Handling the Feint in a Game

[Water Bob]

Question: Let's say a 1st level NPC Fighter is fighting a 1st level PC Fighter, and the NPC uses the Feint. Instead of an attack, the NPC Fighter uses his Standard Action to feint (Bluff roll), and if successful, on his next attack, the NPC gets to attack the PC with the Feint benefits (PC doesn't get to use DEX bonus to improve AC).

This maneuver normally takes two rounds to complete (unless the Improved Feint Feat is used, or in the case of higher level Fighters with multiple attacks): Round one, NPC makes feint. If successful, the benefits of the feint are used on the NPC's attack the following round.

Do you tell the player about the feint? Or, do you describe it as a typical attack?





Tell the Player

If the PC is told, then the Feint check can be made one round (Bluff check vs. modified Sense Motive check), and if successful, then the NPC's attack is made on the following round. But, can't the PC, knowing that he is victim of a successful feint, do something like use the Fighting Defensively rule to counteract the penalty of the Feint?



Don't Tell the Player

If the PC isn't told, then the round the feint is made, the Ref describes a missed attack--just as if the NPC failed to hit. Then, on the following round, the Bluff vs Sense Motive is made, and if successful, the NPC's attack is made where the PC cannot benefit from DEX bonus.



How have you best played this in your games?

[VoxRationis]

You know, I've never thought about it before. None of my NPCs heretofore have been users of that particular combat technique. I guess that if I flat-out told the PC that the enemy had succeeded on a feint attempt, it would encourage them to back up, interpose a tower shield, or activate some other form of non-Dexterity defense. I guess I wouldn't tell them until afterward, or maybe not even then.

[TheIronGolem]

I let the player know what happened and remind them of the mechanical consequence. I'll say something like "The bandit leaves himself open, prompting you to attack, but it turns out to be a trick; he easily dodges your thrust and you've left yourself open. You'll be denied your DEX bonus on his next attack against you."

The feint is something that happened and was resolved on this turn, the attack that takes advantage of the feint is something that will happen the next turn. The player should know what just happened to their character, as should any other players who might be in a position to do something about it (for example, they might decide to try to take down that bandit before he gets his feint-boosted attack).

[Curmudgeon]

I let the player know what happened and remind them of the mechanical consequence. I'll say something like "The bandit leaves himself open, prompting you to attack, but it turns out to be a trick; he easily dodges your thrust and you've left yourself open. You'll be denied your DEX bonus on his next attack against you."
I think that's both too much information, and inaccurate, because "leaves himself open, prompting you to attack" isn't part of what's involved with a feint. In D&D "leaves himself open" is represented as provoking attacks of opportunity, and a Bluff to feint in combat doesn't provoke any AoOs. Here's what the dictionary says (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/FEINT?s=t&path=/):

feint
-noun

1. a movement made in order to deceive an adversary; an attack aimed at one place or point merely as a distraction from the real place or point of attack: military feints; the feints of a skilled fencer.
I think something more like "The bandit makes a short jab which doesn't quite connect; make a Sense Motive roll" is enough. Being told "You'll be denied your DEX bonus on his next attack against you" is definitely too much information, because it gives the player knowledge about the bandit's check result before they should be able to tell who has the better number. Telling the player to roll Sense Motive makes them aware that a feint has occurred, and that's perhaps already more information than they should have.

[Averis Vol]

I normally just drown my players in so much swordsman jargon that they have no idea what happened, then I ask for their Flat footed AC next round. I don't see why it has to be any harder than that.

[Curmudgeon]

I normally just drown my players in so much swordsman jargon that they have no idea what happened, then I ask for their Flat footed AC next round. So you're making the Sense Motive roll for them?
I don't see why it has to be any harder than that.
Sense Motive is why.

[HighWater]

There is a counterpoint: If a PC attempts a feint, does he know it succeeded immediately, or only when he actually attempts to exploit the opening he thinks he created?

I think if an NPC feints a PC, I'd pretend to roll an attack and report a miss, then on round two, roll the feint immediately before rolling the r2 attack. Equally, if the PC wants to feint
Agree on the second point, disagree on the first.

The character who is being feinted (the feintee?) doesn't know it was a trick until the pointy thing hits him in the kidneys next turn. He fell for the feint attack, thought it was real, diverted all resources "successfully countering it" and will get stuck the next round if the follow-up attack is of sufficient quality.

The character who is doing the feinting (the feinter!) should be able to tell if it worked from the reaction drawn from his opponent (the opponent reacts vehemently to the fake attack: it worked! the opponent ignores the fake attack and keeps his eyes on the price: darn, wasted actions!). This is not a big problem to resolve when PC's feint NPC's (because the DM tends to be less invested in a particular character and needs to be aware of the move anyhow), but it is somewhat of a problem when a PC is being feinted (although you can always shout "Stop metagaming, your character doesn't know he's gonna be flatfooted for the next attack!").

I'd recommend resolving the roll right before the second turn of the feinter, so the feinter can still decide what to do with his turn based on successful/unsuccessful information. Of course, a succesful sense motive roll would've allowed the player's character to know he was being unsuccessfully feinted, but this information is generally pretty useless so I wouldn't mind if I wasn't informed until the next turn of the feinter.

Of course, this whole situation wouldn't be much of a problem if the designers hadn't make a feint cost an entire standard action. Seriously, that's like 3 seconds for pretending to go high, while actually going low (crazy), 6 if the two characters were already locked in melee combat, as the move action is also gone (insane). Also doesn't work well with iteratives... Steep feat tax to make it marginally more useful (but again, iteratives...)

[Elkad]

I tell my players.

The orc attacks you.
It was a trick, he just drew you off-balance.

Now since the player gets to go next, he's expected to pretend it didn't happen. If he metagames it and tries to take a Withdraw action or something, I'd just stick the flat-footed attack on immediately as an AoO he can't avoid. And then I'd probably throw a book.

[prufock]

I think that's both too much information, and inaccurate, because "leaves himself open, prompting you to attack" isn't part of what's involved with a feint. In D&D "leaves himself open" is represented as provoking attacks of opportunity, and a Bluff to feint in combat doesn't provoke any AoOs. Here's what the dictionary says (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/FEINT?s=t&path=/):
I think something more like "The bandit makes a short jab which doesn't quite connect; make a Sense Motive roll" is enough. Being told "You'll be denied your DEX bonus on his next attack against you" is definitely too much information, because it gives the player knowledge about the bandit's check result before they should be able to tell who has the better number. Telling the player to roll Sense Motive makes them aware that a feint has occurred, and that's perhaps already more information than they should have.

An attack in D&D is explicitly not a single swing with a sword, but a series of strikes (PHB p 139). Descriptively, "leaves himself open, prompting you to attack" doesn't necessarily mean an AOO, it just means he's using one of those attempted strikes to swing at the wrong place, putting himself off balance.

A "movement made in order to deceive an adversary" is a valid definition of feint (read further down on the page you linked for clarification, it says "a mock attack or movement designed to distract an adversary").

Verdict: TheIronGolem's description is accurate and apt.

Mechanically, I agree that the PC shouldn't necessarily know whether the check was a success or not; it spoils the point of the attempt, which is to deceive. He should recognize that the feint occurred, and might make a calculated judgment on whether it was successful, but he shouldn't know he's been tricked until the attack comes.

[DeltaEmil]

I tell my players.

The orc attacks you.
It was a trick, he just drew you off-balance.

Now since the player gets to go next, he's expected to pretend it didn't happen. If he metagames it and tries to take a Withdraw action or something, I'd just stick the flat-footed attack on immediately as an AoO he can't avoid. And then I'd probably throw a book.Your player will know that they are being feinted because they make a Sense Motive check and add their base attack bonus to it.

[HighWater]

In terms of giving them the same opportunity to review their r2 actions though, if you don't roll the NPC feinter's feint check until r2, he lacks any opportunity to decide not to follow through due to a failed feint check. This in itself isn't a problem, but it is when the PCs do have an option to review their decision based on the result of the feint check.

