Playing a Tanky Fighter doesn't feel so good.

[1of1]

Mr. Stark?

[RazarTuk]

Helmic wrote:

The idea of tanking, then, isn't necessarily to soak up damage, but to rather f+#$ with your enemy's target prioritization such that they're missing more often or dealing ineffective damage. All Fighters have the unique Attack of Opportunity, which makes them "sticky" in that the enemy has to basically burn an action just to get away safely. If a Fighter, starting out near their allies Sudden Charges into an enemy in the first round, that enemy will have to burn one action to Step and then two actions to reach the Fighter's allies in melee, preventing it from dealing damage. That's not even a dedicated tanking build, that's just something Fighters do to prevent damage, they force enemies to waste an action if they want to switch targets.

Paladins notably have exclusive access to Retributive Strike, which is again just a form of blackmail tanking. It doesn't make your character any tougher, but instead so long your ally and the enemy are both within 15 feet of you you instead just automatically give your ally resistance to all damage. They get tanky, and then you might also be able to hit the enemy if you happen to be within reach. If you're the the GM controlling an intelligent enemy, you're going to catch on really quick that attacking anyone but the Paladin is going to be a waste of time, the Paladin is now the squishiest target even though their AC is sky high. Blade of Justice combined with extra Shield Block Reactions combined with turning every Shield Block additionally into a Retributive Strike can threaten to straight up kill many enemies daring to ignore the paladin. It's a pretty powerful bargaining chip, but paladins have to stay close to those they want to protect rather than rush in alone like fighters would prefer.

And to an extent, Retributive Strike is a cool idea for that. It just feels lackluster because your ability to "draw aggro" is dependent on having other people with you. Contrast with the Sentinel from Spheres of Power. A challenged enemy gets a +2 bonus to attack rolls against you, but it also gets a -2 to -7 penalty to attacking anyone else, and- and this is the notable part- you get a +1 to +5 bonus to attack and damage rolls against it.

You're still drawing aggro in that you disincentivize the enemy from attacking anyone else, but you still get a decent benefit- the bonus to attack and damage- even if there's no one to be drawing aggro away from.

[RealAlchemy]

On the question of what is or is not realistic to do with weapons and shields, I would welcome anyone to visit your local SCA group (or boffer fighting group such as Amtgard or Belegarth since it takes less gear) and either try it out yourself or ask the fighters for a demonstration. I have seen people use a sword in the same hand as a strap shield, but it will be less accurate and difficult to strike with force (maybe a penalty to hit and damage in game terms.) I have also seen the shield hand used to help guide and control long weapons such as pikes. Both of those maneuvers do take some practice and might be considered fighter class feats.

[Greg.Everham]

RazarTuk wrote:

Helmic wrote:

The idea of tanking, then, isn't necessarily to soak up damage, but to rather f+#$ with your enemy's target prioritization such that they're missing more often or dealing ineffective damage. All Fighters have the unique Attack of Opportunity, which makes them "sticky" in that the enemy has to basically burn an action just to get away safely. If a Fighter, starting out near their allies Sudden Charges into an enemy in the first round, that enemy will have to burn one action to Step and then two actions to reach the Fighter's allies in melee, preventing it from dealing damage. That's not even a dedicated tanking build, that's just something Fighters do to prevent damage, they force enemies to waste an action if they want to switch targets.

Paladins notably have exclusive access to Retributive Strike, which is again just a form of blackmail tanking. It doesn't make your character any tougher, but instead so long your ally and the enemy are both within 15 feet of you you instead just automatically give your ally resistance to all damage. They get tanky, and then you might also be able to hit the enemy if you happen to be within reach. If you're the the GM controlling an intelligent enemy, you're going to catch on really quick that attacking anyone but the Paladin is going to be a waste of time, the Paladin is now the squishiest target even though their AC is sky high. Blade of Justice combined with extra Shield Block Reactions combined with turning every Shield Block additionally into a Retributive Strike can threaten to straight up kill many enemies daring to ignore the paladin. It's a pretty powerful bargaining chip, but paladins have to stay close to those they want to protect rather than rush in alone like fighters would prefer.

And to an extent, Retributive Strike is a cool idea for that. It just feels lackluster because your ability to "draw aggro" is dependent on having other people with you. Contrast with the Sentinel from Spheres of Power. A challenged enemy gets a...

