Bluff: Feinting and RANGED sneak attacks

[LokiDR]

The only place in the Core Rules that it is stated that the TWF feat does not apply to ranged weapons is in the PHB, p100, under the equipment description of "Crossbow, Heavy".

-Hyp.

I wish I had known that a year and a half ago, when some one was abusing that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, I agree with your interpretation of the rules as they’re written. The detail with which you pull scattered bits of information together is impressive.

Why, thank you

(BTW: I also agree with your Expert Tac’ ruling) .

Uh? Is there dispute about Expert Tactician? What did I say?

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Okay, so where does all this leave us from a practical perspective? I’m feeling the pull of the two dichotomous trains of thought.

Hyp, I agree with your interpretation of the rules as they’re written. The detail with which you pull scattered bits of information together is impressive (BTW: I also agree with your Expert Tac’ ruling) .

LokiDR, I also agree with your perspective of what’s reasonable – or at least what is “silly.”

So, how the heck do we pull this back together to make a decision on feinting and ranged feinting? I have a feeling the “cure” provided by the gaze/invisibility ruling is worse than anything it fixes. I can understand that a character can disregard an invisible opponent they are unaware of, but completely blocking out the presence of an opponent they are aware of would take enormous effort.

I agree with all the rulings put forth with Hyp. I might it is silly that Gaze attacks give us the rules to prevent sneak attacks from flanking, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Ranged feinting works without difficulty by the rules.
There are no penalties for feinting at range.

 

[sithramir]

Okay, so where does all this leave us from a practical perspective? I’m feeling the pull of the two dichotomous trains of thought.

Hyp, I agree with your interpretation of the rules as they’re written. The detail with which you pull scattered bits of information together is impressive (BTW: I also agree with your Expert Tac’ ruling) .

LokiDR, I also agree with your perspective of what’s reasonable – or at least what is “silly.”

So, how the heck do we pull this back together to make a decision on feinting and ranged feinting? I have a feeling the “cure” provided by the gaze/invisibility ruling is worse than anything it fixes. I can understand that a character can disregard an invisible opponent they are unaware of, but completely blocking out the presence of an opponent they are aware of would take enormous effort.

For example, try not to think about an “elephant” not that I mentioned it. That’s tough?

So your saying if you are being attacked by 3 tigers and that elephant behind them "appears" to be charging after something else you don't have better things to worry about?

Sorry but bad example. Just remember that the thief is the master of bluffs and if you are losing your dex he can sneak with a bow .