The action economy is different, but the bigger difference is damage.
No, it really isn't. Dodge would still be unused in D&D if every attack was an instant kill, because dodging is less effective at preventing incoming damage than killing the source of the damage. I realize Shadowrun did have a second feature that encouraged dodge: it was a lot easier to build a PC who was completely useless in a fight, at which point you might as well dodge while the more effective PCs obliterated everything.
It's probably a little of column A and a little of column B, to be honest. The fact that in Shadowrun a fast character can Dodge or Parry and still attack (potentially more than once) in the same round definitely makes Dodge a more appealing option, but I think the same character would just attack on every initiative pass if taking damage didn't accrue wound penalties. It's that combination of things, both the seriousness of taking damage and also the ability to dodge while simultaneously taking aggressive action, that makes dodging work. L5R works similarly in that the first combatant to get hit almost always loses, and parrying not only protects you but also gives you an opening to counterattack.
That said, I do agree the core issue is action economy. D&D will probably never add wound penalties (nor do I think they should), and even if they did, dodging would still be a fully passive action for any non-Goblin, non-Rogue-non-Monk. Players just aren't going to want to do that. If D&D wants to encourage players to use Dodge (and I'm not sure it does?) they would need to make the action generate offensive momentum in a way that's lateral with an attack action.
It could also work to change Dodge to be a reaction that somehow penalizes the user's next turn, but I think that only marginally improves it compared to how it works now. You're losing an action later instead of now, but you're still losing it.
It's probably a little of column A and a little of column B, to be honest. The fact that in Shadowrun a fast character can Dodge or Parry and still attack (potentially more than once) in the same round definitely makes Dodge a more appealing option, but I think the same character would just attack on every initiative pass if taking damage didn't accrue wound penalties.
Fundamentally, dodge is "reduce (party) outgoing damage by X% to reduce (party) incoming damage by Y%". If X > Y, dodge is bad. If X < Y, dodge is good. The actual consequences of damage don't matter a lot, though if for some reason a character's offense is already very low (including stacked wound penalties), losing actions to dodge doesn't cost a lot because those actions weren't very valuable to start with.
I use Dodge quite often. But I make sure to place myself in an area that makes my PC tempting and also go out of my way to insult the target.
That is Homebrew, though. There is no "taunting" mechanic in D&D 5e, so that is your DM being generous with you. I would see this working maybe 1 round. After they were unable to hit you as you bobbed and weaved, they would stop caring that you called their mother a %&*@$$%# and go punch someone else.
I could see maybe dodging after casting Compelled Duel if you don't have a way to damage that opponent, but your allies still won't be able to attack them without breaking it. So, really, you'd be better of punching them for 1+Str than just dodging.
It is part of role play. Funny how you just said there is no taunt mechanic and then give an example of a taunt mechanic =)
There is also the Battle Master's Goading Attack.
Verbal taunts can also work in conjunction with Booming Blade. Yes, still role play but backed by 'If you move away from me, *Boom*'
True, the role play aspect may only work for a short time with a dodge. It also may only work once. Sometimes it only takes once.
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?"
I use Dodge quite often. But I make sure to place myself in an area that makes my PC tempting and also go out of my way to insult the target.
That is Homebrew, though….
Homebrewing is adding something to the game that doesn’t exist, particularly something with some kind of game mechanics attached to it. Just having an enemy react to a situation (like being insulted by someone who you’re already in a fight with) in a manner befitting that creature (such as attacking their impolite antagonist, provided the insults are understood and recognized), that’s not “homebrew,” that’s just called “playing D&D.”
…There is no "taunting" mechanic in D&D 5e, so that is your DM being generous with you.
I see two major flaws with that statement:
There actually are taunting mechanics in 5e in fact. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three examples (there may be more):
There’s a maneuver named Goading Attack that’s available to not only every Battle Master, but also to every PC who has taken the Martial Adept feat, and to any PC who has taken the Fighting Initiate feat and chosen the Superior Technique Fighting Style (and possibly to other PCs as well).
Kender have a racial trait that is literally called “Taunt.”
There’s a spell on the paladin spell list called compelled duel. (You yourself pointed out the existence of this particular example of a taunting mechanic existent in 5e later in your post. So why would you claim no such mechanics exist? Cognitive dissonance?)
That’s not even necessarily (or even likely) the “DM being generous with” anyone at all. As long as the monster being insulted is both capable of understanding the insult and realizing it’s been insulted, and of a temperament to take offense and react violently to such stimulus, then it’s more than reasonable for that creature to specifically target a PC who has insulted it. That’s not generosity, that’s simply portraying the enemy realistically.
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre. For example, if the ogre would draw OAs from 3 other PCs, that ogre’s pro’ly not gonna draw that many attacks from them just to go attack the smartmouth. But if it could beat a relatively safe path directly to the smartmouth… oh yeah ogre gonna go shut that mouth up. Even without using one of the taunting mechanics I listed above, that’s just realistic RP.
The action economy is different, but the bigger difference is damage.
No, it really isn't. Dodge would still be unused in D&D if every attack was an instant kill, because dodging is less effective at preventing incoming damage than killing the source of the damage. I realize Shadowrun did have a second feature that encouraged dodge: it was a lot easier to build a PC who was completely useless in a fight, at which point you might as well dodge while the more effective PCs obliterated everything.
It's probably a little of column A and a little of column B, to be honest. The fact that in Shadowrun a fast character can Dodge or Parry and still attack (potentially more than once) in the same round definitely makes Dodge a more appealing option, but I think the same character would just attack on every initiative pass if taking damage didn't accrue wound penalties. It's that combination of things, both the seriousness of taking damage and also the ability to dodge while simultaneously taking aggressive action, that makes dodging work. L5R works similarly in that the first combatant to get hit almost always loses, and parrying not only protects you but also gives you an opening to counterattack.
I haven't played 6E Shadowrun, but in older editions, dodging was done closer to the way D&D handles Armor Class- you rolled your Dodge and compared it to the enemy's attack roll. If you had more successes than they did, the attack missed, but even if you didn't then the number of successes you got still reduced the effectiveness of the attack, making it easier to resist it. And you could make a dodge attempt against one attack per round without having to declare an action.
