters:
Allison Adrova - Reign of the Dragon King
Delilah Thorne - Eidolons of Eramyth
Melody Velias (Spy) - Power Trip
This is one of the weirdest posts I've seen on these forums.
Taunting doesn't involve logic and reason. There's no rules lawyering going on here. I can't even imagine what rules lawyering you're inventing in your mind to project onto this discussion. This isn't 3.5 or Pathfinder, and it's rules language is irrelevant. Such an attempt wouldn't even be Diplomacy in either of those games. Bluff or Performance maybe, but sure as hell not Diplomacy of all things. But the editions are different, and the skills don't work the same in 5e as they do in older editions and other games.
The last paragraph is just a lot of nonsensical attempts at lecturing someone you don't know anything about.
and like...there was no bickering about the rules as written. What the actual hell are you even talking about? Did you even read the OP? Are you responding to the wrong thread?
Like...what ruling do you think I'm trying to leverage into...I don't even know what. I literally can't figure out what the hell you're even responding to, or what you're trying to say.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Whenever you taunt a target, you are trying to get it to reasonably believe, in some way, that attacking you would be beneficial to it. This is even more true if you're trying to say that it's a persuasion or deception check.
I would like to agree with this, but WotC was purposefully very vague in writing about what each skill is used for and what it does in 5th ed. This is good overall, as it means less rules to memorize, but in cases where the vaguery leads to conflict over the rules, it may be helpful to look to similar skills in more fleshed out games for guidance on how these skills are meant to be utilized.
"I was taken aback, and confused, and argued that threat level wasn't the point."
Here's a quote from your OP, stating how you argued with your DM about how the rules work in this particular instance. You were clearly very frustrated by this argument, given that you saw fit to take it to the forums for validation and then start swearing at internet randoms who might disagree with you.
See above. That's what I know about you thus far. Said lecture fits when somebody is sabotaging their own enjoyment of the game.
What I'm trying to say is twofold.
I'mma pass out now. Goooood night.
PbP characters:
Allison Adrova - Reign of the Dragon King
Delilah Thorne - Eidolons of Eramyth
Melody Velias (Spy) - Power Trip
LOL My dude, no. You've no idea what you're on about.
You have very clearly projected table issues you've had at your own table onto what you've read in someone else's post. No enjoyment of the game was lost, but thanks for your fake concern trolling.
But to the actual argument you made in this post (unlike your last post, which contained nothing but weird lectures about nonsense, wholly unconnected to anything I ever said), taunting does not involving reasonably convincing the target that anything is beneficial to them. That is a nonsense idea. Pissing someone off until they lash out is not reasonable, logical, nor does it require any words. It does not interact with the concept of convincing anyone of anything, much less that lashing out will benefit them in any way other than perhaps immediate emotional satisfaction that comes with hitting the thing that is irritating you.
Flies don't talk smack to you. Or if they do, you don't understand it.
edit: Also, I forgot to mention. No, the rules from other "more fleshed out" games aren't relevant to making rulings on skills in 5e, unless a specific DM decides to use other games as a guidepost for making rulings. The rules for diplomacy in pathfinder has absolutely no bearing on how taunting can or should work in 5e.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Im’a just say my opinion.
First of all, the whole ‘Flies don’t talk smack’ thing you just said? It sounds like what he was trying to say. You can’t insult or otherwise harass something that can’t understand you, with words at least.
2nd, if it’s not intelligent enough to know that this is a Familiar, and if it isn’t Helping the owner attacking, then it would just focus on the thing in front of it stabbing it, you. If I flicked my middle finger at you as my best friend held a gun to your head, and you had a knife, who would you stab, me or my friend?
3rd, if it is, it would still just go after you, as if it knocks you out, the wolf cant do anything.
4th, if it isn’t intelligent enough for either 2 or 3, it’s still got instincts. Is a rabid dog going to attack the animal that hasn’t hurt it, or the man in front of it with no defenses?
That’s just my opinion.
To clarify, I think that even if it had a 0 in intelligence, it would still attack you, not the wolf familiar. That’s why there’s no taunting mechanic in DND. It just wouldn’t work, as any brute getting chopped up won’t chase after a barking puppy. So, I wouldnt handle it at all.
(Also, I like your signature!)
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
Thank you!
1) My point is exactly that annoying and harassing a creature doesn’t require verbal communication, therefor taunting shouldn’t.
As for the rest, I’d simply ask you to reread the OP, and recall that I didn’t include “I don’t allow taunting to work” as an option, and trust that that isn’t because it never occurred to me that anyone would go that route. That simply isn’t part of the question. I’m asking how folks would handle allowing it. Telling me it shouldn’t work is off topic.
Respectfully, I don’t care that some folks think it shouldn’t work.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Well.... I guess this is kinda similar.
