I love the idea of Goading Attack, a way to taunt the enemy to chase you, but unfortunately it seems to fall a little short compared to the nearly strictly better Menacing Attack.
I had an idea to play a harasser, who uses mobility to disrupt enemies and dictate battlefield positions. Goading Attack is thematically perfect for this character. I just have a hard time justifying its use over Menacing Attack, which confers disadvantage on ALL attacks and prevents the enemies from moving towards you (which can be used to control the battelfield).
I was fiddling with an alternative of Goading Attack, but I believe that I have made it too powerful in specific situations:
Goading Attack
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to goad the target into attacking you. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the target must attack you on its next turn, if it is possible within its movement range. The target may pursue you without provoking attacks of opportunity from prior engagements.
What could be done to differentiate it from Menacing Attack and keep it around the same power level?
Goading Attack When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to goad the target into attacking you. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls against targets other than you until the end of your next turn.
Menacing Attack When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to frighten the target. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it is frightened of you until the end of your next turn.
Ask yourself this. Do you want the DM to give your version of Goading Attack to enemies who come after you? If you can do something, your enemies should be able to do it as well as well you know. Would you like your choices taken away by a failed save from a semi-magical attack with a completely non-magical weapon?
You said you wanted to "play a harasser, who uses mobility to disrupt enemies and dictate battlefield positions." Menacing Attack makes people run around somewhat randomly, and if anything, that creates chaos on the battlefield. If you want to keep the people you menaced out of the fight you will need to chase them around, making even more havoc.
In answer to your question, they seem pretty much differentiated already, and nothing needs to be changed. If you must, perhaps instead of adding damage to the attack, you spend your superiority die to impose Disadvantage on their Wisdom saving throw?
Edit - This was a true Beast of a post, for the number of the posts shall be 666. Keep an eye out for 4 dudes on oddly colored horses.
The thing is that Menacing Attack doesn’t make you more appealing to be attacked instead of your weaker allies. If your enemy will have disadvantage against everyone, better try to hit someone with less AC or indeed more fragile.
Another con against Menacing Attack is that Frighten resistance / immunity tend to be more or less common, specially at higher levels. Goading Attack doesn’t have this limitation.
The problem I had with Goading Attack was that my DM played it as if the enemy knew that it would have Disadvantage against anyone but me so, tactically would always hit me. It still might save an ally but, never imposed Disadvantage. He played it as a hard taunt like WoW that forced a creature to attack the taunter. Sounds like you created that version.
The problem I had with Goading Attack was that my DM played it as if the enemy knew that it would have Disadvantage against anyone but me so, tactically would always hit me. It still might save an ally but, never imposed Disadvantage. He played it as a hard taunt like WoW that forced a creature to attack the taunter. Sounds like you created that version.
Well, I’ve always DMed that the monsters know the effects of their conditions, just like the players do. The Goading part is meant to force them to attack you - but therein lies the advantage to the attack. If you know that you’re the one they’ll target relentlessly, why not move away, take one opp attack, and then force them to attack your allies with disadvantage or risk more opp attacks from your allies.
It’s just like Sentinel - if the DM decides that because I have Sentinel he will never attack an ally of mine so my Sentinel attack doesn’t ever trigger, then the Feat is actually working as intended. You’ve protected your allies from attacks.
I want the enemy to attack me when using this maneuver, yes. If the enemy chooses to not attack me, I might as well have used Menacing Attack. The problem is, that the DM is not obligated to make the target attack me, especially if the enemies have learned that I have Polearm Master, and will swipe at them when they arrive. They especially won't, if they are previously engaged, as that would provoke attack of opportunity.
So in the vast majority of cases, the ability just gives the target disadvantage, which Menacing Attack does better, although I do recognize that it is limited by frighten resistance.
When I say that Goading Attack fits my character thematically, I mean that my character would be a pain in the ass, which would goad the enemies into attacking him, provoking opportunity attacks from my polearm. Unfortunately, I don't really see it happening, mechanically.
The problem I had with Goading Attack was that my DM played it as if the enemy knew that it would have Disadvantage against anyone but me so, tactically would always hit me. It still might save an ally but, never imposed Disadvantage. He played it as a hard taunt like WoW that forced a creature to attack the taunter. Sounds like you created that version.
That's literally exactly what Goading Attack is for. It goads an enemy into attacking you. The whole purpose is to make it draw fire towards you, not your allies.
Actually, the purpose of Goading Attack is to attempt to make the target attack you OR suffer Disadvantage attacking someone else. Both of these outcomes protect your allies. If it's sole purpose was to make a creature attack you, it would would state: On a failed save, the target must attack only you until the end of your next turn.
Goading Attack works just fine. Have you played with it? Or are you just theorizing? I've played with it a little, and as long as you and your DM are on the same page about what it is (i.e., you literally provoking an opponent to irrationally try to take you down), it does exactly what you want.
It also synergizes with Riposte, if you're really cocky. Something that Menacing Attack can't do.
I was reading some rather old posts in the Fighter forum and I stumbled across one discussing what the "best" Maneuvers were. Nothing seems to have changed since the.
The top three were: Riposte, Precision Attack, and Trip Attack. Riposte because you get to use your Reaction for something other than Opportunity Attacks, Precision adds to your chance to hit, and Trip because it inflicts the Prone condition, which gives you, and your allies Advantage.
