[Feat] Take THIS ya backstabber!

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Reverse Thrust [Interaction & Movement]
You take advantage of your seeming helplessness.
Prerequisites: Bluff 6 ranks
Benefit: You can attempt a Bluff check as a move action against a single target you are aware of to appear as if you were flat-footed. The DC of the bluff check is equal to the target's sense motive check plus their base attack bonus. If successful you may use an attack of opportunity once per encounter against a single target who attempts to use a sneak attack, death attack, or attack while flanking against you. If the AoO is successful the target loses their attack that round.

This may be used in conjunction with Combat Reflexes, allowing you to reverse thrust multiple assailants per encounter, though the DC to bluff additional targets increases by +2 per additional thrust witnessed that encounter.

If you possess the ability to use a sneak attack you may apply it to your reverse thrust. Using this feat reduces your sneak attack damage by 2d6.

[Innis Cabal]

you should also include a spot check to the pre-reqs, since if you cant spot the person hiding then the feat won't do anything.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

you should also include a spot check to the pre-reqs, since if you cant spot the person hiding then the feat won't do anything.
Well, what if its invisible or camouflaged? Thats why I used Blindfight as a requirement. You just kind of have a feel for movements about you with which to time your blow.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Instead of a flat +5 to the DC, maybe make it a smaller bonus that increases for every opponent previously bluffed?

That said, this feat goes very well with my fighter redux, since I gave them Bluff as a class skill.

[Innis Cabal]

ya, i saw that and still think a spot pre-reqs might still be a good idea

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Instead of a flat +5 to the DC, maybe make it a smaller bonus that increases for every opponent previously bluffed?
Thats basically what this is doing, adding a +5 for every opponent previously bluffed. Thought it might need to be high because if they just saw you ram someone coming at you, they would be just a tad bit wary instead of feeling like they got you where they want you.


ya, i saw that and still think a spot pre-reqs might still be a good idea
I just don't see it being really relevant. You could notice them with blindsight and have no ranks in spot.

[Macrovore]

dude, that's AWESOME!

[Demented]

It seems a little lacking for an entire feat... maybe part of a tactical feat?

[Lord Iames Osari]

If it is intended to be cumulative per previous opponent successfully bluffed, then you need to make that clearer in the text of the feat.

[Da Beast]

I like the idea, but it seems too situational to spend a feat on. I'd make it a skill trick or part of a tactical feat.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

It seems a little lacking for an entire feat... maybe part of a tactical feat?
I actually thought it was a bit powerful. Someone flanking you attacks, normally getting a bonus, but instead you get to bluff and pop them one, ruining their attack that round.

And if you have sneak attack you can now deal extra damage to anyone that attacks you knowing full well you are there.

I'm open to suggestions though on giving extra abilities similiar to this.



If it is intended to be cumulative per previous opponent successfully bluffed, then you need to make that clearer in the text of the feat.Thought I had been clear... but now I realize I didn't really mention it at all. Will adjust.

[Innis Cabal]

i agree with the others, either a tactical feat, why should you be the only one to be able to do it, or a skill trick for bluff

[Demented]

I actually thought it was a bit powerful. Someone flanking you attacks, normally getting a bonus, but instead you get to bluff and pop them one, ruining their attack that round.

And if you have sneak attack you can now deal extra damage to anyone that attacks you knowing full well you are there.

Now that I look at it again, I see what you mean. At first it just looked like a fancy readied action. But now, there are still a few things that get me...

1) Given it doesn't state what kind of action this bluff check is, one might assume it's a totally free action. However, most bluff checks of this kind take a standard action.

2) You attempt a bluff check against ONE target, and it readies you for an AoO against ANY opponent. That, it seems, is clear. So if you just pick the weakest creature nearby, you'll always have protection. I've got this idea of a goblin named Fumbles saying "I DECLARE MY REVERSE THRUST ON YOU!"

3) "If successful, you may make an AoO once per round per encounter" seems to conflict with "though the DC to bluff additional targets increases by +2 per additional thrust witnessed that encounter". Initially, I assume it states you get one AoO in the encounter, for that round only. However, it's later stated you benefit from Combat Reflexes, I assume giving you more than one Reverse Thrust per round. And then we come to the second statement, which seems to indicate you can prepare for a Reverse Thrust more than once in a single encounter. Seems unclear.

4) Wouldn't it be obvious to a rogue if someone became flat-footed willingly, as opposed to actually becoming flat-footed? "This guy now looks flat-footed." "Mmm. My roguey sense is tingling."

So, if I give it the strongest (and slightly cheating) interpretation, every such strike against a character is subject to a sneak attack AoO, and there are almost no other limitations since you can just bluff the wizard's familiar (or the bacteria on your thumb, same thing) and be protected throughout the encounter.
Or at least for two or three rounds, before the DC hits sky-high limits from potentially massive AoO dicery with Combat Reflexes.

[Peregrine]

2) You attempt a bluff check against ONE target, and it readies you for an AoO against ANY opponent. That, it seems, is clear. So if you just pick the weakest creature nearby, you'll always have protection. I've got this idea of a goblin named Fumbles saying "I DECLARE MY REVERSE THRUST ON YOU!"

