To clarify, when i say taunt, i'm talking in MMO Tanking terms where to taunt an enemy means to draw it's aggression towards you so that it doesn't attack others
So I run a Paladin tank and I've started considering multi-classing and one of the things i considered is taking a class that has the Cantrip friends which reads as follows:
"For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn’t hostile toward you. When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM’s discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it."
So say you're in the middle of an encounter and you want to make a specific enemy come running after you, or maybe to try and peel someone off of one of your little glass cannons, so i use the cantrip friends on them and then just immediately break concentration, from this point on my interpretation is that the character you used friends on becomes aware that you cast friends on it and it becomes hostile towards you and if that opponent is say a creature or a monster like say a Raptor or something, that is prone to violence and therefore it should now start coming after you. I know ultimately it comes down to the DM's decision but do you think friends could be used this way or is it too weak an argument to even consider?
It could maybe be used that way to intentionally START combat encounters, but if you're already in a fight then the creature is likely already hostile towards you. If that quote is how the spell is worded, the creature wouldn't be a valid target.
At least that's how I'd see it. I like where your mind is at however.
It could maybe be used that way to intentionally START combat encounters, but if you're already in a fight then the creature is likely already hostile towards you. If that quote is how the spell is worded, the creature wouldn't be a valid target.
At least that's how I'd see it. I like where your mind is at however.
that's how it's worded in the PHB, the way i see the beginning though it just gives me advantage on Charisma checks if they aren't hostile towards me, but if they are hostile towards me then i simply won't get the advantage, but it doesn't say i can't cast it on hostile creatures. essentially i'm ignoring the main purpose of the spell and going for it's after-effects, the creature may be hostile towards me yes, but i feel in general it would be hostile to my whole party, if i can use this spell to focus it's hostility specifically on me then in that way i feel like it could be used as a taunt to keep them off my glass cannons.
If I were the DM I'd lean towards no. My thinking is, the enemy isalready hostile towards you - but it's also already hostile to everyone else in the party. I'm not convinced that casting (and then immediately breaking) a cantrip on that enemy would significantly alter how hostile it feels towards you vs. everyone else it's hostile towards. It still hates you, but it still hates everyone else too. So unless you can come up with a really good reason why casting this cantrip on the enemy would especially piss it off, I'd say it has no appreciable effect.
However, I would allow you to make a Persuasion check to goad the enemy into attacking you. There are definitely non-magical ways to draw aggro.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
If I were the DM I'd lean towards no. My thinking is, the enemy isalready hostile towards you - but it's also already hostile to everyone else in the party. I'm not convinced that casting (and then immediately breaking) a cantrip on that enemy would significantly alter how hostile it feels towards you vs. everyone else it's hostile towards. It still hates you, but it still hates everyone else too. So unless you can come up with a really good reason why casting this cantrip on the enemy would especially piss it off, I'd say it has no appreciable effect.
However, I would allow you to make a Persuasion check to goad the enemy into attacking you. There are definitely non-magical ways to draw aggro.
fair enough, thanks for insight, still new to dnd and i'm just seeing if there are other ways to improve my tanking ability and when i saw how friends was worded, this is what immediately what flowed into my head, i just didn't know if it could actually WORK that way since in all realism that's not what the spirit of the spell is, but from other posts i've seen part of the fun of dnd is looking for those little loopholes :)
Yeah, the obstacle is not that the effect of the spell doesn't accomplish what you want, it's that you cannot target an already-hostile creature with the spell in the first place. There are other spells and abilities that more clearly taunt by giving the foe disadvantage for attacks against other targets than yourself, or which force them to make a will save before attempting to target someone else, but I agree that it would make sense to have an action-to-cast cantrip that can do the same thing.
If you were to try to homebrew a "Taunt" cantrip, you might look at the spectrum between Vicious Mockery and Compelled Duel. VM asks for a wis save, has 60 foot range, hands out disadvantage to any one attack against any target, and has damage on top of it to boot, but only lasts one round. CD asks for a wis save, has 30 foot range, lasts a whole minute, hands out disadvantage on attacks against other targets, and puts a hard restriction on movement unless another wis save is made, but requires concentration and takes up a 1st level spell slot. If I were to try to make a cantrip version of CD, I'd suggest maybe: wisdom save, 10 foot range, one-round duration, no concentration, disadvantage on all attacks against targets other than yourself. That's better than VM for tanking (since it affects all attacks and not just one), but is balanced by having no damage and a shorter range and letting them attack yourself without disadvantage, which is unlikely to force them into hazardous terrain that they weren't already subjected to, since the range is so short. It's honestly probably not a great use of your action to taunt (hitting something hard is probably better), so you might even tack on an extra effect like gaining your spellcasting ability modifier in temp hp for one round?
