Animals - especially predatory animals such as wolves - evolved over many millenia to have a pretty keen sense of what they can and cannot handle. They're not master tacticians, but they're also highly successful hunters who know what they can handle and what is worth hunting as opposed to avoiding.
Acting like you can convince beasts to recklessly act against their own self interest just by yelling at them rudely is a much bigger breach of suspension of disbelief than the idea that a character is "not allowed" to try and MMO-style Taunt a creature. And frankly that's incorrect anyway. The character can absolutely try, I would just generally say "you're an experienced adventurer, you know this is dime store novel grandstanding that doesn't work in reality. Do you still want to try it?". And if they say yes, I'd let them narrate their taunt, then I'd narrate that taunt failing exactly the way I warned the player it would.
Assuming the dog did more than just yap, yes, I am. You went from ' bigger threats' to 'a guy that just stabbed it with a sword is a bigger threat than a yapping dog.'
Even just on proximity, the guy with the sword generates more threat there. The wolf may not even be able to see the dog with the swordsman right there.
The scenario was that the guy had cast Booming Blade on the Ettin, and the Familiar is taunting the Ettin to provoke it into moving so the spell will take effect. So now you agree with me? I've mentioned the sword thing before...
It really feels like you are trying to go out of your way to twist the scenario to create flaws.
That was the scenario. The guy just hit the Ettin with a sword.
Those kinds of arguments are called straw men.
You've literally tried to deny the scenario in the original post that this is all predicated.on, it's not me creating strawmen.
I think what you are trying to say is that the yapping dog is weaker so by my logic, the wolf should attack it instead of the swordsman.
If a wolf is fighting a man and a yapping dog that is just barking or whatever while the man is tabbing the wolf, assuming it didn't flee, it would attempt to go for the man. Try going through the thought experiment I gave you earlier.
But the dog is zero threat, which is not the same as being the weakest actual threat. The dog could simply attack the air, too, or a blade of grass, but that is likewise not the kind of weaker target I was talking about.
If the yapping dog was also in melee with the wolf, so it is both swordsman and dog, then why not kill the weaker dog first rather than merely possibly wound the swordsman? If the dog is well trained, then dog and swordsman are flanking, too, which means killing the dog ends the flanking. Reducing enemy combatant numbers is almost always more important than merely wounding the enemy.
It's a Familiar, it doesn't go into melee combat. It'll bark, it'll feint, it'll do anything but harm the wolf. The wolf will see that only one is actually attacking it. Wolves and animals are very good at assessing real threats. And believe me, being stabbed by a sword is a big enough hint that someone is a threat while a dog that is staying out range and barking will be seen to be a minor one to be dealt with after.
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?
If those features didn't exist, I would still not let taunting have the desired effects. The reason taunting involves exotic abilities is because by default the only way taunting is going to get someone to chase you is if there are no more significant threats on the field.
Keep in mind that I am arguing a technique of appearing to be something they can handle, badly wounded or something. I am not advocating merely yelling at them, not for animals.
An animal that is not currently threatened might well go after an apparently wounded target. An animal that has an armed swordsman in its face isn't going to.
Animals - especially predatory animals such as wolves - evolved over many millenia to have a pretty keen sense of what they can and cannot handle. They're not master tacticians, but they're also highly successful hunters who know what they can handle and what is worth hunting as opposed to avoiding.
Acting like you can convince beasts to recklessly act against their own self interest just by yelling at them rudely is a much bigger breach of suspension of disbelief than the idea that a character is "not allowed" to try and MMO-style Taunt a creature. And frankly that's incorrect anyway. The character can absolutely try, I would just generally say "you're an experienced adventurer, you know this is dime store novel grandstanding that doesn't work in reality. Do you still want to try it?". And if they say yes, I'd let them narrate their taunt, then I'd narrate that taunt failing exactly the way I warned the player it would.
Precisely. I'd add the advantage onto an attack on the next attack, though - sudden barking would be enough to temporarily interfere with concentration (little 'c'). However, a lion that ignores the charging bison to try and kill the youngling is a dead lion. A species that does that is an extinct one.
I've even been in a situation reversed of what is described. My dad owned a doberman, and we were attacked by some kind of dog. It ignored 5 year old me, ignored my father, and went for the doberman who was the biggest threat. Screw taunting, it wouldn't stop even when we were hitting it over the head. Why? Because the doberman was the greatest threat. Unfortunately for the dog (but good for us), it learned that day why you don't pick fights with dobermans, even soppy ones like mine was.
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.
Precisely. I'd add the advantage onto an attack on the next attack, though - sudden barking would be enough to temporarily interfere with concentration (little 'c').
I know you didn't mean to, but I think this sentence right here might demonstrate the core disagreement between "pro-taunters" and "anti-taunters." The opinion that there's a distinction between concentration and Concentration. That the narrative shouldn't intrude upon the domain of the rules (because barking is a free action, and Concentration is valuable!). That the value of fairly balanced fight mechanics is large enough to justify using it as a guiding light.
I'm not convinced of that opinion. We all know CR is a joke, and we know from the design of a few adventures (at least earlier ones, I'll get back to that) are designed with the explicit intention that combat won't be fair, and players should use their heads and avoid fights they can't win, because those fights will be there, waiting to kill them. I don't think this game was designed for a super fair, sport-like approach to combat. It's designed to adjudicate the chaos.
(I've noticed a couple of newer adventures actually have notes for how to adjust the power level of things to be fair for your party. So perhaps this design philosophy is changing.)
I don't say this to try to convince anyone to think the same way. I'm only suggesting that maybe there's a deeper, more fundamental disagreement happening than just "I think taunting is cool" vs "I think taunting is stupid." That maybe the real disagreement is more like, "I think the story should come first" vs "I think the story and the rules need to be in balance."
Or maybe I'm wrong. Could be that pro-taunters don't actually see any balance concerns, or maybe anti-taunters are just really simulationist in nature and haven't been conditioned to apply the same devil-may-care attitude to this idea as they have been for, say, the leveling system, or any of the other abstractions and oddities of the game. Who knows.
People opposed to Taunting seem to be primarily opposed to Taunting because Taunting is f@#$ing stupid. if you want to shout insults and obscenities at a humanoid you're fighting to try and goad it into angrily fighting you more recklessly? Sure. If a player had a solid case for it I'd consider allowing them to roll whatever applies against a DC to see if they enrage the target into attacking recklessly. If they succeeded, the target would do exactly that - Reckless swings, advantage for both sides.
Trying to MMO Taunt a target into actively moving and fighting in ways that drastically increase its odds of failing and dying by shouting/barking at it while vastly more dangerous creatures cut it apart? Absolutely not. That's lame video game junk that has no business at the table, and I don't care how you try and twist it up. Nothing that survived to adulthood in a D&D world is going to chase Navi flittering away yelling "Hey! Listen!" while Link is there rearranging their organs with half a dozen different weapons.
Just not happening. Best to come up with tactics grounded in reality, not lame fanfiction.
I don't say this to try to convince anyone to think the same way. I'm only suggesting that maybe there's a deeper, more fundamental disagreement happening than just "I think taunting is cool" vs "I think taunting is stupid." That maybe the real disagreement is more like, "I think the story should come first" vs "I think the story and the rules need to be in balance."
Nah. "I think taunting is cool" and "I think taunting is dumb" are both story arguments, because fundamentally, anything that would cause a reader to go "that's stupid" is a bad story element.
I have no problem with messing with rules when the narrative makes sense to do so. I touched on earlier a scenario where taunting makes sense. If a less than wise bozo comes across the party, and before the combat engages one PC taunts him, then sure, the bozo may well target the taunter. I have no issue with the idea that narrative-based decisions can influence what happens. In fact, I encourage such thinking in a game and that's why I play a TTRPG instead of trying to finding a multiplayer CRPG - to allow for out of the box thinking. There is a whole list of caveats and conditions - but that's why we have a human DM, right?