Perhaps it would suit your concept better to have Trip Attack, Menacing Attack, and Goading Attack so that you can Goad them into coming after you, Trip them so they are Prone, Menace them into being Frightened, and then let everyone beat them when they are Prone and Frightened.
"I had an idea to play a harasser, who uses mobility to disrupt enemies and dictate battlefield positions. I want to be a pain in the ass." - If you want to do all of that, I can't think of a better way than to knock them down and let everyone beat on their ass.
I love the idea of Goading Attack, a way to taunt the enemy to chase you, but unfortunately it seems to fall a little short compared to the nearly strictly better Menacing Attack.
I had an idea to play a harasser, who uses mobility to disrupt enemies and dictate battlefield positions. Goading Attack is thematically perfect for this character. I just have a hard time justifying its use over Menacing Attack, which confers disadvantage on ALL attacks and prevents the enemies from moving towards you (which can be used to control the battelfield).
I was fiddling with an alternative of Goading Attack, but I believe that I have made it too powerful in specific situations:
What could be done to differentiate it from Menacing Attack and keep it around the same power level?
Ask yourself this. Do you want the DM to give your version of Goading Attack to enemies who come after you? If you can do something, your enemies should be able to do it as well as well you know. Would you like your choices taken away by a failed save from a semi-magical attack with a completely non-magical weapon?
You said you wanted to "play a harasser, who uses mobility to disrupt enemies and dictate battlefield positions." Menacing Attack makes people run around somewhat randomly, and if anything, that creates chaos on the battlefield. If you want to keep the people you menaced out of the fight you will need to chase them around, making even more havoc.
In answer to your question, they seem pretty much differentiated already, and nothing needs to be changed. If you must, perhaps instead of adding damage to the attack, you spend your superiority die to impose Disadvantage on their Wisdom saving throw?
Edit - This was a true Beast of a post, for the number of the posts shall be 666. Keep an eye out for 4 dudes on oddly colored horses.
<Insert clever signature here>
The thing is that Menacing Attack doesn’t make you more appealing to be attacked instead of your weaker allies. If your enemy will have disadvantage against everyone, better try to hit someone with less AC or indeed more fragile.
Another con against Menacing Attack is that Frighten resistance / immunity tend to be more or less common, specially at higher levels. Goading Attack doesn’t have this limitation.
The problem I had with Goading Attack was that my DM played it as if the enemy knew that it would have Disadvantage against anyone but me so, tactically would always hit me. It still might save an ally but, never imposed Disadvantage. He played it as a hard taunt like WoW that forced a creature to attack the taunter. Sounds like you created that version.
Well, I’ve always DMed that the monsters know the effects of their conditions, just like the players do. The Goading part is meant to force them to attack you - but therein lies the advantage to the attack. If you know that you’re the one they’ll target relentlessly, why not move away, take one opp attack, and then force them to attack your allies with disadvantage or risk more opp attacks from your allies.
It’s just like Sentinel - if the DM decides that because I have Sentinel he will never attack an ally of mine so my Sentinel attack doesn’t ever trigger, then the Feat is actually working as intended. You’ve protected your allies from attacks.
I want the enemy to attack me when using this maneuver, yes. If the enemy chooses to not attack me, I might as well have used Menacing Attack. The problem is, that the DM is not obligated to make the target attack me, especially if the enemies have learned that I have Polearm Master, and will swipe at them when they arrive. They especially won't, if they are previously engaged, as that would provoke attack of opportunity.
So in the vast majority of cases, the ability just gives the target disadvantage, which Menacing Attack does better, although I do recognize that it is limited by frighten resistance.
When I say that Goading Attack fits my character thematically, I mean that my character would be a pain in the ass, which would goad the enemies into attacking him, provoking opportunity attacks from my polearm. Unfortunately, I don't really see it happening, mechanically.
That's literally exactly what Goading Attack is for. It goads an enemy into attacking you. The whole purpose is to make it draw fire towards you, not your allies.
Actually, the purpose of Goading Attack is to attempt to make the target attack you OR suffer Disadvantage attacking someone else. Both of these outcomes protect your allies. If it's sole purpose was to make a creature attack you, it would would state: On a failed save, the target must attack only you until the end of your next turn.
Goading Attack works just fine. Have you played with it? Or are you just theorizing? I've played with it a little, and as long as you and your DM are on the same page about what it is (i.e., you literally provoking an opponent to irrationally try to take you down), it does exactly what you want.
It also synergizes with Riposte, if you're really cocky. Something that Menacing Attack can't do.
I was reading some rather old posts in the Fighter forum and I stumbled across one discussing what the "best" Maneuvers were. Nothing seems to have changed since the.
The top three were: Riposte, Precision Attack, and Trip Attack. Riposte because you get to use your Reaction for something other than Opportunity Attacks, Precision adds to your chance to hit, and Trip because it inflicts the Prone condition, which gives you, and your allies Advantage.
Perhaps it would suit your concept better to have Trip Attack, Menacing Attack, and Goading Attack so that you can Goad them into coming after you, Trip them so they are Prone, Menace them into being Frightened, and then let everyone beat them when they are Prone and Frightened.
"I had an idea to play a harasser, who uses mobility to disrupt enemies and dictate battlefield positions. I want to be a pain in the ass." - If you want to do all of that, I can't think of a better way than to knock them down and let everyone beat on their ass.
<Insert clever signature here>