And again, a "strategy" or "tactic" is an approach to take in a specific situation to achieve a specific goal. It isn't a universally useful, universally effective set of actions
There's not a lot of point to discussion of one-off tactics; an abstract tactic discussion should cover a tactic that's sufficiently broadly applicable that people are likely to actually encounter it. The reality is that (a) most characters aren't all that good at taunting, and (b) if the DM is allowing taunt as part of another action, "taunt and attack" will usually be a better choice than "taunt and dodge".
There is a vast gulf between "you should do this every single turn of every single combat" and "this will be useful maybe if you're lucking once in a campaign" and strategies exist across this spectrum, since as I previously pointed out there are lots of different ways to "taunt" it can actually come up pretty often. Dodging & taunting is actually pretty effective, if the action economy is not on your side. If you are facing a large number of attackers, Dodging can cause multiple enemies to completely waste their turn b/c all their attacks missed while only costing your party one action. Which is a net positive to your side, and much better than you spending your action to kill only 1 enemy. Times when the action economy are not in your party's favour are pretty common, it will happen if 1-2 of your allies are KOed during a boss battle and by avoiding being KOed yourself you give your healers a chance to get up the rest of your party, and it will happen if you're fighting a large group of enemies who beat your mage in initiative.
Times when the action economy are not in your party's favour are pretty common, it will happen if 1-2 of your allies are KOed during a boss battle and by avoiding being KOed yourself you give your healers a chance to get up the rest of your party, and it will happen if you're fighting a large group of enemies who beat your mage in initiative.
If I'm trying to buy time for the healers, I absolutely don't want them to ignore me. Which means I should attack, because 'taunt and attack' is way more convincing than 'taunt and dodge'.
Depends on the player. If the DM taunts the player, and the player reacts, then yes it will work. I'd say it's MORE likely to work because players are more emotionally invested in their PCs. At the end of the day, the player is going to make the choice on what to do if the DM taunts them. But if the player chooses to not take the bait, that's pretty much all there is to it.
The whole point is that sometime it might work and sometimes it might not. The idea should not be ignored based on if/maybe it might fail. We shouldn't be telling players don't try something risky on the off chance it won't work. It's RPG not computer where your choices are a drop down menu.
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?"
Maybe you should try it with your players and see what happens. Just for curiosity sake.
Give it a fair shake, see if dialog does anything to them and don't be silly and TELL them the creature is dodging, just tell them their attack is at disadvantage.
Actually, nevermind. Considering how some of you have been answering, your monsters don't talk and all of your encounters are combat only, boring whack a moles.
I still can't believe nobody talks in your games during combat. "We surrender!" "Please don't kill us!" no rules for that, kill them all. Oh wait, the players said that? Make a Persuasion check.
the surrendering monsters could roll persuasion. why not? it might influence an NPC the players brought or even another monster (to rage, to surrender as well, to run, etc). or maybe a high roll just grabs a player's attention and they decide their character's own personally set DC was below that roll. that all seems less important than ensuring that the npc or pc shouting "we surrender" as an attempt to persuade is using a full action to accomplish that persuasion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
The ogre was attacking this guy, but now Player X yelled an insult and is dodging:
If I don't attack him, he's going to be mad at me for "making" him waste his turn. "The ogre attacks Player X."
The ogre attacking Player X is less likely to hit because he is dodging. I am going to stick with attacking the guy he was attacking. "The ogre attacks Player Y."
How is this any different from absolutely any other time the DM is deciding who the enemies will attack? If the monster attacks the wizard who is concentrating on a spell, the player will be mad at me for "making" them waste their spellslot because they immediately drop the spell. If the monster attacks the player with the lowest hp, the player will be mad at me for "killing" their character. If the monster ignores the paladin with Shield and AC of a zillion the player will be mad at me for punishing them for making a strong build. etc... etc....
If you as the DM are worried about your players being mad at you, then you need to talk to your players. Because that is not a healthy dynamic for the game. This is a game we are choosing to play in our spare time for fun, if you are afraid of what your players will think then you are not having fun and are spending hours of your life prepping & DMing just to be stressed & miserable.