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.
Dodge certainly has it's place. One of the melees at my table uses it constantly. I personally dislike taking the dodge action. I want to hit things, not simply avoid being hit. I will dodge in emergencies or if I am playing a glass that can compel attacks or just trashes things with automatic AOE such as spirit guardians.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre.
For example, the target is dodging and there are actually dangerous people around? Even for stupid monsters, my rule of thumb for aggro is "who hurt me worst recently" and it would only be distracted by insults if actually hadn't taken any damage from anyone.
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre.
For example, the target is dodging and there are actually dangerous people around? Even for stupid monsters, my rule of thumb for aggro is "who hurt me worst recently" and it would only be distracted by insults if actually hadn't taken any damage from anyone.
Feelings can get hurt too ya know. #stopbullying The fight is real, don’t dismiss that ogre’s emotions.
At the end of the day, anything not using a feature is not going to be particularly consistent across multiple tables, so it has limited weight in validating a combination dependent on it being accepted. And, frankly, it’s still not really worth burning your Action to Dodge in an attempt to draw a little aggro. You’re actually just drawing combat out like that and still potentially taking damage without doing anything to make the fight end sooner.
Dodging is undesirable from a game-play point of view, it is boring and causes fights to last longer - and long fights is something everyone complains about already. So it's actually a good thing that it isn't all that powerful. Cover is a much better & more interesting situational defensive buff.
Makes me think: I've seen some form of the dodge action in many games, and in almost all of them... it's never used. I've only run into two exceptions (Champions and Feng Shui), and both forms of dodge had a common feature: they were usable out of turn.
In Champions, dodging was an abortable action: in response to being attacked, you could sacrifice your next action (and it worked against all attacks until the start of the phase after the one you aborted). In Feng Shui, the initiative system was a bit more complicated but the effect was similar: you sacrificed about 1/3 of your next action (and it worked against one attack).
An equivalent to the Champions version for 5e would be something like
Abort to Dodge
You dodge as a reaction. On your next turn, you may not take any actions other than dodge.
I've seen dodging used in Shadowrun and L5R, as well; I think the main commonality there is that taking damage is much more serious in those games than it is in D&D. That's the core issue, I think: damage in D&D is trivial (until it suddenly isn't), whereas losing an Action is huge. I don't know if there's a way to fix that without totally restructuring damage or the action economy, and I'm not holding my breath for either of those.
In the old Marvel Superheroes RPG, dodge was very potent. In 5e terms, it probably is more like a REACTION that contests against the incoming attack. Winning the contest means the dodger comes out untouched and undamaged. It was not useful in AOE style attacks though unless you had the movement to rationalize it.
I use Dodge quite often. But I make sure to place myself in an area that makes my PC tempting and also go out of my way to insult the target.
That is Homebrew, though….
Homebrewing is adding something to the game that doesn’t exist, particularly something with some kind of game mechanics attached to it. Just having an enemy react to a situation (like being insulted by someone who you’re already in a fight with) in a manner befitting that creature (such as attacking their impolite antagonist, provided the insults are understood and recognized), that’s not “homebrew,” that’s just called “playing D&D.”
…There is no "taunting" mechanic in D&D 5e, so that is your DM being generous with you.
I see two major flaws with that statement:
There actually are taunting mechanics in 5e in fact. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three examples (there may be more):
There’s a maneuver named Goading Attack that’s available to not only every Battle Master, but also to every PC who has taken the Martial Adept feat, and to any PC who has taken the Fighting Initiate feat and chosen the Superior Technique Fighting Style (and possibly to other PCs as well).
Kender have a racial trait that is literally called “Taunt.”
There’s a spell on the paladin spell list called compelled duel. (You yourself pointed out the existence of this particular example of a taunting mechanic existent in 5e later in your post. So why would you claim no such mechanics exist? Cognitive dissonance?)
That’s not even necessarily (or even likely) the “DM being generous with” anyone at all. As long as the monster being insulted is both capable of understanding the insult and realizing it’s been insulted, and of a temperament to take offense and react violently to such stimulus, then it’s more than reasonable for that creature to specifically target a PC who has insulted it. That’s not generosity, that’s simply portraying the enemy realistically.
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre. For example, if the ogre would draw OAs from 3 other PCs, that ogre’s pro’ly not gonna draw that many attacks from them just to go attack the smartmouth. But if it could beat a relatively safe path directly to the smartmouth… oh yeah ogre gonna go shut that mouth up. Even without using one of the taunting mechanics I listed above, that’s just realistic RP.
But Compelled Duel isn't a taunt, it's a spell that takes an action. It also ends as soon as your allies do anything to that enemy (aside from healing it) or as soon as you take any aggressive action against anyone else. So for all intents and purposes, it just takes you and that enemy out of the fight.
I responded to the Goading Attack in another reply. It cannot be combined with Dodge unless you are a Monk. And I would 100% concede that Dodge is great for a Monk (albeit costly with their limited pool of Ki).
You got me on the Kender! I don't have Dragonlance, so did not know that was a thing. So if Wysperra's character is a Kender that uses their Bonus Action to Taunt and then Dodge, great! Good use of Dodge. But
…if they are not a Kender, then the DM is basically giving them a racial trait with limited uses that costs a BA for free, taking no action, and useable indefinitely. Seems awfully generous to me.
So a DM should portray all the monsters and NPCs as bots during combat, nothing more than either A) mindless automatons that only ever attack what’s directly in front of them, or B) soulless automatons that operate on a strict target priority subroutine and attack whatever target is most optimal, and C) a player has to have their PC utilize something with a specifically mechanical in game effect to cause any of the monsters or NPCs to deviate one iota from either of those predetermined courses? Under absolutely no other circumstances should a monster or NPC act in any other way? The DM should be completely prohibited from having monsters or NPCs display any semblance of individual decision making, or personal wants or preferences, or emotional response to outside stimuli? Under absolutely no circumstances should a monster or NPC take personal offense to anything a PC says or does and decide to act on that emotion without a specify and explicitly written out game mechanic attached to it whatsoever? Gotcha.
Lo and behold all these here past long 30+ years I’ve been playing D&D wrong. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart, I genuinely appreciate you pointing out the error in my ways. No no, I mean it, I cannot possibly thank you enough for correcting me. What in the world would I have ever done without your having pointed out how incredibly wrong I’ve been doing things this whole time? Thank God the D&D police never caught me. How, oh how, can I ever possibly repay you for teaching me this fundamental truth of D&D?
No, but seriously, what you’re describing is essentially an RPG, with no R, and only a little bit of P, and that’s just not for me. It seems like… like ice cream without any flavoring, or sex without the passion. If that’s what you’re into, then by all means, get down with your bad self. After all, there is no wrong way to play D&D. 🤨 But for me? Me, I’d rather roll over panting and sweaty with an irresistible urge to head to my nearest Baskin-Robbins and try one of those little tiny tasting spoons from each of the 31 flavors on offer. To each their own I guess.
So a DM should portray all the monsters and NPCs as bots during combat, nothing more than either A) mindless automatons that only ever attack what’s directly in front of them, or B) soulless automatons that operate on a strict target priority subroutine and attack whatever target is most optimal, and C) a player has to have their PC utilize something with a specifically mechanical in game effect to cause any of the monsters or NPCs to deviate one iota from either of those predetermined courses?
No, but he should also avoid giving the PCs supernatural abilities that they didn't pay for. Taunts are a thing you use when not fighting, in actual combat everyone has higher priorities than even listening to the taunts.
So a DM should portray all the monsters and NPCs as bots during combat, nothing more than either A) mindless automatons that only ever attack what’s directly in front of them, or B) soulless automatons that operate on a strict target priority subroutine and attack whatever target is most optimal, and C) a player has to have their PC utilize something with a specifically mechanical in game effect to cause any of the monsters or NPCs to deviate one iota from either of those predetermined courses?
No, but he should also avoid giving the PCs supernatural abilities that they didn't pay for. Taunts are a thing you use when not fighting, in actual combat everyone has higher priorities than even listening to the taunts.
It's not necessarily supernatural. It's the DM's responsibility to adjudicate that, that's why we have DM's.
Just because creatures are in a fight doesn't mean they won't or don't listen or pay attention for whatever reason...maybe something the PC said hit to the core of his opponent. If you were the opponent and the player blurted out news about someone you loved that is in trouble and believable there's a chance something caught your attention and you may listen. ~ I was a collegiate wrestler, in the heat of the moment you may not hear everything, but things do come through.
Just because creatures are in a fight doesn't mean they won't or don't listen or pay attention for whatever reason...maybe something the PC said hit to the core of his opponent.
It actually kind of does; at the time scale of D&D combat, a comment may not even register until after the combat is over. In any case, coming up with clever, insightful taunts sounds like a skill check (that would require an action, and thus preclude dodge).
I use Dodge quite often. But I make sure to place myself in an area that makes my PC tempting and also go out of my way to insult the target.
That is Homebrew, though….
Homebrewing is adding something to the game that doesn’t exist, particularly something with some kind of game mechanics attached to it. Just having an enemy react to a situation (like being insulted by someone who you’re already in a fight with) in a manner befitting that creature (such as attacking their impolite antagonist, provided the insults are understood and recognized), that’s not “homebrew,” that’s just called “playing D&D.”
…There is no "taunting" mechanic in D&D 5e, so that is your DM being generous with you.
I see two major flaws with that statement:
There actually are taunting mechanics in 5e in fact. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three examples (there may be more):
There’s a maneuver named Goading Attack that’s available to not only every Battle Master, but also to every PC who has taken the Martial Adept feat, and to any PC who has taken the Fighting Initiate feat and chosen the Superior Technique Fighting Style (and possibly to other PCs as well).
Kender have a racial trait that is literally called “Taunt.”
There’s a spell on the paladin spell list called compelled duel. (You yourself pointed out the existence of this particular example of a taunting mechanic existent in 5e later in your post. So why would you claim no such mechanics exist? Cognitive dissonance?)
That’s not even necessarily (or even likely) the “DM being generous with” anyone at all. As long as the monster being insulted is both capable of understanding the insult and realizing it’s been insulted, and of a temperament to take offense and react violently to such stimulus, then it’s more than reasonable for that creature to specifically target a PC who has insulted it. That’s not generosity, that’s simply portraying the enemy realistically.
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre. For example, if the ogre would draw OAs from 3 other PCs, that ogre’s pro’ly not gonna draw that many attacks from them just to go attack the smartmouth. But if it could beat a relatively safe path directly to the smartmouth… oh yeah ogre gonna go shut that mouth up. Even without using one of the taunting mechanics I listed above, that’s just realistic RP.
But Compelled Duel isn't a taunt, it's a spell that takes an action. It also ends as soon as your allies do anything to that enemy (aside from healing it) or as soon as you take any aggressive action against anyone else. So for all intents and purposes, it just takes you and that enemy out of the fight.
I responded to the Goading Attack in another reply. It cannot be combined with Dodge unless you are a Monk. And I would 100% concede that Dodge is great for a Monk (albeit costly with their limited pool of Ki).
You got me on the Kender! I don't have Dragonlance, so did not know that was a thing. So if Wysperra's character is a Kender that uses their Bonus Action to Taunt and then Dodge, great! Good use of Dodge. But
…if they are not a Kender, then the DM is basically giving them a racial trait with limited uses that costs a BA for free, taking no action, and useable indefinitely. Seems awfully generous to me.
So a DM should portray all the monsters and NPCs as bots during combat, nothing more than either A) mindless automatons that only ever attack what’s directly in front of them, or B) soulless automatons that operate on a strict target priority subroutine and attack whatever target is most optimal, and C) a player has to have their PC utilize something with a specifically mechanical in game effect to cause any of the monsters or NPCs to deviate one iota from either of those predetermined courses? Under absolutely no other circumstances should a monster or NPC act in any other way? The DM should be completely prohibited from having monsters or NPCs display any semblance of individual decision making, or personal wants or preferences, or emotional response to outside stimuli? Under absolutely no circumstances should a monster or NPC take personal offense to anything a PC says or does and decide to act on that emotion without a specify and explicitly written out game mechanic attached to it whatsoever? Gotcha.
