Combat Move: The Crucial Taunt !

[geordieracer]

The Crucial Taunt
A desperate move, some say suicidal, this is an attempt by a duellist to goad their foe into attacking them in order to land a telling counterstrike when their foe misses.

Hero vs NPC - The Hero duellist must succeed at 3/IQ roll to tant their adversary.

vs Hero - The Hero must fail at a 3/IQ roll to be goaded into action.

If the taunt succeeds, the attacker must roll 1d6 to see how many die they roll against their DX to strike.

If they hit they add a corresponding amount of d6 to the damage roll.

e.g, Velasquez taunts Duke Bardolph, succeeds at his IQ roll. The Duke's 1d6 roll results in a 2. He rolls 2/DX to attack Velasquez, if he hits, he adds +2d6 to the damage done.

If the attacker is unsuccessful they can be counterstruck, with a bonus of 1 die from the Taunter's roll to hit.

[chrisrice]

Seems complicated and might slow down combat a fair bit if you have multiple characters on each side trying this.

What was the logic behind the idea of the attacker having to roll d6 to see how many dice they must roll to hit? Seems a bit extreme but could provide some amusing combat narratives.

I'd suggest only allowing it once per combat or opponent.

[ewookie]

i'm not sure i understand it. it seems like the taunt benefits the person being taunted more than the person performing the taunt.

[geordieracer]

Feb 13, 2013 7:56:54 GMT -5 chrisrice said:

Seems complicated and might slow down combat a fair bit if you have multiple characters on each side trying this.

What was the logic behind the idea of the attacker having to roll d6 to see how many dice they must roll to hit? Seems a bit extreme but could provide some amusing combat narratives.

I'd suggest only allowing it once per combat or opponent.

It's a bit of genre emulation and psychology, as it suggests it is a desperate move, not a common tactic, so yes it's probably when the taunter has nothing left to lose and esp if the person he's taunting would - if he was calm - have a greater skill.

The logic is that people respond differently to taunts, and different to different taunts - you use IQ as the deciding factor. Even the greatest swordman can land a clumsy blow when the red mist descends. Some people get angry , some people get cold and calculating,

I suppose I could tweak it to allow the counterstriker an extra 1d6 damage in addition to the base 2/DX to hit.

If there is a simpler method (and there probably is) please share it so I can employ it


.....and other IQ-led moves such as Distraction and Bluffing (to harm opponents morale) should be possible - I'd probably just make an on-the-spot ruling for those.

[ewookie]

not saying i would use this or that i'm a fan of this. i'm only engaging in this as a 'design puzzle' for fun...

Skill: Taunting
On passing 3/IQ+Taunting, a character may apply his Taunting skill level to his next Dodge, Parry, Counterstrike, or attack.

Maneuver? You're only moving your lips. I would name the following 'False Lunge', 'Fake-out', or something:
On passing 3/IQ, a character gains a to-hit and damage bonus on his next attack. Rolling 1d6 determines the bonus. (or the bonus is equal to the chosen penalty on the 3/IQ check (i.e. -1/+1 )

[chrisrice]

OK, my take on it.

To taunt an opponent, you both make an "opposed roll" on IQ. If the taunter wins, the opponent is enraged and makes a rash attack. The attack is made at 4/DX but if it hits it does an additional d6 damage.

If the rash attack fails, the taunter can then counter-attack at +2 to hit/+2 damage.

It's far better to taunt slow, dim-witted opponents than fast, clever ones!

[geordieracer]

Feb 14, 2013 9:17:05 GMT -5 chrisrice said:

OK, my take on it.

To taunt an opponent, you both make an "opposed roll" on IQ. If the taunter wins, the opponent is enraged and makes a rash attack. The attack is made at 4/DX but if it hits it does an additional d6 damage.

If the rash attack fails, the taunter can then counter-attack at +2 to hit/+2 damage.

It's far better to taunt slow, dim-witted opponents than fast, clever ones!

..a much better ruling !

[ewookie]

you said simpler so i simplified
the point of the taunt is to enrage the butt of the joke into setting himself up for a nasty reprisal. it really doesn't have to affect his attack.

i should have made it an opposed roll though. what was i thinking?

[ewookie]

i do like chris' ruling better than mine but i have this obsessive-compulsive desire to simplify everything...

Taunt
Make an opposed IQ roll with the target. The winner of the opposed roll gets d6 extra damage against the loser for 1 turn.

this is growing on me. it's a nice way to turn IQ into an asset in combat. it doesn't necessarily have to be a verbal taunt. it could also be 'explained' as pretending to let your guard down or as a hand-gesture

[geordieracer]

My worry is, are we just giving wizards more of an advantage if it only depends on IQ ?

How would you rule a combination attack like the Nevers Thrust that requires wits and movement ?

6/[DX+IQ] , or two separate rolls, or some other method ?

[chrisrice]

Surely no sane Wizard would be fighting a duel with you in the first place!

[ewookie]

Feb 15, 2013 15:42:32 GMT -5 geordieracer said:

My worry is, are we just giving wizards more of an advantage if it only depends on IQ ?

well, it would be unwise to Taunt a Wizard. if a Wizard Taunt's you, his melee damage is most likely very limited because he's a Wizard. If you fall for it, he deserves the extra D6. If the Wizard's melee damage is not limited, he most likely doesn't have genius-level IQ.

The Wizard says, "I'll play your little game!" LOL

How would you rule a combination attack like the Nevers Thrust that requires wits and movement ?

6/[DX+IQ] , or two separate rolls, or some other method ?

that looks like too much reading for me to just 'get acquainted' with what you are asking. i have no motivation for that. sorry, i can't answer that question.