Sometimes, I allow my players to make a skill check as a free action to confuse/scare the opponent. The opponent contests, and I roll on a random effects table for the winner. On a 7-10, I just pick something, from something on the table, to something random (a hazard, free advantage, etc.). Not really taunting, but similar enough.
As for how I answered, I saw you said ‘Ettins are classically stupid’. That doesn’t mean that they will chase something when the master is in front of them, but since the DM allowed it, here’s what I would suggest.
Wolf rolls an Intimidation check, at disadvantage due to the lack of being able to attack, unless using up their action to look more threatening. (This is because an Ettin May be dumb, but has a 6 in intelligence, more than enough to notice the wolf hasn’t/can’t attack him.) Ettin makes either a Wisdom (Insight) check, or contests with a Charisma (Intimidation) check. If Wolf has the higher roll, the Ettin Chases, and will probably kill the wolf. If the Ettin wins, it doesn’t chase, and instead attacks you.
That's just how I would do so, as there’s really no rule anywhere and that’s all i’ve Got.
Toodles! (Goodbye!)
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
For me taunting works only good enough, if you can verbally communicate and therefore requires the taunted creature to understand the taunt. One round lasts 6 seconds. Tis time is barely sufficient to taunt. Doing it with actions would take more time (and could forfeit any other actions like moving). Yes, basic taunts like farting into a face can be done without communication, but it is way below generating aggro. So your DM is right not to allow it. By the way, your DM will always be right, regardless of what you think or say, because he‘s the DM and the rules clearly state so. And as you can see the majority of us think the same way.
??
"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
I generally allow taunting as a way to influence the opponents decision-making within limits:
If a monster is adjacent to multiple targets, I'd allow an Intimidation roll (as part of an attack or hostile action) to make the monster prefer to attack one of those adjacent targets (not necessarily the intimidator, but that's usually how it plays out).
If the monster is not adjacent to anyone, I'd allow an Intimidation roll to make the monster prefer to move towards a specific target in range (without putting itself in excess harm) or shoot a specific target with ranged attacks.
If the monster is already adjacent to a target, I would not allow an Intimidation roll to try to make it move towards a more distant target or otherwise put itself in harms way.
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
If you want to see how taunting should work in the game, check out the 9th level Rogue Swashbuckler feature Panache. I've quoted the relevant excerpt below:
make a Charisma (Persuasion) check contested by a creature’s Wisdom (Insight) check. The creature must be able to hear you, and the two of you must share a language.
If you succeed on the check and the creature is hostile to you, it has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you and can’t make opportunity attacks against targets other than you. This effect lasts for 1 minute, until one of your companions attacks the target or affects it with a spell, or until you and the target are more than 60 feet apart.
Now admittedly, this is a high level ability, but we can use it to make deductions about something that might be more limited and therefore accessible to other creatures. However, even in those cases, I think that the basic limitations should apply - the creature must be able to hear you and the two of you must share a language. This seems reasonable, because taunting is effectively using communication and psychology to redirect an opponents focus and actions.
I struggle to imagine a scenario where a wolf (that has an INT of 3 and speaks no language - all still true despite its supernatural nature) would be able to achieve anything approaching this effect from any range beyond which it was clearly able to present a threat. In other words, a wolf snarling or snapping at a target (including an ettin) from a distance beyond which it could actually bite probably wouldn't accomplish anything, especially when that target has something that is a more immediate and obvious threat at a much closer range.
Like many others in this thread, I don't think there's any reasonable argument to be made that this situation should have worked as you hoped it would. In addition, I think your DM's ruling was probably on the generous side, because even though Intimidation may not have been the best skill choice (vs. Persuasion or Deception), the DM is also empowered to just rule that something can't possibly work and therefore no check is required.
As for how to implement taunting during the game, I think the framework of the Panache ability is a good place to start, albeit with significantly limited scope in terms of effects and duration. Probably something like an action to force an ability (skill) contest that, if successful, results in the target having disadvantage to attack opponents other than the one doing the taunting for one round. Again, this is provided that the target can hear and understand the creature doing the taunting, and would probably end early under conditions similar to those described in the Panache feature.
LOL being DM doesn’t make anyone always right. As a DM, this is the single most important thing I know about being a DM.
As for your “majority”, I made a similar thread on Enworld, and the majority of votes were in the opposite direction. Trying to act like a majority of such a tiny number of people is significant.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
I want to drop my two cents on this even though it is a little over three years old, but I apologize if necroing this inconveniences anyone.
