Even thou taunts ar far from realistic they are a recurring elements in modern RPGs ( thanks to MMORPGs i think ).
The Everquest d20 rulesystem has taunt amongst the fighter's class skills.
I may be wrong of course, but i got used to taunt mobs away from weaker team mates during my period as a shadowknight in Everquest 2....so the question is:
is there a way a fighter can outsmart a foe to engage him rather than a weaker target ? maybe with Bluff ( which is not a fighter class skill btw )?
While there isn't taunt as such, you can of course actually DO in-game taunts. If you say the right thing and are up against not-to-smart enemies, a good DM might let you have your way even though there's no rules for it (or potentially, you might want to make a bluff or intimidate check for it).
You can also simply try to stand in the way of enemies. It can be hard if they are teleporting or flying, but it isn't impossible. Reach weapon and armor spikes/improved unarmed strike combined with Lunge will allow you to threaten a 15ft. radius area, for example, and there's new feats in the APG that allows you to threaten even more. Taking even an attack of opportunity can be a great danger for many-a-foe (though maybe not for the BBEG)
Check out the Goad feat from Complete Warrior (or Adventurer, i can't remember).
Basically taunts an opponent.
Years of playing a cleric/priest/druid in Everquest 1 and 2 have taught me the inestimable value of taunts, and of having a good 'tank' up front to keep all those baddies off of my with all my heal aggro.
That said, (and the OP said it too), it's extremely gamist and unrealistic. No way that I would shoot a fighter with my bow or my ligntning bolt when there is a cleric or wizard behind that fighter that I could shoot just as easily, especially if my fighter ally is already engaging the enemy fighter. In such a case, that fighter could yell at me, taunt me, insult me, insult my mother, whatevenemy er he wants - I'm still going to shoot the scary spellcaster behind him.
IMO there is no place for non-magical taunting in a quasi-realistic RPG. It's fine for video games because there is no DM there to make sure the bad guys behave in a sensible fashion, and also because the heroes have limited options. In EQ, all you can do is click the buttons for the various spells or attacks that you know. You can't improvise, use the terrain to your advantage, or outsmart the monsters in anyway - just click the buttons.
D&D isn't like that. Players have infinite buttons, and infinite leeway to ignore the buttons and do something else entirely.
And that's the way it should be.
So, for me, I wouldn't even want to see an ability to 'force' an enemy to attack a PC based solely on a skill roll or a class ability. On the other hand, magical compulsion spells could be used to that effect quite nicely. So, while a class ability to taunt a monster makes no sense to me, a Ring of Taunting that does the same thing would make perfect sense.
AFAIK, there is no such thing. But it seems easy enough for a DM to drop on into a game, or for a PC to research one and craft it himself.
I can somewhat agree with the desire, and I have long thought of making Goad a fighter bonus feat in PF, for just such a purpose.
I try to run my enemies as the intelligence that they are, with other circumstance as appropriate. A recent level one game put the PCs up against a pack of 3 starving wild dogs. So while I had the dogs move to flank, as that is appropriate for a pack mentality creature, I also had them not take a long move to do it and thus provoked attacks of opportunity, since they were starving and desperate.
The problem occurs with intelligent foes. An intelligent foe is simply NEVER going to pay attention to the fighter unless the fighter is right in his face, in which case his first goal will be to get away from the fighter. Primary targets will be the healer or mage, based on which one seems to be influencing the fight the most.
The vital strike chain gave fighters some leeway in terms of battlefield movement, as did the armor mastery ability. But it still remains very difficult for a fighter to "intercept" a monster that wants to go after another target, especially since most intelligent creatures would rather suffer an attack of opp from the fighter and move away than stand there and take a full attack.
Finally, a lot of the new generation of potential gamers is cutting their teeth on things like WoW, which has a taunt mechanic. Does the aggro systems of MMOs line up with how a sentient creature really would react? As stated above, no, it doesn't. But this is what new gamers are familiar with, and every step we take away from that, while a step towards something new and exciting, is also a step away from what is understood and comfortable.
Do I think a taunt mechanic is a make or break mechanic for getting new players into the game? No. But it could be part of a series of changes that could make or break it. Just something that needs to be carefully, rationally, and thouroughly considered.
