Which skill would you use for taunting?

[Greywander]

Title.

Was working on some homebrew and thinking about giving one race a racial ability to taunt creatures. Not sure what it would do or what skill it would even use. I'm tempted to file it under Deception, except I can't shake the image of a crude barbarian just making the most horribly offensive remarks about people's mothers, ancestry, romantic preferences, and so on. Such a character just doesn't seem like they'd be a proficient liar. Maybe for more subtle jabs, sure, but overt insults feel like they'd use something else. Oddly enough, Intimidation might be closer to the mark.

[JNAProductions]

Charisma with Proficiency for this race.

[Greywander]

Yeah, that's probably the right answer. This is Reincarnate-friendly, too, which is a major design goal for my race design. Skill proficiencies as racial traits make reincarnation a lot trickier.

What about for everyone else?

[Gurgeh]

There are all sorts of ways to do it, though if put on the spot I'd probably use Charisma (Performance) - especially if you're going for a Skaldic or Anglo-Saxon boast/insult approach.

[Tanarii]

Performance. It's practically a useless skill as is, and it's appropriate. Think Jesters.

The primary reason I thought of it, was this is exactly what Forbidden Lands did. Although they also made it primarily the mental/emotional healing skill (since those things can take damage in that game). All in all, it's quite a useful skill in that game, not just something for Bards and Entertainers to take because it seems thematic.

[Spo]

Don’t have the book in front of me but would look at the battle masters maneuver goading (I think). Also kobolds have their cower, plea, beg feature (just used it in a campaign today) that might give you some ideas.

[Sigreid]

I'd consider intimidate to make yourself look like the biggest threat.

[OldTrees1]

Depends on the form of the taunt:

1) I am sincerely counting on you being too _____ to fight me. (Deception -> Make them think your taunting is a double bluff)
2) Come on, fight me. (Persuasion -> Convince them to fight you)
3) I can slaughter you all. You have no chance regardless of what you do. You will die because I want you dead. (Intimidate -> You actually are the threat)
4) This is the song that never ends. (Performance -> Evoke an strong unpleasant emotion that they just want to stop)

So the insult based taunting sounds like Performance to me.

[Psyren]

You could borrow the racial taunt ability that UA Kender got here: https://dnd.wizards.com/unearthed-arcana/heroes-krynn-revisited

[Witty Username]

What is the goal of the taunt? If it is attempting to manipulate another socially, Charisma. Then, is it to provoke someone into something they wouldn't otherwise do or reduce their social standing, Persuasion. Is it to incite them to an action that you have a hidden agenda for, Deception. Is it to subdue bystanders by making one appear stronger by comparison, Intimidation.
Is it an insult to soothe ones own brused ego? Widsom (Intimidate), or no roll just say your piece.

[da newt]

Persuasion - a taunt is "a remark made in order to anger, wound, or provoke someone."

[Abracadangit]

I feel like JNA has the right of it, but in the games I've played/run, when someone wants to attempt to provoke an NPC using taunts/insults, we've always used Intimidation. PHB even says the Intimidation umbrella includes "hostile actions," which sums up taunting pretty well. It's similar to how the Deception umbrella also includes fast-talking, even if you're not telling outright lies. If you're trying to get your way by generally being a jerk, Intimidation is the safe bet.

[solidork]

The Swashbuckler has a taunt ability and that takes Persuasion.

It's unusual to do a skill check against a target unless its being opposed by some other skill check. Is this a contested roll against their insight? If its not, a saving throw might make more sense.

[Slipjig]

Is this an, "I'm not in combat, and I'm trying to get the NPC to throw the first punch", or an, "I want them to attack me instead of my allies" taunt? The first one could be pretty much any of the social skills (including Performance), depending on your approach.

For an in-combat taunt, I'd probably make it a straight CHA check (unless somebody has a specific class or racial ability). Six seconds isn't much time to develop a deception or persuasive argument.

[RazorChain]

I was playing a monk once and explicitly took performance to trash talk my opponents before pulverizing them.

[Mastikator]

Depends entirely on when it is used and what it does.

In combat

Strength (Intimidation) - Encourage an enemy to target you instead of your allies
Charisma (Performance) - Encourage an enemy to attack your allies instead of you
Charisma (Persuasion) - Encourage an enemy to flee or surrender instead of fighting


Out of combat

Charisma (Performance) - Bait an enemy into attacking you recklessly
Strength (Intimidation) - Convince an enemy to not engage in combat
Charisma (Deception) - Convince an enemy to flee rather than engage in combat


In combat I don't think that snide remarks, clever insults or searing quips is going to do much of anything. You're too busy getting punched in the face by the monk to hear those insults. What's more likely to get any reaction is a load primal roar. You're more likely to react in some way to the barbarian going "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" than some deeply cutting insult.

Out of combat- if you're trying to spook someone who is paying attention to what you're saying- there a "subtle jab" would work. In combat though, subtlety gets drowned in the melee.

[JLandan]

I would use Intimidate or Persuasion, leaning toward Intimidate. Performance doesn't seem right. You're trying to get someone to do something, not impress or entertain. So, you must either convince (Persuasion) or coerce (Intimidation) them to do it.

I would let the PC use whichever they chose.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Technically? RAW?

The player describes

"I would like to taunt the enemy into attacking me."

The Dm then says "Ok, describe it."

The Player responds "I tell him to go have sexual relations with his mother."

The DM replies "That sounds like a charisma check. Use a charisma roll. Do you have anything you are proficient in that you would like to use? I would accept Deception or Performance in this case."

The Player then says "OH Performance. I flamboyantly insult and taunt the enemy. I use my action to do this."

And your done. That's pretty close how the book would do it within the rules. The DM would set the DC or have the enemy potentially roll a wisdom save against a DC set by the player or any number of other options.