Kind of on the same topic... I liked that in 4e the system actually described to DM's how tanking should work in combat, essentially telling them if a character has "marked" a target (handed out a penalty to the enemy on attacks not targeting the marking character), the monster should respect the taunt in all but the most extreme of situations. I think that's good guidance for DM's in 5th edition too; don't risk making your players feel like they've "wasted" taunting-type abilities by just having them take their chances with disadvantage, actually play your combat in a way that respects the choices that players are trying to make. You aren't going to find very many spells or abilities in 5e that say "monster absolutely must do x", but that doesn't mean that that you shouldn't let player's choices influence how your monsters make combat decisions, even if all they're doing is burning their action to make an intimidation check unsupported by any other special ability.
I agree with everyone so far with Friends not being able to be used in the way you are describing but I think there are other ways to accomplish what you're trying to achieve.
For one, you could just try to persuade/goad/intimidate the enemy into focusing on you rather than your companions. If any of my players where to try that I would get them to RP what they say and make a skillcheck.
Coming for my perspective as a DM, when I create encounters I always ask the question "what is the key motive for XYZ monster attacking the party", this allows me to work out how the monsters will behave.
For example, if I'm playing scavengers such as hyenas, they will always go for the one that appears to be the weakest so they can kill one off, drag them away and feast. They're not out to kill the party, they just want a quick meal.
However, on the flipside, if you're attacked by my bandits, they're intelligent to know who most likely is the biggest threat and focus on them. This would usually be the one that is doing the most damage or being the most frustrating in combat.
Got a shield? Keep bashing prone with your shield and mocking them as you do it.
They attack your ally? Either impose disadvantage or stab them in the back, whilst mocking them.
I feel if you were fighting any ill-tempered enemy, that would miss them off enough to pay attention to you.
That being said, these tactics might not work against your BBEG as he's probably more intelligent and can think strategically.
If you have a cleric in the party, he may know to wipe him out as fast as he can as he'll be the one casting healing spells on the party.
Thats just how I would run my game or play my paladin though. :)
Yes, I'd agree with the others - the cantrip wouldn't work in the middle of battle in the way you want to use it.
'Hostile' also doesn't necessarily mean 'attack you' either. As the spell description states, they're just aware that you cast the spell - and they're likely mighty peeved that you've tried to manipulate them through Charisma based checks. If they're prone to violence, then it might lead them to lash out in anger.
I like your idea of wanting to try and goad enemies into attacking you - especially if they're attacking weaker members of the party. As a Paladin, there's ways to build your character around that ethos. The fighting style 'protection' for example fits well with it.
As an example, the cheeky halfling bard in our group frustrates enemies by standing on the sidelines making up taunting tunes. As an action, I often allow him to make a Performance attempt, which in some cases leads a creature to turn their attention to the bard. Perhaps you could ask if you're able to make a Performance check in a similar way? Or as others have said, something like Intimidate or Persuade.
Yes, I'd agree with the others - the cantrip wouldn't work in the middle of battle in the way you want to use it.
'Hostile' also doesn't necessarily mean 'attack you' either. As the spell description states, they're just aware that you cast the spell - and they're likely mighty peeved that you've tried to manipulate them through Charisma based checks. If they're prone to violence, then it might lead them to lash out in anger.
I like your idea of wanting to try and goad enemies into attacking you - especially if they're attacking weaker members of the party. As a Paladin, there's ways to build your character around that ethos. The fighting style 'protection' for example fits well with it.
As an example, the cheeky halfling bard in our group frustrates enemies by standing on the sidelines making up taunting tunes. As an action, I often allow him to make a Performance attempt, which in some cases leads a creature to turn their attention to the bard. Perhaps you could ask if you're able to make a Performance check in a similar way? Or as others have said, something like Intimidate or Persuade.
