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. Both are 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)?

 

[Dandu]

Now that Barlo sees the Feint attempt coming

The player, or the character?

 

[Water Bob]

The player, or the character?

Well, I was wondering about that. Does the character know that a feint is coming when he loses his check?

 

[billd91]

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)?

Run properly, the target of the feint wouldn't be a dick and play based on out-of-character info. But since the player is being a dick, you may need to do something else. Barlo is still going to be without his Dex to his AC for Able's next attack... Which could be a thrown dagger... Or a charge (for another +2 to hit). Go ahead and suggest those to Player A and be sure to credit Player B for inspiring you to do so through his metagaming.

Edit: just double-checked and turns out it would need to be a melee attack, so no thrown dagger. Charge might still work though if there's a good charge path. Player B is still being a dick, though, for breaking out of character and not taking his well-justified lumps. Throw his PC in irons for being the first to draw lethal weaponry.

 

[billd91]

Well, I was wondering about that. Does the character know that a feint is coming when he loses his check?

No. That's the point. He's being faked out by the feint because it beat his sense motive.

 

[Water Bob]

No. That's the point. He's being faked out by the feint because it beat his sense motive.

But, do you bar the player from using Withdraw in this case? Tell him that he can't do it and restrict him because he lost the Sense Motive?


As you said, there are other alternatives if the target of the feint does Withdraw. Maybe a thrown weapon, benefiting from the feint. And, maybe a charge. But even if its impossible to get a thrown weapon out fast enough, and even if the Withdraw curves behind an obstacle so that Charge is impossible, Able would still rob Barlo of his attack against him.

So...the feint could have an unintended consequence--in that those that Withdraw also lose their attack.

Plus, on a crowded battlefield, Withdraw may not be something Barlo wants to do if he opens himself up to Attacks of Opportunity.

 

[Dandu]

This is one of those situations where there really is no substitute for player integrity, since you can't tell a player "No, you can't run away from combat because the other guy wants to keep attacking you."

 

[N'raac]

Too late for this time, but now that we have a sense of player integrity (or lack thereof), perhaps the feint rolls (Bluff and Sense Motive) should be rolled out of sight (behind a GM screen, for example). This could be simplified a bit by setting the Bluff DC at a "take 10" Sense Motive (basically the armor class approach).

Taken one step further, you could require the players to write their actions down and roll behind the screen. Now Barlo's player does not even know that was a Feint attempt.

An alternate twist - "OK, you attempt a Feint. We'll roll the result immediately before your next action, since all Barlo knows is that your attack missed." That robs Barlo of the ability to choose his next action knowing he detected the feint, though.

 

[Water Bob]

That last idea might work. The target, Player B playing Barlo, still knows that a Feint is coming, but he doesn't know the result. We skip the Feint check until just before Player A, with Able, plays again.

That way, Barlo knows the check is coming but not the result. Barlo can still Withdraw, if he wants, but he may be doing this against a failed Feint check--which means, for nothing.

I think that may be the way to do the Feint so that it has any teeth left in it.

 

[Water Bob]

Here's an add-on question.

So, let's say that we run the game as suggested directly above. The Feint is announced, but the actual rolling of the 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?