So I don't have all of the printed materials for this game line (all 3 lines really), but I vaguely recall coming across a specialization that could draw the attention of opponents to target them instead of others? Is this correct? If so, would someone be so kind as to give me the name and source material?

If there isn't a class that has a talent of taunting the enemy, as a side topic, how would you rule it with a skill check? I was thinking perhaps Deception (trying to anger the target to redirect via insults and trickery) or perhaps.....Charm maybe? I dunno about that one. I would say Coercion, but that's usually about making them NOT target you.

So yeah, any input on this? I'm trying to make a possible Spiderman-esque PC (in behavior at least, snarking his way to infuriating his opponents), and I'm not sure how best to pull it off.

Taunting is mostly a matter of setbacks and boosts, and advantages spent on having the NPC act in a particular way.

32 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Taunting is mostly a matter of setbacks and boosts, and advantages spent on having the NPC act in a particular way.

But I could swear I saw published talent, or possibly Signature Ability, that forced a target to attack you for a specified number of turns. Am I remembering wrong?

It was one of the signature abilities, I believe the Guardian. AFB at the moment, but that's where I would start looking.

K, will do so when I get home. Thanks.

Soresu Defender has the Strategic Form talent. It does exactly what you are talking about (except that it's based entirely on Intellect and Lightsaber skill rather than a social ability) and is something of a weaker form of the Guardian's Fated Duel Signature Ability.

1 minute ago, HappyDaze said:

Soresu Defender has the Strategic Form talent. It does exactly what you are talking about (except that it's based entirely on Intellect and Lightsaber skill rather than a social ability) and is something of a weaker form of the Guardian's Fated Duel Signature Ability.

Darn, was hoping for something not in a lightsaber tree. Ah well, at least I have a place to start. Thanks!

You're thinking of Deceptive Taunt, from the COLONIST: Performer specialization.

"Once per session, take the Deceptive Taunt action to make an opposed Deception check to force one opponent to attack you on the opponent's next turn."

That's the version I have on my master chart; the language may not be precisely what's in the book, but it gets the mechanics close enough, I think .

Hmm, once per session, for only one turn is a tad too rare for my concept. Ah well, I'll try and figure it out some other way then I guess. Thanks!

I mean, I don't see much of a problem with changing it to once per encounter, and letting perhaps [AA] be spent to increase the duration but a round (or perhaps make it last for 1 round per Success, or maybe 1 round for 1 Success, +1 per [SS]).

I mean, you're making yourself a target. That's a good way to get yourself really hurt, so that by itself is a balancing factor. Plus it's a Tier V talent. I've always thought it a bit weak, actually, but it's not one that people seemed interested enough in to warrant thinking up a fix.

Talk with your GM, see if they'll let you use regular Coercion checks vs. either the target's Cool or Discipline (I'd probably go with Cool personally) to see if you can goad the target into attacking you. If you want to go more of a Spider-Man/Nightwing/Deadpool route with the taunting, see about asking to use Deception instead.

Then, spend advantage to make the target's attack harder by adding setback or make the next attack against the target easier by granting boost dice. Spend Triumphs to employ situational things like the target inadvertently jabs their weapon into a power conduit. Threat and despair can be used to put your PC into a bad situation or reflect that the target of your taunting really wants to hurt you.

What about using Influence with the Control upgrade that makes the opponent believe something untrue? Something like, "I'm the only opponent worthy of your attention."

I'd be careful of not making a "simple" skill check better than the Talent(s).

They must be at Engaged Range with the Target they're seeking to protect, 1 automatic Disadvantage to the skill check to provoke, 1 automatic downgrade in Difficulty (Minimum of 1) of the attackers check if the provocation succeeds... of course costs an Action as per normal for a normal skill check in combat. Disadvantage(s?) on the provocation check cause Strain or Boosts to the attack, Advantage(s?) maybe spent to decrease the Downgraded Dif to just a Setback maybe?

13 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Talk with your GM, see if they'll let you use regular Coercion checks vs. either the target's Cool or Discipline (I'd probably go with Cool personally) to see if you can goad the target into attacking you. If you want to go more of a Spider-Man/Nightwing/Deadpool route with the taunting, see about asking to use Deception instead.