This seems to be the key thing. Retributive Strike is a reactive method that is more of a "Gotcha!" for enemies than it is an active strategy to employ. What most defensively minded players are wanting from their "tank" is an active method of aggro-draw. Even if I have to spend actions on my turn to create that disincentive to attack my allies, that's better than Retributive Strike could ever hope to be. "Tank" character concepts should be designed around being able to do minimal offense (all abilities are attacks with really low damage output), while using actions to both actively mitigate incoming damage (Raise a Shield, though this method needs tuning as it's too weak to be significant) and actively drawing the aggression of enemies (through creating a disincentive to attack elsewhere). To its credit, 4E had this concept done pretty well.

[RealAlchemy]

While I can see abilities which make it a real nuisance for enemies if they try to ignore you (step up and strike, bodyguard, and stand still feats in PF1 for example) aggro draw mechanics as seen in MMORPGs are really hard to to in tabletop. Anything you can do to a monster could potentially be done to you, and I don't see many players who would be OK with being told "You cannot target the enemy caster because the enemy fighters is taunting you."

[Tridus]

Greg.Everham wrote:

This seems to be the key thing. Retributive Strike is a reactive method that is more of a "Gotcha!" for enemies than it is an active strategy to employ. What most defensively minded players are wanting from their "tank" is an active method of aggro-draw. Even if I have to spend actions on my turn to create that disincentive to attack my allies, that's better than Retributive Strike could ever hope to be. "Tank" character concepts should be designed around being able to do minimal offense (all abilities are attacks with really low damage output), while using actions to both actively mitigate incoming damage (Raise a Shield, though this method needs tuning as it's too weak to be significant) and actively drawing the aggression of enemies (through creating a disincentive to attack elsewhere). To its credit, 4E had this concept done pretty well.

The best tabletop tank character I ever had was a 3.5 Crusader. No aggro, no taunts. Lots of battlefield control. I could stop stuff from getting to my allies by actively blocking, tripping, Stand Still, etc. I could shield allies. I could punish enemies for attacking someone other than me (although they still could).

And if that failed, I'd just bust out something like Divine Surge and do a whole pile of damage instead, making myself a big enough threat that ignoring me was painful.

If we're playing a game with minis on a map, enabling tactics that let you actually control the battlefield and not give the enemy good choices but to attack you are a lot better than "I use taunt, you have to attack me". If you use that on a player, it'll get old real fast.

I mean, even the idea of "tanks" being low damage is a video game construct. The term "tank" comes from real life tanks, which while tough, are not low damage. They're high power death machines that draw attention precisely because of how dangerous they are. The idea that a tank should be little to no threat but you have to attack it anyway because game mechanics say so only really works in MMOs where the roles are all tuned specifically for it and the enemies are AI. Intelligent enemies would realize pretty quickly that you go for the artillery or the support first because taking out the team's offense and it's self-sustain is far more effective than attacking a wall with little ability to fight back.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the tankiest character I played in PF1 was an Aether/Earth/Water Kineticist who took the extra defense twice so I had regenerating temp HP pool, DR, and a shield who would then assume kinetic form for 20' of reach and use kinetic whip to make AoOs any time anybody got in my circle of death.

While not the most damaging of Kineticists, that character was not low damage.

[EberronHoward]

Tridus wrote:

I mean, even the idea of "tanks" being low damage is a video game construct. The term "tank" comes from real life tanks, which while tough, are not low damage. They're high power death machines that draw attention precisely because of how dangerous they are. The idea that a tank should be little to no threat but you have to attack it anyway because game mechanics say so only...

Exactly. If a class was *actually* a tank, it would be clearly better than the other classes, and it would be explicitly said so in the rules.

Calling a class "a tank" speaks to being a movable wall, something that can lead the way and survive the enemy's barrage.

[Dracomicron]

Not familiar with Pathfinder, but in Starfinder, melee soldiers do plenty of damage and can take a hell of a beating. They are effectively tanks in the real-world meaning. They don't control aggro, but if you ignore them they will wreck your day.

The offset is that, if something goes wrong, or if someone is able to target your weakness, things can go south quick. It's high risk, high reward play. Maybe PF2.0 Fighters should take their cue from that?

[DM_Blake]

Well, designing for *some* game balance is expected. Make it too homogenous and the game can feel boring. Too unbalanced and everybody plays the 5% of the good choices and ignores the bad ones. Designers strive to be somewhere in between.

If some characters are squishy or fragile, then they need something to justify that. For example, wizards are traditionally very fragile but they can use their magic to be hard to find, hard to target, hard to damage - or just plain old wipe out the enemy before the wizard's fragility is called into question.

If some characters dish out super high damage, then they must have some built in limitation, like weak defenses so they have to spend some actions being mobile to survive, or make their offense situational or conditional or simply limited use.

Etc.

This way, a player can look at each class and say "Looks good. Probably excels at a few things but has some challenges to overcome in a few other areas".

Hopefully, EVERY possible (reasonable) character build falls into that range.

If you make one class or build have it all, then it overshadows all others and it then becomes unreasonable to play anything else. Sure, some people will disregard "unreasonable" and do it anyway, but a great many players will all gravitate to the build that has it all.

That's why creating a RPG version of a Sherman tank (or King Tiger, or Abrams) is a very bad idea. Impenetrable armor, nearly zero weaknesses, massive firepower, able to destroy many entire battlefields all by itself (unless the enemy has a tank too).

It's too much for one character build.

Add in the CRPG idea of taunting to make enemies focus on that tank rather than the easier targets around it, and now it's way way too much.

For the sake of balance, there is no place in a GAME for an Abrams tank. Though, admittedly, if I must go into a real war, I'd probably want to be in one myself.

[DM_Blake]

Speaking of CRPGs, the idea of a tank in those games is that they have much lower firepower than the DPS kinds of builds. One tank, with tons of HP and damage mitigation/avoidance draws all the attacks (using taunt abilities) but survives those attacks because the tank is super hard to kill. Especially if he has a friendly healer on overwatch. Meanwhile, their DPS friends kill all the enemies while they're wasting their time futilely beating on the unkillable tank.

But those tanks do very little damage of their own. They spend their time taunting, blocking, and immobilizing enemies, maybe some self-healing, and maybe a little damage.

But that's not practical in a tabletop RPG. In CRPGs we easily suspend our disbelief that the dwarf in full plate can insult the entire enemy army so they all ignore our healer and wizard and rogue and focus on denting the tank's armor. It's a CRPG. It isn't supposed to make sense.

Many of us, perhaps most of us, expect more plausibility from a tabletop RPG. Tanky taunts don't fit into that realm of plausibility. Why would this pack of wolves want to break their teeth on that full plate when this dude in the robe over here is just a delicious and much more accessible? What could the tank say to those wolves to change their mind?

So, that whole concept of CRPG tank falls very flat in a tabletop game with a GM and players who actually ask those kinds of questions.

That is, no doubt, why there are no true taunts in these kinds of games, and I, for one, like it that way.

(The last time I saw an actual taunt ability in a game with either Pathfinder or D&D in the name was the Kender ability to enrage any creature capable of hearing and understanding it, who would then immediately attempt to go attack the Kender ignoring all other dangers. Unfortunately for Kender, they are the most UN-tanky race I've ever seen. Like halflings but without their good DEX and resistances. I think the race was created as a joke.)

[Sam Phelan]

Removed some posts.

If you feel the conversation has gone in a toxic direction, please redirect the conversation to avoid perpetuating any content identified as unproductive.

[RazarTuk]

Once again, Sentinel and the Guardian sphere. If you're wearing a tin can and have a massive pool of hp to boot, most remotely intelligent enemies will ignore you in favor of that squishier-looking person in back casting spells and not wearing armor. But then you challenge them and even give them a bonus to hitting you, while if they try attacking anyone else, they take a penalty to attack and trigger an attack of opportunity from you. Suddenly, ignoring the tin can doesn't seem like as smart of a decision.

It may not be aggro in the sense of forcing enemies to attack you, but you're still forcing them to think about whether it's worth it to ignore you.

[Edge93]

RazarTuk wrote:

Once again, Sentinel and the Guardian sphere. If you're wearing a tin can and have a massive pool of hp to boot, most remotely intelligent enemies will ignore you in favor of that squishier-looking person in back casting spells and not wearing armor. But then you challenge them and even give them a bonus to hitting you, while if they try attacking anyone else, they take a penalty to attack and trigger an attack of opportunity from you. Suddenly, ignoring the tin can doesn't seem like as smart of a decision.

