Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6684799" data-attributes="member: 6681948">First, it is the only Sense Motive check in the game which is modified by BAB, so it is not a typical Sense Motive check.&nbsp; To me, that opens up the possibility it differs in other ways.&nbsp; I can't speak for Celebrim, but to me the &quot;rules lawyering&quot; is the absolute insistence that your interpretation of the interaction between the Feint mechanic and the Sense Motive skill description is the only possible interpretation any reasonable reader could make of the two sections.&nbsp; It is not.&nbsp; In fact, if the mechanics accurately reflect the fiction the designer intends, then it seems more reasonable to interpret to interpret the mechanic as &quot;character knows he has been feinted when the roll is made&quot; on the basis that the player sees the roll* when the Feint is attempted, and therefore knows the result before the character's next action.* Now, you might reasonably argue that the roll should be made in secret, but nothing in the rules says it is to be secret.&nbsp; By contrast, the rules do say &quot;The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is.&quot;&nbsp; This seems to indicate that the norm is that rolls are not secret, and exceptions are specified in the rules.A group might well decide the fiction should be &quot;a successful feint cannot be noticed until the followup attack is made&quot;.&nbsp; It could even be &quot;the character will never, ever realize he was faked out&quot;, but that's not really consistent with the usual short term duration of Bluff.&nbsp; But it is just as reasonable (and, I have been persuaded by this thread, more consistent with the mechanic as presented in the RAW) that the fiction intended by the designer is &quot;if you fail, you are faked out - you realize it, but you are denied your DEX bonus against the next attack by this attacker, provided he makes it by his next action&quot;.Now, a group could reasonably decide they prefer &quot;he does not know the feint worked, or was even attempted&quot;, even if you agree that the designer intended otherwise.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or you could interpret the designer having that intent, but designing a mechanic that poorly represents it.&nbsp; In either case, I go to either rolling only when the followup attack occurs, or making the feint rolls secret.&nbsp; &quot;He knows he has been feinted and can act accordingly&quot; is not the only possible, or even the only reasonable, interpretation.&nbsp; But neither is &quot;He does not know&quot;, whether or not followed with &quot;and anyone who asserts otherwise is a metagaming cheater&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6684799, member: 6681948"] First, it is the only Sense Motive check in the game which is modified by BAB, so it is not a typical Sense Motive check. To me, that opens up the possibility it differs in other ways. I can't speak for Celebrim, but to me the "rules lawyering" is the absolute insistence that your interpretation of the interaction between the Feint mechanic and the Sense Motive skill description is the only possible interpretation any reasonable reader could make of the two sections. It is not. In fact, if the mechanics accurately reflect the fiction the designer intends, then it seems more reasonable to interpret to interpret the mechanic as "character knows he has been feinted when the roll is made" on the basis that the player sees the roll* when the Feint is attempted, and therefore knows the result before the character's next action. * Now, you might reasonably argue that the roll should be made in secret, but nothing in the rules says it is to be secret. By contrast, the rules do say "The Disguise check is made secretly, so that you can’t be sure how good the result is." This seems to indicate that the norm is that rolls are not secret, and exceptions are specified in the rules. A group might well decide the fiction should be "a successful feint cannot be noticed until the followup attack is made". It could even be "the character will never, ever realize he was faked out", but that's not really consistent with the usual short term duration of Bluff. But it is just as reasonable (and, I have been persuaded by this thread, more consistent with the mechanic as presented in the RAW) that the fiction intended by the designer is "if you fail, you are faked out - you realize it, but you are denied your DEX bonus against the next attack by this attacker, provided he makes it by his next action". Now, a group could reasonably decide they prefer "he does not know the feint worked, or was even attempted", even if you agree that the designer intended otherwise. Or you could interpret the designer having that intent, but designing a mechanic that poorly represents it. In either case, I go to either rolling only when the followup attack occurs, or making the feint rolls secret. "He knows he has been feinted and can act accordingly" is not the only possible, or even the only reasonable, interpretation. But neither is "He does not know", whether or not followed with "and anyone who asserts otherwise is a metagaming cheater". [/QUOTE]

Verification