Variant Feint Rules

Y

Yuan-Ti

Mongoose
Feint, you miserable bastard! Well, no doubt you are all aware of the firestorm surrounding the Feint maneuver. With the current ruling regarding it posted over on the Rules board, there seem to be some very upset. No less upset, in fact, than I was at the way the rule was written (which implied DV10 and sneak attack). :wink:

I propose that we, the players and GMs, work on a completely new, variant or alternate rule for Feint. WI think we should work to make it realistic, simple, and as close as possible to current rules regarding combat maneuvers.

In a moment, I will post one idea I had, but I would really like to see other ideas as well.

Let's try to come up with a better rule, and one that all can agree with!

Well, okay, that most can agree with. :wink:
 
Yuan-Ti said:
Let's try to come up with a better rule, and one that all can agree with!
Click to expand...

:shock:

:shock:

:lol: ROFLMAO! Hahahahaha!!! :lol:

You are a funny guy Yuan-Ti. I like you.

/wolf
 
Feint Variant #1

Note that this rule is based on the idea that Feint is a standard maneuver used in combat by any skilled fighter, designed to weaken your opponent's defenses by getting him to overcommit. As such, it should be useful to any skilled combatant and not overly useful for a single class. I also think that Bluff and Sense Motive should be used as diplomatic skills, not combat skills. Finally, I like the idea of Charisma and Wisdom playing a role here, but I also feel that reflexes need to have a bearing here as well.

Feint is a standard action which does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

:arrow: STEP ONE: Make a Feint Check. You and the defender make opposed rolls, adding one-half (rounded down) of your Base Attack Bonus. In addition, you add both your Dex modifier and Cha modifier as a bonus to this roll while the defender adds his Dex modifier and Wis modifier as a bonus.
Modifiers: A Thief using a weapon chosen for a Sneak Attack Style receives a +1 circumstance bonus to this roll. When wielding a weapon with which you are not proficient, apply the non-proficiency penalty for attacking with that weapon (i.e. -4, -2 if you are a Barbarian). When feinting this way against a non-humanoid, you take a -4 penalty. Against a creature of animal intelligece (1 or 2), you take a -8 penalty. Against a non-intelligent creature, it is impossible.

:arrow: STEP TWO: Consequences. If you beat the defender, you have successfully feinted. On the next melee attack you make against your opponent, he cannot apply his Dex mod (or any circumstantial Dodge bonuses) to his Dodge DV against tha attack and he cannot apply his Str mod (or any circumstantial Parry bonuses) to his Parry DV against that attack. In addition, if your attack is successful, for every five character levels, your attack does an additional 1d6 damage (i.e. at levels 1-5, +1d6; at levels 6-10, +2d6; etc.). This extra damage is not multiplied in the event of a critical.
Modifiers: A Thief using a weapon chosen for a Sneak Attack Style does an additional 1d8 damage for every five character levels, instead of 1d6 (i.e. at levels 1-5, +1d8; at levels 6-10, +2d8; etc.)

Okay, it isn't simple. But it's a start. The purpose of halving the BAB is to give Soldier's an edge but less of an edge than it would be if we simply added the BAB. I considered adding full BAB and Reflex Save but that would have meant Thieves were automatically better than Soldiers at Feinting, which I do not think they should be.
 
I'll play!

Feint variant #2

A feint is performed in the same way as per the book. If it is successful the target is treated as though flanked against your next attack (giving you +2 to hit and can be sneak attacked). It is negated by Uncanny Dodge of high enough level to prevent you from being flanked.

"Hey, behind you!"

"Wha?"

"Stabbity Stab"


This would be a completely different way of handling it, but would bring it into line with the other method of scoring a sneak attack in the midst of combat (flanking) by making an opponent think there is someone else behind them and causing them to momentarily drop their guard against you in the same way that they do when they are actually flanked.

It has the advantage of automatically scaling with existing Uncanny Dodge rules, of not penalising dextrous targets more than non-dextrous targets (flat +2 to hit).

In fact I like this idea so much it is the way I'll use it from now on.
 
Plane Sailing said:
Feint variant #2

A feint is performed in the same way as per the book. If it is successful the target is treated as though flanked against your next attack (giving you +2 to hit and can be sneak attacked). It is negated by Uncanny Dodge of high enough level to prevent you from being flanked.

"Hey, behind you!"

"Wha?"

"Stabbity Stab"
Click to expand...