Lo and behold all these here past long 30+ years I’ve been playing D&D wrong. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart, I genuinely appreciate you pointing out the error in my ways. No no, I mean it, I cannot possibly thank you enough for correcting me. What in the world would I have ever done without your having pointed out how incredibly wrong I’ve been doing things this whole time? Thank God the D&D police never caught me. How, oh how, can I ever possibly repay you for teaching me this fundamental truth of D&D?
No, but seriously, what you’re describing is essentially an RPG, with no R, and only a little bit of P, and that’s just not for me. It seems like… like ice cream without any flavoring, or sex without the passion. If that’s what you’re into, then by all means, get down with your bad self. After all, there is no wrong way to play D&D. 🤨 But for me? Me, I’d rather roll over panting and sweaty with an irresistible urge to head to my nearest Baskin-Robbins and try one of those little tiny tasting spoons from each of the 31 flavors on offer. To each their own I guess.
Those are some really stellar ad hominem attacks and straw men you got going there Sposta. 10/10
Did I ever say....really any of what you said I did?? All I said was that there is nothing about screaming insults at an enemy that is going to cause them to ignore people that are stabbing them because you hurt their feelings. If you yell something unspeakable at the goblin and then just start bobbing and weaving in place, he'll probably think you're crazy and worry about the guy who just swung a maul at his head.
Because, remember, it takes your action on your turn to Dodge. So you'd have to yell, then Dodge, then hope! Any halfway intelligent humanoid is probably going to ignore an attempt to insult them, any stupid humanoid is going to be more worried about people actively trying to kill them, and any beasts/monstrosities/aberrations probably won't understand what you just said anyway.
So then you are putting your DM in a rough spot. Do they play the enemy as they see fit, potentially making you waste your turn? Or do they throw you a bone (a.k.a. being generous)?
No strawmen and absolutely no attacks. (Trust me, if I had attacked you, you would already be forced into admitting to at least yourself that words can in fact goad someone into action.)
Yes, you most certainly did in fact write that if the DM has a monster/NPC react to being insulted without there being some technical game mechanic attached to it then that DM is “being generous.” You wrote it I post #22:
I use Dodge quite often. But I make sure to place myself in an area that makes my PC tempting and also go out of my way to insult the target.
That is Homebrew, though. There is no "taunting" mechanic in D&D 5e, so that is your DM being generous with you. I would see this working maybe 1 round. After they were unable to hit you as you bobbed and weaved, they would stop caring that you called their mother a %&*@$$%# and go punch someone else.
I could see maybe dodging after casting Compelled Duel if you don't have a way to damage that opponent, but your allies still won't be able to attack them without breaking it. So, really, you'd be better of punching them for 1+Str than just dodging.
I use Dodge quite often. But I make sure to place myself in an area that makes my PC tempting and also go out of my way to insult the target.
That is Homebrew, though….
Homebrewing is adding something to the game that doesn’t exist, particularly something with some kind of game mechanics attached to it. Just having an enemy react to a situation (like being insulted by someone who you’re already in a fight with) in a manner befitting that creature (such as attacking their impolite antagonist, provided the insults are understood and recognized), that’s not “homebrew,” that’s just called “playing D&D.”
…There is no "taunting" mechanic in D&D 5e, so that is your DM being generous with you.
I see two major flaws with that statement:
There actually are taunting mechanics in 5e in fact. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three examples (there may be more):
There’s a maneuver named Goading Attack that’s available to not only every Battle Master, but also to every PC who has taken the Martial Adept feat, and to any PC who has taken the Fighting Initiate feat and chosen the Superior Technique Fighting Style (and possibly to other PCs as well).
Kender have a racial trait that is literally called “Taunt.”
There’s a spell on the paladin spell list called compelled duel. (You yourself pointed out the existence of this particular example of a taunting mechanic existent in 5e later in your post. So why would you claim no such mechanics exist? Cognitive dissonance?)
That’s not even necessarily (or even likely) the “DM being generous with” anyone at all. As long as the monster being insulted is both capable of understanding the insult and realizing it’s been insulted, and of a temperament to take offense and react violently to such stimulus, then it’s more than reasonable for that creature to specifically target a PC who has insulted it. That’s not generosity, that’s simply portraying the enemy realistically.
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre. For example, if the ogre would draw OAs from 3 other PCs, that ogre’s pro’ly not gonna draw that many attacks from them just to go attack the smartmouth. But if it could beat a relatively safe path directly to the smartmouth… oh yeah ogre gonna go shut that mouth up. Even without using one of the taunting mechanics I listed above, that’s just realistic RP.
But Compelled Duel isn't a taunt, it's a spell that takes an action. It also ends as soon as your allies do anything to that enemy (aside from healing it) or as soon as you take any aggressive action against anyone else. So for all intents and purposes, it just takes you and that enemy out of the fight.
I responded to the Goading Attack in another reply. It cannot be combined with Dodge unless you are a Monk. And I would 100% concede that Dodge is great for a Monk (albeit costly with their limited pool of Ki).
You got me on the Kender! I don't have Dragonlance, so did not know that was a thing. So if Wysperra's character is a Kender that uses their Bonus Action to Taunt and then Dodge, great! Good use of Dodge. But if they are not a Kender, then the DM is basically giving them a racial trait with limited uses that costs a BA for free, taking no action, and useable indefinitely. Seems awfully generous to me.
And you wrote it again just now in your last response to me in post #38 (which I’ll include again below for a combination of completeness sake and my OCD nagging at me that I need to):
I use Dodge quite often. But I make sure to place myself in an area that makes my PC tempting and also go out of my way to insult the target.
That is Homebrew, though….