It may not be aggro in the sense of forcing enemies to attack you, but you're still forcing them to think about whether it's worth it to ignore you.

The Path of War Warden in PF1 does this more or less as well. The martial maneuvers this class brings are really powerful (And possibly overpowered) making you a threat while Armiger's Mark provides penalties on attacking others that grow to be insane.

[Bluenose]

DM_Blake wrote:

But that's not practical in a tabletop RPG. In CRPGs we easily suspend our disbelief that the dwarf in full plate can insult the entire enemy army so they all ignore our healer and wizard and rogue and focus on denting the tank's armor. It's a CRPG. It isn't supposed to make sense.

Many of us, perhaps most of us, expect more plausibility from a tabletop RPG.

And yet somehow in many MOBA games where everyone of both sides of a fight is played by a supposedly intelligent human being, you still find a division between 'tanky' and 'dps' builds/characters. Of course they find it plausible that a tank doesn't stand still like a traffic cone letting enemies get past to attack their more fragile allies, and move to interpose themselves even when it's not their turn! I'm sure those tabletop RPGers concerned with plausibility are right to reject such a silly idea out of hand in favour of their much more plausible turns and initiative sequences.

[Matthew Downie]

Bluenose wrote:

even when it's not their turn!

MOBA's aren't turn-based.

A good mechanism for moving to block someone as a Reaction would be nice, though.

[Diffan]

RazarTuk wrote:

Once again, Sentinel and the Guardian sphere. If you're wearing a tin can and have a massive pool of hp to boot, most remotely intelligent enemies will ignore you in favor of that squishier-looking person in back casting spells and not wearing armor. But then you challenge them and even give them a bonus to hitting you, while if they try attacking anyone else, they take a penalty to attack and trigger an attack of opportunity from you. Suddenly, ignoring the tin can doesn't seem like as smart of a decision.

It may not be aggro in the sense of forcing enemies to attack you, but you're still forcing them to think about whether it's worth it to ignore you.

Or practically every defender-role character in 4th Edition. There was an article written long ago called "why fighter the Fighter?" and went on to list the dozens of reasons why vanilla flavored Fighters in 3e/3.5 (article was written pre-PF) were never engaged with until all the other squishes were dead or dropped.

Unless you were a chain-tripper or some other AoE-style warrior with tricked out Strength and size buffs (Certain items, enlarge person, Jotunbrud feat, etc) then people were running right past your slow butt to hit the allies. They'd suffer a one-shot AoO and continue on and you'd have to huff and puff to get back to your allies for that one attack standard action.

As for the Fighter itself - I think they're missing the mark in just how versatile the class should be in terms of handling of his tools (ie. weapons and armor). Just as an example - the shield. Every major warring culture in our known history has used a shield at some point. Every one of them knew a shield was a weapon. There is no arguing about it, it's fact. Unfortunately RPGs think this isn't so and PF2e isn't any different because they list it as an Improvised Weapon (history says otherwise).

Or how about the penalties to speed in heavy armor despite numerous examples of the weight being evenly distributed and not really hampering maneuverability OR speed yet here we are again, thinking your classic armored knight walked like a stiff-legged Tin-Man without his oil-can.

[Atalius]

It would be pretty cool to have some sort of a higher level feat that would allow taunting to pull aggro, perhaps a one action ability in a ten ft radius burst, enemies get a Will save to negate it and become Bolstered against it, or something I dunno? Would be cool flavor, it may not even be a good feat who knows, just a nice fun option which might be viable.

I am not a Fighter player, nor have I ever been. But one common complaint in our games is the Fighters lack of ability to pull aggro.

[Dracomicron]

The best way to maintain aggro without breaking immersion in a tabletop game is to make the fighter able to punish anyone who doesn't follow the script.

Much like Starfinder's Antagonize or Draw Fire, making it harder to attack allies is good, but expanding on reaction attacks of opportunity to include "attacks someone who isn't me" would also work.

[Raylyeh]

To Atalius, most of us have agreed that a MMO taunt ability makes no plausible sense, particularly with intelligent foes.

To Dracomicron, as has been pointed out by myself and others earlier in the thread the fighter already has the tools to punish enemies for not going after them through making them waste valuable actions or taking AoO. It can take some tactical movement on the party’s part but is very doable.