Then, spend advantage to make the target's attack harder by adding setback or make the next attack against the target easier by granting boost dice. Spend Triumphs to employ situational things like the target inadvertently jabs their weapon into a power conduit. Threat and despair can be used to put your PC into a bad situation or reflect that the target of your taunting really wants to hurt you.

Yeah I'd like a regular skill check option, I'll check with the GM and see what he will allow. Didn't even think about Cool for taunting, I could see that working as well as Deception.

11 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

What about using Influence with the Control upgrade that makes the opponent believe something untrue? Something like, "I'm the only opponent worthy of your attention."

That's an idea as well, though for the concept I have, I'm not sure I'd have the free force die to do that at first. I'd be committing it to Sense for the defensive bonus.

3 minutes ago, emsquared said:

I'd be careful of not making a "simple" skill check better than the Talent(s).

They must be at Engaged Range with the Target they're seeking to protect, 1 automatic Disadvantage to the skill check to provoke, 1 automatic downgrade in Difficulty (Minimum of 1) of the attackers check if the provocation succeeds... of course costs an Action as per normal for a normal skill check in combat. Disadvantage(s?) on the provocation check cause Strain or Boosts to the attack, Advantage(s?) maybe spent to decrease the Downgraded Dif to just a Setback maybe?

I'm not sure why they would be more likely to hit the target by being made furious. In storytelling, it's usually portrayed that making the person so mad they forget all strategy and tactics, they are less likely to hit you, because they aren't thinking clearly. Though if you are simply referring to the redirection of hostility in general, and not specifically the "make them so mad they want to hit me" method, I'd still say it would just be a case of making them more inclined to attack me than someone else. Which wouldn't necessarily give them any advantage to do so.

The auto-threat to the skill check isn't a bad idea though, to reflect them being less inclined to switch targets.

2 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

So I don't have all of the printed materials for this game line (all 3 lines really), but I vaguely recall coming across a specialization that could draw the attention of opponents to target them instead of others? Is this correct? If so, would someone be so kind as to give me the name and source material?

I would take this as a narrative description of the Scathing Tirade talent, and its potential results.

The Guardian signature ability Fated Duel locks you and an enemy into a combat , no-one else can interfere with.

Deceptive Taunt seems less like a combat ability and more like a social one. I don't have the book in front of me, but unless there are restrictions about when you can use it, it would seem to be most effective as a way to discredit an opponent during negotiations, peace talks, or in settings where violence is forbidden.

You're not doing the MMO tank thing, you're riling up an opponent into committing a faux pas.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

I'm not sure why they would be more likely to hit the target by being made furious. In storytelling, it's usually portrayed that making the person so mad they forget all strategy and tactics, they are less likely to hit you, because they aren't thinking clearly. Though if you are simply referring to the redirection of hostility in general, and not specifically the "make them so mad they want to hit me" method, I'd still say it would just be a case of making them more inclined to attack me than someone else. Which wouldn't necessarily give them any advantage to do so.

The auto-threat to the skill check isn't a bad idea though, to reflect them being less inclined to switch targets.

They're not more likely to hit cuz they're furious, you're more likely to get hit cuz, well, you're trying to get attacked.

This is something that should be possible without talents, but that talents make easier or more reliable. Therefore, it would take place on a standard Coercion check (which is usually opposed by Discipline), but would probably require a Triumph or a freighter-load of Advantage on such a check.

If a character wanted to attempt it outright, I would upgrade their check—maybe 3 times?—and then let them attempt it. A Despair means you are hit right away! And/or maybe a critical injury as well. I'd have to give it some thought, but on the face of it, I might just rule that a Despair causes an immediate hit from the target's weapon. An automatic Crit feels a bit to gritty for my Star Wars, and I like the narrative ambiguity that "wounds" provide.

In any case, the acting character would have to be out from behind cover, or otherwise present himself a desirable target through roleplay.

