Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to convince me about the Feint maneuver on the Bluff thread.
This is the result of my brainstorming and rule book research:
--------------------------------
I think I've come to a decision that fits with the rules.
The Beginning:
Summary from the book- Feint is a standard action. Make Bluff vs. Sense Motive+BAB. If Bluff wins, your next attack causes the target to suffer the following - "does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to DV (if any)."
Result:
Many believe this results in not only a loss of Dex bonus, but a loss of your entire Dodge defense. Continuing with this, people argued that you lost your Parry defense as well. (NO official ruling here yet from the publisher.)
Additional Point:
The Persuasive feat allows you to feint in combat even better.:roll: - Sorry
Moving on:
As a martial artist, a rpg player, and GM, I see feinting as a fighting skill - not the skill of a liar/actor. Feinting is represented by increasing BAB. For me, I'd rather refer to Feint as "Dirty Fighting" to represent the sly/sneaky attacks made by thieves, sorcerers, and the like in order to hold their own in combat.
The rule from the book I'm thinking of using if a feint/dirty fighting maneuver does result in a complete loss of DV:
Skills page 87. Bluff examples: the Bluff ". . . puts the target at significant risk"
This results in the target getting a +10 Sense Motive Modifier on his opposed check.
Also from the book: "For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn't so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff."
Therefore:
Action 1: Attacker feints using Bluff and Target fails Sense Motive roll, even with +10 bonus.
Result 1: Target's DV is 10 and Target is subject to sneak attacks. (Full effect. The sucker fell for it)
Action 2: Attacker feints using Bluff and Target succeeds at Sense Motive roll by beating Attackers roll by 1 to 10 points.
Result 2: Target’s DB (Dodge or Parry) is cut in half (rounding down), allowing him only a desperate attempt to leap out of the way or deflect the blow at the last second. No sneak attacks allowed since the Target isn’t helpless. (Partial effect based on Bluff skill rule book description. The sucker sort of fell for it and is penalized.)
Action 3: Attacker feints using Bluff and Target succeeds at Sense Motive roll by beating Attacker’s roll by 11 or more points.
Result 3: Feint (Dirty Trick) failure. Target keeps full Defense Values and Attacker’s trick failed. (Yep – He/she didn't fall for that crap. Nice try.)
Conclusion:
It is in the rules just as much as the Feint maneuver is and I'm planning on using it (although the partial success of the feint, being in the favor of the tricky attacker, is my interpretation of the Bluff description quoted from the book above). To me, this is actually more clear in the rules than the original question about feint posted above (complete loss of ALL DV). It also makes as much sense to me as allowing the Persuasive feat to allow you to feint better in combat.
My reasoning:
It needs to be a darn good Bluff to cause an experienced fighter to open themselves up to a skewering. Great bluffers will still be able to manipulate the heck out of lesser foes (with a low BAB and probably a lack of Sense Motive), but seasoned and experienced fighters will be much less likely to fall for it.
It is in the book - it makes sense - I can reference the rule in print - and I can live with it now.
So --- You can do it in my game, you've just got to be good at it. Naive opponents are toast for sorcerer's dirty trick & death touch combos and thieve’s fake right & sneak attack left.
whew!!!
Thoughts from my most respected opponents?
This is the result of my brainstorming and rule book research:
--------------------------------
I think I've come to a decision that fits with the rules.
The Beginning:
Summary from the book- Feint is a standard action. Make Bluff vs. Sense Motive+BAB. If Bluff wins, your next attack causes the target to suffer the following - "does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to DV (if any)."
Result:
Many believe this results in not only a loss of Dex bonus, but a loss of your entire Dodge defense. Continuing with this, people argued that you lost your Parry defense as well. (NO official ruling here yet from the publisher.)
Additional Point:
The Persuasive feat allows you to feint in combat even better.:roll: - Sorry
Moving on:
As a martial artist, a rpg player, and GM, I see feinting as a fighting skill - not the skill of a liar/actor. Feinting is represented by increasing BAB. For me, I'd rather refer to Feint as "Dirty Fighting" to represent the sly/sneaky attacks made by thieves, sorcerers, and the like in order to hold their own in combat.
The rule from the book I'm thinking of using if a feint/dirty fighting maneuver does result in a complete loss of DV:
Skills page 87. Bluff examples: the Bluff ". . . puts the target at significant risk"
This results in the target getting a +10 Sense Motive Modifier on his opposed check.
Also from the book: "For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn't so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff."
Therefore:
Action 1: Attacker feints using Bluff and Target fails Sense Motive roll, even with +10 bonus.
Result 1: Target's DV is 10 and Target is subject to sneak attacks. (Full effect. The sucker fell for it)
Action 2: Attacker feints using Bluff and Target succeeds at Sense Motive roll by beating Attackers roll by 1 to 10 points.
Result 2: Target’s DB (Dodge or Parry) is cut in half (rounding down), allowing him only a desperate attempt to leap out of the way or deflect the blow at the last second. No sneak attacks allowed since the Target isn’t helpless. (Partial effect based on Bluff skill rule book description. The sucker sort of fell for it and is penalized.)
Action 3: Attacker feints using Bluff and Target succeeds at Sense Motive roll by beating Attacker’s roll by 11 or more points.
Result 3: Feint (Dirty Trick) failure. Target keeps full Defense Values and Attacker’s trick failed. (Yep – He/she didn't fall for that crap. Nice try.)
Conclusion:
It is in the rules just as much as the Feint maneuver is and I'm planning on using it (although the partial success of the feint, being in the favor of the tricky attacker, is my interpretation of the Bluff description quoted from the book above). To me, this is actually more clear in the rules than the original question about feint posted above (complete loss of ALL DV). It also makes as much sense to me as allowing the Persuasive feat to allow you to feint better in combat.
My reasoning:
It needs to be a darn good Bluff to cause an experienced fighter to open themselves up to a skewering. Great bluffers will still be able to manipulate the heck out of lesser foes (with a low BAB and probably a lack of Sense Motive), but seasoned and experienced fighters will be much less likely to fall for it.
It is in the book - it makes sense - I can reference the rule in print - and I can live with it now.
So --- You can do it in my game, you've just got to be good at it. Naive opponents are toast for sorcerer's dirty trick & death touch combos and thieve’s fake right & sneak attack left.
whew!!!
Thoughts from my most respected opponents?