I do like the idea of using something like a Persuasion or Intimidation or something check to try and get enemies to attack me, but unfortunately that only works on creatures that can speak the languages that I speak and unfortunately i don't think a Frogehemoth can speak common lol, still it's a good idea for when we come up against someone who can speak the same language as me so i'll keep that in mind. Also i do run protection for my fighting stance, it's actually helped a lot, i've stopped a couple crit hits on my team using it and have more often than not just made attacks straight up fail.
Of course, taunting doesn't have to involve speaking at all! Morpheus goaded Neo into attacking with a simple hand gesture in The Matrix.
Skills don't necessarily have to involve speaking. Intimidate could be blocking a door with your imposing presence, arms folded and a 'don't even try it' look on your face.
Persuasion could be a pleading look over a meal, asking an NPC not to reveal a secret to the rest of the group.
Performance could include showboating in an enemies peripheral vision, frustrating them with cocksure dance moves as the battle rages about you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To clarify, when i say taunt, i'm talking in MMO Tanking terms where to taunt an enemy means to draw it's aggression towards you so that it doesn't attack others
So I run a Paladin tank and I've started considering multi-classing and one of the things i considered is taking a class that has the Cantrip friends which reads as follows:
"For the duration, you have advantage on all Charisma checks directed at one creature of your choice that isn’t hostile toward you. When the spell ends, the creature realizes that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile toward you. A creature prone to violence might attack you. Another creature might seek retribution in other ways (at the DM’s discretion), depending on the nature of your interaction with it."
So say you're in the middle of an encounter and you want to make a specific enemy come running after you, or maybe to try and peel someone off of one of your little glass cannons, so i use the cantrip friends on them and then just immediately break concentration, from this point on my interpretation is that the character you used friends on becomes aware that you cast friends on it and it becomes hostile towards you and if that opponent is say a creature or a monster like say a Raptor or something, that is prone to violence and therefore it should now start coming after you. I know ultimately it comes down to the DM's decision but do you think friends could be used this way or is it too weak an argument to even consider?
It could maybe be used that way to intentionally START combat encounters, but if you're already in a fight then the creature is likely already hostile towards you. If that quote is how the spell is worded, the creature wouldn't be a valid target.
At least that's how I'd see it. I like where your mind is at however.
that's how it's worded in the PHB, the way i see the beginning though it just gives me advantage on Charisma checks if they aren't hostile towards me, but if they are hostile towards me then i simply won't get the advantage, but it doesn't say i can't cast it on hostile creatures. essentially i'm ignoring the main purpose of the spell and going for it's after-effects, the creature may be hostile towards me yes, but i feel in general it would be hostile to my whole party, if i can use this spell to focus it's hostility specifically on me then in that way i feel like it could be used as a taunt to keep them off my glass cannons.
If I were the DM I'd lean towards no. My thinking is, the enemy is already hostile towards you - but it's also already hostile to everyone else in the party. I'm not convinced that casting (and then immediately breaking) a cantrip on that enemy would significantly alter how hostile it feels towards you vs. everyone else it's hostile towards. It still hates you, but it still hates everyone else too. So unless you can come up with a really good reason why casting this cantrip on the enemy would especially piss it off, I'd say it has no appreciable effect.
However, I would allow you to make a Persuasion check to goad the enemy into attacking you. There are definitely non-magical ways to draw aggro.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
fair enough, thanks for insight, still new to dnd and i'm just seeing if there are other ways to improve my tanking ability and when i saw how friends was worded, this is what immediately what flowed into my head, i just didn't know if it could actually WORK that way since in all realism that's not what the spirit of the spell is, but from other posts i've seen part of the fun of dnd is looking for those little loopholes :)
Yeah, the obstacle is not that the effect of the spell doesn't accomplish what you want, it's that you cannot target an already-hostile creature with the spell in the first place. There are other spells and abilities that more clearly taunt by giving the foe disadvantage for attacks against other targets than yourself, or which force them to make a will save before attempting to target someone else, but I agree that it would make sense to have an action-to-cast cantrip that can do the same thing.
