Advice on a Feint Situation

[Water Bob]

Here's a quandary. Maybe you can help me.

Situation: Player A is running Abel, a 1st level Fighter, STR 10, and DEX 17. HP 5.

Player B is running Barlo, also a 1st level Fighter, STR 15, and DEX 16. HP 8.

Both characters take service with the local lord, Baron Grellus. They are both battlement archers.





The Scene: Both characters are in the common room of the castle. Neither are on duty, and so both are wearing no armor. They're both wearing normal "off-duty" type clothing: Billowy, long sleeved shirts, tied at the waist with a belt. Small dagger attached. Wool breeches, and soft leather boots.

There is no one around. The cooks are off peeling potatoes and skinning meat for tonight's eating.

Abel and Barlo sit across a bench table from each other having poured themselves some dark beer from the keg.

Abel and Barlo are friends, but they nit-pick each other. And, somethings words erupt. And, sometimes fist fights break out between the two PCs.

During this encounter, the normally non-deadly confrontations exploded with both characters pulling their blades.





The Fight: The combat starts off with some non-lethal, unarmed blows, then escalates to using the Grapple Rules. But, Barlo gets irked because Abel just happens to have +7 Escape Artist (it's one of the few things where the character excels). Barlo grapples him, and Able turns right around and wiggles his way out.

Even though Barlo is clearly getting the better of Abel, Barlo's temper blows, and Barlo pulls his dagger.

Able pulls his.

Barlo draws first blood and knocks Able down to 2 HP.

Able got lucky and scored a critical hit, but it only did 3 points of damage (so...not that lucky). Barlo has 5 HP.







The Feint: Barlo went back to attempting a grapple, but Able knows his time is precious and the events are dire. A few more rounds, Barlo keeps grappling, and Able keeps using Escape Artist to get out.

Then, Barlo fails on his grapple attempt.

And, Able decides, because he's been having a hard time hitting Barlo's AC 13, that he will attempt a Feint.




Top of Round 1 (of the Feint Attempt, not the combat): Able makes his Bluff check against Barlo's modified Sense Motive. Able wins the toss. This indicates that Able, on his next attack, will attack Barlo at AC 10 rather than AC 13 because Barlo cannot benefit from his DEX with a successful Feint attack.

Bottom of Round 1: Now that Barlo sees the Feint attempt coming, he uses the Withdraw action. He moves 60 feet, across the common room floor, without drawing an attack of opportunity from Able.




My Question

Is this legal? Barlo saw the Feint coming and basically robbed Able of his successful Feint.





I don't think it is right that Able is robbed of his Feint attack.

At the same time, I'm not sure that it is correct to limit Barlo's actions. "You can't Withdraw because you've got to suffer the Feint attack."



How is this run properly, by the book? (3.5 Rules).

[Xervous]

Abel can still get his feint bonus if he throws a weapon or charges. If there's terrain preventing both, tough luck. That's smart play on Barlo's part.

[BowStreetRunner]

This is why there is a feat called "Improved Feint". Note however that even though the Barlo seems to have denied Able the opportunity to carry through on his feint, Able's feint did have the effect of convincing Barlo to withdraw instead of attacking. So it still had a positive effect for Able, depending on how you look at it.

[Water Bob]

Abel can still get his feint bonus if he throws a weapon or charges. If there's terrain preventing both, tough luck. That's smart play on Barlo's part.

If Barlo's Withdraw is, indeed, legal, then the Feint is completely invalidated and useless (unless a character has the Improved Feint feat), unless, as you said, Able can Charge on his next action. But, you don't have to move in a straight line with Withdraw. So, if there is anyway to put an obstacle between you and the combatant who just performed a successful Feint on you, you can defeat the Feint maneuver every time.

That doesn't smell right to me. The normal Feint becomes useless in most cases.

[Water Bob]

This is why there is a feat called "Improved Feint". Note however that even though the Barlo seems to have denied Able the opportunity to carry through on his feint, Able's feint did have the effect of convincing Barlo to withdraw instead of attacking. So it still had a positive effect for Able, depending on how you look at it.

That's a good point. Use the Feint for another goal besides an easier hit. Use it, and if the foe Withdraws, charge 'em if you can. If you can't, you've got the option to take off.

Able would have certainly left and tried to cease the combat.

[Water Bob]

This is why there is a feat called "Improved Feint".

Right, but that's for people who specialize in the maneuver.

The regular Feint should be a viable option for all fighters, don't you think?

[Xervous]

Right, but that's for people who specialize in the maneuver.

The regular Feint should be a viable option for all fighters, don't you think?

What are you getting at here? Is this a convoluted lead up to saying that basic feint needs to be changed to be made 'viable'?

[BowStreetRunner]

The regular Feint should be a viable option for all fighters, don't you think?
Just like Tripping, Disarming, Unarmed Strikes, Grappling, Two-Weapon Fighting, Fighting Defensively, and a host of other abilities that have a standard mechanic and then an improved mechanic achieved with a feat the idea seems to be to provide an option with very limited value - something they can use effectively under certain circumstances but have to really wait for opportunities to arise. Feinting when the enemy doesn't have the option to withdraw (after all, only the starting square is not considered threatened for purposes of AoOs) would still be a viable option, it just isn't going to be a regular 'go-to' attack like it would be for someone with the feat.

