Feinting (PEACH)

[Mjolnirbear]

Hello. I'm trying to incorporate Feinting in combat. I originally though of making it part of/a variant of the Help Action, which mentions feinting. However, I think I like this version better.

Please let me know what you think.

In combat when you use the Attack Action in melee, you can make a special attack called a feint. Instead of making an attack roll, roll Deception, which is contested by the target's Insight. If you succeed, choose one of the following effects:
1. the next attack against the target has advantage, or
2. ‎the next attack that hits the target causes weapon damage to be maximized, or
3. ‎the target has disadvantage on attack rolls against you until the end of its next turn.

If you have more than one attack, feinting uses only one; however, you cannot feint more than once per turn. You cannot feint with a creature that cannot move, and a feint will automatically fail against a creature that lacks a defensive reflex, such as oozes or some kinds of undead.

(Edit: changed option 2 and added restrictions following discussion).

[Consensus]

The main issue with this is that the first benefit runs into a similar problem to True strike, and I can't see it being used all that often, and the second issue is extremely strong, especially for rogues, I could very much see a combo of a battlemaster fighter with expertise in deception from prodigy or a dip in rogue using a feint and then commander's stike to have their adjacent rogue friend attack, dealing max damage, similar for a paladin. The last benefit seems fine, as a more risky and limited dodge action with a lower opportunity cost.

[Easy_Lee]

#1 looks fine to me. A TWF rogue might use it to land sneak attack if allowed by the DM (not technically allowed due to the wording of TWF, but it should be).

[Consensus]

#1 looks fine to me. A TWF rogue might use it to land sneak attack if allowed by the DM (not technically allowed due to the wording of TWF, but it should be).

I didn't think of this, I like this mechanic of it, it's thematic especially for rogues

[Aett_Thorn]

What would you do about the Battlemaster Feinting Attack maneuver?


Feinting Attack: You can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to feint, choosing one creature within 5 feet of you as your target. Until the end of the turn, you have advantage on your next attack roll against that creature. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll.

Would you just make it a more general rule, and take this maneuver away from the Battlemaster?

[Consensus]

Would you just make it a more general rule, and take this maneuver away from the Battlemaster?

Keep in mind tripping attack: you can normally shove, but it does it better with a mixed in attack, same with disarming. Feinting Attack is similar to that format.

[JNAProductions]

Maximized damage is too good. A Paladin, with two attacks, can at level 11 either do (assuming sword and board) 4d8+10 (average of 28) with a single smite for 4d8 more (+18, for 46 total) or do a Feint (which should succeed-good Charisma, after all) and then attack for 2d8+5+4d8 maximized, or 53 damage.

[Mjolnirbear]

For option 2 I'd considered making it a crit but on-demand crits seemed too good.

And maximized weapon damage (my original thought) seems... Weak? You're giving up an attack for it, and the benefit should be worth it. Otherwise simply attacking twice is the better option.

I intended it to be roughly on par with grapple.

Have you guys any suggestions for option 2? Add an additional weapon die? I could simply make it have 2 options instead of 3 but I wanted a successful feint to be able to cause more damage.

I'd also love it if someone has other options to propose.

PS: im perfectly fine that this option is strictly better than true strike. 100% ok with that. True Strike is the most trap of trap options.

[JNAProductions]

For option 2 I'd considered making it a crit but on-demand crits seemed too good.

And maximized weapon damage seems... Weak? You're giving up an attack for it, and the benefit should be worth it. Otherwise simply attacking twice is the better option.

I intended it to be roughly on par with grapple.

Have you guys any suggestions for option 2? Add an additional weapon die?

PS: im perfectly fine that this option is strictly better than true strike. 100% ok with that.

The issue is twofold:

1, it's generally better than making an attack, since maximized damage on one is better than two attacks, Feinting is more likely to succeed than attacking, and it lets you spend resources more efficiently.

2, it doesn't say YOUR attack. You can maximize someone else's attack-like a Fighter giving up one attack to maximize a Rogue's sneak attack.

[Mjolnirbear]

The issue is twofold:

1, it's generally better than making an attack, since maximized damage on one is better than two attacks, Feinting is more likely to succeed than attacking, and it lets you spend resources more efficiently.

2, it doesn't say YOUR attack. You can maximize someone else's attack-like a Fighter giving up one attack to maximize a Rogue's sneak attack.

