| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do a lot of damage, don't use a shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The command spell can sort of do what you want. It won't force them to actually attack you, but you do force them to save or come towards you (as opposed to your squishy teammates).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any spells or abilities that actually pull aggro?
No. Not really. "Pull Aggro" is a term that I associate with MMO games. I think it was tried out in D&D4e to an extent, but that edition wasn't exactly the best received system.
Good Champion has the best 'attack me or else...' mechanics already. Though Retributive Strike is the least powerful of them.
Retributive Strike: attack me or I might hit you.
Glimpse of Redemption: attack me or don't attack or I will cripple your stats.
Liberating Step: attack me or I will waste your actions.
I can only think of a few other options to create a disincentive for attacking an ally. You could cast Sanctuary on them - though it is unlikely that the ally will stop using hostile actions, so the effect won't last long. Witch and Witch archetype have Needle of Vengeance.
But yeah. Aggro mechanics don't work well in TTRPG games because the GM should also have agency for their character's actions just like the players do.
The advanced domain spell of the Duty Domain (dutiful challenge) kinda work like aggro.
It is a bit underwhelming for a rank 4 spell, starting as a -1, with heightening every 3 rank.
The fact that it is status magus will also conflict with most debuff as well.
(I do not know if it has been changed in the remaster though).
The Earth Kineticist aura is also quite good if your other team members are ranged, but doesn't synergies well with champion's reactions.
The advanced domain spell of the Duty Domain (dutiful challenge) kinda work like aggro.
(I do not know if it has been changed in the remaster though).
Dutiful Challenge is from Gods & Magic. So if it is going to change, it hasn't gotten its errata yet.
Good find though. It does definitely fit the theme.
Bon Mot a little bit. They don't have to attack you, but they do have to spend an action responding to you (or spend an action deliberately ignoring you) if they want to remove the penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nagaji with Hypnotic Lure at level 5.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should introduce taunt options in future books. It's a cool dynamic.
You could certainly add (or at least request it) it as a houserule for your games.
As an occasional GM, I don't find it to be a cool dynamic. If I am the GM, I get to play the enemy characters according to how I believe the character would behave. Mindless enemies will attack the nearest target. A group of skilled mercenaries or experienced highway robbers are going to attack in unexpected ways and go after high value targets first. Only certain types of enemies are going to fall for taunt style tricks that the PCs might try.
Having my agency as a player and control over my characters at the table taken away isn't much fun - and that includes when my role at the table is GM. Even if the control loss is not an absolutely forced thing. A big no-defense penalty with no recourse to remove is enough. I have even seen other people mention this in regards to the Champion reactions a bit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree.
There's a simple way to know if taunt is a good option or not. As a player do you will like that the GM use taunt on you forcing your char to focus exclusively into the target that he choose?
The current solution of champion reactions and the 3-action economy usually is enough to discourage enemies to attack non-champions due its retaliations reactions and ranged characters usually are protected not only by some eventual AoO of some of your allies but also to the fact that an enemy that try to passthrough the frontline usually end flanked and without actions to use its best attacks.
Taunt should be a skill feat option, just like Bon Mot. Infact some may view Bon Mot as a taunt.
I'd prefer if taunt was something like:
On a successful taunt -
If the target has a melee weapon or natural weaponry then the target must move to within their melee strike range of you on their next turn. If not they must make some other hostile action towards you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the champion reaction and Bon Mot as "taunt" options because they don't prevent the GM from making choices, but you do get to put weight on the scales.
AoO/Reactive Strike can also be one of those. "Walk past me and I'll hit you."
Another one is tripping/grabbing. "First you have to get away from me before you can hit my friends."
Notice that with the right polearm, you can do most of these.
I honestly don't know what the people see as that good in [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114]Bon Mot[url] during an encounter.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a bit more niche than the others, true. You need to actually have a plan to exploit the debuff, such as:
- You want to Feint and the lower Perception helps. I'm not sold on it because Feint is okay but there are just so many even easier ways to achieve flat-footed.