However, the condition is that it has to make narrative sense for me to allow it without an actual ability/spell. The Ettin in the OP is never going to attack the Familiar in that situation short of it using Compelled Duel somehow or something similar. Would I allow a skill check if it was immediately before a battle is joined? Well, that depends. Why is the creature (ettin/wolf/whatever it is you're fighting) fighting you? Why hasn't it tried to escape? What is it's objective? What is it's mentality? Ability to reason? What is the PC/Familiar doing to persuade it to behave as the player desires? Does what the creature perceive lend it to be manipulated like that? Then there are meta reasons - is what the player trying to do actually pretty cool, or are they just trying to cheese the game? If they're just trying to cheese and remove the difficulty from the game rather than doing something interesting then maybe they'll find that enemies aren't as dumb as they think - or so dumb that they don't even perceive the taunt. There are so many variables that I don't think that there is a "general case" for this - it's so situational that you can't just say yea or nay.
It's not really about rules being so rigid that narrative cannot infringe upon them. It's that it has to make sense narratively as well as sticking as close to the rules as we can. The OP's situation is a hard no, though. It just breaks so many things, in terms of both the rules and the narrative, to stand. He can use the Help to model the Familiar distracting the creature, but no skill check is going to persuade the Ettin to make that target switch. At least, not with a mere taunt. If the player shows substantially more investment and engagement, and comes up with a real plan that may actually work? Then maybe I'll Rule of Cool it. I couldn't tell you an example of what I'd accept - it's late here and that's a pretty cut and dry situation - but I'd be open to discussing it, if I were the DM. Just taunting won't cut it, though.
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.
Animals - especially predatory animals such as wolves - evolved over many millenia to have a pretty keen sense of what they can and cannot handle. They're not master tacticians, but they're also highly successful hunters who know what they can handle and what is worth hunting as opposed to avoiding.
Acting like you can convince beasts to recklessly act against their own self interest just by yelling at them rudely is a much bigger breach of suspension of disbelief than the idea that a character is "not allowed" to try and MMO-style Taunt a creature. And frankly that's incorrect anyway. The character can absolutely try, I would just generally say "you're an experienced adventurer, you know this is dime store novel grandstanding that doesn't work in reality. Do you still want to try it?". And if they say yes, I'd let them narrate their taunt, then I'd narrate that taunt failing exactly the way I warned the player it would.
Please do not contact or message me.
The scenario was that the guy had cast Booming Blade on the Ettin, and the Familiar is taunting the Ettin to provoke it into moving so the spell will take effect. So now you agree with me? I've mentioned the sword thing before...
That was the scenario. The guy just hit the Ettin with a sword.
You've literally tried to deny the scenario in the original post that this is all predicated.on, it's not me creating strawmen.
It's a Familiar, it doesn't go into melee combat. It'll bark, it'll feint, it'll do anything but harm the wolf. The wolf will see that only one is actually attacking it. Wolves and animals are very good at assessing real threats. And believe me, being stabbed by a sword is a big enough hint that someone is a threat while a dog that is staying out range and barking will be seen to be a minor one to be dealt with after.
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.
If those features didn't exist, I would still not let taunting have the desired effects. The reason taunting involves exotic abilities is because by default the only way taunting is going to get someone to chase you is if there are no more significant threats on the field.
An animal that is not currently threatened might well go after an apparently wounded target. An animal that has an armed swordsman in its face isn't going to.
Precisely. I'd add the advantage onto an attack on the next attack, though - sudden barking would be enough to temporarily interfere with concentration (little 'c'). However, a lion that ignores the charging bison to try and kill the youngling is a dead lion. A species that does that is an extinct one.
I've even been in a situation reversed of what is described. My dad owned a doberman, and we were attacked by some kind of dog. It ignored 5 year old me, ignored my father, and went for the doberman who was the biggest threat. Screw taunting, it wouldn't stop even when we were hitting it over the head. Why? Because the doberman was the greatest threat. Unfortunately for the dog (but good for us), it learned that day why you don't pick fights with dobermans, even soppy ones like mine was.
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 know you didn't mean to, but I think this sentence right here might demonstrate the core disagreement between "pro-taunters" and "anti-taunters." The opinion that there's a distinction between concentration and Concentration. That the narrative shouldn't intrude upon the domain of the rules (because barking is a free action, and Concentration is valuable!). That the value of fairly balanced fight mechanics is large enough to justify using it as a guiding light.