Homebrewing is adding something to the game that doesn’t exist, particularly something with some kind of game mechanics attached to it. Just having an enemy react to a situation (like being insulted by someone who you’re already in a fight with) in a manner befitting that creature (such as attacking their impolite antagonist, provided the insults are understood and recognized), that’s not “homebrew,” that’s just called “playing D&D.”
…There is no "taunting" mechanic in D&D 5e, so that is your DM being generous with you.
I see two major flaws with that statement:
There actually are taunting mechanics in 5e in fact. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three examples (there may be more):
There’s a maneuver named Goading Attack that’s available to not only every Battle Master, but also to every PC who has taken the Martial Adept feat, and to any PC who has taken the Fighting Initiate feat and chosen the Superior Technique Fighting Style (and possibly to other PCs as well).
Kender have a racial trait that is literally called “Taunt.”
There’s a spell on the paladin spell list called compelled duel. (You yourself pointed out the existence of this particular example of a taunting mechanic existent in 5e later in your post. So why would you claim no such mechanics exist? Cognitive dissonance?)
That’s not even necessarily (or even likely) the “DM being generous with” anyone at all. As long as the monster being insulted is both capable of understanding the insult and realizing it’s been insulted, and of a temperament to take offense and react violently to such stimulus, then it’s more than reasonable for that creature to specifically target a PC who has insulted it. That’s not generosity, that’s simply portraying the enemy realistically.
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre. For example, if the ogre would draw OAs from 3 other PCs, that ogre’s pro’ly not gonna draw that many attacks from them just to go attack the smartmouth. But if it could beat a relatively safe path directly to the smartmouth… oh yeah ogre gonna go shut that mouth up. Even without using one of the taunting mechanics I listed above, that’s just realistic RP.
But Compelled Duel isn't a taunt, it's a spell that takes an action. It also ends as soon as your allies do anything to that enemy (aside from healing it) or as soon as you take any aggressive action against anyone else. So for all intents and purposes, it just takes you and that enemy out of the fight.
I responded to the Goading Attack in another reply. It cannot be combined with Dodge unless you are a Monk. And I would 100% concede that Dodge is great for a Monk (albeit costly with their limited pool of Ki).
You got me on the Kender! I don't have Dragonlance, so did not know that was a thing. So if Wysperra's character is a Kender that uses their Bonus Action to Taunt and then Dodge, great! Good use of Dodge. But
…if they are not a Kender, then the DM is basically giving them a racial trait with limited uses that costs a BA for free, taking no action, and useable indefinitely. Seems awfully generous to me.
So a DM should portray all the monsters and NPCs as bots during combat, nothing more than either A) mindless automatons that only ever attack what’s directly in front of them, or B) soulless automatons that operate on a strict target priority subroutine and attack whatever target is most optimal, and C) a player has to have their PC utilize something with a specifically mechanical in game effect to cause any of the monsters or NPCs to deviate one iota from either of those predetermined courses? Under absolutely no other circumstances should a monster or NPC act in any other way? The DM should be completely prohibited from having monsters or NPCs display any semblance of individual decision making, or personal wants or preferences, or emotional response to outside stimuli? Under absolutely no circumstances should a monster or NPC take personal offense to anything a PC says or does and decide to act on that emotion without a specify and explicitly written out game mechanic attached to it whatsoever? Gotcha.
Lo and behold all these here past long 30+ years I’ve been playing D&D wrong. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart, I genuinely appreciate you pointing out the error in my ways. No no, I mean it, I cannot possibly thank you enough for correcting me. What in the world would I have ever done without your having pointed out how incredibly wrong I’ve been doing things this whole time? Thank God the D&D police never caught me. How, oh how, can I ever possibly repay you for teaching me this fundamental truth of D&D?
No, but seriously, what you’re describing is essentially an RPG, with no R, and only a little bit of P, and that’s just not for me. It seems like… like ice cream without any flavoring, or sex without the passion. If that’s what you’re into, then by all means, get down with your bad self. After all, there is no wrong way to play D&D. 🤨 But for me? Me, I’d rather roll over panting and sweaty with an irresistible urge to head to my nearest Baskin-Robbins and try one of those little tiny tasting spoons from each of the 31 flavors on offer. To each their own I guess.
Those are some really stellar ad hominem attacks and straw men you got going there Sposta. 10/10
Did I ever say....really any of what you said I did?? All I said was that there is nothing about screaming insults at an enemy that is going to cause them to ignore people that are stabbing them because you hurt their feelings. If you yell something unspeakable at the goblin and then just start bobbing and weaving in place, he'll probably think you're crazy and worry about the guy who just swung a maul at his head.
Because, remember, it takes your action on your turn to Dodge. So you'd have to yell, then Dodge, then hope! Any halfway intelligent humanoid is probably going to ignore an attempt to insult them, any stupid humanoid is going to be more worried about people actively trying to kill them, and any beasts/monstrosities/aberrations probably won't understand what you just said anyway.
So then you are putting your DM in a rough spot. Do they play the enemy as they see fit, potentially making you waste your turn? Or do they throw you a bone (a.k.a. being generous)?
You explicitly wrote that such behavior is down to absolutely nothing more than DM generosity, and I say that’s 🐂💩. That’s absolutely, 100% pure, unadulterated, antibiotic free, certified organic, farm-to-table fresh, all natural 🐂💩 with no additives or preservatives.
Having a monster or NPC react plausibly to what the players have had their characters say and do is not “generosity,” it’s just “DMing.” It is in fact what DMs are supposed to do. Actually, not having monsters and NPCs react in ways that people in reality tend to react in various situations is far more unrealistic than having them react in those ways. People out in the real world attack and kill each other over traded or perceived insults every • single • day. It happens at least once every day in my city alone. Scale that globally and it’s irrefutably happening hundreds of times per day, every day. It’s irrefutable because such instances are actually being recorded as having happened everysingleday. So lemme ask you: if it happens lots of times every single day all over the world, then how is a DM portraying such behavior in any way unrealistic to the point of being labeled as “generosity” on that DM’s part?!? Riddle me that.
