taunt?

[Lanth Sor]

I'm looking for a feat or power that forces your target to attack you. The goal is to troll a dm into making the captian of the guard or like the mayor attack so we can kill them legit.

[Epinephrine]

I'm looking for a feat or power that forces your target to attack you. The goal is to troll a dm into making the captian of the guard or like the mayor attack so we can kill them legit.

Any dominate can do that.

[GPuzzle]

Decree of Khirad. Warlock Level 1 Daily. Pseudo Dominate, basically.

Or, you know, ask your defender to mark him.

[Tegu8788]

I'm looking for a feat or power that forces your target to attack you. The goal is to troll a dm

Bad idea, a trolled DM brings out trolls.


into making the captian of the guard or like the mayor attack so we can kill them legit.

Well, there are a great many powers that can influence a target into attacking you, but they are all aggressive to some degree in the first place. So if you are trying to find some way to provoke an attack, you would have to provoke the provocation.

[NecroRebel]

Yeah, you're probably not going to find a way to do what you want to do, and even if you did, your DM would be entirely justified in making it not work the way you want it to. This isn't a video game or MMO where your opponent is a computer, so treating it as such isn't going to work very well.

[Kimera757]

You can't really fool a person into attacking you. I don't think you could trick a person into punching you in real life. They won't do it unless they want to. You need to force them with a charm power. Hypnotism (1st-level wizard at-will) will do the trick. The encounter level version's flavor text specifically calls out that kind of hijinks.

Or work up some kind of uncontrollable rage or really weird illusion power to prompt that kind of reaction.

[Lanth Sor]

I know all the player/dm repercussions, me and a group of friends are looking to troll one of our other friends by playing very hijinks characters. Thanx for the help. The fact that I don't do damage to achieve this is paramount. I'm thinking like the Antagonize feat from pathfinder where you make an intimidate check to force someone to spend their next round trying to hit you. Once they hit you once they are free to do what ever, but they have to move into attack range and attack if possible. You can extend the effect fro a round, if your enemy didn't make an attack against you. It only works on someone 1/day but its freaking hilarious. That's what I have in mind.

[Gavran]

As said, doesn't really exist. There are dominates, there are dominate-lites, and that's it. All are considered acts of aggression.

If you're really really set on someone attacking you without attacking them first your best bet is bluff or intimidation, either of which is subject to DM interpretation anyway.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm looking for a feat or power that forces your target to attack you. The goal is to troll a dm into making the captian of the guard or like the mayor attack so we can kill them legit.

Come And Get It, L7 fighter power.

There's quite a number of other powers, mainly for fighter and warlord, that are fluffed as forcing the target to do something to you.

[Mandrake]

If you really want to do this the good way, then instead of trying to get a one-shot-wonder power that forces him to attack you, consider skill challenging for it. Any power you use should make the target and those around aware of a power being used.

Openly say to your DM what your intentions are (usually works best), your plan how to do it, and roll skills and powers to achieve it.

For example, (though knowing your level and party classes would help)

The wizard turns into a nice female, and bluffs the Captain into trusting him/her and gets him to meet outside in five minutes. While they are talking, the rogue sneaks away from the tavern unnoticed by the Captain or by the other guards he is with. Meanwhile, the fighter starts impressing the other guards with his athletics or some other physical skills, distracting them, by which time the Captain leaves the tavern, he doesn't want other guards to be there anyway. When he reaches the wizard, still in disguise, the warlord pretends to want to hurt them both with a successful intimidate check. They position themselves so that, from the tavern, you can only see the warlord and the Captain. The Captain, naturally, attacks, to defend the girl and himself, for the whole tavern to see. Wizards turns back into real self, rogue strikes from hiding, warlord is there already and the fighter can pretty much break through the said window. They kill him, with the guards none the wiser.

Or you could just dominate and hope no one notices the domination, but sees him attack you first somehow, that works too. Only that he will stop immediately after the spell ends, and will say "Stop! Stop! This is a mistake! There is foul sorcery at hand!" at which point you must stop or break the law. So dominating, in my game, would be really hard to organize.

Hope it helps, cheers!

[sniffies]

There's no "legit" way to do what you're talking about by using a power. Dominate, etc, can always be discovered as the "reason".

Think about it in WoW terms: in a non-pvp zone, you can't just cast taunt on somebody, they have to attack first. You can goad them into attacking by being a general jerk, but if they don't want to, they don't have to.

The action you're taking will be your fault, no matter how you accomplish it.

[Mandrake]

The action you're taking will be your fault, no matter how you accomplish it.

I take this as a general point of the thread; it's just that I think it can be done without anyone else knowing that :wink:

[Tengu_temp]

Legit in what way? What you're trying to do is still against the law of most communities, and still evil.

[Kurald Galain]

Overall, this reminds me of a Vampire campaign I played, where certain of the players believed that if they could make up an excuse for their behavior (of attacking certain other vampires) then that would shield them from the consequences of their behavior. Of course, that didn't exactly work out that way, but (this being VtM) the DM was happy to not inform the players of that until it was too late.

Yes, there are numerous ways in 4E in which you can force an NPC to attack you. No, none of them will automatically shield you from the consequences of having killed said NPC.

[Boci]

Overall, this reminds me of a Vampire campaign I played, where certain of the players believed that if they could make up an excuse for their behavior (of attacking certain other vampires) then that would shield them from the consequences of their behavior. Of course, that didn't exactly work out that way, but (this being VtM) the DM was happy to not inform the players of that until it was too late.

Yes, there are numerous ways in 4E in which you can force an NPC to attack you. No, none of them will automatically shield you from the consequences of having killed said NPC.

That actually does work rather well in Vampire, because of frenzy and the Camarilla's view that to succumb to one it a weakness, so that often can be a way to kill a kindred and get away with it.

Drugs that induce hyper-aggression or mindless rage could work, its DM dependent though. Apart from that it depends on the NPC's psychology. An illusion only they can see could also work, but again its beyond the scope of the rules AFAIK.

[Ceiling_Squid]

The way you talk, it sounds like you're playing a video game. Like how you could goad people into attacking you in the Elder Scrolls games, and the guards would look the other way if you didn't initiate.

Very metagamey. I certainly wouldn't run it that way, since it doesn't make a damn lick of sense. Even if you could flawlessly trick someone important into attacking you, (head of the guard, mayor, etc.), chances are the guards aren't going to follow a pre-programmed NPC response and ignore your actions. I bet an investigation would be launched, and you'd be in a mess of trouble, given a respected member of the community suddenly turned on you in a murderous rage. Sounds like they'd find a reason to blame you for it ("He never acted this way before! That man he suddenly attacked must be evil, or cursed!") Then again, I expect a DM to run a basic "living world" that reacts organically, rather than on technicalities.

If you and your DM like playing this way, go ahead and have fun, but I don't think there's a perfect 4e power or feat that lets you get exactly what you're looking for (not one that won't raise suspicion). My advice within the rules would be to try a skill challenge with lots of talking skills to goad the NPC, but that actually requires a DM to be actively involved and creatively condone the effort. Which of course precludes any attempt to corner or "troll" him in the first place.

Sure as heck isn't the kind of DnD game I'd want to play, though. :smallannoyed:

[Boci]

The way you talk, it sounds like you're playing a video game. Like how you could goad people into attacking you in the Elder Scrolls games, and the guards would look the other way if you didn't initiate.

That was fun, although my favorite was personally killing NPCs with DoT spells, and then getting fined for assault, especially because I loved filling in the blanks of the conversation.


Very metagamey. I certainly wouldn't run it that way, since it doesn't make a damn lick of sense. Even if you could flawlessly trick someone important into attacking you, (head of the guard, mayor, etc.), chances are the guards aren't going to follow a pre-programmed NPC response and ignore your actions. I bet an investigation would be launched, and you'd be in a mess of trouble, given a respected member of the community suddenly turned on you in a murderous rage. Sounds like they'd find a reason to blame you for it ("He never acted this way before! That man he suddenly attacked must be evil, or cursed!") Then again, I expect a DM to run a basic "living world" that reacts organically, rather than on technicalities.

This is where D&D's tendency to mix modern and mideval philosophies muddles things. In the middles ages, I doubt there would have been an "investigation", the PC would simply be charged with killing, and could bring up "he started it" as part of his argument, but that wouldn't matter nearly as much as it would today. It would depend far more on social standing, which in turn depends on how the DM interprets the status of an adventurer in the society.

[Kurald Galain]

That actually does work rather well in Vampire, because of frenzy and the Camarilla's view that to succumb to one it a weakness, so that often can be a way to kill a kindred and get away with it.
That depends. Yes, a vampire can pull off a kill like that if he's skilled in manipulation and/or plans it well, and preferably both. That doesn't mean that any kindred can just attack another, point out "he started it!" in his best kindergarten style, and expect to be free of repercussion. Just because he technically didn't break any of the Traditions doesn't change the fact that he makes enemies by doing this.

[Boci]

That depends. Yes, a vampire can pull off a kill like that if he's skilled in manipulation and/or plans it well, and preferably both. That doesn't mean that any kindred can just attack another, point out "he started it!" in his best kindergarten style, and expect to be free of repercussion. Just because he technically didn't break any of the Traditions doesn't change the fact that he makes enemies by doing this.

Sure, I was just pointing out the tactic works rather well in that system, certainly more so than 4th ed. Hell the 20th anniversary edition has that tactic as the example use for academics.

[Dimers]

Ahhh, killing video game NPCs without repercussions, ain't it grand? I liked the "heal to death" maneuver in Fallout 2 -- you use ten or twenty Super Stimpaks on an NPC, and one minute later, they take a couple hundred damage from the drug crash. The special ways to "whack" the Family heads in New Reno were pretty awesome too.