That's true, although it's unlikely (though not impossible) the feinter will want to use his move action to do something else.

Really, the true answer should be "tell your players not to metagame, the pc doesn't know and therefore should act as if he's just been missed with an attack". The "fix" is only for those unable to separate their player knowledge from character knowledge...

[Segev]

I see no reason to conceal the information, honestly. If a successful feint causes the player's character to withdraw from the fight for a round, then you've locked down the character. You could have the feinter move up and repeat the action, keeping the PC inactive in return for the feinter's actions. There may be some concern that trading the feint action for "merely" forcing the other guy into fighting defensively is not a good trade; this is true if the other guy still has a reasonable chance to hit for serious damage while fighting defensively. But at that point, the feinter is likely not really able to make good use of the feint maneuver and is probably outclassed.

On the other hand, I believe "being denied a dex bonus" is a trigger for sneak attack. So if the feinter is sneak attacking, even the other guy fighting defensively is a bonus: the sneak attacker gets his sneak damage AND has an effective +4 to his AC thanks to the other guy's penalties for fighting defensively.

[Water Bob]

If the player is told (gets to roll his Sense Motive on the previous round), then it seems to me that the feint can always be defeated by Fighting Defensively or Total Defense.



Round 1:

1 - PC attacks and misses.

2 - NPC attempts feint. Bluff vs. PC's Sense Motive. Feint successful.



Round 2:

1 - PC is flatfooted due to feint. PC decides to do use Total Defense (and thus gets +4 AC).

2 - NPC makes attack at no real benefit to successful feint attempt in round 1.








Therefore, I'm thinking to not tell the player until the actual attack happens--like this:

Round 1:

1 - PC attacks and misses.

2 - NPC attempts feint (this is secret with the DM). DM describes an attack that misses so that player thinks nothing of it.



Round 2:

1 - PC attacks again, not knowing if he's victim of a feint or not.

2 - Resolve feint (Bluff vs Sense Motive). If successful, NPC makes attack with target flatfooted. If not successful, NPC makes normal attack.







EDIT: What I am not liking is that telling the player ahead of time allows him options, which defeats the nature of the feint. Falling victim to a feint should be involuntary (Oh, crap! I didn't mean to fall for that!). So, the feint victim shouldn't have so much control over recovery with choices of Fighting Defensively, Full-Round Fighting Defensively, Total Defense, etc.

[Water Bob]

On the other hand, I believe "being denied a dex bonus" is a trigger for sneak attack. So if the feinter is sneak attacking, even the other guy fighting defensively is a bonus: the sneak attacker gets his sneak damage AND has an effective +4 to his AC thanks to the other guy's penalties for fighting defensively.


This brings up a second question: On a successful feint, is the target flatfooted with regards to every attacker? Or, is the target flatfooted with regards to only the character who successful feinted against him?

[Segev]

This brings up a second question: On a successful feint, is the target flatfooted with regards to every attacker? Or, is the target flatfooted with regards to only the character who successful feinted against him?

By the RAW, only the one who successfully feinted.

Feinting isn't really all that useful if all you're using it for is to make the target easier to hit. I'm not even sure you get its benefits on every attack in the next round; it might only be the first.

[Zombimode]

This brings up a second question: On a successful feint, is the target flatfooted with regards to every attacker? Or, is the target flatfooted with regards to only the character who successful feinted against him?

Neither. Feinting does not leave anyone flat-footed.

[Water Bob]

By the RAW, only the one who successfully feinted.

It's an interesting debate. I'm not sure if RAW does say that--but it might!



Feinting isn't really all that useful if all you're using it for is to make the target easier to hit. I'm not even sure you get its benefits on every attack in the next round; it might only be the first.

After a successful feint, your target cannot use DEX bonus with regard to your next attack.






Neither. Feinting does not leave anyone flat-footed.

??

What's the definition of being flat-footed? You cannot use DEX bonus for defense. And, what happens after a successful feint? You cannot use DEX bonus for defense.

Looks like the same thing to me.

