Bluff at Range

[Creamsteak]

Just thought of something...

Ignore the word feint for a second. My character in the example doesn't call bluff bluff. He doesn't call feint feint. He calls Bluff- Fake Action or False Action and he calls feinting distracting. That gets rid of some of the worries about just what feint means..

just ramblin'

I like you reapersaurus... this is pretty much the only time I have to disagree with you.

 

[ForceUser@Home]

Bottom line for me: it's a rule, it works, it's not overpowering, and players like it. Ta-da! It exists. The end.

 

[Will]

I'd also state that DMs should probably approach things as 'The rules are right, I just have to figure out how.'

Personally, I don't want to _play_ a game where each odd rule comes up, the DM decides what 'makes sense'. This makes a hodgepodge of houserules, because few DMs really consider the large scale balance issues, and fewer still have the perspective to do it well.

I also don't want to have to be grilled and wonder if my character is suddenly going to be nerfed every time something comes up.

Being prompted to help come up with an explanation, great. Being prompted to defend a rule or have it die, bleh.

-=Will

 

[LokiDR]

First, I would like to say to ForceUser that if you don't have to like this ruling, you are not in my game. Next, I would like to say to Will that your suggestion is exactly how I have approached this. I have nerfed no one. The rouge has been allowed to use this freely in the past, and if I changed this fact, it would become a house rule. I wanted to learn how the real rule worked / was justified first.

And reapersaurus, your opinions are all good. If the rouge threw a rock, or a vial, or even mooned the enemy, it would be more believable. The trick here is that a standard action denies the enemy dex in the next attack, which assumes 6 seconds later. Part of my problem was forgetting the penalties for non-humanoid, and animal feinting. But should I ask the player to actually shoot a "feinting shot" at his oponent. Right now he just kinda lamely says "Ow, my arm"

 

[ForceUser]

First, I would like to say to ForceUser that if you don't have to like this ruling, you are not in my game

I was talking about in my game. I really don't care what you do

 

[LokiDR]

ForceUser, I originally asked this question in reference to my game. If this doesn't apply to your game, why are you commenting on it?

It is my game that has the problem, and I am the one asking for help. If you don't want to help my game, then you don't have to post

 

[ForceUser]

I was just wondering this myself; it's eerie

I have a player in my group who doesn't like melee at all, and she's playing a rogue. I expect her to ask me this sort of question. My sense is that even though it seems cheesy, I see no reason why you couldn't bluff a foe at up to 30 feet, and then sneak attack on your next action.

To the above poster: remember, bluffing is a standard action! Unless the character is hasted, he has to set up the bluff in one round, and follow through with the sneak attack the round after. This is hardly overpowering when compared to the melee rogue who, at higher levels, might pull off three or four sneak attacks a round while flanking! A bluff only works for one attack, not a round of attacks!

I was the third poster in this thread. I had the same question as you. It was answered to my satisfaction, but not yours. Hi, I have an opinion!

 

[LokiDR]

Ta-da! It exists. The end.

I took that to mean you thought this continued line was silly. I took that personally. Sorry for the mix up.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

LokiDR,

You might consider applying bonuses and/or penalties to feinting just as for normal Bluff checks. This way, if your player just says "Ow, my arm" you can apply a lameness penalty or at least no bonus. Expending valuable ammunition to fire misleading shots or thinking up creative feints might result in a bonus, or at least no penalty. Also, if the rogue attempts to feint repeatedly in a combat, or even feinting an opponent that has heard about the party's tactics, you can put pressure on the player to come up with novel, creative feints in order to avoid penalties for multiple attempts. Or, if you don't like penalizing him, you can allow bonuses only if they are new. Such a system of incentives and disincentives may result in the player working harder for those feints, as he tries to think creatively to maximize the odds of it working. This also would result in more colorful oratory and roleplaying during combat, which often devolves into pure wargaming. This might also make for more entertaining memories, as people will fondly recall the best and worst of the rogue's combat feints.

--"Remember the time when Luna stuck that evil wizard in the throat after firing off a quick feinting shot at his rat familiar?"

--"Yeah! That guy freaked out so badly when she said she was gonna roast it right on her bolt like a spit. He left himself wide open when he cast that lightning bolt. Good thing she dodged it!"

 

[ForceUser]

I took that to mean you thought this continued line was silly. I took that personally. Sorry for the mix up.

No no no. I understand your need to be able to describe what happens at the table. I just don't think you should rule-zero it if you can't, because as another poster said, you'd be setting a bad precedent, not to mention the library of house rules you'd eventually accumulate. I tend to house rule only when absolutely necessary.