As i read through the posts of this thread a mostly agreed with all opinions but i can unserstand the difficulty of the creator of this thread when you as a GM have to decide whether the "role-played" insult distracts or not distracts the enemy.
You can reasonably always argue that the one frying you with magic is always taunting more than the one just shouting at you insulting you're mother you have no love for because she left you and your family when you were 3.
But on the other side taunting your sister a whore that saved you from starvation and freezing in your youth will surely enrage you beat the dirt-mouthed swordswinger to the ground and pound him to pieces until he laughs.
So the decision in any "social" situation is always: Does your "argueing" impress the NPC?
The rules for those interactions are solved by the core rules in serveral ways.
Nearly always there is a skill check against DC based on the HD/lvl of the NPC when used in combat.
The problem with taunts is that PCs and NPCs have the same options in Pathfinder.
Forcing a player to fight a certain foe is non-fun. Part of the pleasure of combat is choosing from a range of options and losing those options is annoying.
The occasional spell that controls your character is okay but regularly being forced to fight a certain foe would be boring.
As others have said, RP is the way to go, it's also one of the things that makes tabletop RPGs distinctive from computer rpgs.
@GeraintElberion
From my point of you apply double standards because you allow charm spells that can make a PC do really bad things (Dominate spells) but don't allow mundane means to work also.I agree that it would be boring to be always forced to attack an enemy you don't want to but on the other hand it is possible not to fight at all if you are effected by a mundane fear effect like "Terrifing Howl" of the barbarian or ripped to pieces by a rogue that feints you and sneak attacks you for plenty of damage.
So my opinion is:
If you accept taunting as a combat based mind-effecting action like Demoralize or a "Charm Person" "Fear" or other spell you should use either Intimidate or Bluff for this purpose because in both cases the core rules cover their use in a combat round concerning actions DC etc.
Diplomacy does not cover those circumstances and inventing a new skill is not necessary.
In my experience, people claim they want an aggro mechanic in D&D/PF, but they don't.
They want a mechanic that looks like aggro, but affects everyone but them.
What would actually happen if they announced their actions, and were told "You can't"?
And then had to watch as the GM took control of their actions to fit his idea of what the 'proper' reaction would be?"That wizard is frying us! But I can charge him from here."
"No, you're not. You're going over there to get your face caved in by the troll in fullplate."
"£$%^&*()!!!!"You'd pitch a purple-faced fit, and flip the table over.
This.
So I take it none of you in here has seen a good action movie in the last decade? Wow what a bunch of losers. No wonder your sucky GM's think taunting will never work.
In case you were wondering that was a taunt, and I bet that after reading that someone will immediately post a flaming retaliatory comment about me and my mother. I don't mind because it only serves to prove my point. Yes in a truly militaristic setting taunting will have little effect, the other side is trained not ignore taunts. But in a smaller setting, with a group of adventurers a Fighter, cleric, Paladin, aka Tank character can taught some of the lesser guys into attacking him. Hell if he is a really good trash talker he could probably distract the big baddy too.
It is vary easy to handle with one feet
Taunt
Use Bluff to make a demoralize check.
Then the GM should just act everything out accordingly
Again incase anyone missed it the bigging of the post was a deminstration of a taunt and in no way represents my views of anyone's GM style or intellegence.
I don't mind because it only serves to prove my point.
To prove your point, I think you'd need to get someone to flame you back while a third person was firing a grenade launcher at them.
Which, I think, is kind of the anti-taunt point -- most intelligent creatures just aren't going to ignore a big threat to their life just because a smaller threat to their life is mouthy.
The idea that taunts don't work on the intelligent is pretty weird.
I mean, lowering your defenses and accepting a 1 vs 1 challenge against the protagonist is pretty much what evil wizards do.
No the point is that a taunt only serves to get another person's attantion, any attantion gained because of a taunt is a benifit,so hey thanks for proving my point. APG has the same taunt feat I discribed, it is a simple demoralization check with bluff insted of intimidate.
