Str + Intimidate to Feint: Would This Be Broken?

[Nifft]

The basic idea is: allow the PC to use his or her Intimidate skill to fake an intention to attack, and then use brute Strength to re-direct his or her weapon to attack a different area, or attack in a different way, than expected.

I can't think of any interactions that would make this broken, even though Strength is really easy to raise.

What am I missing?

Thanks!

[OldTrees1]

That sounds more like Bluff(skill in faking) with Strength rather than Charisma.

[frost890]

Unless I miss my guess this would fall under the bluff skill. Now using intimidate might give them a negative or make them flee.

[Nifft]

That sounds more like Bluff(skill in faking) with Strength rather than Charisma.

That's a separate thing.

This is more like... tactical bullying.

Make the opponent flinch, then stab him while he's off-balance.


Unless I miss my guess this would fall under the bluff skill. In the core rules, that would be true.

But this thread is specifically and explicitly a question about the mechanical implications of a rules change.

So, the fact that the rules change is not identical with the current rules is the sort of thing that we all ought to expect when we come in.

[OldTrees1]

That's a separate thing.

This is more like... tactical bullying.

Make the opponent flinch, then stab him while he's off-balance.

Well, Bluff(Str) is useful for simulating many thing not just 1.

If you are talking about faking/deceiving it is Bluff ranks.

As long as you maintain the meaning of the skills(aka deception is bluff and fear is intimidate) then I don't see a problem with finding a reason to use a different skill for the same result.

[Nifft]

Sure, that flavor would work fine: you could use Str + Intimidate to scare your opponent off-balance and get the effect of a Feint action instead of using Bluff.

As you mention, these skills are good for more than one thing, so that flavor seems just as good as the flavor I'd been using.

- - -

Now, the question remains: Would this mechanic break anything?

Thanks.

[TheIronGolem]

I don't think it would be a problem. Slayer's Feint gives us precedent for feinting with an alternate skill (Acrobatics), and I've yet to hear anyone claiming that broke their game (granted, that's Pathfinder, but the principle should apply in 3.x too). Besides, feinting needs all the help it can get.

I quite like this idea, actually.

[OldTrees1]

Now, the question remains: Would this mechanic break anything?

Thanks.

No. Have you ever seen a Tier 1-2 class use Feint?

No. Feinting does not provide enough benefit/action economy cost, the difference between Str and Cha is not large, and those that use it are already low tier.

[Troacctid]

Feinting is really easy to get to a high bonus. I mean, come on, it's based on a skill check.

It's not about how likely it is to succeed. You could forgo the roll entirely and just make it an automatic success. Not only would it not be broken, it would still be completely useless, because it's not worth an action.

[Nifft]

I don't think it would be a problem. Slayer's Feint gives us precedent for feinting with an alternate skill (Acrobatics), and I've yet to hear anyone claiming that broke their game (granted, that's Pathfinder, but the principle should apply in 3.x too). Besides, feinting needs all the help it can get.

I quite like this idea, actually. Thanks!


No. Have you ever seen a Tier 1-2 class use Feint?

No. Feinting does not provide enough benefit/action economy cost, the difference between Str and Cha is not large, and those that use it are already low tier.


Feinting is really easy to get to a high bonus. I mean, come on, it's based on a skill check.

It's not about how likely it is to succeed. You could forgo the roll entirely and just make it an automatic success. Not only would it not be broken, it would still be completely useless, because it's not worth an action. Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks, all three of you.

My thinking is that you'd want to take Improved Feint if you wanted to use this mechanic with any kind of regularity. That means 13 Int, but you can dump Cha and you don't need cross-class skill ranks.

- - -

Making Feint more interesting for high-BAB characters is a separate but related issue.

[Solaris]

Maybe do a feat with a prereq of Str 13+ that mimics Improved Feint, but does the 'tactical bullying' as described above?

[OldTrees1]

Maybe do a feat with a prereq of Str 13+ that mimics Improved Feint, but does the 'tactical bullying' as described above?

No. A simple skill change is not something that should requires a feat. (IIRC the DMG has a section on variant skills/skill modifiers)

[Solaris]

No. A simple skill change is not something that should requires a feat. (IIRC the DMG has a section on variant skills/skill modifiers)

That's not what I suggested.

[OldTrees1]

That's not what I suggested.

Doh! :smallredface: I read "requires" rather than "mimics" and I have no idea how.

[Novawurmson]

Feinting is already abysmal unless you have class features that heavily incentivise it (I.e. the PF Vexing Daredevil). Using Intimidate instead of Bluff doesn't really change anything.

Now, something that allows players to feint as a swift action, that could make feinting a much more interesting combat option.

[Curmudgeon]

That sounds more like Bluff(skill in faking) with Strength rather than Charisma.
I agree. Intimidate makes your opponents pay more attention to you, rather than to your weapon, so less likely to be faked out by your feint. I would expect use of this skill to make the character noticeably worse at feinting rather than better.