If you were to try to homebrew a "Taunt" cantrip, you might look at the spectrum between Vicious Mockery and Compelled Duel. VM asks for a wis save, has 60 foot range, hands out disadvantage to any one attack against any target, and has damage on top of it to boot, but only lasts one round. CD asks for a wis save, has 30 foot range, lasts a whole minute, hands out disadvantage on attacks against other targets, and puts a hard restriction on movement unless another wis save is made, but requires concentration and takes up a 1st level spell slot. If I were to try to make a cantrip version of CD, I'd suggest maybe: wisdom save, 10 foot range, one-round duration, no concentration, disadvantage on all attacks against targets other than yourself. That's better than VM for tanking (since it affects all attacks and not just one), but is balanced by having no damage and a shorter range and letting them attack yourself without disadvantage, which is unlikely to force them into hazardous terrain that they weren't already subjected to, since the range is so short. It's honestly probably not a great use of your action to taunt (hitting something hard is probably better), so you might even tack on an extra effect like gaining your spellcasting ability modifier in temp hp for one round?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Kind of on the same topic... I liked that in 4e the system actually described to DM's how tanking should work in combat, essentially telling them if a character has "marked" a target (handed out a penalty to the enemy on attacks not targeting the marking character), the monster should respect the taunt in all but the most extreme of situations. I think that's good guidance for DM's in 5th edition too; don't risk making your players feel like they've "wasted" taunting-type abilities by just having them take their chances with disadvantage, actually play your combat in a way that respects the choices that players are trying to make. You aren't going to find very many spells or abilities in 5e that say "monster absolutely must do x", but that doesn't mean that that you shouldn't let player's choices influence how your monsters make combat decisions, even if all they're doing is burning their action to make an intimidation check unsupported by any other special ability.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I agree with everyone so far with Friends not being able to be used in the way you are describing but I think there are other ways to accomplish what you're trying to achieve.
For one, you could just try to persuade/goad/intimidate the enemy into focusing on you rather than your companions. If any of my players where to try that I would get them to RP what they say and make a skillcheck.
Coming for my perspective as a DM, when I create encounters I always ask the question "what is the key motive for XYZ monster attacking the party", this allows me to work out how the monsters will behave.
For example, if I'm playing scavengers such as hyenas, they will always go for the one that appears to be the weakest so they can kill one off, drag them away and feast. They're not out to kill the party, they just want a quick meal.
However, on the flipside, if you're attacked by my bandits, they're intelligent to know who most likely is the biggest threat and focus on them. This would usually be the one that is doing the most damage or being the most frustrating in combat.
Got a shield? Keep bashing prone with your shield and mocking them as you do it.
They attack your ally? Either impose disadvantage or stab them in the back, whilst mocking them.
I feel if you were fighting any ill-tempered enemy, that would miss them off enough to pay attention to you.
That being said, these tactics might not work against your BBEG as he's probably more intelligent and can think strategically.
If you have a cleric in the party, he may know to wipe him out as fast as he can as he'll be the one casting healing spells on the party.
Thats just how I would run my game or play my paladin though. :)
Yes, I'd agree with the others - the cantrip wouldn't work in the middle of battle in the way you want to use it.
'Hostile' also doesn't necessarily mean 'attack you' either. As the spell description states, they're just aware that you cast the spell - and they're likely mighty peeved that you've tried to manipulate them through Charisma based checks. If they're prone to violence, then it might lead them to lash out in anger.
I like your idea of wanting to try and goad enemies into attacking you - especially if they're attacking weaker members of the party. As a Paladin, there's ways to build your character around that ethos. The fighting style 'protection' for example fits well with it.
As an example, the cheeky halfling bard in our group frustrates enemies by standing on the sidelines making up taunting tunes. As an action, I often allow him to make a Performance attempt, which in some cases leads a creature to turn their attention to the bard. Perhaps you could ask if you're able to make a Performance check in a similar way? Or as others have said, something like Intimidate or Persuade.
I do like the idea of using something like a Persuasion or Intimidation or something check to try and get enemies to attack me, but unfortunately that only works on creatures that can speak the languages that I speak and unfortunately i don't think a Frogehemoth can speak common lol, still it's a good idea for when we come up against someone who can speak the same language as me so i'll keep that in mind. Also i do run protection for my fighting stance, it's actually helped a lot, i've stopped a couple crit hits on my team using it and have more often than not just made attacks straight up fail.
Of course, taunting doesn't have to involve speaking at all! Morpheus goaded Neo into attacking with a simple hand gesture in The Matrix.
Skills don't necessarily have to involve speaking. Intimidate could be blocking a door with your imposing presence, arms folded and a 'don't even try it' look on your face.
Persuasion could be a pleading look over a meal, asking an NPC not to reveal a secret to the rest of the group.
Performance could include showboating in an enemies peripheral vision, frustrating them with cocksure dance moves as the battle rages about you.