You also wrote “there is nothing about screaming insults at an enemy that is going to cause them to ignore people that are stabbing them because you hurt their feelings.” Seeing as how in this thread alone you’ve managed to demonstrate an unparalleled talent for completely ignoring what people are writing in response to you, I really shouldn’t be surprised that you’ve done it yet again in this instance. Allow me to draw your attention to something I wrote in my very first response to you way back in post #28:
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre. For example, if the ogre would draw OAs from 3 other PCs, that ogre’s pro’ly not gonna draw that many attacks from them just to go attack the smartmouth. But if it could beat a relatively safe path directly to the smartmouth… oh yeah ogre gonna go shut that mouth up. Even without using one of the taunting mechanics I listed above, that’s just realistic RP.
You can clearly see that I specifically wrote that the monster or NPC would not intentionally act in a manner that would be detrimental to it. I specifically wrote that the monster would only likely prioritize an insulting PC if it could do so in a reasonable and rational way in a situation that was conducive to doing so. Furthermore, you also wrote “Any halfway intelligent humanoid is probably going to ignore an attempt to insult them, any stupid humanoid is going to be more worried about people actively trying to kill them, and any beasts/monstrosities/aberrations probably won't understand what you just said anyway.” Yet again, here you’ve demonstrated that you have completely ignored what I’ve actually written. So I will yet again draw your attention to something I wrote all the way the hell back in post #28:
That’s not even necessarily (or even likely) the “DM being generous with” anyone at all. As long as the monster being insulted is both capable of understanding the insult and realizing it’s been insulted, and of a temperament to take offense and react violently to such stimulus, then it’s more than reasonable for that creature to specifically target a PC who has insulted it. That’s not generosity, that’s simply portraying the enemy realistically.
You can clearly see for yourself that I specifically and explicitly wrote that the monster or NPC in question must A) be able to understand what is being said to them, B) be able to recognize those statements as intentional insults, and C) be of a temperament to react violently to such insults. I never said it would work on someone smart enough to not take the bait. As for the person currently under attack, I already addressed that situation in my last paragraph. And I also clearly excluded any creatures who “[wouldn’t] understand what [they] just said anyway” by means of my very first caveat, that they “must be able to understand what is being said to them.” That would automatically exclude beasts, most monstrosities and some aberrations (as many creatures of both types can in fact speak common and other languages). It would also clearly exclude most undead, plants, slimes, elementals, and constructs, as well as any celestials, dragons, fey, fiends, giants and humanoids who don’t happen to speak the language in which the insults are being issued.
So, why do you keep repeatedly throwing out examples of monsters/NPCs who are under immediate threat of danger from other sources, or creatures incapable of understanding or comprehending the insults when I have already excluded them from the situation?!? Who’s the one throwing up strawmen to knock down? 🤨 Clearly not I sir. No, not I. I have been able to site and quote exact statements that you and I have both written to call out every comment of yours that I am arguing against, and back up every argument I am making. That’s called “evidence.” Do you have any to back up your claims? If so, please produce it. If not, then I believe this debate is quite over.
At the end of the day, fights are the area where by design player options are restricted to their printed features and the actions described in the combat section. If nothing else, attempting to shout taunts is clearly not going to get wide enough acceptance to make the suggestion reliable general advice on a Dodge usage.
While words CAN instigate a violent reaction, they do not REQUIRE a reaction. When I was in the 7th grade, a kid on the school bus had initiative, and used his action to cast Vicious Mockery, by calling my mom a...W word. With my action, disadvantage or no I made an unarmed attack and struck him in the face. Repeatedly. here's the thing though: I chose violence. I did not HAVE to punch ol boy in the face. In other instances, I have handled similar situations with more maturity, and kept myself off the police blotter.
In D&D, I can /attempt/ to goad an opponent into attacking me. The DM chooses how to reply to that. If he chooses to hit the priest anyways, whether is mother is or is not a female canine, is irrelevant. I cannot punish him for attempting to hit the priest. There's no mechanic that requires the DM to respond. So dodge and insult doesn't work. The DM is under no requirement to attack me. As a DM, if the guy is dodging and weaving, I'm DEFINITLEY going to stick my sword into the priest, because my guy's probably smart and experienced enough to know he's being goaded and he can control his rage. What's my player going to do about it, fart in my general direction?
Now, if my player is say, a cavalier dodging, well now things are a bit different. If I swing at mr priest, the cavalier mechanically, gets to make an attack on me. That's still a choice I can make, but mechanically there's consequences, and while not guaranteed, I'm at least a bit more likely to try and beat the dodge, particularly if the cavalier is built to make those OA hurt with say booming blade and warcaster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Having a monster or NPC react plausibly to what the players have had their characters say and do is not “generosity,” it’s just “DMing.” It is in fact what DMs are supposed to do. Actually, not having monsters and NPCs react in ways that people in reality tend to react in various situations is far more unrealistic than having them react in those ways. People out in the real world attack and kill each other over traded or perceived insults every • single • day. It happens at least once every day in my city alone.
Insults and taunts can absolutely start combats. What they don't do is play a significant role once the combat has already started.
It's probably a little of column A and a little of column B, to be honest. The fact that in Shadowrun a fast character can Dodge or Parry and still attack (potentially more than once) in the same round definitely makes Dodge a more appealing option, but I think the same character would just attack on every initiative pass if taking damage didn't accrue wound penalties. It's that combination of things, both the seriousness of taking damage and also the ability to dodge while simultaneously taking aggressive action, that makes dodging work. L5R works similarly in that the first combatant to get hit almost always loses, and parrying not only protects you but also gives you an opening to counterattack.
That said, I do agree the core issue is action economy. D&D will probably never add wound penalties (nor do I think they should), and even if they did, dodging would still be a fully passive action for any non-Goblin, non-Rogue-non-Monk. Players just aren't going to want to do that. If D&D wants to encourage players to use Dodge (and I'm not sure it does?) they would need to make the action generate offensive momentum in a way that's lateral with an attack action.
It could also work to change Dodge to be a reaction that somehow penalizes the user's next turn, but I think that only marginally improves it compared to how it works now. You're losing an action later instead of now, but you're still losing it.
