Aw come on man, it's Tips, not Rules. Rules is for the Rules forum.
The tip was 'dodge is better than you think it is'. That is, fundamentally, a claim about combat optimization, and that means it's a mechanics question. Now, if the tip was "you should get your enemies to do stupid stuff", well, it's obviously true though not necessarily very informative, and "attacking the person who's dodging instead of the real threats" is typically stupid
Here's some follow up mechanics questions that have been nagging at me all throughout this thread: do enemies know when you've taken the Dodge action? Should that make them less likely to target you?
It seems most posters think the answer to both questions is "yes", but I'm not sure that's any more supported by the rules than the idea of a taunt. Are there specific rules that delineate how enemies should target? If so, where can I find those? If not... It's all DM fiat anyway, why shouldn't vibes-based taunting mechanics be equally valid to any other vibes-based monster tactics?
It’s kinda like the difference between getting paid a commission for making a sale, as compared to working for tips. A commissioned salesperson knows that if they do their job right, and the customer fails their Wis save does purchase the product, that they will get their compensation for the sale because that’s the way the system is set up. They can even calculate how much commission they’re gonna get based on their rate and the price paid at the time of sale. Someone who works on tips is going out there with absolutely no assurances whatsoever. They just give it their best shot and do what they can and hope that someone on the other side of the table judges their work to be good enough that they should get compensated for their efforts, and decides how much those efforts are worth. See what I mean?
This is a terrible analogy, because it implies that DMs who don't let players force enemies to attack them via taunts are the kind of @$$holes who don't tip
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Wrong. I wrote that it could affect the ogre’s choice of targets, if it would not prove obviously detrimental to the ogre.
Attacking the dodging harmless target instead of the one who just stabbed it in the back or the one who's about to hit it with a fireball is obviously detrimental to the ogre.
Let me repeat myself. Again. (God I hate having to say the same 💩 over and over again, so do me a favor and please at least try to pay attention this time.)
IF SOMEONE IS STABBING IT IN THE BACK, OR THREATENING IT WITH A FIREBALL, THEN IT WOULD CLEARLY NOT FALL FOR THE TAUNT IN THAT INSTANCE AS THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE GENERAL CATEGORY OF “OBVIOUSLY DETRIMENTAL” TO IT.
Was it clear enough that go ‘round? Or do you need me to restate the exact same thing a 5th time…? 😒
This really seems like you're saying that taunting a target to attack you is only successful when you're the only enemy in the fight. Which would make taunting pointless.
And at that point, it would always be better to Attack than Dodge, because you have a 0% chance of doing damage when you Dodge, but the ogre still has a chance to hit you.
If that’s really the only thing you can think of, based on everything I’ve said and all the potential combat scenarios that could possibly occur, and that one thing is really and truly the only one you can come up with that would fit the criteria I’ve laid out… then I suppose I’ve gotten the answer to the quandary I mentioned in post #62, and well and truly have nothing more to discuss with you regarding this topic.
Here's some follow up mechanics questions that have been nagging at me all throughout this thread: do enemies know when you've taken the Dodge action? Should that make them less likely to target you?
It seems most posters think the answer to both questions is "yes", but I'm not sure that's any more supported by the rules than the idea of a taunt. Are there specific rules that delineate how enemies should target? If so, where can I find those? If not... It's all DM fiat anyway, why shouldn't vibes-based taunting mechanics be equally valid to any other vibes-based monster tactics?
They may not know that you are Dodging, but they do know that you did not attack.
But in reality during a fight, you can typically tell if a person is planning to dodge/parry a blow based on their stance. They will typically be leaning away, not into and be less squared in their stance:
That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but I should've been clearer what I was asking: is there a rule that says the enemy knows when you're dodging?