[SangoProduction]

I agree. Intimidate makes your opponents pay more attention to you, rather than to your weapon, so less likely to be faked out by your feint. I would expect use of this skill to make the character noticeably worse at feinting rather than better.

I don't believe the point was to remain an "actual" feint, but to through them off guard - make them scared enough to weaken their defense.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't believe the point was to remain an "actual" feint, but to through them off guard - make them scared enough to weaken their defense.
I don't see how that would happen. Making someone scared raises their defenses; it doesn't reduce their wariness.

[Garktz]

Sorry to off-topic, but, wouldnt it be something like this?
https://youtu.be/8PEt_daznck

[Ger. Bessa]

Variant to the basic idea : a skill trick that makes an opponent you succesfully intimidate flat-footed ?


A feat might seem a lot but you can fasten your intimidation with an armor property iirc.

[Nifft]

I don't believe the point was to remain an "actual" feint, but to through them off guard - make them scared enough to weaken their defense. That's also a good idea: scare someone enough to make them begin to retreat, then stab them in the back as they turn. Or make the target take half a step back, and stab him as he stumbles.


I don't see how that would happen. Making someone scared raises their defenses; it doesn't reduce their wariness. Bluff doesn't cause the opponent to lower his wariness. You don't use Bluff to convince the target you're his friend. That criteria would be ... nonsense. You use Bluff to trick the target into being wary of the wrong attack, exactly analogous to this mechanic which uses Intimidate to fool the target into being scared of the wrong attack. The target's wariness is constant in both cases.

The whole point of both maneuvers is to cause the target to misdirect his defenses, not lower them. The target raises his shield, but the attack comes from below. Not a lack of wariness: rather, an incorrect prediction.


Sorry to off-topic, but, wouldnt it be something like this?
https://youtu.be/8PEt_daznck Did that guy hold up one hand, make the other guy focus on the one hand, and then slap with his other hand?

Because if so, yes, that's perfect.

[Psyren]

Intimidating to mess up their swing is already in the rules - that's what the shaken condition imposed by Demoralize represents. It's less "faking them out" and more "unnverving them with thoughts of what you could do to them."

As for getting Strength to Intimidate, PF has you covered: Intimidating Prowess. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/intimidating-prowess-combat---final) It's pretty straightforward so you should have no trouble porting that back to 3.5.

[OldTrees1]

Did that guy hold up one hand, make the other guy focus on the one hand, and then slap with his other hand?

Because if so, yes, that's perfect.

Again: If you are talking about misdirection (I'm going to hit you with this hand, psyche!), that would be Bluff not Intimidate. (and honestly that looked more like Cha than Str as the ability used in the skill check)

Using Intimidate rather than Bluff implies the action you are describing is relying on Fear and not on Deception in order to provoke an opening.

[Nifft]

Again: If you are talking about misdirection (I'm going to hit you with this hand, psyche!), that would be Bluff not Intimidate. (and honestly that looked more like Cha than Str as the ability used in the skill check)

Using Intimidate rather than Bluff implies the action you are describing is relying on Fear and not on Deception in order to provoke an opening.

You're being very persistent in your failure to imagine.

Since the only question in the thread was mechanical, not flavor-related, you're not even being persistent about a topic which is tangentially related to the thread.

I don't need to convince you. The player who wants to do this is already convinced; the DM who is probably going to allow it is basically convinced. Your opinion is noted, and I've tried to help you understand the thinking of the DM and player, but in the end we're not relying on your approval -- you and your opinion are not going to have any impact on the game.

If you want to participate in a helpful way, you need to buy into the thread's assumptions. You are very welcome to participate, but if you want to do that, you're going to have to meet us halfway. You need to accept our starting assumptions.

- - -

Intimidation is a type of bluff.

If you're good enough at making the threat, you won't need to follow through on it.

Intimidation is already a specific type of misdirection. Getting someone to lose his cool via Bluff (taunting via jokes) is equivalent to getting someone to lose his cool via Intimidation (taunting via threats).

In terms of tropes, it might be that you project false Killing Intent (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KillingIntent), or tricking someone who relies on Kung-Fu Clairvoyance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KungFuClairvoyance). (Or maybe there are better tropes... I am not good at tropes, but I still managed to find two relevant ones. If someone knows better tropes, please post them. Thanks!)

[OldTrees1]

You're being very persistent in your failure to imagine.

Since the only question in the thread was mechanical, not flavor-related, you're not even being persistent about a topic which is tangentially related to the thread.

I don't need to convince you. The player who wants to do this is already convinced; the DM who is probably going to allow it is basically convinced. Your opinion is noted, and I've tried to help you understand the thinking of the DM and player, but in the end we're not relying on your approval -- you and your opinion are not going to have any impact on the game.

If you want to participate in a helpful way, you need to buy into the thread's assumptions. You are very welcome to participate, but if you want to do that, you're going to have to meet us halfway. You need to accept our starting assumptions.

- - -

Intimidation is a type of bluff.

If you're good enough at making the threat, you won't need to follow through on it.