Fundamentally, dodge is "reduce (party) outgoing damage by X% to reduce (party) incoming damage by Y%". If X > Y, dodge is bad. If X < Y, dodge is good. The actual consequences of damage don't matter a lot, though if for some reason a character's offense is already very low (including stacked wound penalties), losing actions to dodge doesn't cost a lot because those actions weren't very valuable to start with.
It is part of role play. Funny how you just said there is no taunt mechanic and then give an example of a taunt mechanic =)
There is also the Battle Master's Goading Attack.
Verbal taunts can also work in conjunction with Booming Blade. Yes, still role play but backed by 'If you move away from me, *Boom*'
True, the role play aspect may only work for a short time with a dodge. It also may only work once. Sometimes it only takes once.
"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
Homebrewing is adding something to the game that doesn’t exist, particularly something with some kind of game mechanics attached to it. Just having an enemy react to a situation (like being insulted by someone who you’re already in a fight with) in a manner befitting that creature (such as attacking their impolite antagonist, provided the insults are understood and recognized), that’s not “homebrew,” that’s just called “playing D&D.”
I see two major flaws with that statement:
As a DM, if a PC in one of my games were to shout “your father was a gnome, and your mother smelled like lavender soap!” at an ogre I’m running in the middle of combat, provided that character is reasonably convenient to attack, I would seriously consider having that ogre bypass other PCs and prioritize that smartmouthed one unless doing so would be obviously detrimental to that ogre. For example, if the ogre would draw OAs from 3 other PCs, that ogre’s pro’ly not gonna draw that many attacks from them just to go attack the smartmouth. But if it could beat a relatively safe path directly to the smartmouth… oh yeah ogre gonna go shut that mouth up. Even without using one of the taunting mechanics I listed above, that’s just realistic RP.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I haven't played 6E Shadowrun, but in older editions, dodging was done closer to the way D&D handles Armor Class- you rolled your Dodge and compared it to the enemy's attack roll. If you had more successes than they did, the attack missed, but even if you didn't then the number of successes you got still reduced the effectiveness of the attack, making it easier to resist it. And you could make a dodge attempt against one attack per round without having to declare an action.
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.
Dodge certainly has it's place. One of the melees at my table uses it constantly. I personally dislike taking the dodge action. I want to hit things, not simply avoid being hit. I will dodge in emergencies or if I am playing a glass that can compel attacks or just trashes things with automatic AOE such as spirit guardians.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
For example, the target is dodging and there are actually dangerous people around? Even for stupid monsters, my rule of thumb for aggro is "who hurt me worst recently" and it would only be distracted by insults if actually hadn't taken any damage from anyone.
Feelings can get hurt too ya know. #stopbullying The fight is real, don’t dismiss that ogre’s emotions.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
At the end of the day, anything not using a feature is not going to be particularly consistent across multiple tables, so it has limited weight in validating a combination dependent on it being accepted. And, frankly, it’s still not really worth burning your Action to Dodge in an attempt to draw a little aggro. You’re actually just drawing combat out like that and still potentially taking damage without doing anything to make the fight end sooner.
Dodging is undesirable from a game-play point of view, it is boring and causes fights to last longer - and long fights is something everyone complains about already. So it's actually a good thing that it isn't all that powerful. Cover is a much better & more interesting situational defensive buff.
In the old Marvel Superheroes RPG, dodge was very potent. In 5e terms, it probably is more like a REACTION that contests against the incoming attack. Winning the contest means the dodger comes out untouched and undamaged. It was not useful in AOE style attacks though unless you had the movement to rationalize it.
i like to create things ... Check out my magic items!
I also illustrate and paint Dungeons & Dragons and Eberron scenes, creatures, and characters https://www.albertholaso.com/illustration COMMISION ME!
Commission me! Follow me on Bluesky!
So a DM should portray all the monsters and NPCs as bots during combat, nothing more than either A) mindless automatons that only ever attack what’s directly in front of them, or B) soulless automatons that operate on a strict target priority subroutine and attack whatever target is most optimal, and C) a player has to have their PC utilize something with a specifically mechanical in game effect to cause any of the monsters or NPCs to deviate one iota from either of those predetermined courses? Under absolutely no other circumstances should a monster or NPC act in any other way? The DM should be completely prohibited from having monsters or NPCs display any semblance of individual decision making, or personal wants or preferences, or emotional response to outside stimuli? Under absolutely no circumstances should a monster or NPC take personal offense to anything a PC says or does and decide to act on that emotion without a specify and explicitly written out game mechanic attached to it whatsoever? Gotcha.
Lo and behold all these here past long 30+ years I’ve been playing D&D wrong. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart, I genuinely appreciate you pointing out the error in my ways. No no, I mean it, I cannot possibly thank you enough for correcting me. What in the world would I have ever done without your having pointed out how incredibly wrong I’ve been doing things this whole time? Thank God the D&D police never caught me. How, oh how, can I ever possibly repay you for teaching me this fundamental truth of D&D?No, but seriously, what you’re describing is essentially an RPG, with no R, and only a little bit of P, and that’s just not for me. It seems like… like ice cream without any flavoring, or sex without the passion. If that’s what you’re into, then by all means, get down with your bad self. After all, there is no wrong way to play D&D. 🤨 But for me? Me, I’d rather roll over panting and sweaty with an irresistible urge to head to my nearest Baskin-Robbins and try one of those little tiny tasting spoons from each of the 31 flavors on offer. To each their own I guess.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No, but he should also avoid giving the PCs supernatural abilities that they didn't pay for. Taunts are a thing you use when not fighting, in actual combat everyone has higher priorities than even listening to the taunts.
It's not necessarily supernatural. It's the DM's responsibility to adjudicate that, that's why we have DM's.
Just because creatures are in a fight doesn't mean they won't or don't listen or pay attention for whatever reason...maybe something the PC said hit to the core of his opponent. If you were the opponent and the player blurted out news about someone you loved that is in trouble and believable there's a chance something caught your attention and you may listen. ~ I was a collegiate wrestler, in the heat of the moment you may not hear everything, but things do come through.
i like to create things ... Check out my magic items!