My thought is that there's a lot of responses in this thread to the effect of "there's no mechanical rules for taunting, so the monsters should just ignore you and go attack a threatening target", but as far as I know, there's no mechanical reason any given monster should attack anyone in particular; it's strictly up to the DM's interpretation of what's reasonable. A monster falling for a taunt or failing to notice an evasive stance is just as made up as one attacking the last character that attacked it, or always trying to geek the mage first.
It’s kinda like the difference between getting paid a commission for making a sale, as compared to working for tips. A commissioned salesperson knows that if they do their job right, and the customer fails their Wis save does purchase the product, that they will get their compensation for the sale because that’s the way the system is set up. They can even calculate how much commission they’re gonna get based on their rate and the price paid at the time of sale. Someone who works on tips is going out there with absolutely no assurances whatsoever. They just give it their best shot and do what they can and hope that someone on the other side of the table judges their work to be good enough that they should get compensated for their efforts, and decides how much those efforts are worth. See what I mean?
This is a terrible analogy, because it implies that DMs who don't let players force enemies to attack them via taunts are the kind of @$$holes who don't tip
No no, you must be completely missing the point.
It implies that DMs who don’t take a player’s RP into account when deciding how people in their world would reasonably react to the PC’s actions are the kinds of 455holes who don’t tip. And I’ll even do ya one better, forget implying anything, I’ll flat out say it:
“DMs who don’t take their player’s RP into account when deciding how the people in their world, aka NPCs, would reasonably react to the actions taken by PCs are 455holes (and possibly bad tippers).”
Here's some follow up mechanics questions that have been nagging at me all throughout this thread: do enemies know when you've taken the Dodge action? Should that make them less likely to target you?
It seems most posters think the answer to both questions is "yes", but I'm not sure that's any more supported by the rules than the idea of a taunt. Are there specific rules that delineate how enemies should target? If so, where can I find those? If not... It's all DM fiat anyway, why shouldn't vibes-based taunting mechanics be equally valid to any other vibes-based monster tactics?
They may not know that you are Dodging, but they do know that you did not attack.
But in reality during a fight, you can typically tell if a person is planning to dodge/parry a blow based on their stance. They will typically be leaning away, not into and be less squared in their stance:
That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but I should've been clearer what I was asking: is there a rule that says the enemy knows when you're dodging?
My thought is that there's a lot of responses in this thread to the effect of "there's no mechanical rules for taunting, so the monsters should just ignore you and go attack a threatening target", but as far as I know, there's no mechanical reason any given monster should attack anyone in particular; it's strictly up to the DM's interpretation of what's reasonable. A monster falling for a taunt or failing to notice an evasive stance is just as made up as one attacking the last character that attacked it, or always trying to geek the mage first.
Aw come on man, it's Tips, not Rules. Rules is for the Rules forum.
The tip was 'dodge is better than you think it is'. That is, fundamentally, a claim about combat optimization, and that means it's a mechanics question. Now, if the tip was "you should get your enemies to do stupid stuff", well, it's obviously true though not necessarily very informative, and "attacking the person who's dodging instead of the real threats" is typically stupid.
Now, you could add a house rule that says that when you take the dodge action you can also attempt an ability check of some sort, such as an intimidate or deception check (the most likely checks to be useful for pulling aggro). Or lots of other checks, if you want to spend your action on an acrobatics check I have no problem letting you dodge as part of the action. That might even be a good rule. It is not, however, the way the rules currently work.
There is no rule that says enemies act like tactical geniuses either, nor what is/isn't metagame knowledge. However, there is an explicit rule that DMs should allow player character to take "other actions" than just those detailed in the rules and rule on the fly how those would work generally involving some kind of skill check. Indeed the game is explicitly a role playing game and the DM is instructed to RP the monsters not just play them as optimally as possible using all the metagame knowledge available to them.
TBH in many combats the enemies should have a goal other than "kill the PCs" because just constant fights to the death are pretty boring.
That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but I should've been clearer what I was asking: is there a rule that says the enemy knows when you're dodging?
