D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Feinting & Uncanny Dodge

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think adding BAB to Sense Motive skill removes the reason to take ranks in sense motive at all. Take a situation that really happened for an example. My character (Ftr 2/Bbn 2/Clr 3) was fighting an assassin (Rog 6/Asn 3 or something like that) with a +15 bluff skill. I happen to have maxed out sense motive as a cross-class skill (because being lied to and not being able to tell gets old quickly).

3.0 rules he rolls a bluff at +15 against my +6 sense motive.

3.5 rules, he rolls a bluff at +15 against my +12 sense motive+BAB

Under your suggested mechanic, my character would truly not have any reason to take sense motive ranks since BAB+Wis (+7) is better than his sense motive skill (+6).

The 3.5e mechanic will not result in combat bluff manuevers being useless against anyone except characters with maxed sense motive skills and sense motive as a class skill. Even against the 20th level fighter who maxed out Sense Motive as a cross-class skill (+20 BAB +11 sense motive ranks +1 wisdom=+32) a 20th level rogue with maxed bluff will have a chance (+23 bluff ranks +3 charisma, +1 miscellaneous=+27) of success. And characters ought to get something out of maxing out their sense motive. . . .

The problem with adding BAB to Sense Motive is it takes away a reason to take any ranks at all in it. I think, really, that Feinting and sensing feints should be made a special combat maneuver like sunder and grapple, etc. Something like this:

Feint: You can feint as a standard action. This does not provoke attacks of oppertunity. A feint is an opposed check. You roll a d20 with the following modifiers:

BAB+Cha

You may also use your bluff modifier instead, if you so wish.

Your opponent rolls a d20 with the following modifiers:

BAB+Wis

He may use his Sense Motive modifier instead, if he so wishes.

Does anyone else think this would be more balanced?

 

[shilsen]

This deletes the possiblity of having an unfaintable enemy (however small that chance is. And it isn't such big).

I don't know about it being that rare. My PC's never actually seen an enemy faint

 

[Branduil]

I don't think adding BAB to Sense Motive skill removes the reason to take ranks in sense motive at all. Take a situation that really happened for an example. My character (Ftr 2/Bbn 2/Clr 3) was fighting an assassin (Rog 6/Asn 3 or something like that) with a +15 bluff skill. I happen to have maxed out sense motive as a cross-class skill (because being lied to and not being able to tell gets old quickly).

3.0 rules he rolls a bluff at +15 against my +6 sense motive.

3.5 rules, he rolls a bluff at +15 against my +12 sense motive+BAB

Under your suggested mechanic, my character would truly not have any reason to take sense motive ranks since BAB+Wis (+7) is better than his sense motive skill (+6).

The 3.5e mechanic will not result in combat bluff manuevers being useless against anyone except characters with maxed sense motive skills and sense motive as a class skill. Even against the 20th level fighter who maxed out Sense Motive as a cross-class skill (+20 BAB +11 sense motive ranks +1 wisdom=+32) a 20th level rogue with maxed bluff will have a chance (+23 bluff ranks +3 charisma, +1 miscellaneous=+27) of success. And characters ought to get something out of maxing out their sense motive. . . .

A rogue who maxed out his bluff skill shouldn't have an average chance of feinting against an untrained opponent. He should have a good chance, especially considering feinting is a rather sub-optimal way of fighting anyway. Any rogue would much rather be flanking than have to resort to feinting.

Anyway, you still have a reason to take ranks in Sense motive, as you yourself already stated: Not getting lied to. A bit of a different thing.

And I think the nice thing about my method is that you still have a decent chance of succeeding on or against a feint without ranks, but a rogue with max ranks in bluff or a Paladin with max ranks in Sense Motive is still the best at feinting and ignoring feints, respectively.

 

[Caliban]

A rogue who maxed out his bluff skill shouldn't have an average chance of feinting against an untrained opponent. He should have a good chance, especially considering feinting is a rather sub-optimal way of fighting anyway. Any rogue would much rather be flanking than have to resort to feinting.

I would argue that a high level melee type is a trained opponent, at least when it comes to recognizing whether an attack is a real threat or not.

 

[Branduil]

I would argue that a high level melee type is a trained opponent, at least when it comes to recognizing whether an attack is a real threat or not. [/B]

True. That's why I'd allow a fighter to use his BAB instead of Sense Motive. But both is just rediculous, unless you let the Rogue add his BAB too.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

what about Sense Motive + 1/2 the BAB? That seems a reasonable compromise, so that high level's cant be feinted non-stop by 1st levels, but still makes it so you have to buy Sense Motive ranks to keep up with *good* feinters.

 

[Fedifensor]

How many classes get Sense Motive as a class skill in 3.5, though?

Good luck trying to pull off a feint against a Paladin with maxed Sense Motive...

 

[Dark Magus]

I think Feint in 3.0 was one of the more "high-end" actions you could do. Hardly anyone except another Rogue could have a prayer's chance in hell of succeeding aginst the Bluff check of the Feinter (i think thats a word).

Now, people are saying its underpowered, because a 10th level Rogue will have to actually roll the d20 and wonder if he'll succeed in throwing the highly trained 15th level knight of the realm off his guard. Well gosh.

And if in the longrun, this new ruling on feint turns out a tiddlie-wink overpowered, it'll still be nowhere near as overpowered as it was before.

If feinting was a shoe size, and the most balanced mechanic in D&D was a "6", 3.0 would be a size 11 worn by a devilish rogue, whereas 3.5 feint would be a size 7, or maybe 8, depending on whether it was Nike or New Balance, upon the foot of the Fighter (or whoever else likes the NEW Sky Feints!!! )

 

[Jhyrryl]

I don't see adding BAB to the target's Sense Motive check as unbalanced.

That being said, this is yet another change to 3.5 that will give cause for my rogue to avoid being a primary damage dealer.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Remember that the opponent who the rogue would have trouble bluffing was a 20th level character who maxed his sense motive skill crossclass. A character with maxed crossclass sense motive is hardly untrained.

If you take a rogue with maxed bluff and feint a character without sense motive ranks, it's considerably easier and the rogue will always have a 65+% chance of success.

Rog 1 vs. Ftr 1= +5 vs +1
Rog 10 vs Ftr 10= +15 vs +10
Rog 20 vs Ftr 20=+26 vs +21

If the rogue goes up against a cleric, rogue, or other medium BAB class who did not max sense motive it's even easier:

Rog 1 vs Med BAB 1= +5 vs +0(+2-+3 cleric)
Rog 5 vs Med BAB 5=+9 vs +3 (+6 cleric)
Rog 10 vs Med BAB 10=+15 vs +7 (+11 cleric)
Rog 20 vs Med BAB 20=+26 vs +15 (+22 cleric)

I'd call all of those "good chances" which is what you want.

If the rogue goes up against an opponent who has trained in avoiding feints (Sense Motive ranks) he's less likely to succeed (and very unlikely if the Sense Motive was bought consistently and wasn't bought cross-class) but that's to be expected.

A rogue who maxed out his bluff skill shouldn't have an average chance of feinting against an untrained opponent. He should have a good chance, especially considering feinting is a rather sub-optimal way of fighting anyway. Any rogue would much rather be flanking than have to resort to feinting.