I also illustrate and paint Dungeons & Dragons and Eberron scenes, creatures, and characters https://www.albertholaso.com/illustration COMMISION ME!
Commission me! Follow me on Bluesky!
It actually kind of does; at the time scale of D&D combat, a comment may not even register until after the combat is over. In any case, coming up with clever, insightful taunts sounds like a skill check (that would require an action, and thus preclude dodge).
No strawmen and absolutely no attacks. (Trust me, if I had attacked you, you would already be forced into admitting to at least yourself that words can in fact goad someone into action.)
Yes, you most certainly did in fact write that if the DM has a monster/NPC react to being insulted without there being some technical game mechanic attached to it then that DM is “being generous.” You wrote it I post #22:
You wrote it again in post #33:
And you wrote it again just now in your last response to me in post #38 (which I’ll include again below for a combination of completeness sake and my OCD nagging at me that I need to):
You explicitly wrote that such behavior is down to absolutely nothing more than DM generosity, and I say that’s 🐂💩. That’s absolutely, 100% pure, unadulterated, antibiotic free, certified organic, farm-to-table fresh, all natural 🐂💩 with no additives or preservatives.
Having a monster or NPC react plausibly to what the players have had their characters say and do is not “generosity,” it’s just “DMing.” It is in fact what DMs are supposed to do. Actually, not having monsters and NPCs react in ways that people in reality tend to react in various situations is far more unrealistic than having them react in those ways. People out in the real world attack and kill each other over traded or perceived insults every • single • day. It happens at least once every day in my city alone. Scale that globally and it’s irrefutably happening hundreds of times per day, every day. It’s irrefutable because such instances are actually being recorded as having happened every single day. So lemme ask you: if it happens lots of times every single day all over the world, then how is a DM portraying such behavior in any way unrealistic to the point of being labeled as “generosity” on that DM’s part?!? Riddle me that.
You also wrote “there is nothing about screaming insults at an enemy that is going to cause them to ignore people that are stabbing them because you hurt their feelings.” Seeing as how in this thread alone you’ve managed to demonstrate an unparalleled talent for completely ignoring what people are writing in response to you, I really shouldn’t be surprised that you’ve done it yet again in this instance. Allow me to draw your attention to something I wrote in my very first response to you way back in post #28:
You can clearly see that I specifically wrote that the monster or NPC would not intentionally act in a manner that would be detrimental to it. I specifically wrote that the monster would only likely prioritize an insulting PC if it could do so in a reasonable and rational way in a situation that was conducive to doing so. Furthermore, you also wrote “Any halfway intelligent humanoid is probably going to ignore an attempt to insult them, any stupid humanoid is going to be more worried about people actively trying to kill them, and any beasts/monstrosities/aberrations probably won't understand what you just said anyway.” Yet again, here you’ve demonstrated that you have completely ignored what I’ve actually written. So I will yet again draw your attention to something I wrote all the way the hell back in post #28:
You can clearly see for yourself that I specifically and explicitly wrote that the monster or NPC in question must A) be able to understand what is being said to them, B) be able to recognize those statements as intentional insults, and C) be of a temperament to react violently to such insults. I never said it would work on someone smart enough to not take the bait. As for the person currently under attack, I already addressed that situation in my last paragraph. And I also clearly excluded any creatures who “[wouldn’t] understand what [they] just said anyway” by means of my very first caveat, that they “must be able to understand what is being said to them.” That would automatically exclude beasts, most monstrosities and some aberrations (as many creatures of both types can in fact speak common and other languages). It would also clearly exclude most undead, plants, slimes, elementals, and constructs, as well as any celestials, dragons, fey, fiends, giants and humanoids who don’t happen to speak the language in which the insults are being issued.
So, why do you keep repeatedly throwing out examples of monsters/NPCs who are under immediate threat of danger from other sources, or creatures incapable of understanding or comprehending the insults when I have already excluded them from the situation?!? Who’s the one throwing up strawmen to knock down? 🤨 Clearly not I sir. No, not I. I have been able to site and quote exact statements that you and I have both written to call out every comment of yours that I am arguing against, and back up every argument I am making. That’s called “evidence.” Do you have any to back up your claims? If so, please produce it. If not, then I believe this debate is quite over.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
At the end of the day, fights are the area where by design player options are restricted to their printed features and the actions described in the combat section. If nothing else, attempting to shout taunts is clearly not going to get wide enough acceptance to make the suggestion reliable general advice on a Dodge usage.
While words CAN instigate a violent reaction, they do not REQUIRE a reaction. When I was in the 7th grade, a kid on the school bus had initiative, and used his action to cast Vicious Mockery, by calling my mom a...W word. With my action, disadvantage or no I made an unarmed attack and struck him in the face. Repeatedly. here's the thing though: I chose violence. I did not HAVE to punch ol boy in the face. In other instances, I have handled similar situations with more maturity, and kept myself off the police blotter.
In D&D, I can /attempt/ to goad an opponent into attacking me. The DM chooses how to reply to that. If he chooses to hit the priest anyways, whether is mother is or is not a female canine, is irrelevant. I cannot punish him for attempting to hit the priest. There's no mechanic that requires the DM to respond. So dodge and insult doesn't work. The DM is under no requirement to attack me. As a DM, if the guy is dodging and weaving, I'm DEFINITLEY going to stick my sword into the priest, because my guy's probably smart and experienced enough to know he's being goaded and he can control his rage. What's my player going to do about it, fart in my general direction?
Now, if my player is say, a cavalier dodging, well now things are a bit different. If I swing at mr priest, the cavalier mechanically, gets to make an attack on me. That's still a choice I can make, but mechanically there's consequences, and while not guaranteed, I'm at least a bit more likely to try and beat the dodge, particularly if the cavalier is built to make those OA hurt with say booming blade and warcaster.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Insults and taunts can absolutely start combats. What they don't do is play a significant role once the combat has already started.
Who ever claimed that anything was “required?” Certainly not I.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting