A
Anonymous
Guest
Shonuff said:
your missing the formula:
bluff to feint (d20 + ranks + stat mod + misc mod)
Sense motive: D20 + BAB + Stat + misc.
Low level scholar is not going to beat a same level solider in a duel.
Why would your soldier in your example, NOT take his Int bonus skill points to pick up sense motive and Feint skill levels? Remember everyone is not locked into picking only class skill's.
No. I've been going at this all day and getting dozens of comments both here and on other sites. I have NOT missed the formula.
It's the logic behind it. A feint is a combat skill that is used by fighters. Having a good poker face or being a good liar should not make you a better feinter. I sort of think good feinting is implied by the rising of your BAB. You get better in your fighting skill, more accurate, and better at creating openings.
Bluffing is something different. A seasoned fighter is not going to fall for the old "look - your shoe laces are untied" time after time.
Also, those with a good Bluff skill and that try to feint have a much better chance with finesse attacks and bypassing armor. At its core, I believe that is wrong.
In the games I play or run, Bluff and Sense Motive are rarely selected by the fighter types. They usually go for Intimidate instead.
However, if an official ruling comes down this way, you'll bet all fighters in my game will pick up Bluff and Sense Motive skill levels.
I just feel that if it is not implied that BAB represents feinting, that a separate skill called feint should be in order. This goes back to the whole Bluff/Sense Motive thing again and the fact that fighters . . . the most experienced people in combat mind you . . . have to work extra hard to get the skills necessary to both perform and counter a feint (regardless of their higher BAB).
As a last thought: Too bad BAB does NOT count in your ability to perform a feint.
It's the logic behind it. A feint is a combat skill that is used by fighters. Having a good poker face or being a good liar should not make you a better feinter. I sort of think good feinting is implied by the rising of your BAB. You get better in your fighting skill, more accurate, and better at creating openings.
Bluffing is something different. A seasoned fighter is not going to fall for the old "look - your shoe laces are untied" time after time.
Also, those with a good Bluff skill and that try to feint have a much better chance with finesse attacks and bypassing armor. At its core, I believe that is wrong.
In the games I play or run, Bluff and Sense Motive are rarely selected by the fighter types. They usually go for Intimidate instead.
However, if an official ruling comes down this way, you'll bet all fighters in my game will pick up Bluff and Sense Motive skill levels.
I just feel that if it is not implied that BAB represents feinting, that a separate skill called feint should be in order. This goes back to the whole Bluff/Sense Motive thing again and the fact that fighters . . . the most experienced people in combat mind you . . . have to work extra hard to get the skills necessary to both perform and counter a feint (regardless of their higher BAB).
As a last thought: Too bad BAB does NOT count in your ability to perform a feint.
I think the devastating feint ability of thieves & pirates helps keeps them even with Barbs & Soldiers in combat; compensating for their poor BAB, fewer hit points, probably low DR etc (rem that armour is better in Conan than in regular D&D). It does make high-level Thieves in particular very deadly, potentially - Pirate Sneak Attack increases too slowly for it to be a common instant-kill effect. I like it that Conan combat between individuals is quick & deadly, as in the books. The high level Bluff (feint) & Sneak Attack Thief seems no deadlier than the Babarian or Soldier 2-handed power-attacking with greatsword or bardiche, if either gets a full round attack on the other (rem Bluff & SA is always at least a full round attack) they're likely to kill their opponent. Hence the importance of Conan's allowing _fighting on the run_ - anyone can move in, attack and withdraw, taking an attack of opportunity but making bluff & SA impossible, since the Feinter foe would need to use their move action to close the distance again.
Conan rewards clever tactics, and punishes foolish ones. I like that.
Conan rewards clever tactics, and punishes foolish ones. I like that.
A
Anonymous
Guest
hmm, Shonuff seems like you want them Soldier types to have all the fun. Some very valid points have been made in this discussion so far, I'll add my $0.18 worth. :wink:
First, I"ll give an example of a feint that a Thief performs against a soldier, making them equal levels and all rolls being 10, with thief in Leather Jerkin armed with just a poniard (SA style weap) and the Soldier in Breastplate and Mail hauberk armed with a halberd. The scenario, the thief is slipping away with the Crown of Nemedia, when he takes a wrong turn and comes upon a Palace guard at his post (10' square room overlooking the inner courtyard with a bell in the center of the room.). The thief will win initiative, so he can try to Bluff his way through this, or simply attack, both parties are surprised the first round so each will only get partial actions the first round. Not surprisingly he attacks, catching the soldier while he is still spinning around, however unless the thief is 7th or higher, the finesse attack doesn't find a weak spot in the armour, so for any damage to get through the DR the thief would have to be at least 3rd level, however if the thief was of 9th level or higher average damage makes the soldier make a massive damage save.