[Water Bob]

What are you getting at here? Is this a convoluted lead up to saying that basic feint needs to be changed to be made 'viable'?

Nope. Just wondering about the rule. Why include it as a regular feint that anybody can use if it can be defeated so easily. Who would give up an attack for so little benefit?

I was also wondering if Barlo was meta-gaming when he saw that he lost the Feint attempt.

[Water Bob]

Just like Tripping, Disarming, Unarmed Strikes, Grappling, Two-Weapon Fighting, Fighting Defensively, and a host of other abilities that have a standard mechanic and then an improved mechanic achieved with a feat the idea seems to be to provide an option with very limited value - something they can use effectively under certain circumstances but have to really wait for opportunities to arise. Feinting when the enemy doesn't have the option to withdraw (after all, only the starting square is not considered threatened for purposes of AoOs) would still be a viable option, it just isn't going to be a regular 'go-to' attack like it would be for someone with the feat.

Tripping, Disarming, and Unarmed Strikes are a lot more worthy of use and cannot be defeated as easily as the Feint.

For example, you don't have to wait an entire round for any of them.

With Tripping, you lose your attack, but you gain the attempt to trip your foe right then. There's benefit to attempting it.

If anybody can just Withdraw to defeat a Feint, then many times, a Feint is worthless.

[Xervous]

If a feint led to forcing a withdraw every time it might actually be a buff for the poor combat maneuver. Not all options are created equal in this game, feint just happens to be iffy and easily pushed out of its niche by magic.

[Hiro Quester]

If this is player vs player, then this is pretty bad form.

Player B knows about the sense motive roll to spot a bluff that he made and failed, then the player is using that meta game knowledge about the other player's bluff, that his character would not know about, having failed the opposed check.

This is about as against the rules as casting linked perception to improve the party's spot and listen, because the player knows he just failed a listen check. The character does not know he failed the check.

The character does not know he failed to spot a bluff, And so does not know the feint is coming. It's really bad form for the player to use that knowledge.

It's touchy (!) if the player can claim he would have withdrawn anyway. But it smells bad to me.

Esp since Able is in worse shape 2HP than Barlo's 5HP. Why would he withdrew from the fight when he's about to win with his next blow?

[Water Bob]

Here's an add-on question.

So, let's say that we run the game where actual rolling of the Feint check isn't done until right before the Feint will be played out. That is, Able would announced the Feint at the top of Round 1. Then, the check would be made at the top of Round 2, with the result played out then as well.

What if the following happens.

Is this legal, too?




Top of Round 1: Able announces Feint.

Bottom of Round 1: Barlo announces that he's using Total Defense.



Top of Round 2: Able makes Feint check, and it is a success. He attacks Barlo.

But...does Total Defense apply to Able's attack?



I'm thinking that it would not.

Thoughts?

[BowStreetRunner]

But...does Total Defense apply to Able's attack?

The rules state that "Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any dodge bonuses the character may have." So Total Defense applies but the dodge bonus it grants is negated, meaning that in this single combat the only real effect is that Barlo cannot make attacks of opportunity due to Total Defense.

[Troacctid]

There are a lot of other way more important reasons why feinting is useless. For example, taking up your whole turn without contributing to the fight in any meaningful way.

[Oberon Kenobi]

I agree that forcing the target to withdraw is a perfectly valid boon. They gave up their chance to attack you, and as stated you can still charge or throw a weapon or whatever else.

As for the metagaming aspect, I disagree. Failing your Sense Motive check versus a bluff doesn't mean that you're unaware that you got feinted; it means that you are put Flat-footed, because you tried to parry a blow that never came and ended up overextending yourself. Or however you want to frame the feint; the principle applies all the same.

That's something that as a character you would be aware of. Improved Feint allows your opponent to be agile enough to hit you before you have a chance to react to this fact, but you're still aware of it. In this case, the feinted character realizes that they've lost their footing and they decide to back off and get some space to regain it instead of staying in melee and risking a deadly blow. Think of it as them stumbling backwards out of the engagement to catch their breath, if you like.

[Water Bob]

I agree that forcing the target to withdraw is a perfectly valid boon. They gave up their chance to attack you, and as stated you can still charge or throw a weapon or whatever else.

As for the metagaming aspect, I disagree. Failing your Sense Motive check versus a bluff doesn't mean that you're unaware that you got feinted; it means that you are put Flat-footed, because you tried to parry a blow that never came and ended up overextending yourself. Or however you want to frame the feint; the principle applies all the same.

That's something that as a character you would be aware of. Improved Feint allows your opponent to be agile enough to hit you before you have a chance to react to this fact, but you're still aware of it. In this case, the feinted character realizes that they've lost their footing and they decide to back off and get some space to regain it instead of staying in melee and risking a deadly blow. Think of it as them stumbling backwards out of the engagement to catch their breath, if you like.

I like this take. It feels correct and in the spirit of the rules.