[Curmudgeon]

What's the definition of being flat-footed? You cannot use DEX bonus for defense. And, what happens after a successful feint? You cannot use DEX bonus for defense.

Looks like the same thing to me.
No, it's not the same. Being flat-footed has additional consequences:

You are not allowed to make any attacks of opportunity.
You may not take immediate actions.

[TheIronGolem]

I think that's both too much information, and inaccurate, because "leaves himself open, prompting you to attack" isn't part of what's involved with a feint. In D&D "leaves himself open" is represented as provoking attacks of opportunity, and a Bluff to feint in combat doesn't provoke any AoOs.

The relationship between "leaving yourself open" and "provoking an AoO" doesn't need to be 1-to-1. We can describe our combat maneuvers any way we like, and my example is one of many valid ways to describe rendering an opponent unable to properly avoid an incoming attack.


Being told "You'll be denied your DEX bonus on his next attack against you" is definitely too much information, because it gives the player knowledge about the bandit's check result before they should be able to tell who has the better number.

"Should"? You're suggesting it's somehow inappropriate to announce the result of a roll after the roll is resolved? Or do you mean that the player shouldn't realize they've been feinted until after the enemy has already taken advantage of that feint? Because I don't see why I should accept that, either.

[georgie_leech]

The relationship between "leaving yourself open" and "provoking an AoO" doesn't need to be 1-to-1. We can describe our combat maneuvers any way we like, and my example is one of many valid ways to describe rendering an opponent unable to properly avoid an incoming attack.



Especially since in real combat, a feint would generally be over and done with quickly, in the span of less than a second; the strike you though was aiming for your face becomes a thrust to your midriff before you can react. Combat turns in D&D though force up to six seconds of delay between turns, so I don't think it can be the same sort of deception. Even a novice could correct their guard after 6 seconds. In this light, baiting someone into a more exposed or extended position makes more sense IMO than simply having your guard in the wrong spot briefly.

[Trasilor]

If the player is told (gets to roll his Sense Motive on the previous round), then it seems to me that the feint can always be defeated by Fighting Defensively or Total Defense.

Round 1:

1 - PC attacks and misses.

2 - NPC attempts feint. Bluff vs. PC's Sense Motive. Feint successful.


Round 2:

1 - PC is flatfooted due to feint. PC decides to do use Total Defense (and thus gets +4 AC).

2 - NPC makes attack at no real benefit to successful feint attempt in round 1.


Therefore, I'm thinking to not tell the player until the actual attack happens--like this:

Round 1:

1 - PC attacks and misses.

2 - NPC attempts feint (this is secret with the DM). DM describes an attack that misses so that player thinks nothing of it.


Round 2:

1 - PC attacks again, not knowing if he's victim of a feint or not.

2 - Resolve feint (Bluff vs Sense Motive). If successful, NPC makes attack with target flatfooted. If not successful, NPC makes normal attack.


EDIT: What I am not liking is that telling the player ahead of time allows him options, which defeats the nature of the feint. Falling victim to a feint should be involuntary (Oh, crap! I didn't mean to fall for that!). So, the feint victim shouldn't have so much control over recovery with choices of Fighting Defensively, Full-Round Fighting Defensively, Total Defense, etc.

First, if the PC decides to take a Total Defense - he is effectively locked down - he does not attack, and cannot make attacks of opportunity. Furthermore, it doesn't actually prevent the attack from happening. And finally, Total Defense adds a +4 dodge bonus, which is lost if you lose your dexterity bonus



Dodge Bonus
A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items. Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have. Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply against touch attacks.

So in your example, the PC made a horrible choice in taking a Total Defense upon realization of the Feint - he would have been better off not knowing.

Also, Feint does not need to be in melee combat. In theory the person could Feint at the beginning of combat (i.e. at range) (e.g. pretending to be a non-issue / non-threatening) move into strategic position, then charge at the beginning of their next turn gaining the full benefits.

Actually, there are only a handful of things a PC can do to improve their situation once they find they have been feinted:

Take Total Cover (i.e Tower Shield, Behind wall, etc). This is a full round action that takes the PC out of combat effectively locking them down.