Besides your thinking that the bad guys now who exactly is the dangerous one "Oh! that guy right there is in the back kill him first before this big guy with a sword shouting at me because the smaller guy is more dangerous" Worst case of metagaming I have ever heard and if it was my game you can bet I would turn that smaller guy into something huge.
btw sorry for my grammer/spelling I'm on my phone
Besides your thinking that the bad guys now who exactly is the dangerous one "Oh! that guy right there is in the back kill him first before this big guy with a sword shouting at me because the smaller guy is more dangerous" Worst case of metagaming I have ever heard and if it was my game you can bet I would turn that smaller guy into something huge.
Thinking "the scrawny guy in robes casting spells is probably more dangerous and a softer target than the guy with a sword in full plate" isn't metagaming. That's actually the exact opposite of metagaming.
Just cause you know he's a caster before the fight starts doesn't mean every NPC knows he's a caster. Besides your so involved in trying to prove me worng you wouldn't notice someone with a rocket launcher if they were right next to you.
Taunt does work, it is all a question of timeing and distence, like any tactic
So I take it none of you in here has seen a good action movie in the last decade? Wow what a bunch of losers. No wonder your sucky GM's think taunting will never work.
In case you were wondering that was a taunt, and I bet that after reading that someone will immediately post a flaming retaliatory comment about me and my mother. I don't mind because it only serves to prove my point. Yes in a truly militaristic setting taunting will have little effect, the other side is trained not ignore taunts. But in a smaller setting, with a group of adventurers a Fighter, cleric, Paladin, aka Tank character can taught some of the lesser guys into attacking him. Hell if he is a really good trash talker he could probably distract the big baddy too.
It is vary easy to handle with one feet
Taunt
Use Bluff to make a demoralize check.Then the GM should just act everything out accordingly
Again incase anyone missed it the bigging of the post was a deminstration of a taunt and in no way represents my views of anyone's GM style or intellegence.
This application of a taunt would work quite well. In fact, I think I'll steal it. However, it's not what the OP asked for. He asked, "is there a way a fighter can outsmart a foe to engage him rather than a weaker target ?"
He's asking about an aggro mechanic like modern MMORPGs. Giving an opponent a small penalty, then allowing him to continue to avoid the fighter and continue to bash the wizard is not even the same thing as forcing the baddie to attack the Fighter.
Well, when i asked that question i already checked various methods, all of which have been as well reported on the thread. Effectively there isn't such a thing like the equivalent of the "aggro" from MMORPGs but that is perfectly reasonable when playing a tabletop game.
The fact a foe "will" or "could" choose to change target depends on too many factors to be handled by a skill check. Of course at a table top game spell casters have other ways of "get rid of aggro".
I was looking through the feats for something else but I found this
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10+ the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
It is in Ultimate Magic if you are wondering where I found it. Hope it helps!
I was looking through the feats for something else but I found this ** spoiler omitted **
It is in Ultimate Magic if you are wondering where I found it. Hope it helps!
This thread is from 2010. Almost exactly 3 years ago.
I think the best way for mundane characters to have an aggro mechanic wouldn't be a "fail a save and you are forced to attack me" thing, but rather a mechanic that caused a considerable penalty to opponents who chose to ignore said character (or gave a nice bonus to the character's allies).
e.g.: A feat that makes opponents you threaten unable to make AoO. A feat that makes it so your enemies treat squares you threaten as difficult terrain.
No one like having their fre-will removed ("The troll said a few mean things about your mom, now you're forced to attack it"), especially when they can't do anything about it. This is why Antagonize is so despised by so many players (including me).
but if your martial characters do more than just damage, if they can create all sorts of problems to their opponents, their enemies will have to think twice before going straight for the caster. This adds another layer to combat tactics, making it much more interesting IMO.
Paladins, for example, have a decent way to attract enemy fire. Their mere presence boosts their allies, and they can heal their friends as effectively as they can hurt their opponents. It's not enough to compete with full casters, of course, but it's better than what Fighters have.
This thread is from 2010. Almost exactly 3 years ago.I was looking through the feats for something else but I found this ** spoiler omitted **
It is in Ultimate Magic if you are wondering where I found it. Hope it helps!
I figured that if anyone were to try to look up something like this in the future that they would have something more than just a homebrew answer that not everyone will want to put into their games.