I like this option, as it is in line with the rest of the rules. And Sneak Attacks would only be allowed when your foe is Flanked or Flat-Footed, excellent suggestion PlaneSailing. :)

The people that have problems with Feinting and Sneak Attacks, how about giving the victim of a Feint a bonus to each successive opposed Feint check, i.e. make it successively harder to feint the same opponent after he's learned your tricks.

TTFN,

Yokiboy
 
WHoa, don't let IUD disallow feint, here's why....


Let's stop milling around with the cannon fodder folks, let's go straight to the top:

20th level Barbarian vs a 20th level Thief.

When they get 5' apart (UD doesn't allow the barbarian to be flat footed so that doesn't matter) we'll assume the Thief goes first and doesn't have Improved Feint. Here's what happens with both in Leather Jerkin, Thief with Poniard, Barb with Bardiche:

Thief attacks 3 times, hitting twice on average doing 2d6+2xStr, or can feint and wait.

Barbarian responds attacking 4 times hitting 3 times doing 6d10+4.5xStr.

If Thief is still alive and feinted before he gets his feint, with a hit he gets to do either 1 (UD and IUD work same for feint) 1d6+Str or 2 (UD and IUD don't work on feint) 1d6+Str+10d8. With 1) Barbarian is still easily alive with barely a scratch even if all attacks were finessed or 2) Barbarian most likely still alive hp wise, but will need to make a massive damage save, which on average he will fail.

Give that Barbarina a lucky break on that first round and have him hit all four times, the thief is dead, in fact on average ANY opponent of like level he faces will be dead. About the only characters that could survive this onslaught would be Soldiers or Nobles (barely) in Full Plate mail with a great helm. (Basically would lose 24 hit points of damage throughput due to the halved DR of the plate) So if "we" are so worried about one round deathswhy is this not being addressed? It too is a direct result of increased weapon damage and decreased hit points.
 
Murte said:
If Thief is still alive and feinted before he gets his feint, with a hit he gets to do either 1 (UD and IUD work same for feint) 1d6+Str or 2 (UD and IUD don't work on feint) 1d6+Str+10d8. With 1) Barbarian is still easily alive with barely a scratch even if all attacks were finessed or 2) Barbarian most likely still alive hp wise, but will need to make a massive damage save, which on average he will fail.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't 2) be 1d6+STR+20d8?

IIRC, the thief gets +1d6/+1d8 per level for sneak attack.

Minimum 21+STR (surely triggers a mass damage roll), maximum 166+STR
(surely no mass damage roll necessary).
 
No at 19th level the thief gets +10d6/+10d8 SA damage.

Nowhere in any OGL system have I seen +1d6 per level of SA damage.
 
Plane Sailing said:
Feint variant #2

A feint is performed in the same way as per the book. If it is successful the target is treated as though flanked against your next attack (giving you +2 to hit and can be sneak attacked). It is negated by Uncanny Dodge of high enough level to prevent you from being flanked.

"Hey, behind you!"

"Wha?"

"Stabbity Stab"
Click to expand...

I've thought about this some more, and there's one solid drawback. Feinting will only be useful if the Thief is on his own agains a combat threat, as otherwise relying on Tumbling and Flanking will be much better for him, and even allow multiple attacks. This might be what you're after though.

Personally I've never been a fan of Tumbling for Sneak Attacks, just from a visual stand-point, but love Feints. I will probably just house rule that you can Sneak Attack after Feinting like in other OGL/d20 games.

TTFN,

Yokiboy
 
Anonymous said:
Wouldn't 2) be 1d6+STR+20d8?

IIRC, the thief gets +1d6/+1d8 per level for sneak attack.

Minimum 21+STR (surely triggers a mass damage roll), maximum 166+STR (surely no mass damage roll necessary).
Click to expand...

Murte is right, the Thief gets 1d6/1d8 every other level. The thing is though, that the Thief is not the only one that can force Massive Damage saves. That Barbarian will have Triple Threat Range due to his Versatility, he will also be able to dole out incredible amounts of damage with his Power Attacks, and has a Str mod of about +7 or so. :shock:

I think people also forget about the Combat Maneuvers in Conan the RPG. There's a lot of nastiness packed into those maneuvers and most of them favor the toe-to-toe fighter types over the Thief. I mean does anyone want to make the Desperate Stab requirement be BAB 16+ so a 20th level Thief doesn't have a chance of slaying a 20th level Soldier wiht the first attack? :D

Therefore, giving the Thief one chance to win the fight, by succeeding with a Feint followed by a Sneak Attack, is not that bad in my eyes. He really must make that Feint or he's toast!

