Advice on a Feint Situation

[Oryan77]

If you allow him to withdraw or use total defense vs a successful feint, then you have just made feinting obsolete.

Nobody will ever be duped with a feint if they can simply react appropriately to it because they knew it was coming. If he didn't know about the feint, and he withdrew, then that is fine and he just got lucky. In that case, I know that he withdrew because he did not want to engage his friend in combat, not because he was trying to avoid a feint.

Success on a feint means the target is not even aware of the feint until it is too late. The attempt should be done in secret. Normally, you don't need to worry about that because you can keep the PC from metagaming by simply telling him the NPC missed his attack. Then the following round you surprise him with, "You were duped and he missed on purpose."

Since your player is obviously metagaming, I would have been forced to restrict his character's action. If the feint happened in the first couple of rounds, then I probably would make a group vote and say, "Who thinks Jack is metagaming to avoid the feint?" Cause he may have very well not wanted to fight in the first place. In your case, they went several rounds and then he "coincidentally" decides to withdraw when he is about to get screwed?

Naw, if a player wants to metagame like that, I have no problem with controlling his actions and telling him, "no". Cause he's trying to cheat the other player out of a perfectly legitimate tactic by metagaming. If they want to PvP, then they should tolerate some heavy-handedness in order to avoid metagaming and keep things fair for both players.

 

[delericho]

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."

This.

 

[Celebrim]

If this is a true PC vs. PC combat, you should use secret declarations and secret rolls.

 

[Greenfield]

Declare that Barlow, while running in mindless panic from Abel, tripped over a chair in the common room and took a D6 of non-lethal damage. He is now prone, and may be unconscious.

When player B asks why, explain that his character was running from an attack he couldn't have seen coming, because he failed his Sense Motive check. Therefore his flight was mindless, and the penalty for using out of character knowledge is falling on your face.

At this point Abel can decide to break off the fight, since Barlow is easy pickings and, ultimately, they were friends. Or he can decide to take an action that may cause Player B (who can't separate game from real world) to stop being his friend.

In short, emphasize that cheaters never prosper.

 

[Water Bob]

On a different forum, a poster said something that I think is correct and in the spirit of the rules.

He said..

I agree that forcing the target to withdraw is a perfectly valid boon. They gave up their chance to attack you, and as stated you can still charge or throw a weapon or whatever else.

As for the metagaming aspect, I disagree. Failing your Sense Motive check versus a bluff doesn't mean that you're unaware that you got feinted; it means that you are put Flat-footed, because you tried to parry a blow that never came and ended up overextending yourself. Or however you want to frame the feint; the principle applies all the same.

That's something that as a character you would be aware of. Improved Feint allows your opponent to be agile enough to hit you before you have a chance to react to this fact, but you're still aware of it. In this case, the feinted character realizes that they've lost their footing and they decide to back off and get some space to regain it instead of staying in melee and risking a deadly blow. Think of it as them stumbling backwards out of the engagement to catch their breath, if you like.

As I see it (I've come to see it....evaluating this threat and agreeing with the take above)...

Characters in combat feint all the time. Combatants weave and bob, parry and dodge, swing and miss, feint and check their swings, all of this happening in an abstract combat round.

When the Feint maneuver is used, something different is happening. The Character is relying on feints almost exclusively. The opponent can tell the difference in the fighting style.

So, it is OK to announce that the Feint is being attempted. The defender isn't meta-gaming as his character recognizes the new reliance on feints and fake-outs much more often that before.

During the Standard Action where the Feint is started, just announce the Feint.

The opponent is free to use Withdraw on his action, if he wants (possibly opening himself up to a Charge or thrown weapon).

But, the opponent will be giving up his attack not knowing whether the Feint is successful. Because, we roll the Feint check on the Feinter's next turn--the same turn that he'll use to strike at the defender. Depending on the result of the check will tell us whether the Feint was successful or not. If not, then the character makes a normal attack.



Top of Round 1: Able announces the Feint.

Bottom of Round 2: Barlo uses Withdraw.



Top of Round 2: Able's Feint check is made. It is successful. Able charges Barlo, gaining the benefits of the Feint and the Charge.

Bottom of Round 2: Barlo does whatever he wants, if he's still standing.

 

[billd91]

As I see it (I've come to see it....evaluating this threat and agreeing with the take above)...