"Monsters should have personalities, goals, needs, faults, and flaws." I know players who don't put that much effort into this for their PCs. I don't know a single DM who has written out all of these for mooks that are going to be in the world for all of 1 minute.
I mean if all you want out of D&D is a mindless hack-and-slash that is totally fine and your prerogative, but that's not how any of my tables play. In my games there are no "random encounters", every enemy has a reason for being where they are and doing what they are doing. It really doesn't take much time. E.g. we just finished an arc that climaxed with a battle against a cult inspired by Peter Pan. The combat involved: 1) Pan a satyr champion of the god Pan who wants everyone to love them and will force them to if necessary, but also loves tricks and trickery. 2) Groupies a bunch of female satyrs infatuated with Pan who will defend him at all costs - warlocks of Pan. 3) Lost Boys a bunch of young boys charmed by Pan into following him and given "everlasting youth" by being transformed into skeletons hidden under Hats of Disguise to appear like their original young boys selves. They do as Pan says because of the charm but if freed of the charm just want to go home. 4) 2x Doubting Thomases groupies who have fallen out of love with Pan and wants to get out but feels pressured by the cult to stay.
The players were captured by the cult and had various options of what to do, but Pan would not let them achieve their plot-goal without a fight.
It also is a slap in the face to the actual taunt/aggro mechanics that are in the game. It is a whole racial trait for the Kender, a Fighting Maneuver, the Guardian Armorers whole shtick, and the main draw of the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian subclass.
It is not because those are universally usable and don't require guessing about what would / wouldn't work on the enemies based on the enemy's personalities.
I mean if all you want out of D&D is a mindless hack-and-slash that is totally fine and your prerogative
You were saying something about straw men earlier, I believe... ?
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 you as the DM are worried about your players being mad at you, then you need to talk to your players.
You can't have it both ways. Either ignoring the dodging character is bad DMing, or it isn't. If it's bad DMing, the players have a legitimate beef. If it's not, they don't.
I mean if all you want out of D&D is a mindless hack-and-slash that is totally fine and your prerogative, but that's not how any of my tables play.
I pay attention to my monsters' motivations. However, as the saying is, 'actions speak louder than words', most monsters just aren't going to be convinced by dodge and taunt, because they're saying opposite things.
Maybe you should try it with your players and see what happens. Just for curiosity sake.
Give it a fair shake, see if dialog does anything to them and don't be silly and TELL them the creature is dodging, just tell them their attack is at disadvantage.
Actually, nevermind. Considering how some of you have been answering, your monsters don't talk and all of your encounters are combat only, boring whack a moles.
I still can't believe nobody talks in your games during combat. "We surrender!" "Please don't kill us!" no rules for that, kill them all. Oh wait, the players said that? Make a Persuasion check.
the surrendering monsters could roll persuasion. why not? it might influence an NPC the players brought or even another monster (to rage, to surrender as well, to run, etc). or maybe a high roll just grabs a player's attention and they decide their character's own personally set DC was below that roll. that all seems less important than ensuring that the npc or pc shouting "we surrender" as an attempt to persuade is using a full action to accomplish that persuasion.
An NPC Persuasion roll does nothing to PCs. Players choose their actions regardless of that kind of roll. No competent GM would make such a roll then tell the party they have to cooperate with the NPC. If you want to grab the players' attention then role it out not roll it out.
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?"
An NPC Persuasion roll does nothing to PCs. Players choose their actions regardless of that kind of roll. No competent GM would make such a roll then tell the party they have to cooperate with the NPC. If you want to grab the players' attention then role it out not roll it out.
Nothing in the rules for ability checks specifies that they can't be used on PCs, though I agree that it's generally bad for the game to use influence skills against PCs.