I edited my last post. You type fast. ;)

Your second point is intended. It's meant to be flexible and useful for both yourself and your party. However, it occurs to me there should be restrictions, like grapple. Maybe along the lines of you can't feint with creatures immune to fear (at heart, a feint is like a flinch IMO) or that there must be a minimum of intelligence?

[NecessaryWeevil]

However, it occurs to me there should be restrictions, like grapple. Maybe along the lines of you can't feint with creatures immune to fear (at heart, a feint is like a flinch IMO) or that there must be a minimum of intelligence?

Not sure about that. I used to fence, and feints are a big part of fencing. If someone feints against me, and I fall for it, it's not because I'm afraid of them but simply because I was trying to defend myself against what appeared to be an attack.

[JNAProductions]

I edited my last post. You type fast. ;)

Your second point is intended. It's meant to be flexible and useful for both yourself and your party. However, it occurs to me there should be restrictions, like grapple. Maybe along the lines of you can't feint with creatures immune to fear (at heart, a feint is like a flinch IMO) or that there must be a minimum of intelligence?

Right, but let me put it this way:

Level 5. Fighter has 2 attacks, Rogue has 1 (but it includes 3d6 sneak attack). They're both stabbing one guy.

Normally, you get 4d6+8+1d8+4+3d6 as your damage. That averages to 41.

Now, Fighter feints with one attack-his second one. You get 2d6+4+8+4+18. This averages to 41. I am legitimately surprised at this. Like, no joke, I expected this to be higher, but definitely not the same. (Of course, this assumes a Greatsword-give the fighter a Longsword and shield, and suddenly you get 36 normally, 38.5 with the Feint.)

But check in at level 11...

Base is 6d6+15+1d8+5+6d6. Averages to 66.5.

With feint, it's 4d6+10+8+5+36. Averages to 73. And again, this is assuming the Fighter has a Greatsword, whereas were I to build a feint build, I'd definitely go for more defense than offense.

Assuming you didn't build for it in mind, it's not that powerful (at least on par with attacking, though, especially since you have a greater chance of feinting against most foes than hitting) but if you DO build for it... That's an issue.

[Mjolnirbear]

Forgive me, but it looks you're still going with the first post (max damage) and not the subsequent ones (max weapon damage). I'm pretty tired though so... Are you?

Assuming that's so, feinting (original) appears more powerful at later tiers, kinda like an inverse TWF situation. I'll take your word on the math. I'm not positive that it's a bad thing; more powerful on later tiers seems like a logical step. But let's assume you're correct that is a bad thing, if for no other reason than because there's more than sneak attack to worry about.

Version 2 (max weapon damage) seems weak, given (my attempt at interpreting) your math. It'd be better if the maxed weapon were, say, a maul or greataxe, and those weapons don't need any help in damage because of GWM or PAM.

So there are other options.
1. Extra weapon die.
2. Add proficiency mod to damage

Also, your comment on the original version suggests it's not that strong if we can avoid building to exploit it. Can we?

[Mjolnirbear]

Not sure about that. I used to fence, and feints are a big part of fencing. If someone feints against me, and I fall for it, it's not because I'm afraid of them but simply because I was trying to defend myself against what appeared to be an attack.

I'm not a fencer, but logic tells me in a fight situation you'd fear the consequences of an undefended attack, no?

[JNAProductions]

Ah, yes. I was referencing the OP.

Max weapon damage is fine.

[Arkhios]

I'm not a fencer, but logic tells me in a fight situation you'd fear the consequences of an undefended attack, no?

Not sure if it's of any resolution to the case, but I used to fence as well, and trying to avoid a hit is (or should be) instinctive reaction to a fencer. It's not about being frightened at all, it's just a means to an end, which is your "survival".

Fencing is called jokingly Mens' Ballette for a good reason. (as an aside: there was a time when fencing - even the sport - was forbidden to women)

[NecessaryWeevil]

I'm not a fencer, but logic tells me in a fight situation you'd fear the consequences of an undefended attack, no?

So I was going to respond based on my understanding of what a feint is...but it occurs to me that it wouldn't help if you and I are working from different assumptions of what a feint is.

Here's what I imagine a feint to be:
I 'm fighting an orc. I fake a cut to his head. He raises his sword to defend himself, and I stab him in his now-undefended belly. A feint is a momentary tactical deception that causes him to defend something other than my intended target. His mental or emotional state is entirely irrelevant. This would work equally well on a skeleton (except for the resistance to piercing damage, obviously).

Are you imagining something more like this?
I'm fighting an orc. He recognizes that I'm wielding the mighty sword Glamdring and begins to be afraid. I bellow and advance menacingly. He swings wildly, trying to deflect any attack. I take advantage of the opening, and stab him in the belly. A feint is an attempt to intimidate the opponent into defending poorly. Feints don't work on skeletons because they don't feel fear.

If we both agree that we're imagining something more like the first option, then we can talk about whether immunity to "fear" as the Frightened condition is the same as the "fear" which is the desire to avoid the undesired consequences of being hit.

[Mjolnirbear]

The first. The second is intimidation, IMO.

But a flinch is a defensive reaction. You anticipate something nasty and move defensively to avoid or reduce damage. Almost anything alive has this inborn protective instinct. But it wouldn't work on skeletons or zombies because they are dead. The reflex to protect life isn't there. Nor do they feel pain. Nor would oozes. Not only have they not the intelligence, but there is nothing to protect. There is no brain or organs that need defending.

Taking advantage of this reflex is what I call a feint. And I identify it with fear, because fear is a natural response to threatening situations.

I have generalised anxiety. I flinch at loud, sudden noises, including things as benign as laughter. I don't feel fear like, say, watching a Stephen King flick or the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. But it's a fear reaction. My fight or flight kickstarts and my heart pounds and I get a dose of adrenaline. It's the kind of reaction you need to make a sudden defensive maneuver.

Think jump-scares. That is why I consider it a fear reaction.

[Mjolnirbear]

The next question then: would you use this special attack in combat? I want it to be something useful, but not so useful you use it all the time.

[Gryndle]

Not sure about that. I used to fence, and feints are a big part of fencing. If someone feints against me, and I fall for it, it's not because I'm afraid of them but simply because I was trying to defend myself against what appeared to be an attack.

exactly, feinting isn't about fear or intimidation. its just misdirection to get your opponent to believe an attack is coming from one angle, so they adjust for the perceived attack and leave an opening for a real attack coming from a different angle.

[Lombra]

I wouldn't mind granting advantage to the following attack, looks reasonable.
Maximum damage doesn't click with me, not because it's op (you can reword it to "you maximize your weapon damage dice" and it would be powerful but ok) but because it doesn't feel right IMO, as well as the third bullet.

I would suggest making it a dexterity(deception) check contested by a dexterity(insight) check tho, as feinting should, in my opinion, require nimbleness, and if strength builds feel left behind, maybe an equivalent strength(intimidation) check vs a wisdom(insight) check could work too. It wouldn't represent a feint per se, but it would yield the same result.

[Mith]

The next question then: would you use this special attack in combat? I want it to be something useful, but not so useful you use it all the time.

I wonder how well this idea works for TWF to grant themselves good Sneak Attack bonuses with the bonus action attack. I am hesitant about the maximized dice because I think it would work better to give your self the bonus instead of boosting the Paladin or a critting Barbarian.

One case to get rid of is that feints don't work on paralyzed creatures. This prevents a maximize auto critical hits.

Also, perhaps the Feint could expand to give Advantage on Shove attacks. This does step on Battle Master a bit, but they can go the same thing with Superiority Dice.

[Mjolnirbear]

Maybe I should look at this from the other side. All the fencers that chimed in... you feint so that you can attack elsewhere that the opponent is no longer properly defending, correct? Are there other advantages to feinting? How would you model that given the restrictions of HP not equalling meat points? Feinting can work simply giving advantage, and it's not OP, but if I can work in a couple of other options I'd love to do that.

Perhaps a called shot benefit? I'm not opposed to called shots if I can make it mechanically not OP.

Mith, the paralyzed point is a good one. I'd add unconscious. Something that *can* flinch. Maybe also restrained.

Lombra, I do like the idea, but I'd rather it be a mental stat than dex or strength. Still, a sudden roar of intimidation might serve the same purpose. It would still have to be contested by insight.

[Kane0]

I like the first option. It's like a Deception/Insight version of Shoving that gives advantage on the next attack rather than push/prone.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Maybe I should look at this from the other side. All the fencers that chimed in... you feint so that you can attack elsewhere that the opponent is no longer properly defending, correct? Are there other advantages to feinting? How would you model that given the restrictions of HP not equalling meat points? Feinting can work simply giving advantage, and it's not OP, but if I can work in a couple of other options I'd love to do that.


Hmm, good questions.

For example, I would thrust at the opponent's right chest (fencers stand at an angle to each other so that's the best target if the opponent is right-handed). The opponent would try to parry by moving their blade from their right to their left, across the line of my attack. I would disengage (dipping my blade under their parry) from my right to my left. Now on the other side of their blade, I can strike them if I act quickly.

I am trying to either strike quickly enough that they don't have time to parry, or to disengage soon enough that I have time to bring my blade back in line in time to hit them. The opponent is trying to parry late enough that I've already committed and can't disengage, but not so late that they get hit by the initial attack. The relative size of these windows depends on our skill and agility.

I might attack in one line with the expectation that the opponent will parry, intending all along to disengage. In that case, I need to "sell" the initial attack as a credible threat. That's how I'm imagining a feint.

At least that's how I remember it, after twenty years.

As for how I'd model it, hmm. A successful feint is more likely to land a telling blow and inflict real damage, so given the concept of HP that you point out, maybe extra damage? Ideally I'd maybe require a skill challenge - who is faster and more cunning? But that feels rather 3.5-ish in its granularity and complexity.

[Vaz]

Would Sleight of Hand not be better than Deception? Or allow a Sleight of Hand instead of Deception? You don't need to be charming or intimidating in order to palm a blade.

[Mjolnirbear]

Would Sleight of Hand not be better than Deception? Or allow a Sleight of Hand instead of Deception? You don't need to be charming or intimidating in order to palm a blade.

I think that would be if you suddenly pulled a dagger out of nowhere. Which sounds cool, but I'm not sure dex needs any buffing anyways?

I mean, you can trip with a whip or a staff. It makes that in some cases you could Shove or Grapple using dex instead of Strength. But Dex is already the default option for so many, it makes sense that the developers made it a Strength only thing and left exceptions to the DM. To me the same logic applies to Feint.

[Mjolnirbear]

Hmm, good questions.

For example, I would thrust at the opponent's right chest (fencers stand at an angle to each other so that's the best target if the opponent is right-handed). The opponent would try to parry by moving their blade from their right to their left, across the line of my attack. I would disengage (dipping my blade under their parry) from my right to my left. Now on the other side of their blade, I can strike them if I act quickly.

I am trying to either strike quickly enough that they don't have time to parry, or to disengage soon enough that I have time to bring my blade back in line in time to hit them. The opponent is trying to parry late enough that I've already committed and can't disengage, but not so late that they get hit by the initial attack. The relative size of these windows depends on our skill and agility.

I might attack in one line with the expectation that the opponent will parry, intending all along to disengage. In that case, I need to "sell" the initial attack as a credible threat. That's how I'm imagining a feint.

At least that's how I remember it, after twenty years.

As for how I'd model it, hmm. A successful feint is more likely to land a telling blow and inflict real damage, so given the concept of HP that you point out, maybe extra damage? Ideally I'd maybe require a skill challenge - who is faster and more cunning? But that feels rather 3.5-ish in its granularity and complexity.

You do have a skill contest here. A skill challenge might be fun for a duel or training montage or something.

Thank you for your input. It helps a lot. The trick then is modelling the extra damage so it's not OP but useful enough they want the option.

[Vaz]

I think that would be if you suddenly pulled a dagger out of nowhere. Which sounds cool, but I'm not sure dex needs any buffing anyways?

I mean, you can trip with a whip or a staff. It makes that in some cases you could Shove or Grapple using dex instead of Strength. But Dex is already the default option for so many, it makes sense that the developers made it a Strength only thing and left exceptions to the DM. To me the same logic applies to Feint.

I think you'd need strength to pull someone's leg down with a whip, and strength to bowl someone over a well placed staff. But a nondextrous, massively strong dude who is very successful at charming people isn't necessarily something I'd consider capable of feinting without some particular training.

Being able to decieve an opponent might be the goal, but deception is "Vour Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions.", but Sleight of Hand is "Whenever you attempt an act of legerdemain or manual trickery"

It's cool that you don't think that Dex needs buffing as it's already the godstat, but at the same time, it just suspends my disbelief. I'd probably in such as case tie the Cha-based Feint ability within the "Actor" feat to allow a Cha-based Character to use that feat if they wanted that benefit, so that they can make Charisma (Sleight of Hand) checks. That way, they still need prof with the skill, but can key it from Cha instead.