Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6683291" data-attributes="member: 6681948">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 sayIt 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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification