Feint mechanics are too ambiguous

[odigity]

Helping a friend out with a feint-based build, but mapping out the edge cases is proving very difficult due to the ambiguity of the feint description:


As a standard action, you can try to mislead an opponent in melee combat so that he can’t dodge your next attack effectively. To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by a Sense Motive check by your target. The target may add his base attack bonus to this Sense Motive check. If your Bluff check result exceeds your target’s Sense Motive check result, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

It implies you have to be in melee combat, but it never specifically says you have to currently be threatening the opponent you want to feint. So, how close do you have to be, and do you have to currently be threatening them?

Again, it implies you have to be in melee combat, but it doesn't specify that you have to wield a melee weapon, that you use that weapon to feint, or that if you do, that you have to use the same weapon for your post-feint attack. So, do you have to be armed? (Assume a non-Monk here.) Do you use your weapon to feint? Do you have to attack with the same weapon, or could you, for example, feint with a whip from 15' away then move and attack with a rapier?

Unrelated, rule-wise, but for the same build:

If you cast a touch spell (like Shocking Grasp or Touch of Idiocy), can you trigger it by hitting with a manufactured weapon? If you cast it with a wand, can you attack with the wand instead of your hand, and is there a difference? What if the wand is in a wand chamber on your weapon?

[odigity]

Slightly related:

I know that if you deliver a touch spell using a weapon or unarmed strike, you now have to hit the normal AC instead of the touch AC. But wouldn't it make sense (as a house rule) that if you roll high enough to hit touch but not full AC, that you should miss out on the damage but still connect with the touch spell? Or is the logic that if you were trying to just hit touch, you'd use different combat tactics that make it easier to just score physical contact rather than trying to penetrate a weak point in armor and missing completely?

[docnessuno]

Feint:

RAW feinting does not require to currently threaten the opponent, an the the "melee combat" bit seems just to be a reminder, considering that to reap the benefit of the feint you must use a melee attack.
RAI it makes sense to feint at any distance (provided your opponent can see / hear you well). Obviuosly being RAI your interpretation is as good as mine.

RAW feinting does not require to be wielding any weapon, neither to use one to feint.
RAI this also make sense. A feint might be a distracting blow to let the true attack connect, but might also be done by looking terrified and shouting "OGRE!" while pointing behind your opponent.


Touch spell:

Some class / PRCs features allow you to deliver touch spells with a manufactured weapon. Otherwise you must deliver them the traditional way.

As for the house rule, by chosing to try to inflict full damage you pay an opportunity cost. If the attack hits you will deal both weapon damage and spell effects, but it's (usually) more likely to miss.
From a balance PoV it would be like allowing someone employing power attack to hit for normal damage if they miss within the PA penality margin.

[odigity]

Thanks for the useful reply.


RAW feinting does not require to be wielding any weapon, neither to use one to feint.

So any character, with nothing in hand, at a reasonable distance, can roll a Bluff check to feint against a target, and if they succeed get the benefits on their next melee attack if done on or before their next turn. That's... almost too simple, which is perhaps why I was so confused.

It would be more fun if you could use feint to distract them while your buddy hits. A low-level wizard who runs out of spells could cast: "Hey, Orc! Your mom's ugly!" Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]


Some class / PRCs features allow you to deliver touch spells with a manufactured weapon. Otherwise you must deliver them the traditional way.

Still wondering if one is expected to deliver it with the wand or the other hand after activating the wand. I suspect the answer is "your empty hand", else there would be no need for this feat from Complete Arcane:


WANDSTRIKE
You can channel the magical energy of a wand through your
melee attacks.
Prerequisite: Use Magic Device 4 ranks.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a melee touch
attack with a wand, expending one charge to deal 1d6 points
of damage to the creature struck. You apply no extra damage
to this attack regardless of its source (including sneak attack,
favored enemy, and smite bonuses), but you can activate the
wand as part of the attack. If the spell cast from the wand
is a ray or a targeted spell, the creature struck is the spell’s
target (with ray spells hitting automatically). If the spell
affects an area or creates a spread, you can designate the
spell’s point of origin at any grid intersection point of the
creature’s space (but doing so might put you in the affected
area). Spells with an effect that does not cover an area (such
as the various summon monster spells) cannot be used with a
wandstrike attack.



