Bluff: Feinting and RANGED sneak attacks

[Minaret]

When a rogue uses his Bluff skill to feint in "combat" must the next attack be a "melee" attack to qualify for a Sneak Attack, or does a ranged attack, within 30', also qualify for a Sneak Attack?

On page 64 of the PHB, it says "If you are successful, the next attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any)." The text of the Bluff skill doesn't explicitly limit the attack to a melee attack nor does it explicitly allow for ranged Sneak Attacks.

Does anyone know the official WotC ruling on this issue? I've searched the web and seen arguments for both options. I'm not strongly in either camp, I'm just trying to clarify an ambiguous rule.

Thanks for the help.

- Minaret

 

[Hypersmurf]

The text of the Bluff skill doesn't explicitly limit the attack to a melee attack.

That's the key point right there.

It says your next attack, and doesn't qualify that attack as having to be of a particular type.

True Strike, for example, doesn't explicitly allow ranged attacks... but it doesn't have to. "Your next single attack roll" covers melee attacks, ranged attacks, touch attacks, ranged touch attacks... unless otherwise restricted.

-Hyp.

 

[Apok]

The letter of the rules fully supports the use of Feint with Ranged attacks. Weather or not your DM agrees with the letter of the rules is another matter.

 

[Norfleet]

Feint makes perfect sense with ranged sneak attacks. You pretend to be doing something else, such as aiming at someone else, picking your nose, etc. Then, when your opponent has decided that you are not shooting at him, and therefore, isn't ready to dodge, you shoot him in the head.

Of course, he has to be aware of your presence for you to feint him, but if he isn't aware of you anyway, you don't need to feint to pull off a sneak attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course, he has to be aware of your presence for you to feint him, but if he isn't aware of you anyway, you don't need to feint to pull off a sneak attack.

'cept for those damned Barbarians...

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

'cept for those damned Barbarians...

-Hyp.

Or rogues.

Feinting at range does work in the rules and by logic. If you have ever played dodgeball, you will know what I mean.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

We allow feinting for ranged attacks as well. It seems reasonable that a person could spend extra time pretending to aim at a particular part and then fire at an entirely different undefended part bypassing the opponents attempts at defense.

 

[Technik4]

We used feinting at range, but found a certain wiz/rog with Ray of Frost was a little too adept at bluffing (he had almost a 100% bluff rate for 2 sessions).

We decided that when you are in melee range, it is much easier to feint since the target must at least be aware of your prescence (hence the flanking bonus if someone is across from you), so this is how the feinting works in general.

At range it is more difficult to pull off a feint, since the target may not be looking in your direction, but still aware of your prescence. He may not see that you are cocking your bow at the wrong person, but may be ready to whip around with his shield and defend at a good moment.

Therefore at 10 ft we assigned a -2 to feinting. At 20 ft it is -4, and at 30 ft it is -6. Any distance farther than 30 ft is at -8, and the DM can restrict attempting to bluff at extremely long ranges.

This, generally, worked for us. The rog/wiz was then tempted to get closer to get a better bluff roll, but too close and he may be drawn into melee! There was a +2 circumstance bonus if the target of your feint tried to attack you last round, this bonus could only negate ranged penalties.

Worked well for us.

Technik

 

[Murrdox]

Technik4, I ran into the same problem with a rogue with "Quicker than the Eye". He rarely, if ever failed his bluff. I found that even at lower levels, the spot skill of the creature in question was usually half or less than the bluff of the rogue.

Meaning at level 7 or so, you've got a rogue with a +10 to bluff, fighting a creature who MIGHT have a +5 to spot, probably less, unless it's a creature with racially good eyes.

At first I thought this was absolutely crazy, then I realized that with all the different ways a Rogue can get rid of the dex bonus of other creatures, depending on how ingenuitive he is, a rogue SHOULD be sneak attacking almost every round.

Then I pretty much let the issue drop, because I figured it really isn't that much of a balance issue.

I still like your idea of making bluff a bit more difficult from a distance. Makes sense. I'd probably only make it +1 per 10', but that's just me. -6 seems a bit harsh.

 

[LokiDR]

That's funny, I always pictured Quicker than the Eye as a melee feat. Silly preconcieved notions.