- You or a teammate is gonna target their Will save, probably with spells or Intimidate. This can be good especially against mooks. If you have an enemy where Will wasn't their best save to begin with, you debuff it, then it becomes quite likely that a spell like Fear or Calm Emotions can really wreck them. Given how quickly mook HP goes up at higher level, Will spells can be the fastest way to remove them from the fight for a while.
Another point is that it's relatively cheap. It's just a skill feat, it doesn't commit you to a class or archetype. And Diplomacy is one of the more useful skills to have for other things already. And Bon Mot doesn't require a free hand or a particular kind of weapon. So it doesn't really interfere with the rest of your build very much.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to be something I always end up commenting on because of how staunchly opposed I am to "taunt" as a mechanic in TTRPGs. When there are two camps split between Gameplay and Versimilitude, I often find myself on the side of gameplay first and versimilitude second, but I make an exception for "taunting" and direct video game mechanics like that applied in a game that should (abstractly) represent a real world.
I feel like the idea of compelling someone to act against their will should be reserved for magic. Shouting at someone to make them angry enough to fight you sort of strips free will from the character. The intelligent wizard BBEG rushing in to swing his staff at the armored fighter doesn't tell a compelling story to me so much as it tells a goofy "I can't believe this happened" sort of tale.
And to also touch on the gameplay aspect of it, I hate the idea of saying "I am going to be the tank, my role is to get hit," and then they're forced into a gameplay loop box that's better fit to video games with less decision points. I don't want to be at the table hearing, "Come on, you have to taunt the enemy so we can do our routines." It also takes the fun away from me - the GM. A lot of people seem to forget that we GMs are playing the game, too, and aren't just an automated interface to game. I'm alright with my group stunning and controlling my creatures and opponents through spells and gameplay, but it feels worse to have that autonomy stripped away (on regular basis, I should add; I'm assuming people want "taunting" as a go-to mechanic in stead of a limited resource).
On the other hand, I love when players force the enemy to deal with them through tactical play. The champion who grabs a reach weapon and Attack Of Opportunity presents a threat to overcome - but not impossible. A monk who Readies actions to Trip anyone who gets near the spellcasting wizard works in some situations, but not all. The barbarian spending their time using Athletics maneuvers to keep enemies corraled while their team handles them changes the dynamics of encounters. A singular action that takes all of that texture and play from the game feels like, honestly, a horrible idea.
I honestly don't know what the people see as that good in [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114]Bon Mot[url] during an encounter.
I like it on a Sorcerer followed up with Phantasmal Killer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, this isn't rules advice, but you can just taunt enemies. Insult them, challenge them, threaten things they care about, blaspheme their gods, act overconfident, use magic or mundane disguises to look like a more tempting target, etc. You can move into positions that tempt flanking, you can grapple, you can hang back and shout, "Keep them off me while I complete the ritual!", and you can place hazards if there's time- even just marbles or caltrops can discourage enemies.
Outside the character, you can act overconfident about not being hit in OOC talk, you can discuss tactics with the party, and you can discuss what you're hoping for with the GM.
The party can use stealth or Invisibility, use illusions or disguises to make themselves less tempting targets, cast less flashy spells, shout lies like, "That's all the magic I can manage, you're on your own!", spend actions falling back from the fight, take defensive or punishing reactions (e.g. evil champion, metal kineticist), or back up your own lies.
Taunt should be a skill feat option, just like Bon Mot. Infact some may view Bon Mot as a taunt.
I'd prefer if taunt was something like:
On a successful taunt -
If the target has a melee weapon or natural weaponry then the target must move to within their melee strike range of you on their next turn. If not they must make some other hostile action towards you.
Again, as a GM, I am not a fan of the 'must' part of that.
I feel like the idea of compelling someone to act against their will should be reserved for magic.
While I agree with pretty much everything else you posted, I don't quite go that far.
I could say the same thing about instant death effects - that they should be reserved for magic. Yet Scare to Death exists and is fairly reasonably balanced and narratively justified.
In another thread i asked why there was no enrage like condition repping usi g diplomacy to being so upset they make poorer choices.
It falls under the same lines as a taunt. It takes away a the choice of actions for the round rather than influence the action choices for the round.
If an enrage or taunt mechanic existed in this game and they applied a condition that condition would be tempered. It wouldnt apply any absolutes on action choice. Instead it might make some chioices less attractive.