My thought is that there's a lot of responses in this thread to the effect of "there's no mechanical rules for taunting, so the monsters should just ignore you and go attack a threatening target", but as far as I know, there's no mechanical reason any given monster should attack anyone in particular; it's strictly up to the DM's interpretation of what's reasonable. A monster falling for a taunt or failing to notice an evasive stance is just as made up as one attacking the last character that attacked it, or always trying to geek the mage first.
It's generally impractical to run the game without giving everyone knowledge of things like that, but RAW is not clear on how obvious any action is. However, it is certainly clear that the monster knows "X stabbed me/my buddy/whatever, Y did not".
In any case, it's true that there's nothing forbidding a monster from falling for a taunt. However, without a skill check of some sort (which is an action), there's no reason to expect it to do so, and to qualify as a tactic you need a realistic expectation. If you want to engage in swashbuckling witty repartee... play a 9th level swashbuckler rogue.
It implies that DMs who don’t take a player’s RP into account when deciding how people in their world would reasonably react to the PC’s actions are the kinds of 455holes who don’t tip.
Yeah, "reasonably" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there
Look, the trope is common enough -- drawing the attention of an enemy so they don't attack one of your friends. The issues I have with this argument are that 1) "drawing the enemy's attention" in the middle of a fight almost never involves simply taunting it, but instead involves attacking it or threatening it too, even if it's just throwing rocks or waving a torch or whatever; and 2) there are already mechanical ways to do this in 5e, which have been mentioned upthread. Giving some characters free stuff that other characters need to use resources to accomplish is always going to have an extremely high bar to clear with me
Bottom line at my table: if you want to taunt enemies and get them to not attack someone else, take Goading Attack via the Martial Adept feat, or multiclass into bard for Vicious Mockery, or something like that. Yelling mean things in the middle of a battle and doing effectively nothing else isn't going to get you what you want, because it's reasonable for your enemies -- even ogres with anger issues -- to judge you to be less of a threat than other targets
And I tip very well
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If that’s really the only thing you can think of, based on everything I’ve said and all the potential combat scenarios that could possibly occur, and that one thing is really and truly the only one you can come up with that would fit the criteria I’ve laid out… then I suppose I’ve gotten the answer to the quandary I mentioned in post #62, and well and truly have nothing more to discuss with you regarding this topic.
Ah yes, the good old, "Nobody is agreeing with me, so everyone else is stupid!" defense!
It implies that DMs who don’t take a player’s RP into account when deciding how people in their world would reasonably react to the PC’s actions are the kinds of 455holes who don’t tip. And I’ll even do ya one better, forget implying anything, I’ll flat out say it:
“DMs who don’t take their player’s RP into account when deciding how the people in their world, aka NPCs, would reasonably react to the actions taken by PCs are 455holes (and possibly bad tippers).”
So if the DM doesn't let you dictate how and who the enemies attack is the @$$hole?
You: "But I yelled something mean at that guy! He should now only have eyes for me!"
DM: "Yes, but your buddy stabbed him in the gut pretty hard. He may have an Int of 6, but he knows he can survive mean words a lot better than swords in the stomach."
You: "Wow! You're such a jerk! The monsters should do what I want!"
Did I say that you or any else was stupid? Absolutely not. All I said wasn’t that I have no further need to discuss the issue with you. (At absolute worst I may have vaguely implied that you’re unimaginative.)
And yet again, there you are misrepresenting my statements, ignoring what I actually wrote, and throwing up strawmen to distract from the fact that you aren’t actually making any real, reasonable, rational arguments. That’s pretty much the definition of “bad faith arguments,” which simply goes to confirm that I’m likely better off no longer conversing with you on this subject. So, once again, I’ll say goodbye. Good luck with your struggles chummer.
Is it though? If you were in a fist fight with two people, and one of them was swinging at you, but the other was just trying to hurt your feelings, which one would you be focused on?
