[Skill Trick] I am not left handed!

[psychoticbarber]

Feigned Disadvantage [Skill Trick]
"I'll admit it, you are better than I am"
"Then why are you smiling?"
"Because I know something you don't know."
"Which is?"
"I am not left-handed."

Prerequisites: Bluff, 5 ranks.
Benefits: Once per encounter, a character may take a negative modifier to AC of up to her Dexterity Modifier + Dodge Bonus for up to three rounds.

Afterwards, the characters AC reverts to normal, and the character gains a bonus to attack and damage equal to the penalty against her opponents for the same number of rounds she suffered the penalty, if she succeeds at a bluff check (opposed by sense motive).

Example: John is dueling with Aramis. Aramis is of greater skill, and John realizes he will have to be sneaky to succeed. When the fight begins, John takes a -2 penalty to AC which lasts for two rounds.

Once those two rounds are up, John's AC reverts to normal, and John gets a +2 bonus to attack, if he successfully fooled Aramis with his feint. The bonus lasts for 2 rounds (equal to the number of rounds with the penalty)

Normal: You normally can't do this.

Special: You must be visible/in danger of being attacked while using Feigned Disadvantage

It's a little complicated to explain, I'm aware, but the actual principle is fairly simple. You intentionally put yourself at a disadvantage to fool your opponent into thinking you're weaker than you are, then you press your advantage with surprise.

I'm worried it might be underpowered and that no-one would take it. Any way I might spice it up to make it worth taking?

[mikeejimbo]

Shouldn't it be opposed by Sense Motive?

[Zeta Kai]

Yeah, an opposed Bluff check means that the opponent is trying to Bluff you back, which doesn't fit. Bluff vs Sense Motive would make more sense (no pun intended).

Other than that, this looks like a great feat for rogues & other scoundrels.

[psychoticbarber]

Yeah, an opposed Bluff check means that the opponent is trying to Bluff you back, which doesn't fit. Bluff vs Sense Motive would make more sense (no pun intended).

Other than that, this looks like a great feat for rogues & other scoundrels.

That is what I intended. *rolls eyes at self*

Anyway, do you think it should be feat or skill trick, and where should I put the pre-req? I'm not so good for that one.

[mikeejimbo]

I think a skill trick make sense. As for the level of Bluff you need, I can't really help you. The best bet is to think "What is the minimum level a character should be able to get this?" and then add three, and make that the necessary ranks.

[psychoticbarber]

I think a skill trick make sense. As for the level of Bluff you need, I can't really help you. The best bet is to think "What is the minimum level a character should be able to get this?" and then add three, and make that the necessary ranks.

We'll put at 5 and see if anybody freaks out :smallbiggrin:.

Edit: Made it melee only as well. Not sure if it's a good idea, but I outlined my possible problem in the OP

[mikeejimbo]

Edit: Made it melee only as well. Not sure if it's a good idea, but I outlined my possible problem in the OP

If you made the AC penalty to everyone, instead of a specific opponent (as fighting with your left hand would probably do anyway), then I think you could take out the "melee only" limitation.

[Kyace]

You might consider giving +2 to damage and +2 to hit since they both have to buy the skill trick, make an opposed skill check and suffer a few rounds of combat at a penalty.

[psychoticbarber]

If you made the AC penalty to everyone, instead of a specific opponent (as fighting with your left hand would probably do anyway), then I think you could take out the "melee only" limitation.

Like THAT *points to edited post*.

Edit:
You might consider giving +2 to damage and +2 to hit since they both have to buy the skill trick, make an opposed skill check and suffer a few rounds of combat at a penalty.

I believe I have.

Edit2:

...and the character gains a +2 to attack and damage ...

Yep, I did.

[Icewalker]

Huh. Very fun idea. May not be good enough, considering that if they win the check you just lost AC for a few rounds. Perhaps if they win the sense motive it is +1 instead of +2. Otherwise it seems a bit too dangerous.

I like it. I may give this to one of my BBEGs.

[psychoticbarber]

Huh. Very fun idea. May not be good enough, considering that if they win the check you just lost AC for a few rounds. Perhaps if they win the sense motive it is +1 instead of +2. Otherwise it seems a bit too dangerous.

I like it. I may give this to one of my BBEGs.

Thank you! I figure anything based off Princess Bride can't be all bad :smallbiggrin:

[jindra34]

also maybe allowing the penalty and bonus to scale with the number of levels in bluff. at level 20 a +2 is not going to be that usefull.

[psychoticbarber]

also maybe allowing the penalty and bonus to scale with the number of levels in bluff. at level 20 a +2 is not going to be that usefull.

That's a good idea. Could I get some assistance with this? What would be useful at level 20?

[Winged One]

Maybe change it so that it gives an additional +1 for every 5 points you beat their Sense Motive by or something?

[jindra34]

That's a good idea. Could I get some assistance with this? What would be useful at level 20?

i'd say have the bonus/penalty be up to half your ranks in bluff rounded down.

[psychoticbarber]

i'd say have the bonus/penalty be up to half your ranks in bluff rounded down.

And take a -12 (rounded up from 11.5) to AC for any number of rounds at level 20?

[dr.cello]

I think limiting it to three rounds is probably best. A possibility for the cap: you can't take a bigger penalty to your AC than you have dodge/dex bonus. This makes it a skill trick that works well for swashbucklers and nimble characters, and it makes sense. Essentially you're pretending to be less nimble than you actually are.

[psychoticbarber]

I think limiting it to three rounds is probably best. A possibility for the cap: you can't take a bigger penalty to your AC than you have dodge/dex bonus. This makes it a skill trick that works well for swashbucklers and nimble characters, and it makes sense. Essentially you're pretending to be less nimble than you actually are.

Is this better the way it is now? *points to edited OP*

[dr.cello]

Make sure it's dex and dodge bonus. I'm not sure how to phrase that so it isn't cumbersome, but essentially a fifth level rogue with 18 dex should be able to take up to a -4 penalty; a fifth level rogue with 18 dex and the Dodge feat, up to -5, and a fifth level swashbuckler with 18 dex and Dodge should be able to take up to -6 (because of the dodge bonus class feature.)

[psychoticbarber]

Make sure it's dex and dodge bonus. I'm not sure how to phrase that so it isn't cumbersome, but essentially a fifth level rogue with 18 dex should be able to take up to a -4 penalty; a fifth level rogue with 18 dex and the Dodge feat, up to -5, and a fifth level swashbuckler with 18 dex and Dodge should be able to take up to -6 (because of the dodge bonus class feature.)

Alrighty, that's switched.

[dr.cello]

I think that balances out fairly well. It makes it most powerful in the hands of swashbucklers, but useful for just about any nimble fighter types.

And I have always wanted to say this about a skill trick: that's a neat trick.

EDIT: To prevent cheese, you should stipulate that the character has to be fighting for those three rounds, or at the very least getting attacked, or something like that. It would be silly if a rogue activated his ability, UMD'd a scroll of invisibility, and then waited for the penalty to expire before attacking. The enemy needs to be able to see your false weakness.

[Winged One]

Yeah, it needs to be for visible users only, otherwise every Assassin ever will take this. They already tend to have a good use for high ranks in Bluff.