A taunt might apply a penalty to strikes against targets that didnt apply the condition.
Enrage might apply a penalty to actions with the concentrate tag.
Plainly though both of these kinds of things can be handled by narrative and GM deciding if a check is needed what that consists of and when and how an npc reacts to what a player says.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In another thread i asked why there was no enrage like condition repping usi g diplomacy to being so upset they make poorer choices.
It falls under the same lines as a taunt. It takes away a the choice of actions for the round rather than influence the action choices for the round.If an enrage or taunt mechanic existed in this game and they applied a condition that condition would be tempered. It wouldnt apply any absolutes on action choice. Instead it might make some chioices less attractive.
A taunt might apply a penalty to strikes against targets that didnt apply the condition.
Enrage might apply a penalty to actions with the concentrate tag.Plainly though both of these kinds of things can be handled by narrative and GM deciding if a check is needed what that consists of and when and how an npc reacts to what a player says.
Do Bon Mot or Evangelize count?
Taunt should be a skill feat option, just like Bon Mot. Infact some may view Bon Mot as a taunt.
I'd prefer if taunt was something like:
On a successful taunt -
If the target has a melee weapon or natural weaponry then the target must move to within their melee strike range of you on their next turn. If not they must make some other hostile action towards you.Again, as a GM, I am not a fan of the 'must' part of that.
Yep. I know 4th ed D&D got very stupid with Come and Get It. Archers were climbing out of trees. So you would have to be more careful with the wording than I was above. But something like that needs to exist.
Perhaps must attack or cast a harmful spell - if that is not possible then move into a position to do that next turn.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could say the same thing about instant death effects - that they should be reserved for magic. Yet Scare to Death exists and is fairly reasonably balanced and narratively justified.
While there's little more I have to say on "taunting," I should note the difference in the "fantasy" of taunt mechanics and the balancing act of mechanics. Scare To Death is a pretty good example of why people looking for a "taunt" will be dissatisfied. Scare To Death requires being level 15, has the incapacitation trait, and only functions when both you score a critical success against a target and it critically fails its Fortitude save. Getting Scare To Death for the ability to kill opponents with a glance is really not the best choice.
Now, I do somewhat agree with you, because Scare To Death (and others, like Implausible Infiltration) feel very much in the realm of "magic should do this." But they're also very much set aside for the highest levels of play - at which point, I don't get so up in arms. If people are looking for a "taunt," I would assume they want that to be something they can do from level 1. The idea is that it's a function of the gameplay, right? Like "I have a character who Strides, Raises Shield, and Taunts," like in an MMO.
Yeah, I think a spell which forces someone to attack a particular foe wouldn't be outrageous, but if it takes agency away from a player it should probably be a spell and not a basic action.
I also think taunting wouldn't be as good as the OP thinks. Unlike other games, PF2 tanks are not so much more durable than PF2 squishies that they can afford to draw ALL OF THE AGRO. At least not without significant healing. The War Priest probably handled it better than most because they can apply their copious healing to themselves. From there, the GM will need to decide if the enemies will target other PCs who are dishing out the hurt, or target the war priest so people actually stay down.
If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?
If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?
Demoralize
If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?
Sure. You can spend an action with the effect of provoking Reactive Strike. If the enemy decides to use it on you, then it won't be available to use on the spellcaster nearby.
If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?Demoralize
that's atotally different effect.
If a player is using an action to attempt to roleplay taunts it has a different feel than demoralize which might be appropriate if the tact used is intimidation based. It feels different than create a diversion which is an attempt to distract a foe from your own actions. It feels different from a bon mot which makes an opponent feel stupid/offended/befuddled? I guess
Taunt is something that gets someone riled up/upset with you/wanting to hurt you for what you said. It seems within the bounds of what this game allows already but isnt quite captured by existing skill actions.
Kind of a odd thought but what if the skill action taunt did the opposite of create a distraction. If the effect is landed all other creatures besides the taunter become concealed to the foe. This effect is removed by taking one action to calm themselves.
Concealed is strong but its one action to remove. Probably something that cant be used again against that foe for a duration.
If the foe wants to not commit the action to remove the effect they have no negatives for attacking the one that taunted them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?
"Taunting is a free action; just choose what you want to say. They're free to act on it as they choose. You can spend an action to make it a demoralize check if you want, though."
If they want it to be a more serious thing, though, what I'd do is let them Demoralize and voluntarily forgo the penalties on checks against themselves. It makes a nice, neat mechanical solution that isn't any stronger, and still has feat support.
If they want more than that, I'm gonna ask them what they're envisioning. Running up to someone and hunkering down behind a shield isn't going to make them want to attack you, or cause them to be more receptive to any taunting. You taunt someone by throwing your shield aside and putting your hand behind your back, not by raising it.
If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?"Taunting is a free action; just choose what you want to say. They're free to act on it as they choose. You can spend an action to make it a demoralize check if you want, though."
If they want it to be a more serious thing, though, what I'd do is let them Demoralize and voluntarily forgo the penalties on checks against themselves. It makes a nice, neat mechanical solution that isn't any stronger, and still has feat support.
If they want more than that, I'm gonna ask them what they're envisioning. Running up to someone and hunkering down behind a shield isn't going to make them want to attack you, or cause them to be more receptive to any taunting. You taunt someone by throwing your shield aside and putting your hand behind your back, not by raising it.
Like the barbarian come at me feat.
that's atotally different effect.If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?Demoralize
Then we're in the realm of homebrew.
Like, if I have a player who says "I taunt the opponent and I use an action to do so," I'd be confused. The GM is in the position to adjudicate rules on the fly, not create them on the fly. If a player wants to have a mechanical taunt, then that's something they and the GM should work together on outside of the game. You could create a thread in the Homebrew forums for just such a thing.
Taunt is something that gets someone riled up/upset with you/wanting to hurt you for what you said. It seems within the bounds of what this game allows already but isnt quite captured by existing skill actions.
EDIT: I know you are coming in fresh to PF2 and you have a lot of questions about the design space, but one of the first starting points of questioning a mechanic's omission is to say "Why isn't this in the game?" It's been more than 3 years since the launch and there has been no shortage of people asking for "taunt mechanics." Why hasn't someone just done the deed and said, "Intimidation versus Will DC, boom that opponent has to attack you now," while slapping on the Auditory traits and calling it a day? It's without a doubt the easiest thing to implement, so why hasn't it been done?
It very likely stems from all of the issues I stated up top along with a myriad number more. Translating the mechanics from video games that were translating their mechanics from role-playing games may not have the desired effect that many are looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with a "taunt" type mechanic that makes an opponent so mad they get reckless, is that doesn't work against professionals. How many athletes get yelled at by many thousands of people for example?
If someone is so untrained that calling them names is going to make them lose their cool, they aren't a real threat to a professional adventurer like the PCs.
Maybe you can insult a goblin or other low level threat to make it reckless, but I wouldn't expect it to work against anything past level 1 or 2.
This is a key point.
I can see how taunting is very situational. Does your PC know what to say to push that NPC’s buttons?How has the player described this taunt?
Does it invoke a cleric of iomedae need to accept a challenge? I mean that taunt would work and it wouldnt take an action.
In this sense does taunting need a mechanic? Probably not.
Did I think my idea was kinda cool? Yeah still think reverse create a distraction is cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's atotally different effect.If a player wanted to stride raise a shield the spend an action taunting a npc. How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?DemoralizeThen we're in the realm of homebrew.
Like, if I have a player who says "I taunt the opponent and I use an action to do so," I'd be confused. The GM is in the position to adjudicate rules on the fly, not create them on the fly. If a player wants to have a mechanical taunt, then that's something they and the GM should work together on outside of the game. You could create a thread in the Homebrew forums for just such a thing.
Taunt is something that gets someone riled up/upset with you/wanting to hurt you for what you said. It seems within the bounds of what this game allows already but isnt quite captured by existing skill actions.EDIT: I know you are coming in fresh to PF2 and you have a lot of questions about the design space, but one of the first starting points of questioning a mechanic's omission is to say "Why isn't this in the game?" It's been more than 3 years since the launch and there has been no shortage of people asking for "taunt mechanics." Why hasn't someone just done the deed and said, "Intimidation versus Will DC, boom that opponent has to attack you now," while slapping on the Auditory traits and calling it a day? It's without a doubt the easiest thing to implement, so why hasn't it been done?