I’d also like to note that the idea that the fighter needs to soak up all the damage for the squishies is kinda BS. Every class has the ability to take care of it’s own defenses. Ya the Melee guys intercept but more to get their attacks in than anything. As an added bonus it gives the ranged combatants a turn or 2 without being molested but an opponent that is determined to get to them will and if say the wizard doesn’t have mirror image up by then that’s on the wizard, no one else.

[Edge93]

As a note on the whole taunt thing, I agree that a taunt MECHANIC is a bad idea. But that isn't to say there can't be taunting. Unintelligent foes I feel can be distracted by loud noises and sharp things. Intelligent but prideful foes may rise to a challenge from a unit who jabs at their pride or challenges them to a clash if they have similar abilities. Things like that.

Obviously this isn't always the case but the GM certainly can do these kind of things sometimes and it can be a lot of fun.

There have been a number of fights in my games where melee fighters will call their targets so to speak and split off into a couple of mini-skirmishes. They don't always just try to break through the line to squishies, even if AoO and stuff isn't in play.

Then again sometimes they do. Our combats vary.

[Atalius]

I think pulling aggro can work, the way I mentioned would be one way. I don't buy the fact that "taunt ability makes no plausible sense, particularly with intelligent foes", this is a fantasy world where Unicorns s*** rainbows, anything is possible my friend. One example of something very close to taunting would be Pathfinders Compel Hostility spell. Having a Fighter with a type of feat as I suggested certainly could work if modified by the experts at Paizo. I mean it doesn't even need to be a feat, you got all these classes now with Spell Points it could just be a power which you could use a couple times a day.

IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

[Raylyeh]

If you use role playing and probably a charisma check of some kind to anger or hurt someone’s pride and get them to attack you sure, and maybe they could make skill feats for this that anyone can access. But it shouldn’t be a fighter class feat or innate ability.
Your other examples were spells... Now, I can support some classes that currently don’t have access to a spell point pool getting one (primarily the ranger because it needs all the help it can get right now) fighter is not one of them. If the wizard wants to enchant the enemy into attacking him, go him. It could even work because leaning into my last post wizards with the right spells up are far more durable than a fighter.

[Atalius]

Yes, it would be fairly easy to implement, I'm no game designer, but I can think of at least 3-4 different ways it could be brought into the game for at least some martial classes (Barbarian would be cool) if not exclusively for the Fighter. I don't think it should be available to all classes, I think that's where we differ.

[Raylyeh]

It being a social skill feat or 2 of some kind (maybe deceit) that anyone can get is both appropriate and if done well something I could actually get behind. I still see no reason why something like this should be a class only, particularly fighter thing.

[Rob Godfrey]

DM_Blake wrote:

Well, designing for *some* game balance is expected. Make it too homogenous and the game can feel boring. Too unbalanced and everybody plays the 5% of the good choices and ignores the bad ones. Designers strive to be somewhere in between.

If some characters are squishy or fragile, then they need something to justify that. For example, wizards are traditionally very fragile but they can use their magic to be hard to find, hard to target, hard to damage - or just plain old wipe out the enemy before the wizard's fragility is called into question.

If some characters dish out super high damage, then they must have some built in limitation, like weak defenses so they have to spend some actions being mobile to survive, or make their offense situational or conditional or simply limited use.

Etc.

This way, a player can look at each class and say "Looks good. Probably excels at a few things but has some challenges to overcome in a few other areas".

Hopefully, EVERY possible (reasonable) character build falls into that range.

If you make one class or build have it all, then it overshadows all others and it then becomes unreasonable to play anything else. Sure, some people will disregard "unreasonable" and do it anyway, but a great many players will all gravitate to the build that has it all.

That's why creating a RPG version of a Sherman tank (or King Tiger, or Abrams) is a very bad idea. Impenetrable armor, nearly zero weaknesses, massive firepower, able to destroy many entire battlefields all by itself (unless the enemy has a tank too).

It's too much for one character build.

Add in the CRPG idea of taunting to make enemies focus on that tank rather than the easier targets around it, and now it's way way too much.

For the sake of balance, there is no place in a GAME for an Abrams tank. Though, admittedly, if I must go into a real war, I'd probably want to be in one myself.