That is an extremely dismissive take on what "taunting" is / can be. I would absolutely expect a mother Owlbear to ignore the fighter swinging a sword at them in order to attack a rogue that is threatening its baby. Or a dire wolf to turn and strike at fighter that tries to steal it's fresh kill from it. Or a cultist to ignore a raging barbarian to blast the bard that just says something extremely blasphemous against their god. Or a dragon to ignore a shapeshifted druid to attack the warlock stealing it's hoard. Or a mindflayer to ignore the charging paladin in order to try to stun the artificer about to poison the tadpole pool. Or a bandit captain to ignore the cleric to attack the pyromancer threatening to torch their last remaining picture of the woman they love. etc ... etc ...
“DMs who don’t take their player’s RP into account when deciding how the people in their world, aka NPCs, would reasonably react to the actions taken by PCs are 455holes (and possibly bad tippers).”
The RP possible in one round of combat while trying to engage in another action is doing something like yelling "Fight Me!". And hey, that might work, but the DM is not being a 455hole by having the NPC ignore them, or by forcing them to spend their action if they want to engage in a more polished taunt with a higher odds of success.
“DMs who don’t take their player’s RP into account when deciding how the people in their world, aka NPCs, would reasonably react to the actions taken by PCs are 455holes (and possibly bad tippers).”
The RP possible in one round of combat while trying to engage in another action is doing something like yelling "Fight Me!". And hey, that might work, but the DM is not being a 455hole by having the NPC ignore them, or by forcing them to spend their action if they want to engage in a more polished taunt with a higher odds of success.
Again, not what I said. If there is a possibility that it might work (as you yourself just indicated), then the DM has in fact taken that RP into account when deciding if it has work or not. As long as it’s considered and weighed into the DMs decision on whether or not it worked, then that DM has met the criteria and is therefore not an 455hole by my definition. It’s the DM who rejects it out of hand without even considering it that I deem to be an at fault. Do you see the distinction there?
Again, not what I said. If there is a possibility that it might work (as you yourself just indicated), then the DM has in fact taken that RP into account when deciding if it has work or not. As long as it’s considered and weighed into the DMs decision on whether or not it worked, then that DM has met the criteria and is therefore not an 455hole by my definition. It’s the DM who rejects it out of hand without even considering it that I deem to be an at fault. Do you see the distinction there?
Sure, the DM is expected to listen to what the player says, but again, this is a tips and tactics thread, and "dodge and hope" is not a tactic.
It's generally impractical to run the game without giving everyone knowledge of things like that, but RAW is not clear on how obvious any action is. However, it is certainly clear that the monster knows "X stabbed me/my buddy/whatever, Y did not".
In any case, it's true that there's nothing forbidding a monster from falling for a taunt. However, without a skill check of some sort (which is an action), there's no reason to expect it to do so, and to qualify as a tactic you need a realistic expectation. If you want to engage in swashbuckling witty repartee... play a 9th level swashbuckler rogue.
I guess I'm presuming you're not standing there and just dodging and taunting over and over; if I just got stabbed by a flighty guy with a knife, but the burly gal in front of me chopped me with a battleaxe six seconds ago, I think it's a fair toss-up which one I'm going to go for even if axe girl has since taken up a funny stance.
Is it though? If you were in a fist fight with two people, and one of them was swinging at you, but the other was just trying to hurt your feelings, which one would you be focused on?
If I were in a fist fight with two people my general priority would be to leave, but I guess I'm built different. I think you're kind of assuming these combatants have goldfish memories: "A hit me just now, B didn't hit me just now, so I target A." Okay, what if A hits you when you turn to hit B? Do you just stop what you're doing and go after A again? All of this is arbitrary. Characters don't perceive combat in discrete turns; there's no reason for them to drop aggro immediately just because it's been 6 seconds since the last time the guy they've been focused on hit them last.