I remember back in 3.5 Knights had a Taunt as a Class Feature called "Knight's Challenge"... but I agree, a bit too "MMOish" for my tastes.
One of the few things I liked about D&D 4.0 was the "taunt" like abilities the paladin and fighter had.
The idea was pretty simple. If someone gets hit with a taunt ability, then it becomes a bad idea for them to attack anyone else. The key is that they can still attack anyone else, but there is now a downside to it.
If I was going to port that over to PF, I would make it a feat chain.
Taunt(Combat Feat)
Requires: Combat Reflexes
Once per round, you may designate one of your attacks as a taunt. If you land a hit, that opponent is considered to be taunted until the end of the next round. If a taunted opponent makes an attack on any target other than you, they will provoke an AoO. A creature can only be effects by one taunt at a time.
Improved Taunt(Combat Feat)
Requires: Taunt, +6 BAB
As per taunt, but can be used twice per round.
Greater Taunt(Combat Feat)
Requires: Improved Taunt, +11 BAB
As per taunt, but effects all attacks.
Roleplay, bluff or intimidate to get the attention.
Roleplay, bluff or intimidate to get the attention.
Agreed. It's like a real-life feat with the Prereq: Clever.
"Hey, you, uh... you!" will not get my demon's attention
But "Your mother folds laundry in Celestia! And she tithes 10% of the money she makes to the church!" will.
Roleplay, bluff or intimidate to get the attention.
Language dependent and/or mind-affecting, so doesn't work on a lot of things.
Roleplay, bluff or intimidate to get the attention.Language dependent and/or mind-affecting, so doesn't work on a lot of things.
Slam your weapon into your shield and shout "Graaah" at the owlbear.
Zombies, vermin, golems? They don't care. But at the same time, it's not like their int of - allows them to be General Patton when it comes to combat tactics anyways.
If a stone golem, ochre jelly or a giant cockroach overran my fighter to get to the wizard, I would honestly have some words with the DM.
If a stone golem, ochre jelly or a giant cockroach overran my fighter to get to the wizard, I would honestly have some words with the DM.
That's what my players thought once. Until they encountered Mageslayer Jelly - a special kind of jelly genetically enhanced to "see" magic and go after the most magical living creature it can find. Wizards beware!
Hey, if some mage could cross-breed an owl and a bear AND produce a genetically viable new species capable of reproduction, then some other mage could find a way to play with the genetic code of jellies and slimes, right?
That's what my players thought once. Until they encountered Mageslayer Jelly - a special kind of jelly genetically enhanced to "see" magic and go after the most magical living creature it can find. Wizards beware!
Hey, if some mage could cross-breed an owl and a bear AND produce a genetically viable new species capable of reproduction, then some other mage could find a way to play with the genetic code of jellies and slimes, right?
hrm, sounds more like a side effect than an intentional breeding to me, unless you've got a B-movie wizard...
"At last, I have created my masterpiece, the perfect predator against all those wizards who laughed at me at the College. Mad, they called me, Ma....wait, hey, stay in your vat...get away...nooooooooo (glurg)"
The APG has several spells for the Paladin and Inquisitor to make attacking him rather than other party members more appetizing for an opponent.
If a stone golem, ochre jelly or a giant cockroach overran my fighter to get to the wizard, I would honestly have some words with the DM.That's what my players thought once. Until they encountered Mageslayer Jelly - a special kind of jelly genetically enhanced to "see" magic and go after the most magical living creature it can find. Wizards beware!
Hey, if some mage could cross-breed an owl and a bear AND produce a genetically viable new species capable of reproduction, then some other mage could find a way to play with the genetic code of jellies and slimes, right?
Our words, in this case, would be rather short, and would end with me laughing at the wizard.
|
The problem occurs with intelligent foes. An intelligent foe is simply NEVER going to pay attention to the fighter unless the fighter is right in his face, in which case his first goal will be to get away from the fighter. Primary targets will be the healer or mage, based on which one seems to be influencing the fight the most.
The vital strike chain gave fighters some leeway in terms of battlefield movement, as did the armor mastery ability. But it still remains very difficult for a fighter to "intercept" a monster that wants to go after another target, especially since most intelligent creatures would rather suffer an attack of opp from the fighter and move away than stand there and take a full attack.
I do not agree with all this. What people here describe as intelligent foe's behavior is in fact intelligent PC's behaviour, including OOC knowledge of the rules' mechanics (AoO, for example). It is efficient, but it is far from realistic, as intelligence does not make you immune to emotions and passions which can quickly overwhelm the brainy part of the mind.
That said, (and the OP said it too), it's extremely gamist and unrealistic. No way that I would shoot a fighter with my bow or my ligntning bolt when there is a cleric or wizard behind that fighter that I could shoot just as easily, especially if my fighter ally is already engaging the enemy fighter. In such a case, that fighter could yell at me, taunt me, insult me, insult my mother, whatevenemy er he wants - I'm still going to shoot the scary spellcaster behind him.
I feel that the behaviour which is described here is the unrealistic one. When people are in a stressful life or death situation, most of them are not thinking carefully and clearly. It takes a lot of combat training and experience to keep your head clear in a fight.
And I do not believe that Materazzi was wearing a magical ring of taunting when he got Zinedine Zidane, who was a very experienced cool-headed player and quite aware of what was at stakes, angry enough to hit him while playing in the finale of the Soccer World Cup in 2006.
Years of playing a cleric/priest/druid in Everquest 1 and 2 have taught me the inestimable value of taunts, and of having a good 'tank' up front to keep all those baddies off of my with all my heal aggro.
Dude, max your spell casting subtlety..... Only time a priest should ever draw aggro is if multiples are in camp and with so many classes that can pull or do CC in and out of camp it should not be a problem.
Oh, I do, I do.
Very good, very subtle, heal only when need, use HoTs when possible, and master the roots and snares and manage my own CC when needed. I did mention years of doing this, right?
Nevertheless, there are good tanks and bad tanks, and when I PUG with a bad tank, I get heal aggro and take hits, even deaths - which has taught me the value of the taunts a good tank can lay down.
I do not agree with all this. What people here describe as intelligent foe's behavior is in fact intelligent PC's behaviour, including OOC knowledge of the rules' mechanics (AoO, for example).
Same thing, AFAIC.
It is efficient, but it is far from realistic, as intelligence does not make you immune to emotions and passions which can quickly overwhelm the brainy part of the mind.
I've never seen players have their characters act this way. As long as they don't, they've abdicated any expectation of "realism" in the given context of this thread.
I do not agree with all this. What people here describe as intelligent foe's behavior is in fact intelligent PC's behaviour, including OOC knowledge of the rules' mechanics (AoO, for example).
Knowing about Attacks of Opportunity is not OOC knowledge. I fully expect combatants on the battlefield (by this I mean PCs, NPCs, orcs, trolls, and monsters of all shapes and sizes as long as they are reasonably intelligent with any combat training at all) to understand that if you run past the guy with the shiny sword, or run past the griffon with the razor-sharp beak, or whatever, then you're likely to get smacked for it.
That's just common sense and a little training. Heck, even a low-intelligent creature like an animial has the sense to stay out of reach of the enemy's sharp teeth and claws as much as possible.
It is efficient, but it is far from realistic, as intelligence does not make you immune to emotions and passions which can quickly overwhelm the brainy part of the mind.
True, but if I'm going to let PCs do it, then I'm going to let their enemies do it, at least when those enemies are (roughly) just as smart and just as well-trained in combat.
That said, (and the OP said it too), it's extremely gamist and unrealistic. No way that I would shoot a fighter with my bow or my ligntning bolt when there is a cleric or wizard behind that fighter that I could shoot just as easily, especially if my fighter ally is already engaging the enemy fighter. In such a case, that fighter could yell at me, taunt me, insult me, insult my mother, whatevenemy er he wants - I'm still going to shoot the scary spellcaster behind him.
I feel that the behaviour which is described here is the unrealistic one. When people are in a stressful life or death situation, most of them are not thinking carefully and clearly. It takes a lot of combat training and experience to keep your head clear in a fight.
Probably all true. I hope I never have to find out for myself.
But, I'm not about to impose such penalties on the players:
Joe: My fighter circles around the ogres to run up next to the Ogre Mage. I want to kill the spellcaster first; we can mop up the ogres after the ogre mage is dead.
DM: Nope, you're in the heat of battle and you're not thinking carefully and clearly. You have to hack your way through the ogres before I'll let you go after the ogre mage.
That's not gonna fly.
And as I've said, if it won't fly for the PCs, then I'm not going to impose it on their enemies when said enemies have roughly similar combat knowledge and skills. I'm all about playing the enemies to their intelligence, and I won't have the wolves run past fighters to attack the wizard, but I will certainly have sentient combat-trained enemies do it for the same reasons that I allow PCs to do it.
If a stone golem, ochre jelly or a giant cockroach overran my fighter to get to the wizard, I would honestly have some words with the DM.That's what my players thought once. Until they encountered Mageslayer Jelly - a special kind of jelly genetically enhanced to "see" magic and go after the most magical living creature it can find. Wizards beware!
Hey, if some mage could cross-breed an owl and a bear AND produce a genetically viable new species capable of reproduction, then some other mage could find a way to play with the genetic code of jellies and slimes, right?
That should be an exception, rather than a rule.
If you want to draw attention, than you can try intimidate or bluff to appear dangerous. I also allow bluff or perform checks to play down the threat you present.
I like the idea of taunting someone to take risks and/or fight someone they ordinarily wouldn't. I'm sure we all rememeber the classic scene out of "Back to the Future II" where Marty McFly is goaded into racing (and doing all sorts of other stupid things) simply because someone accused him of being "chicken."
People are like that sometimes. The smartest man in the world has a soft spot...a "button" that when pushed causes him to be stupid and so stupid things. Insult his mother, call him a certain name, make fun of his birthmark, drop a racial slur... I think it's easy enough to imagine a fighter in the midst of battle being called out on account of his pansy-acting, girl-like sword swinging, baby faced, etc, etc. Fills 'em with rage, it does, and makes 'em chase down the offender.
Anyhow...it doesn't seem so unlikely.
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.
I'm actually working on a taunt mechanic in the Homebrew section if anyone is interested.
I would have the monster get a damage bonus against you. Makes them want to attack you, and there's a mechanical representation for them getting angry. After all, if someone says something that really makes you want to clean their clock, and then you run up and clean their clock, it's fairly consistent. But if they say the same thing and then when you run over to them to hit them in the head and have no mechanical benefit for doing so, you're just going to break off as soon as is possible.
I'm all for intelligent enemies using tactics against a party of PCs, and frankly a taunt ability is pretty dumb in my opinion unless it's a magical effect, in which case the enemy should get a will save. There is no good reason why a perfectly intelligent foe would choose to attack the most heavily armored PC in the party rather than strategically taking out the squishier and more dangerous PCs first. IE, the casters. If -I'm- an intelligent monster or bad guy who knows anything about adventurers, I'm going after the Cleric or the Wizard first, then everyone else.
I love how everyone is suggesting intelligent creatures are somehow immune to succumbing to emotion in battle. While I can think of many reasons why the an MMO style taunt system wouldn't work, I can still think of many reason why nonmagical taunting could work very well. Even an intelligent creature has flash points that set them off. Professional pride (with its associated expectations of behavior) and social expectations (especially those involving the concept of honor) are all very valid reasons for someone to go after the heavily armored knight versus the wizard or rogue behind him. This is not to say that every creature would do so, but it is not unreasonable that some would. This is a battle, so emotion and split second reactions are going to have as much a role as "intelligent" tactical thinking; also everyone sees things the same way or has the same concept of what "intelligent" is (see conflicting views of "common sense" irl).
Personally, I would find it just as boring to have them always go for the magic user or squishier target first as I would if they always went for the heavily armored tank first. There are valid reasons for both tactics, and which ones are used should be based on the background, tactical knowledge, and actions of the npcs and pcs involved, not on whatever an the dm thinks a so call "intelligent" creature would do.
The other thing to consider is that PCs are constantly exposed to battle, and thus more likely to have tactical thinking ingrained in their brain; most npcs, even those trained as fighters or barbarians, aren't necessarily going to have the sheer amount of combat experience to feed off of that the PC's will. This means that most npcs, no matter how intelligent, are as likely to rely on their gut as much as their intelligence or training in a controlled environment.