[da newt]

If you succeed at INTIMIDATING an opponent isn't the logical outcome that the opponent does NOT attack you?

[noob]

Concentration: start concentrating on a good buff spell and people will try to hit you until the concentration fails.

[Mastikator]

If you succeed at INTIMIDATING an opponent isn't the logical outcome that the opponent does NOT attack you?

Have you not seen those prank videos on *youtube where someone jump scares a person and they instantly punches the pranker? Attacking the source of an intimidation is a logical outcome, it must be because it actually happens in reality. And we have to assume that logic is a description of reality and not a prescription of our own biases.


*if you don't believe me you can probably do an internet search with the phrase "prank goes wrong, violent".

[Greywander]

I agree that it will largely depend on the specific context, so some insults or taunts could be made with any CHA skill, and wouldn't necessarily use CHA for the ability score (but CHA would probably be the most used ability score). I do have a bit of trouble reconciling the idea of a crass and crude ruffian somehow being considered charismatic just because they can spit out a good roast, but what can you do? Intimidation seems like the best fit for a good portion of circumstances, as it's the "offensive" social skill. (That's a bit of a problem for my homebrew, though, as I've replaced Intimidation with Authority. But that's a topic for another time.)

On a side note, it occurred to me that social skills seem to be organized more by what you're trying to do rather than what you're actually good at. If you're trying to mislead someone, for example, there's a stark difference between an insistent, "No, that's wrong," versus a more befuddling, "Well, see, the thing is that if you really think about it..." versus a sincere-sounded, "Really? I was sure it was the other way. Well, maybe we can check it later." But all of those are Deception. Well, your DM might allow Intimidation for the first one, but Deception would usually be the default if you didn't deliberately use another skill. Anyway...

I haven't decided what to do for the racial trait yet, but it will probably be a WIS save with CHA as the "spellcasting ability score". I'll compare some of the other features you all have mentioned to see if I can find some inspiration. Also, the proposal to use Performance is amusing to me, because it aligns with a strange thought that occurred to me regarding this homebrew race. I guess a bit of context is in order.

The short version is that this is an alternative take on orcs, where they fight just for fun (and basically goof off the whole time) and love coming up with new and creative insults and trying to outdo each other in saying or doing shocking things. What I have in my head is sort of a cross between 40k orks and 4chan, if that makes sense. The idea was to make them violent, rude, and annoying, so that you'd never feel bad about attacking them (which is giving them exactly what they want, since they love to fight), but I may have accidentally made them jolly, friendly, and mischievous. While orcs love to get a rise out of others, the only people they actually dislike are pacifists, and only because they refuse to fight them.

Anyway, how this relates to Performance is that it occurred to me that it could actually make sense in this setting to have an orc bard who travels around challenging people to rap battles so he can roast them. That would definitely be Performance.

[Thrudd]

What ability will you use for being able to find a person's "buttons" and push them? That is basically what taunting is, right? saying or doing something that you hope will goad them into attacking- someone who's good at that is able to accurately determine what will likely set a person off. It could be pretty culture/sub-culture specific, so there likely would be either a bonus for trying it on your own race, or a penalty for trying it on races you are unfamiliar with. I guess for your orcs, it shouldn't take much, since they all want to fight already - anything even close to a taunt should get the desired effect- a sideways look, a small derisive snort, etc. What works on them wouldn't necessarily work for other races and cultures, who are predisposed to avoid fights most of the time. Of course, when facing a group that is already belligerent toward you, it also might not take a lot of effort to get them to attack. If someone is already in combat with your group, the taunt roll to get someone to change targets might not be as hard as getting someone who doesn't want to fight to start a fight with you.

Of course, D&D's attributes really don't map well to how things actually work either mentally or physically. So maybe "taunt" is its own proficiency, which can use different ability scores based on the approach. It is basically the skill of sizing up a person and determining what might set them off- and the exact action that will do so can vary and will use different attributes to pull off.

[Gurgeh]

I do have a bit of trouble reconciling the idea of a crass and crude ruffian somehow being considered charismatic just because they can spit out a good roast, but what can you do? Still use charisma, because it's the stat that governs social influence. The d20 has a huge amount of swing, and if they nail it then that's going to be reflected by a high roll.

[Zombimode]

Attacking the source of an intimidation is a logical outcome, it must be because it actually happens in reality. And we have to assume that logic is a description of reality and not a prescription of our own biases.

???
Maybe you have a different understanding of the word "intimidation".

[Mastikator]

???
Maybe you have a different understanding of the word "intimidation".
PHB definition of "intimidation"
"When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence...".
Goading someone into attacking you with jump scares falls under that umbrella IMO.

It is however the player's job to tell the DM whether they intend the enemy to attack them, or not attack them. Both are logical outcomes of a successful intimidation.

[Catullus64]

Second vote for Performance. Add a little value to a typically undervalued skill, and it fits to my thinking since well-crafted insults are their own art form.

But in many instances I would allow the player to make his or her own case for using a different skill as fits the circumstances.

[Zhorn]

Don’t have the book in front of me but would look at the battle masters maneuver goading (I think). Also kobolds have their cower, plea, beg feature (just used it in a campaign today) that might give you some ideas.

Those came to mind for me also, just after the Compelled Duel spell.
I suppose the important question regarding the taunt is what if the specific mechanical outcome you are looking for with this ability check?
To an extent; making a taunt as an ability check does sound reasonable. But I'd be looking to make sure if it were just a general action/ability for anyone not tied to a class/spell/etc is to be sure it isn't invalidation those other existing options.
Sort of like how the general rule for Disarm (DMG p271) is a non-damaging attack, meaning the Disarming Attack maneuver for the Battle Master hold some superiority in the comparison (damaging attack with bonus damage and the disarm attempt).