Bluff at Range

[LokiDR]

Thanks to Artoomis for the rule quote. It seems then that if I want to rule this by the game, I shouldn't really apply penalties. That still doesn't explain how a rouge can pull this off. In combat, how can a person repeatedly do this kind of massive damage with sneak attak? The fact that it is a standard action is less of an issue once the party gets a hold of haste. I might call it an aiming thing, but that doesn't come close to rule mechanics. If I can not find some reasoning, I am likely to tell that character that it can not be done. That would make him a lot less useful, so I am looking for alternatives.

 

[ForceUser]

Er, haste? Sure, now the character can bluff + ranged sneak attack in a single round. That's one sneak attack a round. A melee rogue, by contrast, can flank a foe and get in sneak attacks with all his normal attacks, plus the hasted one! Who's nastier? Remember, the ranged rogue has to be within 30 feet to pull off the sneak attack! If you still think for some oddball reason that this is overpowering, then I guess that's your prerogative. But it shows a lack of good judgement in my opinion.

 

[LokiDR]

Originally posted by ForceUser

If you still think for some oddball reason that this is overpowering, then I guess that's your prerogative. But it shows a lack of good judgement in my opinion.

You have obviously missed the point here. I do not consider the feint at range to be utterly amazing, I just don't understand how it is possible. The other considerations in this case are that the PCs spend most of their time on an airship and the PC in question has str 7. In melee, he is useless, so he uses ranged weapons. He doesn't have risk of melee, doing a lot of damage, not in risk of running out of spells, and never caught in the middle of the mess. Broken, no. Possibly too good in this case, yes.

I just want to know how you can resonably "feint" a person 30' away from you. If you can not answer that question, since the rules are fairly clear here, then please don't bother.

 

[ForceUser]

I just want to know how you can resonably "feint" a person 30' away from you. If you can not answer that question, since the rules are fairly clear here, then please don't bother.

It's a rule. Maybe the character pretends to trip over his own feet, or pretends to turn left, but turns right. Who cares? It's transparent; the rule is clear - it's allowed. Just let it happen and don't worry about the real-world physics of it. D&D is consistent and simple, but to acheive that consistency and simplicity, it is abstract. DMs sometimes forget that, and then we have conversations like this

 

[Stalker0]

I'd rule as a modified version of aid another, just on yourself. As I recall, aid another can be used with ranged weapons. Basically as a standard action you fire an arrow at his feat or something. This distracts him so you can pull off the sneak attack. That way you are also wasting an arrow, basically the tradeoff for bluffing in safety.

While personally I wouldn't allow it (bluff at range just doesn't seem to work to me), that's one way to pull it off.

 

[ForceUser]

...basically the tradeoff for bluffing in safety...

The ranged rogue isn't safe! He's only 30 or fewer feet away!! Monsters can (and will) get to him easily, especially if he nails them good! Not only that, but he's trading off a lot to be able to sneak attack from this dubious distance you're calling "safe." If he's not hasted, he's giving up an action every other round so he can make one sneak attack attempt every other round. And haste or no haste, he's halving (or worse) his sneak attacks per round! From my perspective as a DM, this sounds like a fine tradeoff for being "safe." My monsters will be up and causing trouble for that much longer because the rogue isn't grinding his full potential damage

Until 8th level, this is merely an okay tactic for a rogue. Half as many sneak attacks per round. Once the rogue gets a second attack per round, though, now he's only sneak attacking 1/3rd as often. Then only 1/4th, and then 1/5th...

That's a high price to pay for "safety."

 

[LokiDR]

Originally posted by ForceUser

It's a rule. Maybe the character pretends to trip over his own feet, or pretends to turn left, but turns right. Who cares? It's transparent; the rule is clear - it's allowed. Just let it happen and don't worry about the real-world physics of it. D&D is consistent and simple, but to acheive that consistency and simplicity, it is abstract. DMs sometimes forget that, and then we have conversations like this

Some rules are hokey, some rules are strange, and sometimes all you can say is "its magic". But any time you do not understand why a rule works and you allow it any way, you have failed as a DM. Despite all the the good sugestions, no one yet has been able to explain it. At this point, I do not care about the rule itself. I know how it works. I want to know why it works. If non magical effects can not be explained, what the hell happens to the role playing experience? As the DM, why don't I just say a cow falls from space? By your reasoning, nothing in the rules stops me, so why not?

 

[LostSoul]

I want to know why it works.

However you want it to. It could be as simple as the rogue aiming his weapon at somebody else until he sees his real target let down his guard.

 

[Volefisk]

I want to know why it works. If non magical effects can not be explained, what the hell happens to the role playing experience? As the DM, why don't I just say a cow falls from space? By your reasoning, nothing in the rules stops me, so why not?

A couple of people have mentioned possible explanations for performing feints at range in previous posts, they just haven't been terribly explicit (until LostSoul's recent reply). I get the impression that some people find it very easy to justify, while others find the concept difficult to rationalize.

In my mind there are easily as many ways to rationalize a feint in ranged combat as in melee. It is simply a matter of applying some creative flavour text to the 'DM-can-I-make-a-bluff-check?' query, just as in melee combat.

I respect the fact that you want to know how it could work, but the truth of the matter is that it simply does work as the game rules stand. If your player wasn't creative enough to come up with flavour text for his ninth melee feint of the evening, are you going to prohibit him from making the Bluff check?

As I see it, the defender is constantly paying attention to all attackers (they can see) in melee and ranged combat, which is why they get to 'react' to attacks and apply their DEX bonus to AC. If the defender misjudges the attackers action, or is unaware of their attention, then they cannot react to the attack and apply their DEX bonus to AC, regardless as to whether the attacker is attacking in melee or ranged combat.

Thus, an attacker at range can perform a feint in any number of ways: they could quick draw a ranged weapon when it looked like they were charging into melee combat, they could aim at a different opponent and change targets at the last moment, they could fire an arrow/bolt into a nearby tree branch that falls and distracts their foe, etc., etc..

The possibilities are only limited by your imagination... or a DM that turfs the rule because your justifications don't live up to his expectation.

<volefisk>

 

[hong]

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.

Using Bluff in combat most certainly _is_ saying "your shoe is untied!", etc. Feinting along the lines of going high-low is something that's an integral part of just about any combat style. No martial artist worth his salt wouldn't know plenty of tricks like that just as part of his training, and the premier martial artists in D&D are fighters. However, Bluff isn't a class skill for them, and so it cannot represent classic feinting, no matter what the skill description calls it.

Going high-low is rolled up into your base attack bonus, along with everything else that influences your ability to hit and deal damage. The Bluff check represents the ability to trick your opponent using methods that _aren't_ part of conventional fighting styles. This is why rogues, who are much more well-versed at talking their way out of trouble than fighters, can Bluff in combat much better than the big guys.

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.

I think you need to rethink the rationale for Bluffing in combat again.