TTFN,

Yokiboy
 
Yeah - It's me :)
Just following along and making a suggestion.
Let me know of there's a hole in this somewhere.

Combat Maneuver

Dirty Fighting
By distracting your opponent in combat, you take advantage of your enemy’s momentary loss of concentration and strike him in a vital area.

Prerequisite: Sneak Attack
Circumstances: You must have successfully feinted your enemy in combat, causing him to lose his stat and feat bonuses to DV.
Effect: The target of the feint is considered flanked, allowing you to get a +2 flanking bonus and causing him to be vulnerable to a sneak attack on your next strike. Improved Uncanny Dodge may negate this maneuver, unless you are a thief or pirate of at least four levels higher than your enemy. Performing this maneuver more than once, while facing the same enemy in the same combat encounter, will result in the target being granted a +10 circumstance modifier to his Sense Motive checks to resist your additional attempts to feint him and perform this maneuver.

---------------------
Example:
Guard combats thief as he attempts to make his escape. Thief throws dirt into the eyes of the advancing guard, causing him to stumble and cover his eyes. The thief then shoves his dagger into the guard’s exposed armpit (both finessing around the armor and using his sneak attack specialty).

Clarification: +10 given ONLY to resist the feint/dirty fighting combo. Modifier to Sense Motive not granted to additional standard feint attempts.

Other examples: Trash talking to overly anger the target (making use of that Persuasive feat :wink:), throwing your cloak over his face, tipping over a candlestand, tossing a piece of fruit in the air :shock: , ---- stuff like that.
 
I like this manuever a whole heck of a lot. I honestly don't mind the +10 circumstance bonus to the roll on subsequent attempts, but it does seem a bit steep. Maybe a +4 circumstance modifier would be a little less harsh?

Still it's a good manuever, and I think this is the kind of constructive idea we can work on! :D
 
The +10 came from the Bluff skill circumstance modifier chart (making a 2nd Dirty Fighting Bluff check one that is hard to believe/one that puts the target at significant risk). A +5 and +20 are also mentioned (p.86)

I thought a maneuver would allow a seamless integration into the game without the fight of a rules reversal.

If enough people like this, maybe Mongoose Bob can take a look and consider putting it in the revised book?
 
I see. Well, in that case, I don't think +20 is a good idea. +5 might work, but +10 could also.

Anyone better at numbers want to check this out?
 
I made a similar suggestion in one of the many other threads regarding this subject, i.e. that the effect of a feint should be that you Flank your opponent. I like the potential of having it as a Combat Maneuver instead though.

And I agree, this is at least keeping more in line with the rest of the rules, which is something that makes me very happy. :D

TTFN,

Yokiboy
 
Make it immune to IUD and I'd be on board for only once per combat per opponent. With a +5 cumaltive circum bonus to each opponent used upon after the first time it is used in a combat. I've said it once and I"ll say it a thousand more times, without feint thieves are dead upon contact with barbarians unless they outnumber them 4:1 of equal level after 8th level.

As an aside, what level do the boards think Conan was in Iron Shadows of the Moon?
 
Yokiboy said:
I've thought about this some more, and there's one solid drawback. Feinting will only be useful if the Thief is on his own agains a combat threat, as otherwise relying on Tumbling and Flanking will be much better for him, and even allow multiple attacks. This might be what you're after though.
Click to expand...

Well, the thing is that tumbling and flanking is already in there, and it is by far the most common way for someone to qualify for sneak attacks. My proposition is to allow a sneak attacker to use feint to create an "imaginary flanker" (a bit like an imaginary friend) so that he might get some sneak attack goodness in on those odd occasions when he doesn't have any real allies to help him with flanking.

So I don't think that is a drawback, it is a feature!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yenaldlooshi
Core22 Rules Clarification: Scope Trait (pg79)
Replies
7
Views
176
Condottiere
C
V
Astrogation needs help
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
3K
MonsterX
M
Yenaldlooshi
Core 2008 1e Clarification: Auto-Fire Attacks (NOTE: regarding Traveller Core Rulebook 2008 Edition "1e") Page 62)
2
Replies
37
Views
827
Saladman
S
N
Too many rules
2 3
Replies
49
Views
3K
bklokis
B
T
Damaging large vehicles
Replies
10
Views
496
AnotherDilbert
A
Back
Top