From a balance PoV it would be like allowing someone employing power attack to hit for normal damage if they miss within the PA penality margin.

Good point.

[HeadlessMermaid]

So any character, with nothing in hand, at a reasonable distance, can roll a Bluff check to feint against a target, and if they succeed get the benefits on their next melee attack if done on or before their next turn. That's... almost too simple, which is perhaps why I was so confused.
That's also NOT what most DMs would love to see. I don't know what your DM is like, but if I were you, I'd consult him before trying something that's possibly RAW but definitely silly - at least according to said DM. (These things are very relative.)

[odigity]

That's also NOT what most DMs would love to see. I don't know what your DM is like, but if I were you, I'd consult him before trying something that's possibly RAW but definitely silly - at least according to said DM. (These things are very relative.)

What's the problem? It's kind of like aid other -- a minor benefit at the cost of another person's actions, which is always an expensive price.

[HeadlessMermaid]

What's the problem? It's kind of like aid other -- a minor benefit at the cost of another person's actions, which is always an expensive price.
I'm not saying it's overpowered (or even, well, powered :smalltongue:). I'm saying that the "at a reasonable distance" part may annoy your DM, who can argue that if it says melee, then it's melee. It's not just bluffing (say or do something distracting), it's feinting, which means you pretend you're attacking when in fact you're not.

Now, if your DM is the "RAW at all costs!" type, and if you convince him that this is RAW, then great. All I'm saying is: ask first. :smallsmile:

P.S. My suggestion for Feint problems is usually something completely different. Houserule the damn thing to work properly. This is the feint fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228636) I use, there are many other options (for example, make it a move action, which becomes swift if you have Improved Feint). There's also the problem of the opposed check, which scales horribly, but that's another matter and it will come up Vs critters with lots of HD.

[TuggyNE]

Still wondering if one is expected to deliver it with the wand or the other hand after activating the wand. I suspect the answer is "your empty hand", else there would be no need for this feat from Complete Arcane:

It doesn't really make much difference, but that's generally considered a pretty terrible feat. You spend one charge for 1d6 damage as a touch attack, or two charges for 1d6+spell as a touch attack, and sneak attack etc doesn't apply. So you're burning through charges faster for no particular reason (you could, after all, just use that same standard action to activate the wand normally, make the same touch attacks or force Reflex saves or whatever, and get nearly the same overall result for half the charges and no feat wasted — not to mention applying sneak attack etc).

Also, back on topic, the feat only really gives you the ability to burn a charge to do 1d6 damage: there's no particular reason to assume you can't make a touch attack with the wand to deliver melee touch spells, as long as you don't try to get extra damage from that.

[odigity]

Also, back on topic, the feat only really gives you the ability to burn a charge to do 1d6 damage: there's no particular reason to assume you can't make a touch attack with the wand to deliver melee touch spells, as long as you don't try to get extra damage from that.

That's what I was getting out of it, but I had a hard time believing I was understanding it correctly because it made no sense. I guess I should just accept the fact that yes, it really does suck that bad.

Double-Wand Wielder seems more interesting, because it does in fact give you an action budget you wouldn't otherwise have (two wand activations, which would have not otherwise been possible if both wands had standard-action spells). But it's still not that amazing -- wands only go to lvl 4 (and those cost ~20k), and it requires TWF, even though you're not actually making melee attacks with them. And it requires Craft Wand, even though it doesn't require you to have crafted the wands yourself to double wield them... the whole niche seems murky.

I'm sure I'll have a better understanding of this once I get through the following resources:

Guide to Wands (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10575)
Wand Users and Crafters (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.com/2012/01/handbook-to-wand-users-and-crafters.html)