I'm not convinced of that opinion. We all know CR is a joke, and we know from the design of a few adventures (at least earlier ones, I'll get back to that) are designed with the explicit intention that combat won't be fair, and players should use their heads and avoid fights they can't win, because those fights will be there, waiting to kill them. I don't think this game was designed for a super fair, sport-like approach to combat. It's designed to adjudicate the chaos.
(I've noticed a couple of newer adventures actually have notes for how to adjust the power level of things to be fair for your party. So perhaps this design philosophy is changing.)
I don't say this to try to convince anyone to think the same way. I'm only suggesting that maybe there's a deeper, more fundamental disagreement happening than just "I think taunting is cool" vs "I think taunting is stupid." That maybe the real disagreement is more like, "I think the story should come first" vs "I think the story and the rules need to be in balance."
Or maybe I'm wrong. Could be that pro-taunters don't actually see any balance concerns, or maybe anti-taunters are just really simulationist in nature and haven't been conditioned to apply the same devil-may-care attitude to this idea as they have been for, say, the leveling system, or any of the other abstractions and oddities of the game. Who knows.
People opposed to Taunting seem to be primarily opposed to Taunting because Taunting is f@#$ing stupid. if you want to shout insults and obscenities at a humanoid you're fighting to try and goad it into angrily fighting you more recklessly? Sure. If a player had a solid case for it I'd consider allowing them to roll whatever applies against a DC to see if they enrage the target into attacking recklessly. If they succeeded, the target would do exactly that - Reckless swings, advantage for both sides.
Trying to MMO Taunt a target into actively moving and fighting in ways that drastically increase its odds of failing and dying by shouting/barking at it while vastly more dangerous creatures cut it apart? Absolutely not. That's lame video game junk that has no business at the table, and I don't care how you try and twist it up. Nothing that survived to adulthood in a D&D world is going to chase Navi flittering away yelling "Hey! Listen!" while Link is there rearranging their organs with half a dozen different weapons.
Just not happening. Best to come up with tactics grounded in reality, not lame fanfiction.
Please do not contact or message me.
Nah. "I think taunting is cool" and "I think taunting is dumb" are both story arguments, because fundamentally, anything that would cause a reader to go "that's stupid" is a bad story element.
CoF,
I have no problem with messing with rules when the narrative makes sense to do so. I touched on earlier a scenario where taunting makes sense. If a less than wise bozo comes across the party, and before the combat engages one PC taunts him, then sure, the bozo may well target the taunter. I have no issue with the idea that narrative-based decisions can influence what happens. In fact, I encourage such thinking in a game and that's why I play a TTRPG instead of trying to finding a multiplayer CRPG - to allow for out of the box thinking. There is a whole list of caveats and conditions - but that's why we have a human DM, right?
However, the condition is that it has to make narrative sense for me to allow it without an actual ability/spell. The Ettin in the OP is never going to attack the Familiar in that situation short of it using Compelled Duel somehow or something similar. Would I allow a skill check if it was immediately before a battle is joined? Well, that depends. Why is the creature (ettin/wolf/whatever it is you're fighting) fighting you? Why hasn't it tried to escape? What is it's objective? What is it's mentality? Ability to reason? What is the PC/Familiar doing to persuade it to behave as the player desires? Does what the creature perceive lend it to be manipulated like that? Then there are meta reasons - is what the player trying to do actually pretty cool, or are they just trying to cheese the game? If they're just trying to cheese and remove the difficulty from the game rather than doing something interesting then maybe they'll find that enemies aren't as dumb as they think - or so dumb that they don't even perceive the taunt. There are so many variables that I don't think that there is a "general case" for this - it's so situational that you can't just say yea or nay.
It's not really about rules being so rigid that narrative cannot infringe upon them. It's that it has to make sense narratively as well as sticking as close to the rules as we can. The OP's situation is a hard no, though. It just breaks so many things, in terms of both the rules and the narrative, to stand. He can use the Help to model the Familiar distracting the creature, but no skill check is going to persuade the Ettin to make that target switch. At least, not with a mere taunt. If the player shows substantially more investment and engagement, and comes up with a real plan that may actually work? Then maybe I'll Rule of Cool it. I couldn't tell you an example of what I'd accept - it's late here and that's a pretty cut and dry situation - but I'd be open to discussing it, if I were the DM. Just taunting won't cut it, though.
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.