Overall, I agree with the OP. Seems like a bit of a hot take in here but I feel like this thread was derailed a bit by the argument that taunting shouldn't work and/or the assumption that the OP was actively bickering with the DM. But let's pack that away, because it wasn't conducive to discussing the actual topic: how would you handle taunting when you are granting the player that opportunity?
it's an interesting topic, IMO. There is definitely a case for Intimidation (threat) being the driving factor, but I do feel that taunting is contextual. It would seem given this thread's trajectory that it was the prevailing opinion that it required some type of shared communication, and given the Swashbuckler feature Panache (as previously mentioned) that has some framework supporting it.
However, you could just as easily point to another framework that suggests differently. See goading attack. There isn't any indication that you need to share a language to perform this attack. Given hit point abstraction, the attack could be a slap with the flat of the blade or a disrespectful cut on the cheek. Again, contextual, and not necessarily tied to the idea of threat, just the ability to piss someone/something off. This is why the OP's comparison to swatting flies was apt. Goading is synonymous with annoying.
Unfortunately, that puts a player back in a sort of no man's land where there isn't really a check supporting what they want to do. There is, of course, Improvise Action as a legitimate path to get a player at least far enough to start a discussion about a check, but we're really not looking at deception or persuasion, either, at least not in any obvious way. If a wolf nips at your ankle (something my cat does to annoy me into giving her food/attention) it is more akin to a goading attack than panache or any other communication based approach.
So what to do?
On the DM side of things, it feels right to me to get a DC out in the open and explain the reasoning. This would be to both temper expectations to a degree but also allow the player to have agency in the situation before the roll. So, for example, it might be stated that the taunt is DC 20 intimidation on the grounds that the familiar isn't very threatening at all in terms of attack power and positioning. The player may push back (as the OP did) saying that they were aiming for trickery and cite their fey origin. Cool, DC 15 deception (trickery) but now the DM pushes back on the grounds that the creature has Int 3 regardless. DC goes up by 2 to 17. Then, the DM may state that because of the positioning, the ettin will still only chase if the check succeeds by 5 or more. Perhaps the player pushes back because the ettin is classically stupid and asks the DM to consider a -2 to DC, but the DM perhaps overrules that because the ettin turns out to have more Int than the familiar. Tough luck with the way the statblocks stacked against each other, but there is at least room for success after assessing both sides, with a grand total of DC 22 to get all the desired effects. A fair assessment, imo.
First, we got a check submitted. Perhaps the default. Then it progressed into something else based on the discussion. The starting DCs here were just examples and could have been set lower to begin, but the +2/-2 modifiers are from 3.5e (or 3e, even, unsure) and feel like a good basis for adjusting DCs when assessing valid arguments on either side. The extra effect on a success of 5 or more...I don't recall where I picked that up but it makes sense to fit it here. On a regular success, I would say disadvantage on other targets or next attack is appropriate (probably could have started this post off with that, lol) and the major success yields an extra effect on top, which would be the desired chase.
On the player side of things, it may make more sense to regard the DM as the opponent and not the creatures. Sometimes, I mean. They won't always grant a check for a taunt, especially if it's an enemy type that logically wouldn't react to any such thing. So sometimes you might engage them in a more psychological way, and fortunately d&d supports that. Using Goading Attack and Panache as reference, they are only soft taunts. That's really all 5e provides in regard to taunting, probability-based disincentives. So really you're just playing a psychological game against them because generally there's nothing stopping them from attacking the undesired target anyway.
Recognizing that, it has been my experience that leaning into that is a roundabout way of getting to the desired taunt effects. Dropping big damage on an enemy, telegraphing a big move, going for a highly advantageous position, being a healer, concentrating on a big spell, etc, all of these can serve as a type of "threat" or soft taunt. Another form of this that I have used in the past is to have pets in just the right spots at the right time. Sometimes they just become meatshields and/or too sweet to pass up for the DM. This is probably not what the OP had in mind but it does work in practice.
Anyway, this has been helpful for me, if only to just organize my thoughts on the topic. Hence the necro.
Since this thread is already necroed, you're trying to make the target angry enough to make mistakes, not afraid of you. That's a Deception check, not Intimidation.
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.
While I'm continuing to gather my thoughts, I feel it's worth mentioning that I think the original DM probably made a good decision regarding disadvantage - if they were running it as a contested roll. Contested rolls being as swingy as they are, it really doesn't give you fine control over your DCs, but it does leave open the advantage/disadvantage card and it does feel appropriate to make this a relatively difficult test.
I can't remember if this has been discussed here but I think it would be contested against Insight in practically any case. And if so, would they be running it with the benefit of passive insight, which is supposed to be the skill floor a la Jeremy Crawford? Not one of his more popular takes, if I recall, but ironically it does feel appropriate here in this context to eliminate some swinginess.
Personally, if I were to go the contested roll route, I would pick either disadvantage or use the passive skill floor, not both.
No animal is going to be "deceived" by a taunt to ignore a real threat to go after an annoying barking thing.
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.
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.
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.
Please do not contact or message me.