But critically, we're getting out of the realm now of "what the rules are" and into the realm of "what makes sense", and that's always going to be subjective. You can say how you think target selection should work for monsters, but there's no rules indicating one way or another; the argument becomes "well, that shouldn't work because I think it's stupid", which isn't exactly productive.
They may not know that you are Dodging, but they do know that you did not attack.
But in reality during a fight, you can typically tell if a person is planning to dodge/parry a blow based on their stance. They will typically be leaning away, not into and be less squared in their stance:
If the attacker is out of melee range and the PC only has melee weapons, then the PC not attacking means nothing. Even if the combatants are close, how do you simulate a PC with a Readied action waiting for trigger?
If you want to bring in real life many attackers see somebody taking no offensive action as weak and a target, not somebody to be avoided.
Is it though? If you were in a fist fight with two people, and one of them was swinging at you, but the other was just trying to hurt your feelings, which one would you be focused on?
That is an extremely dismissive take on what "taunting" is / can be. I would absolutely expect a mother Owlbear to ignore the fighter swinging a sword at them in order to attack a rogue that is threatening its baby. Or a dire wolf to turn and strike at fighter that tries to steal it's fresh kill from it. Or a cultist to ignore a raging barbarian to blast the bard that just says something extremely blasphemous against their god. Or a dragon to ignore a shapeshifted druid to attack the warlock stealing it's hoard. Or a mindflayer to ignore the charging paladin in order to try to stun the artificer about to poison the tadpole pool. Or a bandit captain to ignore the cleric to attack the pyromancer threatening to torch their last remaining picture of the woman they love. etc ... etc ...
Then, in any one of those circumstances you have in fact assessed the PC’s actions and weighed them into your accounting when determining how the enemies react to them without requiring a codified, mechanical taunt be used. I suppose you are a good tipper after all.
Again, not what I said. If there is a possibility that it might work (as you yourself just indicated), then the DM has in fact taken that RP into account when deciding if it has work or not. As long as it’s considered and weighed into the DMs decision on whether or not it worked, then that DM has met the criteria and is therefore not an 455hole by my definition. It’s the DM who rejects it out of hand without even considering it that I deem to be an at fault. Do you see the distinction there?
Sure, the DM is expected to listen to what the player says, but again, this is a tips and tactics thread, and "dodge and hope" is not a tactic.
Sure it is. It might not be a very strong tactic, it might not be a very reliable tactic likely to work more often than not, heck, it might not even be a very practical tactic the vast majority of the time, but it’s a tactic.
In a dungeon scenario the “strong,” “effective,” and “practical” tactic is to pause at every single door and A) have the expert check for traps, B) have the spellcaster send their spider familiar to peek under the door and see if anyone is in there, C) have the ranged combatants Ready to let loose the instant the door is opened just in case they need to, and D) the melee combatants Ready to chop up anything that comes through the door just in case too. Every single door…. Do your players do that? Do they ever just, y‘know, skip any of those preparations? In those cases, aren’t they effective doing the equivalent of “dodge and hope,” only in this case it would be more like “open the door and hope” that they don’t just get walloped, whammied, or worse? Does it ever work out for them?
You completely cut out the rest of what I said to argue against me. I said if both are doing damage consistently, they will probably just stick with a target, not bounce between two+. So if you are the target they are focused on, sure you can Dodge. But what is the point? Unless you have some sort of DOT AOE or something, you're more likely to end the fight quickly with taking fewer hits by just dropping the target.
If you are not the target, they are incredibly unlikely to stop attacking who they are attacking because you said something mean.
I cut out the rest of what you said to make the post shorter, because I was quoting two people. I'm not trying to quibble over what circumstances might or might not cause a creature to attack another creature that has taken the Dodge action. I'm saying all targetting decisions are ultimately arbitrary. Therefore, disagreements over whether a creature would or wouldn't target another given imaginary circumstances are fundamentally unresolvable. This has long since stopped being a conversation about game design and become an argument about how some people personally think monsters should make decisions.