In the end, I've always found the best combats are ones where its clear that the foes are fighting the best they can given their background and experience level. I don't expect a random group of bandits to automatically recognize an unarmored,unarmed individual as a wizard (or automatically target him once they figure out he is) or a courtly knight to target a wizard (he probably figures his wizard/cleric servant is capable of dealing with such social riffraff). Such individuals or groups should be comparatively easy to taunt into attacking the "obvious" target while ignoring the apparent minions, smallfry, etc. On the other hand, an encounter with a fellow adventurer, assassin, or anybody else with in depth knowledge of adventurers and adventuring parties will almost certainly use tactics that take into account the sheer potential a spell caster gives to his team. These groups would be harder to sway from their set tactics, and that should be reflected in the encounter.
I'm all for intelligent enemies using tactics against a party of PCs, and frankly a taunt ability is pretty dumb in my opinion unless it's a magical effect, in which case the enemy should get a will save. There is no good reason why a perfectly intelligent foe would choose to attack the most heavily armored PC in the party rather than strategically taking out the squishier and more dangerous PCs first. IE, the casters. If -I'm- an intelligent monster or bad guy who knows anything about adventurers, I'm going after the Cleric or the Wizard first, then everyone else.
I'd replace every bolded word with "wise".
On another note:
Why does everyone assume that it's the fighter doing the taunting? Last time in my game it was the wizard doing it!
I think i read some feat called "Taunt"in the APG, which is basically the Kender skill to outrage foes. In fact it is for small creature
I've had some success in games by actually taunting the enemy in character. If I am creative enough in insulting the npc's mother the DM will often have the character retaliate. I suppose taunting the DM might work too. (perhaps too well!)
I'm all for intelligent enemies using tactics against a party of PCs, and frankly a taunt ability is pretty dumb in my opinion unless it's a magical effect, in which case the enemy should get a will save. There is no good reason why a perfectly intelligent foe would choose to attack the most heavily armored PC in the party rather than strategically taking out the squishier and more dangerous PCs first. IE, the casters. If -I'm- an intelligent monster or bad guy who knows anything about adventurers, I'm going after the Cleric or the Wizard first, then everyone else.
By this logic you can fully eradicate the diplomacy skill. How do you make the foe change his mind otherwise, because diplomacy is certainly not magic and it can change intelligent NPC's attitude toward the PC.
Taunt hust makes him attack someone else. Not saying how long does it work. 1 round? Save every round? That's upon the DM and the players.
DM should play the monsters, just like the players should play the PCs, not be them. That's already getting toward metagaming.
Diplomacy can't be used in combat, though.... so the comparison really doesn't work. In the middle of combat, why would a baddie choose to attack someone he knows is less of a threat?
Diplomacy can't be used in combat, though.... so the comparison really doesn't work. In the middle of combat, why would a baddie choose to attack someone he knows is less of a threat?
Intimidate allows you to demoralize a target. That's certainly mind influencing in combat. I wouldn't assume that the taunter is less of a threat nor would I assume that the baddie will always know who is the most threatening.
Here's a shameless post of a taunting mechanic I've posted over in the homebrew section:
Taunt: You can use this skill to incite a creature with a hostile attitude to attack you by making an Intimidate check to demoralize (following all the rules for demoralizing a creature). If the check succeeds, the target becomes shaken for 1 round. You can maintain the taunt in subsequent rounds as a standard action, but its effect ends if the target makes an attack against you or if it cannot clearly see and hear you. This is a language-dependent mind-affecting effect, and relies on audible components.
Try Again: You can attempt to taunt a creature again, but each additional check increases the DC by +5. This increase resets after 1 hour has passed.
Special: When attempting a taunt you do not gain any sized-dependent bonus or penalty on your Intimidate check.
The idea is that while you're taunting a foe, you aren't forcing it to do anything against its will, but since you're applying a condition to it (via a successful taunt), you encourage the foe to attack you. Kinda like getting a speeding ticket.
If I were to have some kind of mechanic for a "tank" type player to get more attention, it would definitely be based on the Intimidate skill.
I mean, it has right in the description:
"You can use this skill to frighten your opponents or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess."
I'd make "taunting" a feat based around the idea of distraction. If they fail the standard Intimidate check in combat, they provoke an AoO for splitting their attention. This can be prevented if they change their actions to focus their actions against the taunter or move with the goal of (fearful) keeping away or (enraged) going towards the taunter.
Intimidate checks are already based around displays of prowess as much as actual words, so it can work in most situations.. and is built in with size modifiers.
There's also the feat for Strength bonus being added.
Making it a feat lets it be strong (provoke AoO), and Intimidate makes sense due to the "make them act in a beneficial way".
I'd even allow a version for rogues (Jeer?), to use Bluff to get the same thing... language dependent though, in this case.
Diplomacy can't be used in combat, though.... so the comparison really doesn't work. In the middle of combat, why would a baddie chDiplomacy can't be used in combat, though.... so the comparison really doesn't work. In the middle of combat, why would a baddie choose to attack someone he knows is less of a threat?
And bluff? How can you trick him to let his defenses down despite the fact that he knows that it will hurt a lot if he does that while fighting a rogue? And how does he sort the targets? It's not like there is a giant neon sign above the wizard. If there is a whirlwind of fury nad blades charging him and someone gurgling a few incomprehensible sillables barely audible in the noise made by the fighter and making weird gestures, then he'll have to devote some effort to ignore the immediate threat and concentrate on the dangerous caster standing paces away. It's the reflexes and primal instincts he has to overcome first.oose to attack someone he knows is less of a threat?
Diplomacy can't be used in combat, though.... so the comparison really doesn't work. In the middle of combat, why would a baddie chAnd bluff? How can you trick him to let his defenses down despite the fact that he knows that it will hurt a lot if he does that while fighting a rogue? And how does he sort the targets? It's not like there is a giant neon sign above the wizard. If there is a whirlwind of fury nad blades charging him and someone gurgling a few incomprehensible sillables barely audible in the noise made by the fighter and making weird gestures, then he'll have to devote some effort to ignore the immediate threat and concentrate on the dangerous caster standing paces away. It's the reflexes and primal instincts he has to overcome first.oose to attack someone he knows is less of a threat?Diplomacy can't be used in combat, though.... so the comparison really doesn't work. In the middle of combat, why would a baddie choose to attack someone he knows is less of a threat?
I already established we were talking about an intelligent foe who knows exactly what he's dealing with. As a side note, those verbal components are not softly spoken. A caster must recite them clear and fairly loud (not yelling obviously, but loud enough to be clearly heard in a battle). The PCs use tactics like I'm suggesting -every- time against their encounters in nearly every game I've ever played in... so it's ok for PCs to fight smart but not for NPCs? If that is truly what you are suggesting, that makes zero sense to me. o.O
I love how everyone is suggesting intelligent creatures are somehow immune to succumbing to emotion in battle.
I'm not suggesting that they are immune to emotion in battle.
What I AM suggesting is that they can make their own decisions. Someone standing there in full plate insulting their mother might really aggravate someone, but the guy in robes frying his allies with fireballs might aggravate him too.
My point is that "taunting" someone (without a compulsory magical effect) doesn't guarantee that they will attack you. I don't even see a justification for rolling a Bluff or Intimidate roll because that means that someone who dumps some points in there and optimizes for it gets a nearly-guaranteed outcome.
No way should a normal guy be able to say a few irritating words and guarantee, or nearly guarantee, that his enemies will make bad tactical decisions because of those words. If you want to do that, cast a magical spell that does it; non-magical words just ain't gonna cut it.
That said, I'm all for combatants trying to aggravate each other. I'm all for letting each PC and each DM decide on a case-by-case basis if the combatants under their control want to squash the loud-mouth or want to continue on with their preferred tactic. And no, I don't play my monsters or NPCs as "immune" to emotions. I often have them make bad tactical decisions for emotional reasons, or just because they were overconfident or single-minded or aggravated by a loud-mouthed buffoon.
It's just not compulsory, it doesn't require a Save or a Skill check, and it's entirely up to each individual combatant to deal with the taunting however they see fit.
Has everybody missed the taunt-like ability on the barbarian (rage power)? Intimidate to shaken, foe remains shaken for duration of combat, or until it attacks the barbarian.
That's a pretty decent way to do a taunt, I think.
"Boasting Taunt" - that's what its called. And sure, they can chose to s~%# their pants and not attack the barbarian - but then they run around with -2 to attacks, saves, skill and ability checks for the rest of combat. That isn't bad for a taunt, all things considered.