Teleport out of Melee - again removing the PC from melee combat.

Kill the NPC first - this is moot as this is their goal anyway.

I am probably missing other options...

Regardless, I don't think there is any problem for the PC's knowing that they have been feinted (in fact, it is quite plausible that a skilled swordsman realizes the instant they made a mistake and know their is nothing they can do about it).

What is less likely is that the NPC feints in combat (as described as making a false attack that the PC tries to parry, blah, blah, blah), On the PC's turn, they takes a move action to Tumble 20 feet away then takes a standard action to do X. Next round, NPC moves forward (move action) and attacks the PC (next attack on your next turn) who's Dex is now denied...all rules legal.

[Elkad]

Actually, there are only a handful of things a PC can do to improve their situation once they find they have been feinted:

Take Total Cover (i.e Tower Shield, Behind wall, etc). This is a full round action that takes the PC out of combat effectively locking them down.

Teleport out of Melee - again removing the PC from melee combat.

Kill the NPC first - this is moot as this is their goal anyway.

I am probably missing other options...

Withdraw at double speed is the one I thought of. Just kite the bad guy around for a round.

For the "kill him first" option, since your entire party should have a turn before he attacks, you can call for everyone to focus fire on him, which they may not have been doing.

And if nothing else, you might call for a heal before he whacks you.

[Averis Vol]

So you're making the Sense Motive roll for them?
Sense Motive is why.

Right, I forgot that part. It's a good thing I haven't used feint since my first game :P

[Runeclaw]

Is feinting ever really going to be preferable to just attacking twice?

[Hazrond]

Is feinting ever really going to be preferable to just attacking twice?

if you are a rogue you get sneak attack from feinting

[Water Bob]

Is feinting ever really going to be preferable to just attacking twice?

It's a little weak in D&D. In the Conan game that I play, the feint renders the defender to AC 10. So, if you're having trouble hitting your foe, then try the feint. You give up an attack, but if successful, your target will be AC 10.

And, as indicated above, Conan RPG Thieves can use their sneak attack damage if they hit after a successful feint.

So, yeah, in the Conan game, there are situations where feinting is worth it.

In regular D&D, unless you're looking for Rogue Sneak Attack damage, I bet the feint is largely ignored.

[Magma Armor0]

I suppose a compromise is :

...

NPC feints:

r1: NPC announces a feint. PC rolls his Sense Motive check. He sees his roll, and knows his bonus, but knows nothing of the other guy's check.

r2: NPC can follow through with an attack. If he attacks, the DM rolls the NPC's Bluff check immediately before the NPC's attack, and modifies the actual attack appropriately if the feint turns out to have succeeded. If the PC's r1 Sense Motive check was a high roll, he may decide to do something other than a follow-through attack in r2.

This way, the PC knows the feint was attempted, and has a reasonable guess at the level of success, but absolute knowledge of success or failure is absent.
(emphasis mine)

The problem I have with this is that it allows the PC to know if he got a crummy Sense Motive check.
"Wow, I totally just saw absolutely nothing out of the ordinary! Better brace myself."

And while the PC, technically, should not metagame, it's a really sucky feeling to know that as a PC. Knowing that you're about to get screwed, but that you have to stand there and take it for the good of the game is just icky.

[Segev]

Like I said, just accept the player will choose tactically based on knowing he's got no dex mod vs. this guy's next attack. Provided hitting a dex-denied foe once is more useful than attacking a not-dex-denied foe twice, the feint is a useful maneuver for what it does to alter the PC's behavior.

[Troacctid]

Or sidestep the problem altogether and give the NPC Improved Feint if you're planning on having them feint.

[Water Bob]

I wonder if the Feint might be better served by rolling it in the same round instead of giving up an attack to make a feint. (Of course, this would totally invalidate the Improved Feint feat.)

With the feint as written, the character benefits from getting an easier chance to hit his foe. The penalty is that the character must give up an attack in order to pull of a feint--the feint takes two rounds.