There can be a place for a Sherman class, but it means that the other classes have to be designed as howitzer, another as anti-tank guns etc (a blaster mage as a Nebelwerfer, the rogue as an ISU-152,the cleric as a Centurion AVRE, can fix you, can also lob a huge petard to kaboom annoyances ranger as an m-18 Hellcat... You get the idea)

[Greg.Everham]

Atalius wrote:

IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

Exactly this. If the argument against a "taunt" mechanic is that "Well, thinking people don't make mistakes," I dunno what to tell you. If that's your view, Bluff shouldn't exist either cause "intelligent opponent" will see your ruse. Like, sure, it's easier to get my dog with some sleight of hand trick like pretending to throw a baseball, but illusionists have existed for millennia and fooled even the fastest eyes.

There's really nothing wrong with an ability that says "If you fail this save, your next turn is spent trying your best to kill me."

[Tridus]

Greg.Everham wrote:

Atalius wrote:

IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

Exactly this. If the argument against a "taunt" mechanic is that "Well, thinking people don't make mistakes," I dunno what to tell you. If that's your view, Bluff shouldn't exist either cause "intelligent opponent" will see your ruse. Like, sure, it's easier to get my dog with some sleight of hand trick like pretending to throw a baseball, but illusionists have existed for millennia and fooled even the fastest eyes.

There's really nothing wrong with an ability that says "If you fail this save, your next turn is spent trying your best to kill me."

Right up until I make a bad guy who hires four minions who do that to every PC. Suddenly it's really, really awful.

[Raylyeh]

Greg.Everham wrote:

Atalius wrote:

IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

Exactly this. If the argument against a "taunt" mechanic is that "Well, thinking people don't make mistakes," I dunno what to tell you. If that's your view, Bluff shouldn't exist either cause "intelligent opponent" will see your ruse. Like, sure, it's easier to get my dog with some sleight of hand trick like pretending to throw a baseball, but illusionists have existed for millennia and fooled even the fastest eyes.

There's really nothing wrong with an ability that says "If you fail this save, your next turn is spent trying your best to kill me."

See my last post, I gave in, but only if it’s a social skill check that IMO would require a skill feat. But Definitely not a fighter class only thing.

I also think that it should only truly “aggro” something on a crit. On a success it should probably just give a penalty for attacking someone who isn’t you.

[Atalius]

Greg.Everham wrote:

Atalius wrote:

IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

Exactly this. If the argument against a "taunt" mechanic is that "Well, thinking people don't make mistakes," I dunno what to tell you. If that's your view, Bluff shouldn't exist either cause "intelligent opponent" will see your ruse. Like, sure, it's easier to get my dog with some sleight of hand trick like pretending to throw a baseball, but illusionists have existed for millennia and fooled even the fastest eyes.

There's really nothing wrong with an ability that says "If you fail this save, your next turn is spent trying your best to kill me."

Yep, this man gets it.

[Atalius]

Tridus wrote:

Greg.Everham wrote:

Atalius wrote:

IRL people get taunted into doing silly things and it is not all that uncommom, these are intelligent people.

Exactly this. If the argument against a "taunt" mechanic is that "Well, thinking people don't make mistakes," I dunno what to tell you. If that's your view, Bluff shouldn't exist either cause "intelligent opponent" will see your ruse. Like, sure, it's easier to get my dog with some sleight of hand trick like pretending to throw a baseball, but illusionists have existed for millennia and fooled even the fastest eyes.

There's really nothing wrong with an ability that says "If you fail this save, your next turn is spent trying your best to kill me."

Right up until I make a bad guy who hires four minions who do that to every PC. Suddenly it's really, really awful.

It's absolutely fine if a bad guy does it, as they should. There were far worse things in PF 1 if I recall, one example would be Dominate Person among many others.

[Captain Morgan]

I agree with Raylyeh and Edge93. Taunting doesn't need to be a mechanic. It should be handled at the discretion of the person controlling the taunted subject as appropriate to that context. If you can challenge the honor or strength of a bugbear, the GM should decide if that's an effective taunt. If a GM does it to a PC, their player should decide that for themselves.

[Raylyeh]

As things are right now, I have good news for you! There is one thing that is always taunted by insulting it’s prowess. A giant totem barbarian. Have fun you poor bastard.

[Atalius]

I dunno Captain, when an enemy uses a special ability and it requires a saving throw, you don't get a choice. You just better hope your Will or whatever is good.

[Raylyeh]

Atalius wrote:

I dunno Captain, when an enemy uses a special ability and it requires a saving throw, you don't get a choice. You just better hope your Will or whatever is good.