"Boasting Taunt" - that's what its called. And sure, they can chose to s~&* their pants and not attack the barbarian - but then they run around with -2 to attacks, saves, skill and ability checks for the rest of combat. That isn't bad for a taunt, all things considered.
That's a fine ability. But despite the fact that it has the word "Taunt" in the title, it's not a taunt in the sense that is being discussed in this thread.
The term "taunt" as it is used in MMO gaming is a special trick that heavy melee classes get. They can use it against everything from a puddle of slime to a giant dragon. When it is used, it makes that enemy immediately stop targeting whoever it is trying to kill and start targeting the guy who used the "taunt".
The barbarian ability does not do this, so it isn't really relevant to the discussion.
I've had some success in games by actually taunting the enemy in character. If I am creative enough in insulting the npc's mother the DM will often have the character retaliate. I suppose taunting the DM might work too. (perhaps too well!)
Beware of taunting the DM, indeed, or find that that belt of constitution has suddenly turned into a cursed belt of amorous deformed metrosexual giant attraction!
...I already established we were talking about an intelligent foe who knows exactly what he's dealing with. As a side note, those verbal components are not softly spoken. A caster must recite them clear and fairly loud (not yelling obviously, but loud enough to be clearly heard in a battle). The PCs use tactics like I'm suggesting -every- time against their encounters in nearly every game I've ever played in... so it's ok for PCs to fight smart but not for NPCs? If that is truly what you are suggesting, that makes zero sense to me. o.O
No, taunts work both ways. Even PCs can get distracted like this. If there is a mechanic in game, house-rule or not, it works both ways. You are suggesting the PCs always act rationally and the creatures also with only change possible via magic. My point is that if the PCs try to act like they were there, they will act different. If they want to taunt, they must expect to be taunted, which would be more reality-like. The nature of the 'taunt' should also be taken into account. If we take it literally, than it's pretty weak and shouldn't be easy to pull-of, but in the MMO sense, which is what I think the OP suggested, is connected with other combat activities. In this connection it's more like tricking the others to percieve you as the immediate danger, to which you must react first.
If you say that the wizard is clearly audible, then let's handle it with a listen check. Spellcasting is probably about as loud as a common conversation (DC 0), but it happens some 60 ft away (+6 DC, but black tentacles for example can be cast from greater distance than this actually) while the fighter screaming the challenge (sound of battle DC -10) is a bit closer (say, +2 DC) which probably also gives you a -2 penalty on your check for unfavorable conditions. I'm not saying that you can't hear it, but the question is if you are paying attention.
No way should a normal guy be able to say a few irritating words and guarantee, or nearly guarantee, that his enemies will make bad tactical decisions because of those words. If you want to do that, cast a magical spell that does it; non-magical words just ain't gonna cut it.That said, I'm all for combatants trying to aggravate each other. I'm all for letting each PC and each DM decide on a case-by-case basis if the combatants under their control want to squash the loud-mouth or want to continue on with their preferred tactic. And no, I don't play my monsters or NPCs as "immune" to emotions. I often have them make bad tactical decisions for emotional reasons, or just because they were overconfident or single-minded or aggravated by a loud-mouthed buffoon.
It's just not compulsory, it doesn't require a Save or a Skill check, and it's entirely up to each individual combatant to deal with the taunting however they see fit.
That's called roleplaying, and last time I checked, it was still part of the game. Every PC and NPC should be played as an individual, with their own personality, motivations and flashpoints. The key to a successful taunt is finding the right buttons to push. Almost everybody has them, unless they are playing an inhuman Mr. Spock type character, and even Spock had a few well-hidden buttons, not to mention that weird mating phase. If either players or DMs are absolutely refusing to respond to any taunts, I would say they are metagaming by playing their character at the cool emotional distance of someone sitting around a table munching chips and drinking beer, rather than realistically portraying their chatracter involved in the chaos and adrenaline-fueled emotion of battle. That doesn't mean just any taunt would work, but a well-placed one should.
I also agree with a previous poster, that wisdom, rather than intelligence, is really dominant in these situations. In my experience, some of the most intelligent people I know are also the most thin-skinned and easy to manipulate, and I think that also applies to the game. Smart folks (at least those that know and think of themselves as smart) generally have considerable egos that can be exploited. Not that I would do that in real life, of course. :)
|
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.