D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5 SRD] Question about Feinting

[drnuncheon]

the rogue is at least a semi-professional fighter with 10 levels also devoted to this task, 7 of whom advanced his BAB.

His melee prowess is less than the fighter, but still should apply.

It does - his rogue levels directly affect his chance to bluff by raising his skill cap.

Should a professional fighter with all his profession prowess be ONLY AS GOOD at feinting as a wizard? For both its a cross class skill using not their main attribute and the wizard would likely have more skill points.

Since feinting does not allow either to use their BAB, the wizard will likely be as good at it.

This is getting into the difference between the in-character action of feinting, and the 'Feint' combat maneuver using the Bluff skill. The first is at least partially subsumed into the BAB - so the fighter is in fact twice as good as the wizard. I would say that most combat feinting would be covered by this - especially the stuff that can only be described in technical fencing jargon. The little shifts in balance that make your opponent think you're going to attack in a different place that you do, the 'stamp' - all of that takes next to no time and is part of BAB and attack rolls.

The skill is for...hm, how to put this? 'Bigger' feints. Swashbuckling feints. Ones that an observer watching the fight would be able to say 'whoah, he really faked him out there'. After all, it takes a standard action, which a 'real' combat feint never would. As an example, my character snapped the end of his cloak at an opponent's face, making him recoil and leaving him open for a subsequent sneak attack. So, I can't see why a fighter would be any better at those than a wizard, because they're not really part of training in combat. Maybe a better name for the maneuver would be 'distract'?

J

 

[Petrosian]

So if i read you right you are saying the way it works makes sense? or were you just repeating the rules?

By your terminology...

"Little feints" should be:
Feinter's combat prowess (BAB) matters
Defenders combat prowess (BAB) is irrelevent

And for "big feints" it should be
Feinter's combat prowess (BAB) is irrelevent
Defenders combat prowess (BAB) matters.

Why do you think that makes sense?
What is the logic behind the reversal of whose combat prowess matters?

 

[drnuncheon]

So if i read you right you are saying the way it works makes sense? or were you just repeating the rules?

By your terminology...

"Little feints" should be:
Feinter's combat prowess (BAB) matters
Defenders combat prowess (BAB) is irrelevent

Defender's combat prowess is taken into account by AC, feats and (primarily) hit points. So, not irrelevant at all. This is and has always been part of the D&D system - your defenses are represented mostly by your hit points.

And for "big feints" it should be
Feinter's combat prowess (BAB) is irrelevent
Defenders combat prowess (BAB) matters.

Why do you think that makes sense?
What is the logic behind the reversal of whose combat prowess matters?

Feinter's combat prowess is not irrelevant for "big feints", because you still have to hit to take advantage of it.

Are the impacts of the prowess treated in different ways? Yes. But they are hardly irrelevant in either case.

J