He’s talking about good role playing instead of “roll” playing.

[Ruzza]

The issue I have with taunting as a game mechanic is agency. Like Tridus mentioned earlier, if it's an ability in the hands of the player, it's likewise in the hands of a DM.

Being forced to attack minions takes agency away from player choices and is a lot more limiting. As well, unlike something like mind control, the ability to taunt seems like it would be something that is easier to access, so it's more prevalent.

It's not a fun turn for you as a player when the DM says, "You have to use your actions in this way." A more interesting design space is how to achieve the feeling of "tanking" and battlefield support without limiting choice.

In my opinion, it's much more interesting to have the fighter looking for ways to position himself to get the most out of his Attack of Opportunity and effect the battlefield than it is for him to make a check versus an opponent's Will save. It gives players more creative space and lets them engage with the battle more fully.

[RazarTuk]

That's what's nice about Guardian-style "taunting". You still have agency over your actions. You're just stuck in a lose-lose situation, where you can either attack the wall of meat as an exercise in futility or get punished with penalties and attacks of opportunity for ignoring them.

[Ruzza]

RazarTuk wrote:

That's what's nice about Guardian-style "taunting". You still have agency over your actions. You're just stuck in a lose-lose situation, where you can either attack the wall of meat as an exercise in futility or get punished with penalties and attacks of opportunity for ignoring them.

I agree completely. It's also a fine tool for the enemy to have in their hands as well. I'm okay with saying to my group, "This character here has opened himself up to you, so you get a bonus to attack him." In First Edition, AoO was really the only interesting choice you had when going up against a defender. "Okay, I can move past this guy and risk the hit, but can close in on the backline," or even "I've built a character who can Tumble in and out of combat to pick off those high value targets." It provided some interesting choices, but I like seeing those ideas pushed further rather than it getting boiled down to a "press button, make man fight me."

You've been on point throughout this thread.

[Tridus]

Plus, to me, it comes across as lazy. It's saying "we want this class to be able to protect its allies and control the battlefield, but we don't want to give it the toolbox to actually control the battlefield and win tactically... so here's a taunt."

Video games do that because they don't have AI capable of making very sound tactical decisions, and trinity class MMOs do it because the structure of the class system they're using only works if stuff focuses on the tank.

We can do better than that in a game with humans controlling everything. Retributive Strike is an attempt to go that way by saying "there are consequences to attacking someone who isn't me", although by itself it isn't really enough to get the job done.

If a Fighter wants to fill a role like a protector, they should be able to do it by physically blocking, interfering, and generally making it harder to get around them to whoever they're protecting. Not go "I yelled something and so now you're mind controlled into attacking me no matter how little sense it makes."

Unless I guess they just flat out have Suggestion as a class spell now.

[Atalius]

There are quite a few spells or feats in PF1 which were quite similiar to just what you said "I yelled something and so now you're mind controlled into attacking me no matter how little sense it makes." Taunting is something that should one choose to acquire somehow, they should be able to I feel. Its cool flavor. Some will disagree others will agree, but there is no doubt this has already existed before and it was quite neat.

[Raylyeh]

For the 3rd or 4th time... enchantment spells are fine but they are spells therefore not something martial characters should just innately get. If you want your fighter to dump half their class feats into wizard, sorcerer or bard multiclassing that’s fine but very different.

[Edge93]

Raylyeh wrote:

For the 3rd or 4th time... enchantment spells are fine but they are spells therefore not something martial characters should just innately get. If you want your fighter to dump half their class feats into wizard, sorcerer or bard multiclassing that’s fine but very different.

Just bumping in here to +1 Rayleh. Magic is entirely different. Between being very limited use and by extension requiring committing a precious resource (Spells prepared for the day or spells known) it is a far cry from having an unlimited-use compulsion ability. Even if you made it cost a skill feat that's still a stupidly good trade for what is effectively infinite-use Enchantment magic. I can't think of many casters who would pass up a deal like skill feat for free basically-magic.

Even if it made enemies bolstered on use, being able to use it even once per enemy freely is BROKEN.

I mean, maybe not more broken than Scare to Death, but Scare to Death is pretty freaking broken right now.

Oh, also, as the game stands you can pump the success of your skill vs. enemy save DC a lot higher than your spell DC vs. enemy save because skills can get item bonus while spells can't, so it would be MUCH more likely to succeed than mind magic, on top of anything else.

