Using Intimidate to Taunt; anyone thought of it?

[Khalarak]

I don't know if this has been thought of and hashed out already, but I've often heard the prime complaint against the defensive fighter being that he has no way to make people hit him. Feats like Goad fix this to a certain extent, but has anyone thought about just being able to use Intimidate to taunt? It makes sense (someone who knows how to pick out someone's fears and frighten them would be able to prick those same spots to make someone angry) and would help fighters get a *lot* more mileage out of Intimidate than they currently do.

This is just an idea that popped in my head, and I'm no good at figuring out the mechanical aspect of such, but what does everyone think?

[Archade]

I think it should be Bluff, and yes, it should be a skill option.

Taunt: Using a standard action to taunt an opponent within 30 feet, if you successfully roll against a DC equal to 20 + your opponent's Will save, you can cause your opponent to attack you in the most efficient manner possible, using either ranged, melee, or other abilities, such as spellcasting. However, if the target of the taunt cannot harm the character without provoking an Attack of Opportunity, the taunt fails.

[The Real Orion]

I've done this in-game a couple of times, and I think we used Bluff, but I could go either way, honestly. Intimidate makes more sense if you want it to be a Fighter skill, though, so I agree with you on that level.

[The Black Bard]

I just give Goad as a bonus feat to fighters. Works just fine for me. That being said, I wouldn't mind a skill system version, so that anyone can do it via skills, rather than "the fighter, and anyone else who actively takes the feat".

It is an interesting problem, one that I'm having in my Shackled City game. The dwarven knight is nearly untouchable in melee, but its the raptoran warlock who does the most damage. Monsters want to pluck the warlock bald, and quickly realize they can't hurt the knight. Barring the knight's specific "taunt" type abilities, they go straight for the warlock.

Granted, im finally hiting level 8-10, so enemies can now start hitting the knight (hill giants, ettins, etc) but those same enemies can't hardly miss the warlock. Be interesting to see what happens.

[Khalarak]

Hmm, looking over the mechanics of Goad, it looks good, but would it be overpowered to have something apply to spellcasters too? Perhaps say that you make the check against a single target within 30 feet (DC 20 + Will save, as noted earlier)as a move action, and if you succeed the target has to attempt to harm you in some way on his next action, which could include simply catching you in an area spell or with one shot out of a ranged full attack? It would still make it most useful in melee, when the attacker has fewer options at to who to hit, but it would still let the fighter soak up a little bit of damage from ranged attackers too. Regardless, I'd like working a watered-down version at the very least of Goad into the Intimidate skill, I don't see it get enough use.

[Laithoron]

I could see taunting as being either Bluff or Intimidate frankly.

Bluff: Hah, You're slow You could never hit me in a million years!

Intimidate: Face me, You yellow-bellied coward!

Similarly, both skills could be used to the opposite effect too. i.e. Scaring someone from attacking You via a show of force. (I see BAB or caster level being pertinent.)

[Sir Hexen Ineptus]

The Real Orion wrote:

I've done this in-game a couple of times, and I think we used Bluff, but I could go either way, honestly. Intimidate makes more sense if you want it to be a Fighter skill, though, so I agree with you on that level.

+1

[Todd Johnson]

I personally house-ruled a Taunting treatment of Bluff as a way of distracting someone like a spellcaster, or someone performing a concentration task, forcing them to roll a concentration check against the bluff roll or spoil their action. A way for a less-combatant CHA adventurer to disrupt an opponent's task without landing an attack.

Oh, but that's right, we don't have concentration anymore in PRPG. :)

[Thunderbolt Kid]

I use taunting as intimidate vs will save. If the taunter wins than he provokes an attack of oppurtunity.

[Brutesquad07]

I am currently running a home campaign, I have had to be very careful to run the monsters bye/through the tanks. I think it is part of DMing this system though. You obviously don't do it all the time, you occaisonally sneak by, or ignore the front line's or you lose the focus. But the system has needed a taunt/goad that is workable since as long as I can remember.

I was rather impressed with the 4e marks and stuff. Thought what they came up with for the fighter's was really interesting and impressive. Sadly the rest of the book did nothing for me.

[F33b]

Conceptually, I think "Taunt", in the MMO sense, is a lazy mechanic. The reason it exists in crpg/mmo games is to get around elaborate scripting and ai requirements. After playing around with the Knight character in the 3.5 PHB2, I think there are more elegant solutions.

Giving the fighter access to higher level fear effects, or effects that scale, helps. This way, a DM retains a fairly high level of control over the NPC, but fear effects also give the figher well documented and supported way of neutralizing foes, at range, without resorting to skull bashing.

You can already use Intimidate to afflicted opponents with the Shaken condition. I think extending the shaken effect to requiring concentration checks for spell casting isn't unreasonable.

Something like DC 10 + level of spell being cast +1 for every 5 points by which the target failed their save vs the shaken effect.

This allows a fighter to shut down npcs with low to medium levels of spell casting or sla's, but also allows PC casters the ability to overcome such threats with moderate levels of optimization.