I should think that it would need a bluff check against anyone who tries to hit you from 'behind' when you're aware of them. As written it doesn't; and it only applies to flanking, when I should think it would apply more to characters who think they've hidden successfully. It's... tricky. (Would be much easier in a system using facing rules.)


3) "If successful, you may make an AoO once per round per encounter" seems to conflict with "though the DC to bluff additional targets increases by +2 per additional thrust witnessed that encounter". Initially, I assume it states you get one AoO in the encounter, for that round only. However, it's later stated you benefit from Combat Reflexes, I assume giving you more than one Reverse Thrust per round. And then we come to the second statement, which seems to indicate you can prepare for a Reverse Thrust more than once in a single encounter. Seems unclear.

Actually, "once per round per encounter" doesn't make any sense at all. Well, it does, but the thing it literally means is absurd.

It means, you can do it more than once in an encounter, if you have more than one round in that encounter (makes sense), or, you can do it more than once in a round if you have more than encounter in that round! The first part makes sense, and would be the sole meaning if it simply said "once per round"... but it also conflicts with the Combat Reflexes bit.


4) Wouldn't it be obvious to a rogue if someone became flat-footed willingly, as opposed to actually becoming flat-footed? "This guy now looks flat-footed." "Mmm. My roguey sense is tingling."

Going back to the attack-from-hiding vs attack-from-flanking thing.

[Talanic]

Good (or terrible, depending on perspective) story about this move.

A friend whom I met online owns a katana. At one point we met IRL and he told me that one day he was playing with it in a way that no responsible person who owns a real, sharp katana ever should. He attempted this exact move, thrusting backwards, aiming at nobody. He missed.

He said that sliding two feet of steel through yourself doesn't really hurt. Not compared to pulling it out, at least.

The stupidest thing about it was that he self-treated the injury. Apparently he was lucky and didn't hit any vital organs or areas with too massive blood flow, and survived to tell the tale...

[Demented]

Oh, that's an unpleasant wake-up call.
Hope it didn't put him off swords, though. =P

Guns tend to come with a little warning that says "Don't point this at anyone you don't intend to shoot." Back in the day, I'd imagine that swords came with a similar warning. They still should, really.


(I've got a fake, model katana. Which is to say I have a narrow length of metal that deals bludgeoning damage, is moderately shiny, and collects rust as a hobby.)

[ExHunterEmerald]

Oh now this is the sexiest thing ever.

[XtheYeti]

Oh now this is the sexiest thing ever.
i think that VT has given me another dose of win, rock on

[The Vorpal Tribble]

1) Given it doesn't state what kind of action this bluff check is, one might assume it's a totally free action. However, most bluff checks of this kind take a standard action.
Had meant to mention it is a move action.


2) You attempt a bluff check against ONE target, and it readies you for an AoO against ANY opponent. That, it seems, is clear. So if you just pick the weakest creature nearby, you'll always have protection. I've got this idea of a goblin named Fumbles saying "I DECLARE MY REVERSE THRUST ON YOU!"
No, you pick a total of ONE target to bluff. Added that other stuff in case you could use Combat Reflexes.


3) "If successful, you may make an AoO once per round per encounter" seems to conflict with "though the DC to bluff additional targets increases by +2 per additional thrust witnessed that encounter". Initially, I assume it states you get one AoO in the encounter, for that round only. However, it's later stated you benefit from Combat Reflexes, I assume giving you more than one Reverse Thrust per round. And then we come to the second statement, which seems to indicate you can prepare for a Reverse Thrust more than once in a single encounter. Seems unclear.
Basically you can use it once on an individual per encounter. However, if multiple assailants come at you, say a ninja comes dropping down from the ceiling and you crack him on the way down. Then another, not having seen what happened to the first, comes out from around the side of the house, etc.

You could then have multiple opponents in the same encounter coming for you, but you could only pick one off that came at you that round... unless you have combat reflexes.


4) Wouldn't it be obvious to a rogue if someone became flat-footed willingly, as opposed to actually becoming flat-footed? "This guy now looks flat-footed." "Mmm. My roguey sense is tingling."
Flat-footed is how you normally are in a surprise round. If you are, however, aware of someone sneaking up on you, you can feign that you have no idea they are there and act in that surprise round to shove a sword through them.



So, if I give it the strongest (and slightly cheating) interpretation, every such strike against a character is subject to a sneak attack AoO, and there are almost no other limitations since you can just bluff the wizard's familiar (or the bacteria on your thumb, same thing) and be protected throughout the encounter.
Or at least for two or three rounds, before the DC hits sky-high limits from potentially massive AoO dicery with Combat Reflexes.
No, you cannot reverse thrust the same person. However, if you have multiple assailants and combat reflexes you could, possibly, trick a number of them, but the DC would skyrocket in that FIRST round.



I'll try to clear the wording up if this is how bad you its being interpretted.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Good (or terrible, depending on perspective) story about this move.

A friend whom I met online owns a katana. At one point we met IRL and he told me that one day he was playing with it in a way that no responsible person who owns a real, sharp katana ever should. He attempted this exact move, thrusting backwards, aiming at nobody. He missed.

He said that sliding two feet of steel through yourself doesn't really hurt. Not compared to pulling it out, at least.

The stupidest thing about it was that he self-treated the injury. Apparently he was lucky and didn't hit any vital organs or areas with too massive blood flow, and survived to tell the tale...
What.... a moron :smalleek: