Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6684177" data-attributes="member: 6681948">The theory is very true.   But your interpretation of Z is not the sole valid interpretation.Like you, I started with the viewpoint that the Sense Motive check detected whether a Feint was attempted.  Under that model, Barlo has no reason to withdraw.  The player is (or strongly appears to be) acting on knowledge the player lacks.   However, the other interpretation of Z – that the Sense Motive reflects perception of the feint in time to not be drawn in by it is also consistent with the RAW effects of the Feint maneuver.  That’s actually supported by the addition of BAB – your combat skill – to the roll. As well, having the roll made now, instead of when the attack is made, can reasonably be taken to imply the result of the check is known to both parties (as it is known to both rollers) up front, not when the attack is made.Your interpretation of the “Z” represented by the “X” and “Y” mechanics is not the only possible interpretation.  From his comments, the OP recognizes the possible differing interpretations and, presumably, has assessed which interpretation will apply in his game, taking into account the comments made.Agreed.  However, I believe you have skipped the step of how the mechanics of RAW translate to what has happened in the game.  If we accept that the feint means the target is now off balance, but knows that he has been drawn in in and placed off balance, Barlo is not metagaming.  If we do not, the metagame issue kicks in.This is about the metagame, not the game.Disagree.  A player might well decide that poor tactics, right up to defending the bridge at the cost of his own life, is exactly what his character, properly role played, would do.  It is not unreasonable to expect a player to role play only the in-character info he has.  It is, however, difficult for some players.  To me, it would be just as damaging if Barlo’s player was thinking “Abel is Barlo’s friend – this has gone too far – he should withdraw and try to cool down the situation”, but then decides “well, he can’t do that now, because I know about the feint, so he should keep fighting”.I do, however, agree with minimizing the metagame, which is also consistent with making the game mechanics as consistent as possible with the “Z” refererred to by billd91.  That could mean secret declarations, so there is no clue of a feint until Barlo’s next attack, or it could mean secret rolls (Barlo knows there WAS a feint, but has no way of knowing whether he succeeded – much like rolling that trap search in secret so you know you checked for traps, but not how good a job you did).The fault could well be a DM who assumes both players share his vision of how the feint mechanics translate into game occurrences.  Abel and DM have gamed together for years and their group, like billd91, has always interpreted the feint mechanic to mean “are you aware a feint was even attempted”.  Barlo played at a table where the players all considered the target of a feint knew he had been pulled into a disadvantageous position.We’re still back to your solution, though – stop the game, apologize and get everyone on the same page, in a model where the mechanics parallel the interpretations of the mechanics’ in-game meaning that apply in this game.Because the group interprets the modified sense motive check (it gets a BAB add so it is not a standard use of Sense Motive, it is its specific use against a Feint) as meaning this specific use of the skill is to determine whether the Bluff was spotted in time to make a difference (avoid loss of DEX bonus) or not, and not to determine whether the bluff was spotted before or after the next attack.That fluff/flavour is exactly whet determines whether Barlo knows he has been pulled into a bad combat position or not, so that is the key interpretation.It could also be said you have clearly made up your mind that, by not sharing your interpretation of the fluff/flavor implicitly, Barlo can only be metagaming and should be punished.  If you can’t read the DM’s mind, you must be a cheater, or at best a metagamer.  I’d rather talk to my players before assuming the worst.Maybe.  Barlo’s player knows something is up – Abel did not just roll to hit, and Barlo had to roll in response to Abel’s action.  This, to me, would be a reason to adopt the “feint success determined only at the next attack”.  If you have been declaring actions and rolling all attack rolls in secret, the fact that Abel’s roll was his feint roll, not his attack roll need not be known if we wait until just before Abel’s next attack to have Barlo roll Sense Motive.  This would align the mechanics with the in-game effect of “you do not even know the feint was attempted until it is too late if your Sense Motive check fails”.FWIW, the feint was a bad move – two attacks at -2 (I analyzed Flurry) is almost always a better deal, except where the necessary roll to hit is really high (18-19), and it won’t be for AC 10 or 13.  The three point spread won’t change that nearly as much as the potential the feint attempt fails anyway.  Feint is much more useful combined with a Sneak Attack.  Anyway, I agree with Oryan77 and others that it`s beside the point.Does it?  Simply calling for a secret roll tells me something is up – if he took a normal swing, I would not need to make an opposed roll.The name of your defense is Armor Class, but it comes from a lot of sources other than Armor.  Spellcraft sounds like I am making spells, but that function is never actually detailed in the skill.  This Sense Motive check determines only whether or not the target gets a DEX bonus, and is already altered from the usual rules by adding BAB.  Your interpretation is a valid interpretation, but not the only valid interpretation.It is just as cut-and-dry that “also” means that this is one use and there are others.  Is it clearly stated somewhere that the Feint check is not an “also”, or must that interpretation be made by the reader because it is not stated in the RAW?  Sorry, but your interpretation is just that – interpretation.  There is no One True Way, or even a clear RAW, that makes your interpretation the only valid one.  That, at least, is inarguable.  The problem arises when you and Barlo`s player are in the same group.OO-got distracted and did not post.  Agree largely with Celebrim`s latest post.I think Celebrim`s interpretation of what you are doing is no more inappropriate than your interpretation that Barlo`s hypothetical player is a metagaming cheat rather than a player who interprets how the Feint mechanics are perceived by the character in the game differently than you do.And if they say "Ì think Barlo can perceive that he has been faked out – that is why the roll is made on Abel`s action instead of Barlo`s and why Improved Feint exists to let the attack happen before Barlo can react", will you accept this with the same good grace?  You focused your interpretation entirely on "use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on)", ignoring the "You can also" preamble, and ignoring the fact that the Feint maneuver is not part of the skill description at all.</blockquote>

Verification