In any case, there are two basic ways to (verbally) interact with NPCs or monsters in a combat
Talk as part of your action. This is as effective as it would be on a PC. Sure, if I roleplay the goblin calling a PC nasty names then running off giggling and dodging there might be players who will decide to go after that goblin instead of doing something more important... but I've never met one, at least if the fight is one they consider challenging (PCs might do lots of dumb things in a fight they're certain to win... but if it's a fight that's an auto-win by the NPCs, dodge and taunt isn't really relevant as a tactic).
Use an influence skill as your action. If successful, this can cause the NPC to do something dumb.
If you as the DM are worried about your players being mad at you, then you need to talk to your players.
You can't have it both ways. Either ignoring the dodging character is bad DMing, or it isn't. If it's bad DMing, the players have a legitimate beef. If it's not, they don't.
I mean if all you want out of D&D is a mindless hack-and-slash that is totally fine and your prerogative, but that's not how any of my tables play.
I pay attention to my monsters' motivations. However, as the saying is, 'actions speak louder than words', most monsters just aren't going to be convinced by dodge and taunt, because they're saying opposite things.
100%. A stupid, proud NPC might bite on it. A NPC who has two brain cells to rub together isn't likely to give the PCs what they want. It really depends on the NPC, and as such is not a strategy that a player should rely on.
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.
Maybe you should try it with your players and see what happens. Just for curiosity sake.
Give it a fair shake, see if dialog does anything to them and don't be silly and TELL them the creature is dodging, just tell them their attack is at disadvantage.
Actually, nevermind. Considering how some of you have been answering, your monsters don't talk and all of your encounters are combat only, boring whack a moles.
I still can't believe nobody talks in your games during combat. "We surrender!" "Please don't kill us!" no rules for that, kill them all. Oh wait, the players said that? Make a Persuasion check.
the surrendering monsters could roll persuasion. why not? it might influence an NPC the players brought or even another monster (to rage, to surrender as well, to run, etc). or maybe a high roll just grabs a player's attention and they decide their character's own personally set DC was below that roll. that all seems less important than ensuring that the npc or pc shouting "we surrender" as an attempt to persuade is using a full action to accomplish that persuasion.
An NPC Persuasion roll does nothing to PCs. Players choose their actions regardless of that kind of roll. No competent GM would make such a roll then tell the party they have to cooperate with the NPC. If you want to grab the players' attention then role it out not roll it out.
a shy player can say "my character gives a speech" vs *player gives a speech* and they both get rolled as a skill check (unless the dm decides not to because failure isn't an option or else failure just became less interesting than riffing off that speech). stands to reason that the DM should be given the same courtesy. and even then, i don't think anyone's saying to remove player autonomy (not even for a nat 20). the roll informs player actions. kinda like alignment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
If you as the DM are worried about your players being mad at you, then you need to talk to your players.
You can't have it both ways. Either ignoring the dodging character is bad DMing, or it isn't. If it's bad DMing, the players have a legitimate beef. If it's not, they don't.
No, either always ignoring a dodging character or always attacking a dodging character regardless of circumstance is bad DMing. The reason we have DMs and not AIs running the game is so that circumstance & RP can influence the game based on the interpretation of the enemy's motivations by the DM. Interpretation of enemy's motivations is inherently subjective so the players have no grounds to challenge the DM's interpretation of the enemies that the DM has invented. The players are welcome to request clarification for why the enemy did what it did and the DM should answer so the players understand that DM's reasoning for the enemies but they can no more say for certain that the DM is wrong about what the enemy would do, than they could say the author of a novel or a writer of a TV show is wrong about what the characters would do.
A stupid, proud NPC might bite on it.
Yes, and lots and lots of players / tables like stupid, proud villains. If yours doesn't that's totally fine and you can have every villain act completely optimally, never giving evil villain monologues, never falling for tricks, traps or taunts, never overestimating their power or underestimating their opponents. But IME most tables enjoy over-the-top cartoon-y villains or hilariously stupid NPCs at least some of the time. This is indeed my argument that players should not use this strategy all the time, and it should not work against every enemy. It is up to the players to learn about the enemies and their motivations based on in-game information to figure out what will / work work on any particular enemy. Hence think strategically about the situation and pay attention to context clues given by the DM.
stands to reason that the DM should be given the same courtesy
No, sorry, PC autonomy is kind of the bedrock of the game. There's no "wiggle room" on that for me. I walked away from a campaign when one of the other players openly said, "Can I roll a Persuasion check to force the rest of the party to follow my plan?" (That was a final straw rather than a first infraction, but it was way over the line even for him)
I'd probably do the same if a DM did something similar with an NPC
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)
No, either always ignoring a dodging character or always attacking a dodging character regardless of circumstance is bad DMing.
Nice straw man. No-one is claiming that a dodging character will always be ignored. Just that they'll be ignored often enough that dodge and taunt is grossly unlikely to be a valuable tactic.
The players are welcome to request clarification for why the enemy did what it did and the DM should answer so the players understand that DM's reasoning for the enemies.
No, the DM should not answer unless the answer is something the PCs would actually have some way of knowing (and if possible but not obvious, did some work to find out).
stands to reason that the DM should be given the same courtesy
No, sorry, PC autonomy is kind of the bedrock of the game. There's no "wiggle room" on that for me. I walked away from a campaign when one of the other players openly said, "Can I roll a Persuasion check to force the rest of the party to follow my plan?" (That was a final straw rather than a first infraction, but it was way over the line even for him)
I'd probably do the same if a DM did something similar with an NPC
you're describing a proposed loss of autonomy on par with "i roll to seduce the dragon." skill checks aren't magic.
what i meant was that every NPC need not be judged on the quality of the DM's impassioned speech when the DM could instead be allowed to say "the NPC's beg for their life" and roll a die to represent their effort. would it be equally as off-putting if the dm instead asked a player to make an insight check to determine how believable the NPC performance was? then the player is holding the die, but it's still a die roll and you're still not forced to interpret it any other way than how you the player wish.
would it be equally as off-putting if the dm instead asked a player to make an insight check to determine how believable the NPC performance was? then the player is holding the die, but it's still a die roll and you're still not forced to interpret it any other way than how you the player wish.
There is a pretty huge difference between "Make an Insight check and do what you will with the information" and "Adjust how you play as a result of this successful Persuasion check", yeah
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)
No, either always ignoring a dodging character or always attacking a dodging character regardless of circumstance is bad DMing.
Nice straw man. No-one is claiming that a dodging character will always be ignored. Just that they'll be ignored often enough that dodge and taunt is grossly unlikely to be a valuable tactic.
You were the one to suggest that players have "legitimate beef" if the DM ignores their character dodging because that is "bad DMing", which implies that the DM should never do that, thus that enemies should never ignore the dodging character. I honestly don't really know what we are arguing about anymore since we seem to all be in agreement on the basic points:
Enemies should have personalities & motivations.
Players can use improvised actions as an action or speech / item interactions for free during their turn.
Players can use RP via #2 to influence the actions of the enemies by exploiting their personalities / motivations, based on the DM's interpretation of the situation.
I guess our disagreement is purely whether influencing the actions of the enemies is ever a valuable thing to do? Is that the point we are actually arguing about? Or are we arguing about whether reducing damage taken (i.e. dodging) is ever better than dealing damage (i.e. attacking)? The latter is always going to be "it depends", if the answer was "never" then we wouldn't see high-AC character builds or high-survivability character builds and everyone would play glass cannons at all times.
would it be equally as off-putting if the dm instead asked a player to make an insight check to determine how believable the NPC performance was? then the player is holding the die, but it's still a die roll and you're still not forced to interpret it any other way than how you the player wish.
There is a pretty huge difference between "Make an Insight check and do what you will with the information" and "Adjust how you play as a result of this successful Persuasion check", yeah
Should the DM ever use Charm spells or Charm abilities against the PCs? There are a whole host of monsters with such effects, are all of those monsters wrong / bad of the game?
would it be equally as off-putting if the dm instead asked a player to make an insight check to determine how believable the NPC performance was? then the player is holding the die, but it's still a die roll and you're still not forced to interpret it any other way than how you the player wish.
