Bluff at Range

[Tobold Hornblower]

OK, Felix. The no facing is a strange concept not to be liked by all

I'll have to look at changing my own encounters. The rogue in my campaign is lucky to get more than one sneak attack a day and it's usually not a big help in the fight. This is partially due my players being quick to set up camp and wait a day after only a couple encounters. So the Wizard's artillery outshines the rogue so much in combat. And with Scrying, Detect Secret Doors, and Knock, the rogue just doesn't seem very useless for the party.

Maybe some high hit point creatures with spell resistance, high saves, and poor Hide and Spot skills. Any suggestions?

 

[AuraSeer]

So you want to make the rogue more useful than the wizard.

Suggestion 1: Put the party in situations where they can't easily stop and rest whenever they feel like it. One way is to make sure they're in a dangerous area (so they'll be assaulted by monsters several times during the night). Another is to give a deadline on a certain adventure-- "find and return the Amulet of Mrmnhrmn before midnight tomorrow"-- so they simply don't have 8 hours to waste.

Suggestion 2: Wizards' spells are necessarily limited, while rogue skills can be used over and over. Sure the wizard can unlock doors, but if LOTS of doors are locked, he'll soon run out of spells. Masterwork thieves' tools are cheaper than wands of Knock.

Suggestion 3: Feeblemind. Until he's cured, the wizard will be the least useful member of the party.

 

[LokiDR]

I am aware of creatures that are immune to sneak attack, but I don't want to shut the rouge down, just put him on par with the rest of the party. Doing sneak attack every other round from 30 feat away means he usually isn't in danger.

Example: the APL 5 party was fighting a hill giant that some goblins where worshiping as an avatar of their god. The 102 hp hill giant made mince meat out of both the front line fighters, so the mage used a favor from a previous module to summon a large earth elemental. While the giant and elemental traded blows, the rouge manages to do a third of the giants hp by sneak attacks. This just seems strange to me. If the rule allows it, then I guess I will let this slide and change my tatics, but it doesn't feel quite right.

 

[Macbrea]

Those are how the rules work. If you want to get the rogue to move. Turn the hill giant around and full attack him. At level 5, assuming the rogue has a 12 con. He probably is running on 30 hps. Two shots with a 2d6+10 weapon should make him want to move from behind the giant.

The deterent on a rogue flanking is when the creature goes. Hmmm, the elemental is doing 2d6+3 damage to me and the little guy is doing 4d6 damage to me. I kill the little guy then go back to this elemental.



I ran into the similar problem with my rogue in my current game. I would flank quite a bit. Then the orcish barbarian turned and nearly cut me in two. It a fact of life for a rogue. Your gonna get hit alot.

 

[drowdude]

You can bluff at any range you want, but the limit for sneak attacks is 30 feet.

Re the original question: there's also only so many times you can bluff someone. I'd stick a cumulative -10 penalty on each bluff attempt in the one encounter.

I was really just referring to the feint maneuver... not the bluff skill in general...

 

[0-hr]

Re the original question: there's also only so many times you can bluff someone. I'd stick a cumulative -10 penalty on each bluff attempt in the one encounter.

That's a house rule, and one that really hurts the rogues. I wouldn't put in that severe of a penalty until you had seen a real abuse.

When you use the Bluff skill in combat you aren't saying "Your shoe is untied!" and waiting for them to look down. You are feinting with your weapon. You act like you are about to swing low, but then go high at the last moment; you fake a jab with your rapier and then lunge with the dagger; or you pretend to be off balance for a second to lure the opponent in. There are dozens of possible feints, certainly more than enough to get you through a single fight with an opponent.

Even if all the rogue did was "feint low then strike high", he could do that all day and the opponent would only have a 50% chance of guessing his intent even after an hour of combat (half the time the rogue fients and half the time he actually does strike low). If the rogue has half a dozen things he could do (or not do!), then there is really very little chance of the victim "guessing" his intent. And besides, this is what the Bluff roll represents. If the victim fails the Bluff roll, then they fall for the feint, again, and again, and again.

You need to keep in mind that the feint is just one particular trick that the rogue pulls in a given 6 second span of combat. The Bluff vs Sense Motive determines whether the victim sees it coming and guesses correctly. I think that a -10 cummulative penalty is arbitrary, overly severe, and unrealistic in this situation.

 

[LokiDR]

Originally posted by Ki Ryn

You are feinting with your weapon. You act like you are about to swing low, but then go high at the last moment; you fake a jab with your rapier and then lunge with the dagger; or you pretend to be off balance for a second to lure the opponent in

In a melee, I agree, but how can that work at 30 feet away? All of your examples only work if you are right next to your oppent. If you are 30' away, your oppent knows you are there, and your target has more important things on his mind, how can this work. I would just like to know the justification for bluffing at range.

 

[Artoomis]

Re the original question: there's also only so many times you can bluff someone. I'd stick a cumulative -10 penalty on each bluff attempt in the one encounter.

This is already addressed in the rules:

Retry: Generally, a failed Bluff check makes the target too suspicious for a bluffer to try another one in the same circumstances. For feinting in combat, the character may retry freely.

Feint as often as you like.

 

[0-hr]

I would just like to know the justification for bluffing at range.

You got me there. I've no idea how you could possibly bluff someone at range more than once. The first time, I guess you could trick them by not looking at them, or by pretending to target someone else. I can't imagine a real feint with a ranged weapon though. So in that case, I'd agree that some sort of house rule is warranted.

 

[ForceUser]

You got me there. I've no idea how you could possibly bluff someone at range more than once. The first time, I guess you could trick them by not looking at them, or by pretending to target someone else. I can't imagine a real feint with a ranged weapon though. So in that case, I'd agree that some sort of house rule is warranted.

Although I can't imagine how one would feint with a ranged weapon either, I won't be house-ruling this away. It stands as it reads, cheesy as it may seem. Otherwise, you're screwing over rogues who want to sneak attack but don't want to melee. It takes a standard action to bluff a foe anyway, why screw the ranged rogue more by making this maneuver more difficult? At the end of the day, logic problems aside, that's the deal.