<snip>

Top of Round 2: Able's Feint check is made. It is successful. Able charges Barlo, gaining the benefits of the Feint and the Charge.

Bottom of Round 2: Barlo does whatever he wants, if he's still standing.

The problem with this interpretation is it enables Barlo to negate the feint by moving to a spot that can't be charged. Remember, Able must have a clear charge path in order to do so.

I think the other poster in the other forum is missing an important point. If a feint is successful, the target of the feint won't know it... until it is too late and the trick is revealed. And the way feinting works is it requires 2 actions, spread over 2 rounds (if the PC doesn't have improved feint).
My recommendation is to not try to rationalized a way for Barlo's metagaming to be valid. Rather, nip his problem behavior in the bud or it will come up again and again in the course of the game.

 

[Oryan77]

The opponent rolls a Sense Motive check and fails. If that opponent doesn't realize he got duped by a feint because he failed his Sense Motive check, how can he react to a feint when he failed to sense that it was a feint?

The feint makes him lose his Dex bonus to AC. Meaning, on your next attack, you've positioned yourself and the opponent in a way that he can't maneuver properly. It has nothing to do with him realizing he over-extended, or is off balance, or anything else. As far as he knows, he's doing just fine.

The Sense Motive means that he didn't even realize his predicament until you finally react after spending an entire round setting this trick up. He should be realizing he lost his AC bonus right as your blade is slicing through him.

I would think that you would be trying harder to figure out why the metagamer can't avoid the feint rather than trying to find an explanation for why he can. If you allow this, it means that the other guy actually failed on a successful feint attack.

 

[N'raac]

The problem with this interpretation is it enables Barlo to negate the feint by moving to a spot that can't be charged. Remember, Able must have a clear charge path in order to do so.

This is a result of that interpretation. Whether it "negates the feint" is a question of interpretation. Barlo could have attacked, and perhaps taken Abel down. Instead, he has chosen to withdraw. By rolling the results of the check after Barlo's action, the Feint may have that result even if Abel's feint check fails.

I think the other poster in the other forum is missing an important point. If a feint is successful, the target of the feint won't know it... until it is too late and the trick is revealed. And the way feinting works is it requires 2 actions, spread over 2 rounds (if the PC doesn't have improved feint).

My recommendation is to not try to rationalized a way for Barlo's metagaming to be valid. Rather, nip his problem behavior in the bud or it will come up again and again in the course of the game.

Emphasis added. That's what many of us assume (myself included, at least until the alternative was presented). But the rules say

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Feint[/URL]]Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by a Sense Motive check by your target. The target may add his base attack bonus to this Sense Motive check. If your Bluff check result exceeds your target’s Sense Motive check result, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

It does not say "the target does not realize the feint has placed him in an awkward position", it says "the target is denied his DEX bonus". One could even interpret this to mean that the BAB addition to Sense Motive is a conscious effort to use one's own combat skill to recover from the unfavourable position before the attacker is able to take advantage of it. That's not the only possible interpretation - "he's completely unaware and BAB simply reflects the target's own combat skill enhancing his ability to detect and avoid the feint".

But the RAW does not specify - either interpretation is a valid application of RAW. Rolling the check only after the opponent must decide whether to change his planned actions due to the possible success of the feint enhances its effectiveness, as an opponent might sacrifice an attack even though the feint failed. Abel might use that opportunity to flee the other way, or could even throw his dagger, and run only if Barlo is not taken down by that attack. Abel can't Charge Barlo on his next action if he's prevented Barlo charging him.

The opponent rolls a Sense Motive check and fails. If that opponent doesn't realize he got duped by a feint because he failed his Sense Motive check, how can he react to a feint when he failed to sense that it was a feint?

Again, a logical interpretation of the RAW, but not one which is written into the RAW.

The feint makes him lose his Dex bonus to AC. Meaning, on your next attack, you've positioned yourself and the opponent in a way that he can't maneuver properly. It has nothing to do with him realizing he over-extended, or is off balance, or anything else. As far as he knows, he's doing just fine.

Again, a reasonable interpretation of RAW, but not the only reasonable interpretation.

I would think that you would be trying harder to figure out why the metagamer can't avoid the feint rather than trying to find an explanation for why he can. If you allow this, it means that the other guy actually failed on a successful feint attack.