It very likely stems from all of the issues I stated up top along with a myriad number more. Translating the mechanics from video games that were translating their mechanics from role-playing games may not have the desired effect that many are looking for.
I actually agree with you here. Videogame taunts are the way they are because videogames are limited. Ttrpgs are buIlt on human interaction with more humans and videogame implementation strips away the agency there on all sides of the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes we do want everyone to attack us that is literally the point of the thread. I'll let you think about how that might be a good thing. Correct it doesnt exist in the game, this is more like a request for a feature. It would have to be balanced.
No it shouldn't take over player agency - well no more than confusion or dominate does. It probably should just be a chance of mandating an action. But like Create a Diversions, repeated checks should have a penalty. If we can have feats like Evangelize and Disturbing Knowledge then I think we can have a Taunt.
At the moment I just roleplay it with a diplomacy check. An actual mechanism would be nice.
Yes we do want everyone to attack us that is literally the point of the thread. I'll let you think about how that might be a good thing. Correct it doesnt exist in the game, this is more like a request for a feature. It would have to be balanced.
No it shouldn't take over player agency - well no more than confusion or dominate does. It probably should just be a chance of mandating an action. But like Create a Diversions, repeated checks should have a penalty. If we can have feats like Evangelize and Disturbing Knowledge then I think we can have a Taunt.
At the moment I just roleplay it with a diplomacy check. An actual mechanism would be nice.
I would aggressively oppose a feature like this, especially with verbiage like "mandating an action." If you have ideas for how to make something like this, go nuts, but here are the hurdles that stand in your way (to my knowledge):
- By virtue of the ask, it would need to be manageable for people to acquire early enough to make it a "mechanic." I would say accessible between levels 1 and 4. I think that's safe to assume that's what people are looking for.
- Like other PF2 mechanics and options, it should never be "the best option at all times," but situationally dependent. Bon Mot is good, but it doesn't get used in every combat. Raising A Shield is good, but there are times when it isn't worth the action.
- It can't be worded in an abusive way. That's the loosest way to put it, but you have to avoid cheesy behavior. A "taunt" mechanic that says, "On a success, the target must spend their turn attempting to Strike you," ignores players using this ability from across chasms or from behind their party of Attack of Opportunity companions.
- It can't be redundant. "A frenzied opponent takes a -1 status penalty to all attacks on targets that don't include you," is somewhat invalidated by frightened doing the same thing, but better.
- It has to be fair and understandable in-world. More looseness, but you can't have something just lock an opponent out from acting because you've been screaming at them to come at you.
This isn't a Homebrew thread, but let me just give you my two-cents on what this hypothetical ability looks like from my point of view and I'll add in why I still don't think it's healthy for the game.
Taunt (One-Action)
Feat 1
Traits: Auditory, Concentrate, Emotion, General, Incapacitate, Linguistic, Mental, Skill
Prerequisites: Trained in Intimidation
You challenge an opponent to fight you. Make an Intimidation check against an adjacent foe against their Will DC. Regardless of your result, the target is temporarily immune to your attempts to Taunt it for 10 minutes.
Critical Success: As a success, and the target must spend their next turn attempting to target you with a hostile action. This effect lasts only while the target remains adjacent to you.
Success: The target takes a -2 status penalty to attack rolls that do not include you until the end of their next turn.
So this is a quick and dirty concept that, to me, checks all of the boxes laid out above. But there are still some problems. What does the inclusion of this to the game say about my actions as a GM? If my PCs have this and fail, but the opponent was going to attack them anyway, what was the point of having the action at all? Does adding this ability make combat more dynamic or more static? In a group without the Taunt ability, should GMs purposely ignore the already established means of controlling an enemy? I mean, the mechanic exists now and the group chooses to ignore it, so should it be handled as though it is required? Is it required? Are the traditional ways of keeping an opponent's attention invalidated now due to this skill feat's existence? Is this even worth a skill feat?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no interest in a taunt mechanic. I like the nature of the creature to drive its actions. An intelligent creature should be able to focus fire casters if they consider that a superior tactic. A mindless monster should likely keep swinging at the closest enemy it has to eat or kill. I prefer their nature be the driving force behind enemy actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would you handle them saying i want to spend my last action taunting them and they describe the taunts to you?
In general, creatures have motives that push them to attack such or such character. A Mindless creature will attack the closest enemy and as such grabbing attention could be possible by positionning yourself in front of them. A Demon can be susceptible to Bon Mot or other forms of taunting. A religious creature will be really pissed if you insult their deity. And so on...
It's a bit like Aid, you should explain how you taunt the enemy. And in such case you could succeed without even needing to spend an action, depending on the type of taunt you use.
So this is a quick and dirty concept that, to me, checks all of the boxes laid out above.
I'll agree it is near enough to what I asked for.
But there are still some problems. What does the inclusion of this to the game say about my actions as a GM?. If my PCs have this and fail, but the opponent was going to attack them anyway, what was the point of having the action at all?
That is an empty argument. Gamers actions change what their opponent's do all the time. I see lots of people raise shields when I never had any intention of going after them. It is up to them to make that judgment. Wasted, failed or pointless actions happen all the time. Yes generally as a GM I would respond to a successful Taunt. That is the point of it after all. But no sometimes I'd ignore it - at least the version you have proposed. This would be with more tactical minded monsters.
Does adding this ability make combat more dynamic or more static?
It is another variable, another option which may or may not work. It enables new tactics. It is an extra dimension or another way to try to contain your opponent.
If you want a more movement then stop giving every martial Reactive Strike.In a group without the Taunt ability, should GMs purposely ignore the already established means of controlling an enemy? I mean, the mechanic exists now and the group chooses to ignore it, so should it be handled as though it is required? Is it required? Are the traditional ways of keeping an opponent's attention invalidated now due to this skill feat's existence? Is this even worth a skill feat?
It is required to enable a type of roleplay that is not currently well supported. PF2's style is to support roleplay with some mechanics.
Nothing is invalidated conceptually. But that of course will depend on the specifics of the new mechanism. Yes there are conditions and statuses already that don't stack. You have chosen to suggest a status that might have stacking problems. It doesn't have to be that way.
By speaking about taunting, I now imagine playing a Champion or Monk with maxed out Deception who spends fights insulting enemies in the most infuriating ways!!!
Snip
I mean, I think this shows that we have different approaches to game design philosophy and that the design staff seems to differ as well.
Count me among those who dislike the idea of a general one-size-fits-all nonmagic compulsion taunt. By all means, I'm okay with 'taunt' mechanics that incentivise an enemy to attack a particular target, but until legendary tier, I don't feel like you should be able to force an enemy's tactical decision making process by rolling a mundane skill high enough tjat they obey your command regardless who they are or how tactically savvy or experienced they might be.
Already I find it challenging enough to picture what happens when you successfully inflict "fleeing" nonmagically--the target is so mind-numbingly afraid that they just keep running for a whole turn, no matter how many corridors and turns they've taken in that time... and then they presumably turn right back around to charge back into the fight. I suppose if the fight wasn't going well they're just gone at that point, but it still creates strange scenarios... especially when the foe in question is a dread wraith and has no life for which to flee, but on the other hand I enjoy undead losing the blanket immunity too much to be that upset about ghosts being the ones to get spooked.
On top of that, I'm not really a big fan of the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm. It works for MMOs (at least I assume that's why it's so popular people keep trying to replicate it here) but it's both unrealistic and feels degenerative to the range of possibilities afforded by the game as it stands. I don't think they game is honestly very much improved by having a designated character whose job is to take all the damage while another player spends all their energy managing the first's health and the others actually get to deal damage. Obviously there are shades of that in play, with some classes having healing and others having more hit points, but the playing field is still level enough that no one can afford to take all the damage and no one is responsible for all the damage output.
On top of that, I'm not really a big fan of the Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm. It works for MMOs (at least I assume that's why it's so popular people keep trying to replicate it here)
Outside WoW, I've never seen this paradigm so massively enforced. For me it's really the success of WoW that raised it so high that many people equate it with the MMORPG (and even RPG) term(s).