Intimidation is already a specific type of misdirection. Getting someone to lose his cool via Bluff (taunting via jokes) is equivalent to getting someone to lose his cool via Intimidation (taunting via threats).

In terms of tropes, it might be that you project false Killing Intent (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KillingIntent), or tricking someone who relies on Kung-Fu Clairvoyance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KungFuClairvoyance). (Or maybe there are better tropes... I am not good at tropes, but I still managed to find two relevant ones. If someone knows better tropes, please post them. Thanks!)

1) I already answered the threads question in posts #2, #5, and #8 where I said that Intimidation could be used to gain the same benefit as Feinting. Post #5 is where I referenced a sudden scare resulting in someone less able to defend themselves as a valid substitution of Intimidate rather than Bluff for the Flatfooted effect. (So please recognize the context of my comments and don't mischaracterize me or my contributions)

2) No you don't need to convince me that Intimidate can be used to make someone flat footed. You don't even need to convince me in order for you to use Intimidate without an appropriate descriptor that maintains skill meaning. You are not relying on my approval, but you did ask my advise (which was "Sure, but I suggest using an Intimidate description rather than a Bluff description").

3) In the video that you said was a perfect example you see the common misdirection of a stage magician(moving flashy object catches the eye). The stage magician does not roll Intimidate and yet it is the exact same technique that the guy in the video used.

In contrast I can see this as an Intimidate example:
He projects a killing intent through the brutality of his attack. The killing intent shocked me for a moment before I could move to defend. However that moment was all he needed to push past my defenses.
For ease of reading I underlined the Intimidation and bolded the Strength involved in this skill check example.

[Nifft]

3) In the video that you said was a perfect example you see the common misdirection of a stage magician(moving flashy object catches the eye). The stage magician does not roll Intimidate and yet it is the exact same technique that the guy in the video used. The distinction between this and a stage magician is that this distraction is a threat.

Threats can fall under Intimidation.

That's my chain of thought.


In contrast I can see this as an Intimidate example:
He projects a killing intent through the brutality of his attack. The killing intent shocked me for a moment before I could move to defend. However that moment was all he needed to push past my defenses.
For ease of reading I underlined the Intimidation and bolded the Strength involved in this skill check example.
Yeah, that could certainly work.

That's a great description.

Thanks, everyone.

[atemu1234]

A feat that uses intimidate to feint, while not stopping you from full-attacking, might be worthwhile.

[PaucaTerrorem]

1) I already answered the threads question in posts #2, #5, and #8 where I said that Intimidation could be used to gain the same benefit as Feinting. Post #5 is where I referenced a sudden scare resulting in someone less able to defend themselves as a valid substitution of Intimidate rather than Bluff for the Flatfooted effect. (So please recognize the context of my comments and don't mischaracterize me or my contributions)

2) No you don't need to convince me that Intimidate can be used to make someone flat footed. You don't even need to convince me in order for you to use Intimidate without an appropriate descriptor that maintains skill meaning. You are not relying on my approval, but you did ask my advise (which was "Sure, but I suggest using an Intimidate description rather than a Bluff description").

3) In the video that you said was a perfect example you see the common misdirection of a stage magician(moving flashy object catches the eye). The stage magician does not roll Intimidate and yet it is the exact same technique that the guy in the video used.

In contrast I can see this as an Intimidate example:
He projects a killing intent through the brutality of his attack. The killing intent shocked me for a moment before I could move to defend. However that moment was all he needed to push past my defenses.
For ease of reading I underlined the Intimidation and bolded the Strength involved in this skill check example.


The issue for me is that I see Intimidation as more of a interrogation or persuasive method. Bluff is trickery and misdirection. Yes, intimidate can be used in combat to 'shaken' someone, but it's a fear tactic not a tricky tactic. What you seem to be suggesting is tricky over fearful.

[Psyren]

The issue for me is that I see Intimidation as more of a interrogation or persuasive method. Bluff is trickery and misdirection. Yes, intimidate can be used in combat to 'shaken' someone, but it's a fear tactic not a tricky tactic. What you seem to be suggesting is tricky over fearful.

You should probably be directing this at the OP, as he is the one dead-set on using Intimidate to be tricky.

[PaucaTerrorem]

You should probably be directing this at the OP, as he is the one dead-set on using Intimidate to be tricky.

This is a reason I usually don't post after work with after work booze in my belly. Hit the wrong reply. And had to edit myself.

[OldTrees1]

The issue for me is that I see Intimidation as more of a interrogation or persuasive method. Bluff is trickery and misdirection. Yes, intimidate can be used in combat to 'shaken' someone, but it's a fear tactic not a tricky tactic. What you seem to be suggesting is tricky over fearful.

I saw you said you hit the wrong reply but later edited yourself, so I am going to presume that this was addressed to my "momentarily shocked" example. (correct me if I am wrong)

I am not sure I see the "tricky" part in my description. There is a killing aura resulting from the brutality of the attacks. This killing aura is scary enough to temporarily "freeze" the target in terror, which would be mechanically represented by flatfooted for that 1 attack.