There is a pretty huge difference between "Make an Insight check and do what you will with the information" and "Adjust how you play as a result of this successful Persuasion check", yeah
the difference is as big as you like. one could just as easily flip it to "make an insight check to determine if you believe the lie" vs "now that you know the NPC was this persuasive, describe your reaction to that plea."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a vast gulf between "you should do this every single turn of every single combat" and "this will be useful maybe if you're lucking once in a campaign" and strategies exist across this spectrum, since as I previously pointed out there are lots of different ways to "taunt" it can actually come up pretty often. Dodging & taunting is actually pretty effective, if the action economy is not on your side. If you are facing a large number of attackers, Dodging can cause multiple enemies to completely waste their turn b/c all their attacks missed while only costing your party one action. Which is a net positive to your side, and much better than you spending your action to kill only 1 enemy. Times when the action economy are not in your party's favour are pretty common, it will happen if 1-2 of your allies are KOed during a boss battle and by avoiding being KOed yourself you give your healers a chance to get up the rest of your party, and it will happen if you're fighting a large group of enemies who beat your mage in initiative.
If I'm trying to buy time for the healers, I absolutely don't want them to ignore me. Which means I should attack, because 'taunt and attack' is way more convincing than 'taunt and dodge'.
The whole point is that sometime it might work and sometimes it might not. The idea should not be ignored based on if/maybe it might fail. We shouldn't be telling players don't try something risky on the off chance it won't work. It's RPG not computer where your choices are a drop down menu.
"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
the surrendering monsters could roll persuasion. why not? it might influence an NPC the players brought or even another monster (to rage, to surrender as well, to run, etc). or maybe a high roll just grabs a player's attention and they decide their character's own personally set DC was below that roll. that all seems less important than ensuring that the npc or pc shouting "we surrender" as an attempt to persuade is using a full action to accomplish that persuasion.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
How is this any different from absolutely any other time the DM is deciding who the enemies will attack? If the monster attacks the wizard who is concentrating on a spell, the player will be mad at me for "making" them waste their spellslot because they immediately drop the spell. If the monster attacks the player with the lowest hp, the player will be mad at me for "killing" their character. If the monster ignores the paladin with Shield and AC of a zillion the player will be mad at me for punishing them for making a strong build. etc... etc....
If you as the DM are worried about your players being mad at you, then you need to talk to your players. Because that is not a healthy dynamic for the game. This is a game we are choosing to play in our spare time for fun, if you are afraid of what your players will think then you are not having fun and are spending hours of your life prepping & DMing just to be stressed & miserable.
I mean if all you want out of D&D is a mindless hack-and-slash that is totally fine and your prerogative, but that's not how any of my tables play. In my games there are no "random encounters", every enemy has a reason for being where they are and doing what they are doing. It really doesn't take much time. E.g. we just finished an arc that climaxed with a battle against a cult inspired by Peter Pan. The combat involved:
1) Pan a satyr champion of the god Pan who wants everyone to love them and will force them to if necessary, but also loves tricks and trickery.
2) Groupies a bunch of female satyrs infatuated with Pan who will defend him at all costs - warlocks of Pan.
3) Lost Boys a bunch of young boys charmed by Pan into following him and given "everlasting youth" by being transformed into skeletons hidden under Hats of Disguise to appear like their original young boys selves. They do as Pan says because of the charm but if freed of the charm just want to go home.
4) 2x Doubting Thomases groupies who have fallen out of love with Pan and wants to get out but feels pressured by the cult to stay.
The players were captured by the cult and had various options of what to do, but Pan would not let them achieve their plot-goal without a fight.
It is not because those are universally usable and don't require guessing about what would / wouldn't work on the enemies based on the enemy's personalities.
You were saying something about straw men earlier, I believe... ?
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)
You can't have it both ways. Either ignoring the dodging character is bad DMing, or it isn't. If it's bad DMing, the players have a legitimate beef. If it's not, they don't.
I pay attention to my monsters' motivations. However, as the saying is, 'actions speak louder than words', most monsters just aren't going to be convinced by dodge and taunt, because they're saying opposite things.
An NPC Persuasion roll does nothing to PCs. Players choose their actions regardless of that kind of roll. No competent GM would make such a roll then tell the party they have to cooperate with the NPC. If you want to grab the players' attention then role it out not roll it out.
"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
Nothing in the rules for ability checks specifies that they can't be used on PCs, though I agree that it's generally bad for the game to use influence skills against PCs.
In any case, there are two basic ways to (verbally) interact with NPCs or monsters in a combat
100%. A stupid, proud NPC might bite on it. A NPC who has two brain cells to rub together isn't likely to give the PCs what they want. It really depends on the NPC, and as such is not a strategy that a player should rely on.
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
a shy player can say "my character gives a speech" vs *player gives a speech* and they both get rolled as a skill check (unless the dm decides not to because failure isn't an option or else failure just became less interesting than riffing off that speech). stands to reason that the DM should be given the same courtesy. and even then, i don't think anyone's saying to remove player autonomy (not even for a nat 20). the roll informs player actions. kinda like alignment.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Yes, and lots and lots of players / tables like stupid, proud villains. If yours doesn't that's totally fine and you can have every villain act completely optimally, never giving evil villain monologues, never falling for tricks, traps or taunts, never overestimating their power or underestimating their opponents. But IME most tables enjoy over-the-top cartoon-y villains or hilariously stupid NPCs at least some of the time. This is indeed my argument that players should not use this strategy all the time, and it should not work against every enemy. It is up to the players to learn about the enemies and their motivations based on in-game information to figure out what will / work work on any particular enemy. Hence think strategically about the situation and pay attention to context clues given by the DM.
No, sorry, PC autonomy is kind of the bedrock of the game. There's no "wiggle room" on that for me. I walked away from a campaign when one of the other players openly said, "Can I roll a Persuasion check to force the rest of the party to follow my plan?" (That was a final straw rather than a first infraction, but it was way over the line even for him)
I'd probably do the same if a DM did something similar with an NPC
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)
Nice straw man. No-one is claiming that a dodging character will always be ignored. Just that they'll be ignored often enough that dodge and taunt is grossly unlikely to be a valuable tactic.
No, the DM should not answer unless the answer is something the PCs would actually have some way of knowing (and if possible but not obvious, did some work to find out).
you're describing a proposed loss of autonomy on par with "i roll to seduce the dragon." skill checks aren't magic.
what i meant was that every NPC need not be judged on the quality of the DM's impassioned speech when the DM could instead be allowed to say "the NPC's beg for their life" and roll a die to represent their effort. would it be equally as off-putting if the dm instead asked a player to make an insight check to determine how believable the NPC performance was? then the player is holding the die, but it's still a die roll and you're still not forced to interpret it any other way than how you the player wish.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
There is a pretty huge difference between "Make an Insight check and do what you will with the information" and "Adjust how you play as a result of this successful Persuasion check", yeah
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)
Well said! I remembered pack tactics but I completely forgot about the rogues :D
I guess our disagreement is purely whether influencing the actions of the enemies is ever a valuable thing to do? Is that the point we are actually arguing about? Or are we arguing about whether reducing damage taken (i.e. dodging) is ever better than dealing damage (i.e. attacking)? The latter is always going to be "it depends", if the answer was "never" then we wouldn't see high-AC character builds or high-survivability character builds and everyone would play glass cannons at all times.
Should the DM ever use Charm spells or Charm abilities against the PCs? There are a whole host of monsters with such effects, are all of those monsters wrong / bad of the game?
the difference is as big as you like. one could just as easily flip it to "make an insight check to determine if you believe the lie" vs "now that you know the NPC was this persuasive, describe your reaction to that plea."
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!