Bluff: Feinting and RANGED sneak attacks

[Minaret]

Here's another question to fuel the discussion.

Question: If a rogue with the Expert Tactician feat moves into MELEE and successfully feints an opponent using her Bluff skill how do you resolve the situation?

Two options to consider:

#1: The rogue makes an immediate Sneak Attack following the successful Feint (S&S p39, "You take your extra attack when it's your turn, either before or after your regular atction."). The next round the rogue would need to Feint again in order to receive the benefits of a Sneak Attack.

#2: The rogue waits until the next round to attack because the move and Feint are considered a Standard Action (PHB p64, "Doing so is a miscellaneous standard action..."). During the round following the successful Feint, the rogue's first melee attack is a Sneak Attack and the "free attack" is a standard attack.

Thanks again:

- Minaret

 

[Hypersmurf]

Question: If a rogue with the Expert Tactician feat moves into MELEE and successfully feints an opponent using her Bluff skill how do you resolve the situation?

The opponent is only denied his Dex bonus against the character's next attack.

Therefore, until the character attacks, the opponent is not denied his Dex bonus.

Therefore, Expert Tactician does not trigger until the next round. The attack is a sneak attack, the extra attack is not.

-Hyp.

 

[Technik4]

Murrdox:

A few things to remember about Bluffing (Feint). It is opposed by Sense Motive, a skill that almost no monsters/npcs usually take (maybe BBEG or his #1, but very few). While there is a penalty (a rather harsh one) to feint a creature that is different from yourself (like a non-humanoid) high-level rogues often make their bluffs, no problem.

Our little rule made it harder to say, fake out an Owlbear from 30ft, between the 2 penalties.

Technik

 

[Minaret]

Murrdox:

Our little rule made it harder to say, fake out an Owlbear from 30ft, between the 2 penalties.

Technik

Murrdox and Technik, I agree with your comments that the effectiveness of a "feint" attempt should degrade as the distance increases.

A person is more likely to be "faked out" and over-react/over-commit when their opponent is 5' away verses 35'. And at a certain distance the feinting should be ineffective.

I like the idea of a -1 or -2 penalty for every 10 feet the "feinter" is from the "feintee." It encourages PCs to get up-close-and-personal.

What would be a realistic max distance? 30? 50? 100?

 

[Kraedin]

I wouldn't impose a maximum distance. A -1 penalty for every 5 feet, for example, has a similar effect to a maximum distance, except that it allows more skilled feinters to have a greater range, which I think is appropriate.

 

[LokiDR]

I don't think there should be a penalty for distance. It isn't in the rule, and it ignore any concept of focus. If I am the only combatant with you, distance doesn't really matter. The person next to them hitting them with 3+ feet of steel is significantly larger problem.

When you find/create good rules for focusing on combatants in D&D, let me know.

 

[Deset Gled]

Double post.

 

[Deset Gled]

Adding a penalty for distance would add to the realism of the game, but it could also become tedious.

Considering that I don't forsee much use of the feinting at a distance greater than 30 feet, I don't think that the penalty would be great enough to significantly affect the outcome of most situations, and as such don't believe it to be necessary.

If you prefer to be more realistic, a penalty to ranged bluff would probably work just as well as a fixed number as it would being modified by distance, and would keep things simpler.

 

[Hypersmurf]

When you find/create good rules for focusing on combatants in D&D, let me know.

There actually are semi-official rules ever since the (bad! bad!) Sage Chat ruling that made it into the FAQ, that invisible creatures cannot provide flanking bonuses for allies.

Under the rules for Gaze Attacks, we find that you can deliberately turn your back on someone (despite the normal "No facing in 3E" rule), at which point you treat them as if they were invisible.

So, if the monk and the rogue are flanking you, allowing the rogue to get his Sneak Attack damage on every attack, you can turn your back on the monk under the Gaze Attack rule, and treat him as an invisible opponent. Since the FAQ rules that an invisible opponent does not grant an ally flanking bonuses, the rogue can no longer sneak attack.

Sure, the monk gets +4 (+2 from invisible, and +2 for flanking since his ally isn't invisible) on his attacks against your flat-footed AC. But he doesn't do +7d6 damage on every single attack, either...

If it is ruled that an invisible creature cannot use Bluff to Feint against an opponent who cannot see it*, then a character with Uncanny Dodge actually benefits from ignoring a rogue using Feints. He treats the rogue as invisible, and so cannot be bluffed, but since he has Uncanny Dodge, he does not lose his Dex against an invisible attacker, and thus cannot be sneak attacked. If he did not ignore the rogue, he could be successfully bluffed... which Uncanny Dodge does not protect against.

*The rules for Bluff require that the target not be unaware of you, but it doesn't explicitly say they must be able to see you. It is possible that you could Bluff verbally while invisible, for example, although a DM would be well within his rights to rule that "awareness" requires visual contact.

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

you can turn your back on the monk under the Gaze Attack rule
-Hyp.

Do you know how silly this sounds?