2 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

If a character wanted to attempt it outright, I would upgrade their check—maybe 3 times?—and then let them attempt it. A Despair means you are hit right away! And/or maybe a critical injury as well. I'd have to give it some thought, but on the face of it, I might just rule that a Despair causes an immediate hit from the target's weapon. An automatic Crit feels a bit to gritty for my Star Wars, and I like the narrative ambiguity that "wounds" provide.

So...they would get an auto hit on my PC, if I get a Despair on my check to taunt them? That's a free hit. That seems excessive, as well as the triple upgrade. The only goal of the check is to redirect their focus, not necessarily apply penalties with the check. The idea, would be, if the taunt works, any negative effects would take place due to things like Sense, or Dodge/Defensive Stance, etc, making the attack more difficult. The PC wouldn't necessarily have a lot of offensive (other than verbal ) capability, and would mostly be reactionary in nature. If the attacker gets enough negative results to trigger the Talents that let him get a smack in, he would do so, otherwise, he'd spend most of the time insulting and dodging, until allies could join in and take him out. At least that's the basic concept I'm looking at.

I think I found the talent you refered to in the original post. It is in the soresu defender tree - Strategic form.

May take the Strategic Form action, making a hard Lightsaber (Intellect) check rolling force dice no greater than force rating. If successful 1 target within short range may only attack character for 1 round . Spend a force pip to extend effects for 1 target for 1 round.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

So...they would get an auto hit on my PC, if I get a Despair on my check to taunt them? That's a free hit. That seems excessive, as well as the triple upgrade. The only goal of the check is to redirect their focus, not necessarily apply penalties with the check. The idea, would be, if the taunt works, any negative effects would take place due to things like Sense, or Dodge/Defensive Stance, etc, making the attack more difficult. The PC wouldn't necessarily have a lot of offensive (other than verbal ) capability, and would mostly be reactionary in nature. If the attacker gets enough negative results to trigger the Talents that let him get a smack in, he would do so, otherwise, he'd spend most of the time insulting and dodging, until allies could join in and take him out. At least that's the basic concept I'm looking at.

I'd be careful with the verbiage there. You would take damage equal to the base damage rating of their drawn/readied weapon, as long as you're within the weapon's range of course—so it's not quite as good as "they get an auto hit on you;" it's basically just you taking wounds as if shot from their weapon. But that's about the price you pay for a Despair.

Perhaps thrice-upgraded difficulty is a bit harsh. After all you're already making an Opposed check. Maybe a double upgrade is enough; you want to be careful about making the Deceptive Taunt talent obsolete. But the nice thing about Coercion is that you can use ranks in Intimidating (which is a decently accessible talent) to downgrade the difficulty.

But yes I agree, a character that draws fire should absolutely have some capability to handle the increased heat

13 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

I'd be careful with the verbiage there. You would take damage equal to the base damage rating of their drawn/readied weapon, as long as you're within the weapon's range of course—so it's not quite as good as "they get an auto hit on you;" it's basically just you taking wounds as if shot from their weapon. But that's about the price you pay for a Despair.

I disagree that a hit is the price you pay for a despair. If it was a regular attack that failed, getting a Despair doesn't suddenly make it succeed, something else would happen that wasn't good. Like instead they are doubly focused on the other person, or I instead make someone else attack that person as well, instead of me, etc.

But a "hit" is technically not what's happening. With an actual weapon "hit" (based off a combat check) you have base damage + uncanceled Success, and you also have the chance of critical injuries and all sorts of other nasty weapon qualities, and any other offensive talents that you might have at your disposal, which generally key off "combat checks." Sorry for all the quotes. I'm not trying to be all rules-lawyer-y, but just trying to explain my thought process as to why it's not that harsh.

Bottom line, since this is not a combat check, the resulting damage isn't considered a hit in mechanical terms, and is therefore the only penalty for rolling a Despair would be wounds suffered = base damage - soak. Pretty standard fare for a Despair, especially if you know the risk in advance; it's similar to firing into an engagement in that regard.

(In that light, I would clarify that a successful check and a Despair would cause you to take damage.)

EDIT: But I like your other uses for Despair as well. They would definitely make sense in certain circumstances.