I can roll a successful attack roll and minimum damage. I can roll a Critical, and roll minimum damage, and next round roll another potential crit, fail to confirm and roll more damage than my Crit did. The RAW does not say "if you succeed, the opponent is not aware of this awkward position and loss of his DEX bonus until after you attack him", it says he loses his DEX bonus, if any. "He's not aware" is a reasonable interpretation, but not the only one. And the feint did not fail - the target does not get his DEX bonus against the next attack made by the attacker, provided it is made no later than his next action. That is the only RAW result of a successful feint check.

The "off balance and knows it" read makes Improved Feint a much better feat choice, as it permits the attack to be made before the attacker has a chance to react to the fact he is opened up to a counterattack (and makes it more worthwhile to sacrifice iterative attacks or the other possible use of that Move action). Rolling the check in secret (or only when the followup attack is made) enhances the value of the maneuver, as the target must choose how to react to the attacker's attempt before he knows whether it succeeded.

If this were my game, I think I'd want to get a group decision on how feint will be interpreted in the game, and that would apply to all feints going forward. A DM ruling ("this is what it means in my game") would be just as valid, but having read the actual rule, I can see either interpretation as reasonable, so I'd let the group decide. If the group can't reach a consensus, I'd use simple majority rules with DM holding the tiebreaker vote. And, having decided, game on.

 

[Water Bob]

The problem with this interpretation is it enables Barlo to negate the feint by moving to a spot that can't be charged. Remember, Able must have a clear charge path in order to do so.

Not necessarily a problem. Think about it. Barlo still giving up his attack--and it may be for nothing because he doesn't know if he'll win the Sense Motive check against the Feint.

In addition, Withdraw can be hard to do, sometimes, because of Attacks of Opportunity from the path that can only be taken.

The opponent rolls a Sense Motive check and fails. If that opponent doesn't realize he got duped by a feint because he failed his Sense Motive check, how can he react to a feint when he failed to sense that it was a feint?

I think it's all in what you consider is happening.

The failed Sense Motive check says he fails in reacting to the blow in time, but not seeing the blow coming.

Ever played slap hands? You know, where someone holds their hands out, and you place yours on top. Then, they quickly try to slap the top of your hands. You try to avoid the slap, and if they miss, you get a free slap on them.

Many people play that by jerking their hands, trying to fake the other out, and make them think a slap is coming. Because, if you remove your hand before they lose contact with the palm of your hand, then they get a free slap.

This is how I picture feinting. The combat style changes. You can clearly see that a feint move is going to happen, but the Sense Motive check happens on the particular Feint that is made.

Therefore, the Withdraw is a vailid action. The defender sees the change in combat style and decides to give his opponent some room. This costs the person Withdrawing his attack.

And, unless the Withdrawer can prevent a charge, he is setting himself up for a worse situation--where the attacker gets the benefit of a charge and feint, together.

 

[billd91]

This is a result of that interpretation. Whether it "negates the feint" is a question of interpretation. Barlo could have attacked, and perhaps taken Abel down. Instead, he has chosen to withdraw. By rolling the results of the check after Barlo's action, the Feint may have that result even if Abel's feint check fails.



Emphasis added. That's what many of us assume (myself included, at least until the alternative was presented). But the rules say



It does not say "the target does not realize the feint has placed him in an awkward position", it says "the target is denied his DEX bonus". One could even interpret this to mean that the BAB addition to Sense Motive is a conscious effort to use one's own combat skill to recover from the unfavourable position before the attacker is able to take advantage of it. That's not the only possible interpretation - "he's completely unaware and BAB simply reflects the target's own combat skill enhancing his ability to detect and avoid the feint".

But the RAW does not specify - either interpretation is a valid application of RAW. Rolling the check only after the opponent must decide whether to change his planned actions due to the possible success of the feint enhances its effectiveness, as an opponent might sacrifice an attack even though the feint failed. Abel might use that opportunity to flee the other way, or could even throw his dagger, and run only if Barlo is not taken down by that attack. Abel can't Charge Barlo on his next action if he's prevented Barlo charging him.



Again, a logical interpretation of the RAW, but not one which is written into the RAW.



Again, a reasonable interpretation of RAW, but not the only reasonable interpretation.

RAW this, RAW that, blah blah blah. A myopic focus on the RAW fails to acknowledge that the RAW is there to facilitate the management of the narrative that unfolds through the character's actions. The rules may involve mechanics X and Y, but they do so to support Z happening from the perspective of the characters in the game. Don't forget the Z.