Assuming the soldier survives he rings the bell and attacks, automatically penetrating the jerkin with any hit. Now if the thief survives this hit, he can feint, making it seem as if the blow had almost took him to his knees, while falling forward and bringing his poniard into the soldier's groin.... Rinse and repeat for four rounds, if the thief hasn't either killed the guard or ran away, the other guards will have him trapped.
Single thieves rely on feint to be able to deal damage, dual thieves rely on flanking. Feinting is a good tactic in the right situation, but even with taking the DV to 10 it is not anymore overpowering then a power attacking full attack with a two handed weapon.
First, I"ll give an example of a feint that a Thief performs against a soldier, making them equal levels and all rolls being 10, with thief in Leather Jerkin armed with just a poniard (SA style weap) and the Soldier in Breastplate and Mail hauberk armed with a halberd. The scenario, the thief is slipping away with the Crown of Nemedia, when he takes a wrong turn and comes upon a Palace guard at his post (10' square room overlooking the inner courtyard with a bell in the center of the room.). The thief will win initiative, so he can try to Bluff his way through this, or simply attack, both parties are surprised the first round so each will only get partial actions the first round. Not surprisingly he attacks, catching the soldier while he is still spinning around, however unless the thief is 7th or higher, the finesse attack doesn't find a weak spot in the armour, so for any damage to get through the DR the thief would have to be at least 3rd level, however if the thief was of 9th level or higher average damage makes the soldier make a massive damage save.
Assuming the soldier survives he rings the bell and attacks, automatically penetrating the jerkin with any hit. Now if the thief survives this hit, he can feint, making it seem as if the blow had almost took him to his knees, while falling forward and bringing his poniard into the soldier's groin.... Rinse and repeat for four rounds, if the thief hasn't either killed the guard or ran away, the other guards will have him trapped.
Single thieves rely on feint to be able to deal damage, dual thieves rely on flanking. Feinting is a good tactic in the right situation, but even with taking the DV to 10 it is not anymore overpowering then a power attacking full attack with a two handed weapon.
Great points guys. I sort of feel badly about my stubbornness regarding the issue. I’d almost feel better if the Feint were renamed "Dirty Fighting" just to better represent bluffing and manipulative/sneaky tactics. To me, Feint is a fighting man’s skill, not that of a good liar. And I see rising skills in feinting represented by increasing BAB.
From a logical point of view, looking at the skills involved, I still don’t like it so much. It even seems strange that the Persuasive feat makes you better in combat because of the skills involved. *Remembering my politician joke from before.* I even thought of throwing out Feint and Improved feint completely from the game.
From a mechanics and game point of view, I can see how this is an attempt to allow the non-warrior classes a better chance at survival. The arguments here do a good job of explaining this and I am appreciative of everyone’s comments.
Last night, still feeling a bit irritated about the whole thing, I imagined what I as a GM would do with "bluffers gone wild" in combat. Referencing the Bluff skill, I entertained the thought of using the table on p.87 and adding a +10 Sense Motive Modifier because the Bluff creates a circumstance where the target is put "at significant risk". This makes only a darn good Bluff work well enough to allow someone to fall for a trap that gets them skewered.
Anyway, hopefully an official ruling in the future will clear this up. Does the statement "does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to DV (if any)" really boil down to a COMPLETE loss of defense, both Dodge and Parry.
From a logical point of view, looking at the skills involved, I still don’t like it so much. It even seems strange that the Persuasive feat makes you better in combat because of the skills involved. *Remembering my politician joke from before.
* I even thought of throwing out Feint and Improved feint completely from the game.From a mechanics and game point of view, I can see how this is an attempt to allow the non-warrior classes a better chance at survival. The arguments here do a good job of explaining this and I am appreciative of everyone’s comments.
Last night, still feeling a bit irritated about the whole thing, I imagined what I as a GM would do with "bluffers gone wild" in combat. Referencing the Bluff skill, I entertained the thought of using the table on p.87 and adding a +10 Sense Motive Modifier because the Bluff creates a circumstance where the target is put "at significant risk". This makes only a darn good Bluff work well enough to allow someone to fall for a trap that gets them skewered.
Anyway, hopefully an official ruling in the future will clear this up. Does the statement "does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to DV (if any)" really boil down to a COMPLETE loss of defense, both Dodge and Parry.
I would attack them with these twinked groups:Shonuff said:
- very strong opponents using power attack with two-handed weapons and improved critical feats.
- sundering specialists with very high initiative. Let's see them feint without a weapon!
- Non- or animal-intelligent creatures or undead that can't be bluffed.
- Bandits and such that are also bluff/feint specialists.
Basically show them there are other ways to acheive the same end, that of dealing a lot of damage to opponents, and that choosing such a narrow specialty can be self-defeating.