Is it though? If you were in a fist fight with two people, and one of them was swinging at you, but the other was just trying to hurt your feelings, which one would you be focused on?
That is an extremely dismissive take on what "taunting" is / can be. I would absolutely expect a mother Owlbear to ignore the fighter swinging a sword at them in order to attack a rogue that is threatening its baby. Or a dire wolf to turn and strike at fighter that tries to steal it's fresh kill from it. Or a cultist to ignore a raging barbarian to blast the bard that just says something extremely blasphemous against their god. Or a dragon to ignore a shapeshifted druid to attack the warlock stealing it's hoard. Or a mindflayer to ignore the charging paladin in order to try to stun the artificer about to poison the tadpole pool. Or a bandit captain to ignore the cleric to attack the pyromancer threatening to torch their last remaining picture of the woman they love. etc ... etc ...
But nothing that you just mentioned is "taunting" by the very definition (except saying something blasphemous) and would all arguable take your action to do (precluding Dodge).
Mechanically speaking a "taunt" is anything that causes an enemy to attack you rather than another character. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, Kendar, and Armourer Artificer all have taunts none of which require you to speak to activate them. Thus every single one of the things I listed are indeed a "taunt".
In terms of action economy I disagree, every character gets a free object interaction per turn, which means e.g. picking up a scroll of paper and dropping it in a camp fire would not require any actions other than moving from the paper to the campfire. Drawing a dagger and holding it over a helpless baby owlbear would not require any actions, moving stand over the kill of a direwolf does not require an action, drawing a vial of poison and holding it over a pool would not require an action, whereas stealing a dragon's horde probably would require an action, killing a baby owlbear would require one attack, pouring the poison into the pool would require either an action or BA (depending on the interpretation of e.g. the Poisoner feat), conjuring a magical orb of fire to hold next to a painting would require and action (or a BA depending on which spell you use). If I can open a door, swing from a chandelier, climb a ladder, or pick up an enemy's weapon without using an action then I don't see why I can't do most of my proposed taunts without using an action too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's some follow up mechanics questions that have been nagging at me all throughout this thread: do enemies know when you've taken the Dodge action? Should that make them less likely to target you?
It seems most posters think the answer to both questions is "yes", but I'm not sure that's any more supported by the rules than the idea of a taunt. Are there specific rules that delineate how enemies should target? If so, where can I find those? If not... It's all DM fiat anyway, why shouldn't vibes-based taunting mechanics be equally valid to any other vibes-based monster tactics?
This is a terrible analogy, because it implies that DMs who don't let players force enemies to attack them via taunts are the kind of @$$holes who don't tip
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If that’s really the only thing you can think of, based on everything I’ve said and all the potential combat scenarios that could possibly occur, and that one thing is really and truly the only one you can come up with that would fit the criteria I’ve laid out… then I suppose I’ve gotten the answer to the quandary I mentioned in post #62, and well and truly have nothing more to discuss with you regarding this topic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, but I should've been clearer what I was asking: is there a rule that says the enemy knows when you're dodging?
My thought is that there's a lot of responses in this thread to the effect of "there's no mechanical rules for taunting, so the monsters should just ignore you and go attack a threatening target", but as far as I know, there's no mechanical reason any given monster should attack anyone in particular; it's strictly up to the DM's interpretation of what's reasonable. A monster falling for a taunt or failing to notice an evasive stance is just as made up as one attacking the last character that attacked it, or always trying to geek the mage first.
No no, you must be completely missing the point.
It implies that DMs who don’t take a player’s RP into account when deciding how people in their world would reasonably react to the PC’s actions are the kinds of 455holes who don’t tip. And I’ll even do ya one better, forget implying anything, I’ll flat out say it:
“DMs who don’t take their player’s RP into account when deciding how the people in their world, aka NPCs, would reasonably react to the actions taken by PCs are 455holes (and possibly bad tippers).”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ahem….