[Diffan]

· Goad (complete adventurer)
· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)
· Antagonize (PFsrd)
· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)
· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)

And the list goes on...

Taunts, goading, pulling Aggro, and other distracting or creative non-magical devices have had places in D&D/PF for many many years so lets stop pretending that the notion is crazy or doesnt have precedent in TTRPGs

[Atalius]

Diffan wrote:

· Goad (complete adventurer)

· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)
· Antagonize (PFsrd)
· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)
· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)

And the list goes on...

Taunts, goading, pulling Aggro, and other distracting or creative non-magical devices have had places in D&D/PF for many many years so lets stop pretending that the notion is crazy or doesnt have precedent in TTRPGs

This is what I've been trying to say. Balancing it would not be a problem for the experts at Paizo IMO. I'm saying it can be done without being a spell, perhaps a high level feat or another way which can only be used once or twice a day that way it could not be abused (I'm not a designer) but I am certain Paizo could make it work in some sort of manner. These designers at Paizo are legends, anything is possible.

[Ruzza]

Atalius wrote:

There are quite a few spells or feats in PF1 which were quite similiar to just what you said "I yelled something and so now you're mind controlled into attacking me no matter how little sense it makes." Taunting is something that should one choose to acquire somehow, they should be able to I feel. Its cool flavor. Some will disagree others will agree, but there is no doubt this has already existed before and it was quite neat.

I don't want to gang up on you, but like I said previously and others have said, magic is nowhere near as accessible as martial combat tricks.

If you really feel like this is a good idea, then try it out with a table and see how it goes. It might be a good fit for your group! For instance, make it a level 1 or 2 fighter feat or skill feat that targets an opponents Will save vs your Intimidate.

Very importantly, however, it should be tested in a few ways:

With your players using the feat, you should see how much it changes the battle. I feel as though you're going to see the fighter using that a lot more since it's so efficient, but it isn't actively engaging. Tabletop games lack the sort of "aggro tracking" that an MMO or CRPG would have, so there's no interesting choices to be made. It's just use the taunt and take the hits.

Secondly, run it where the enemies have the access to taunt and see how your players feel after encountering. Once more, I feel like taking away player autonomy is going to feel, at the end of the day, not fun. It introduces a challenge, yes, but overcoming it doesn't feel like a victory so much as it does, "Oh, good, that annoying obstacle is gone."

Again, these are how I feel. The playtest is a great time to try out new ideas and test what you want to see change. My group has been doing a lot of this as well, and once you start breaking things down, you can sometimes see why certain choices were made.

[Ruzza]

We should take a look at some of these and see why they aren't well known or brought up more often.

Diffan wrote:

· Goad (complete adventurer)

Goad from 3.5 had a Charisma pre-req which necessitates a certain build of a tanking character. There are big and obvious trade offs for building a character in this way. This is a time where each ability point is a lot more important than it is in the playtest right now (where we're seeing a lot higher stats thanks to the ability boosts). If a player showed me a "tanking fighter" that focused on Charisma (of which the DC was based on), then it's an interesting choice and build. But, not optimal. Sub-par for sure.

Diffan wrote:

· Test of Mettle (knight 4th level, PH2)

· Glowering Threat (fighter 2 exploit, Heroes of the fallen lands)
· Come and Get It (fighter 7 exploit, PHB)

I don't think it's fair to include 4e content in this list as the game was much more focused around grid movement and battle mechanics. I know that I don't speak for everyone, but this isn't any direction I would like the game to go in. The end result is that Pathfinder and 4e are apples and oranges and comparing their mechanics doesn't really apply here.

Diffan wrote:

· Antagonize (PFsrd)

This is actually what I thought more people would bring up. PF1e had an easily accessible "taunt" mechanic that no one ever used. Why? The action economy for it was terrible. You use your singular standard action to get one enemy to attack you on your next turn. It's a trap feat in PF1e. To make that equivalent, would you accept a 3 action use taunt in the playtest? I feel like I most would decry that as a trap feat.

Diffan wrote:

· Boasting Taunt (barbarian 6th level, APG)

This is a good example of a "taunt" mechanic that I would love to see. It debuffs the opponent with the shaken mechanic until they succeed at an attack on the barbarian. It's not forcing any action and it's making your choices impactful for your team. Yes, this 100% all the way.