I'm just thinking out loud here, but what do you think of this?

Allow the feint to be made in the same round. If a character attempts a feint, then he determines the outcome of the feint (Bluff vs. Sense Motive) and then makes his attack, possibly with a bonus if the feint is successful.

The penalty will be: An unsuccessful feint opens the character up to an Attack of Opportunity by his foe.





Example:

It's Ian's attack, and he decides to feint against his foe, Jarmane. Ian rolls Bluff vs. Jarmane's modified Sense Motive roll. Jarmane wins that toss. This means that Jarmane gets an immediate Attack of Opportunity on Ian because Ian's failed feint created an opening where Jarmane was able to take advantage.

Provided that Ian is still standing, he gets to take his attack normally.



Example:

It's Ian's attack, and he decides to feint against his foe, Jarmane. Ian rolls Bluff vs. Jarmane's modified Sense Motive roll. Ian wins that toss. This means that Ian's feint is successful, and his attack is made with Jarmane's lowered AC.




Is the loss of the attack needed to balance the feint so that it's not too powerful?

[Urpriest]

Nothing in the Feint description says that the target does not know that they have lost their Dex bonus to AC. In general, the assumption in D&D is that you know when your enemy imposes a condition on you: that's why certain things (spells, for example) have to specify that the target does not know that they were affected.

Basically, if you've got a RAW argument that a player shouldn't know they were successfully Feinted against, that same argument applies to normal attacks as well. After all, nothing in the description of attacks says that they alert the PC to the attacker's presence.

[VoxRationis]

A feint is by its very nature dependent on deception; if the target knows about the feint, it has failed. Withholding the information regarding Dex bonuses is part of that deception.

[Water Bob]

Nothing in the Feint description says that the target does not know that they have lost their Dex bonus to AC. In general, the assumption in D&D is that you know when your enemy imposes a condition on you: that's why certain things (spells, for example) have to specify that the target does not know that they were affected.

That's not quite what is happening with Feint, though. It's not that the target doesn't know what is happening to him. It's that the target knows about a condition placed upon him a round before it actually happens.

In the alternative I speculated about above, the feint is not hid from the target. Both attacker and defender know that Ian is attempting a feint. It's that Jarmane is not alerted to the feint an entire combat round before the feint takes effect.





What if the target of a Web Spell knows that it's coming a round before the spell takes effect? The target could possibly do things to lessen the effect. For example, if Ian is the target of a Web, and the mage targets Ian...and Ian is standing close to two of his comrades, knowing that the web is coming, Ian could move so that he is the only one to suffer the spell effects--so that Ian's comrades are out of spell effect range.

[Urpriest]

A feint is by its very nature dependent on deception; if the target knows about the feint, it has failed. Withholding the information regarding Dex bonuses is part of that deception.

Why can't the deception just be modeled by the lack of Dex bonus? Since your Dex bonus to AC represents your ability to dodge, a successful feint indicates that you are deceived enough to be unable to dodge. That doesn't mean that you also don't know that you can't dodge. Being unable to dodge itself is the lack of information.

Edit:

That's not quite what is happening with Feint, though. It's not that the target doesn't know what is happening to him. It's that the target knows about a condition placed upon him a round before it actually happens.

In the alternative I speculated about above, the feint is not hid from the target. Both attacker and defender know that Ian is attempting a feint. It's that Jarmane is not alerted to the feint an entire combat round before the feint takes effect.

The condition "when your opponent next attacks you you will lose your Dex" is still a condition you have right now, and it applies before the next round if, for example, you provoke an attack of opportunity.

As for simply making a feint give its benefit the same round it is used...you have to remember that normally, for any character who actually uses a Feint, that's what will happen. If you have a character using a Feint for anything besides a last resort, they're going to have at least Improved Feint, if not swift/free action feinting and Surprising Riposte. The only time a character is going to make a Feint in one round and only benefit next round is if they're bad at feinting, that is, if they don't have build resources spent towards improving it. And I don't think it's that unreasonable that someone who is bad at feinting might alert their target to their intentions a round in advance.