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is no rule that says enemies act like tactical geniuses either, nor what is/isn't metagame knowledge. However, there is an explicit rule that DMs should allow player character to take "other actions" than just those detailed in the rules and rule on the fly how those would work generally involving some kind of skill check. Indeed the game is explicitly a role playing game and the DM is instructed to RP the monsters not just play them as optimally as possible using all the metagame knowledge available to them.
TBH in many combats the enemies should have a goal other than "kill the PCs" because just constant fights to the death are pretty boring.
It's generally impractical to run the game without giving everyone knowledge of things like that, but RAW is not clear on how obvious any action is. However, it is certainly clear that the monster knows "X stabbed me/my buddy/whatever, Y did not".
In any case, it's true that there's nothing forbidding a monster from falling for a taunt. However, without a skill check of some sort (which is an action), there's no reason to expect it to do so, and to qualify as a tactic you need a realistic expectation. If you want to engage in swashbuckling witty repartee... play a 9th level swashbuckler rogue.
Yeah, "reasonably" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there
Look, the trope is common enough -- drawing the attention of an enemy so they don't attack one of your friends. The issues I have with this argument are that 1) "drawing the enemy's attention" in the middle of a fight almost never involves simply taunting it, but instead involves attacking it or threatening it too, even if it's just throwing rocks or waving a torch or whatever; and 2) there are already mechanical ways to do this in 5e, which have been mentioned upthread. Giving some characters free stuff that other characters need to use resources to accomplish is always going to have an extremely high bar to clear with me
Bottom line at my table: if you want to taunt enemies and get them to not attack someone else, take Goading Attack via the Martial Adept feat, or multiclass into bard for Vicious Mockery, or something like that. Yelling mean things in the middle of a battle and doing effectively nothing else isn't going to get you what you want, because it's reasonable for your enemies -- even ogres with anger issues -- to judge you to be less of a threat than other targets
And I tip very well
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Did I say that you or any else was stupid? Absolutely not. All I said wasn’t that I have no further need to discuss the issue with you. (At absolute worst I may have vaguely implied that you’re unimaginative.)
And yet again, there you are misrepresenting my statements, ignoring what I actually wrote, and throwing up strawmen to distract from the fact that you aren’t actually making any real, reasonable, rational arguments. That’s pretty much the definition of “bad faith arguments,” which simply goes to confirm that I’m likely better off no longer conversing with you on this subject. So, once again, I’ll say goodbye. Good luck with your struggles chummer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That is an extremely dismissive take on what "taunting" is / can be. I would absolutely expect a mother Owlbear to ignore the fighter swinging a sword at them in order to attack a rogue that is threatening its baby. Or a dire wolf to turn and strike at fighter that tries to steal it's fresh kill from it. Or a cultist to ignore a raging barbarian to blast the bard that just says something extremely blasphemous against their god. Or a dragon to ignore a shapeshifted druid to attack the warlock stealing it's hoard. Or a mindflayer to ignore the charging paladin in order to try to stun the artificer about to poison the tadpole pool. Or a bandit captain to ignore the cleric to attack the pyromancer threatening to torch their last remaining picture of the woman they love. etc ... etc ...
The RP possible in one round of combat while trying to engage in another action is doing something like yelling "Fight Me!". And hey, that might work, but the DM is not being a 455hole by having the NPC ignore them, or by forcing them to spend their action if they want to engage in a more polished taunt with a higher odds of success.
Again, not what I said. If there is a possibility that it might work (as you yourself just indicated), then the DM has in fact taken that RP into account when deciding if it has work or not. As long as it’s considered and weighed into the DMs decision on whether or not it worked, then that DM has met the criteria and is therefore not an 455hole by my definition. It’s the DM who rejects it out of hand without even considering it that I deem to be an at fault. Do you see the distinction there?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sure, the DM is expected to listen to what the player says, but again, this is a tips and tactics thread, and "dodge and hope" is not a tactic.
I guess I'm presuming you're not standing there and just dodging and taunting over and over; if I just got stabbed by a flighty guy with a knife, but the burly gal in front of me chopped me with a battleaxe six seconds ago, I think it's a fair toss-up which one I'm going to go for even if axe girl has since taken up a funny stance.
If I were in a fist fight with two people my general priority would be to leave, but I guess I'm built different. I think you're kind of assuming these combatants have goldfish memories: "A hit me just now, B didn't hit me just now, so I target A." Okay, what if A hits you when you turn to hit B? Do you just stop what you're doing and go after A again? All of this is arbitrary. Characters don't perceive combat in discrete turns; there's no reason for them to drop aggro immediately just because it's been 6 seconds since the last time the guy they've been focused on hit them last.
But critically, we're getting out of the realm now of "what the rules are" and into the realm of "what makes sense", and that's always going to be subjective. You can say how you think target selection should work for monsters, but there's no rules indicating one way or another; the argument becomes "well, that shouldn't work because I think it's stupid", which isn't exactly productive.
If the attacker is out of melee range and the PC only has melee weapons, then the PC not attacking means nothing. Even if the combatants are close, how do you simulate a PC with a Readied action waiting for trigger?
If you want to bring in real life many attackers see somebody taking no offensive action as weak and a target, not somebody to be avoided.
"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
Then, in any one of those circumstances you have in fact assessed the PC’s actions and weighed them into your accounting when determining how the enemies react to them without requiring a codified, mechanical taunt be used. I suppose you are a good tipper after all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sure it is. It might not be a very strong tactic, it might not be a very reliable tactic likely to work more often than not, heck, it might not even be a very practical tactic the vast majority of the time, but it’s a tactic.
In a dungeon scenario the “strong,” “effective,” and “practical” tactic is to pause at every single door and A) have the expert check for traps, B) have the spellcaster send their spider familiar to peek under the door and see if anyone is in there, C) have the ranged combatants Ready to let loose the instant the door is opened just in case they need to, and D) the melee combatants Ready to chop up anything that comes through the door just in case too. Every single door…. Do your players do that? Do they ever just, y‘know, skip any of those preparations? In those cases, aren’t they effective doing the equivalent of “dodge and hope,” only in this case it would be more like “open the door and hope” that they don’t just get walloped, whammied, or worse? Does it ever work out for them?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I cut out the rest of what you said to make the post shorter, because I was quoting two people. I'm not trying to quibble over what circumstances might or might not cause a creature to attack another creature that has taken the Dodge action. I'm saying all targetting decisions are ultimately arbitrary. Therefore, disagreements over whether a creature would or wouldn't target another given imaginary circumstances are fundamentally unresolvable. This has long since stopped being a conversation about game design and become an argument about how some people personally think monsters should make decisions.
Mechanically speaking a "taunt" is anything that causes an enemy to attack you rather than another character. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, Kendar, and Armourer Artificer all have taunts none of which require you to speak to activate them. Thus every single one of the things I listed are indeed a "taunt".
In terms of action economy I disagree, every character gets a free object interaction per turn, which means e.g. picking up a scroll of paper and dropping it in a camp fire would not require any actions other than moving from the paper to the campfire. Drawing a dagger and holding it over a helpless baby owlbear would not require any actions, moving stand over the kill of a direwolf does not require an action, drawing a vial of poison and holding it over a pool would not require an action, whereas stealing a dragon's horde probably would require an action, killing a baby owlbear would require one attack, pouring the poison into the pool would require either an action or BA (depending on the interpretation of e.g. the Poisoner feat), conjuring a magical orb of fire to hold next to a painting would require and action (or a BA depending on which spell you use). If I can open a door, swing from a chandelier, climb a ladder, or pick up an enemy's weapon without using an action then I don't see why I can't do most of my proposed taunts without using an action too.