Feint and Spring attack

[DarkMaster]

The rogue in the group just reached the 6th level and chosed the spring attack, since she doesn't have improved feint she asked me if she could feint from a distance then move to the target use spring attack and then retreat. I read the SRD and I can't find anything prohibiting her from doing that. I don't mind allowing it but just wonder if it is not too powerful.

The SRD states:You can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat (so that it can’t dodge your next attack effectively).

Can I, from that sentence forces the feinter to be in melee with the victim before the bluff in order to benefit from the feint.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Can I, from that sentence forces the feinter to be in melee with the victim before the bluff in order to benefit from the feint.

Two characters are engaged in melee if they are hostile to each other and either one threatens the other.

If she's thirty feet away, she's not "in melee combat", and can't feint. Unless the opponent has a 30 foot reach.

-Hyp.

 

[DarkMaster]

Two characters are engaged in melee if they are hostile to each other and either one threatens the other.

If she's thirty feet away, she's not "in melee combat", and can't feint. Unless the opponent has a 30 foot reach.

-Hyp.

Yes but the rule doesn't clearly states that you have to threathen or be threathen by the opponent (in melee combat) while bluffing only that your next melee attack with the opponent will gain a bonus.

It is not stated that the bluff has to be done while meleing. Her argument which I find valid up to a certain distance, is that she will pretend from distance not to bother about the target and then jump on him when he expect it the least. I find it far fetch, if you look at feint in sport for example, it is very difficult to feint someone from a long distance, otherwise by the time you are there they have time to reajust their position and easily counter your feint.

My problem is that in the SRD I can't find a clear definition that would rule out that posibility.

I should get a copy of the PHB because I find the SRD very misleading sometimes.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is not stated that the bluff has to be done while meleing.

It says you can use bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat. If I'm 30 feet away, he isn't an opponent in melee combat. He's not an opponent in melee combat unless at least one of us threatens the other.

Therefore I can't use Bluff to mislead him.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Yes but the rule doesn't clearly states that you have to threathen or be threathen by the opponent (in melee combat) while bluffing only that your next melee attack with the opponent will gain a bonus.

It is not stated that the bluff has to be done while meleing. Her argument which I find valid up to a certain distance, is that she will pretend from distance not to bother about the target and then jump on him when he expect it the least. I find it far fetch, if you look at feint in sport for example, it is very difficult to feint someone from a long distance, otherwise by the time you are there they have time to reajust their position and easily counter your feint.

My problem is that in the SRD I can't find a clear definition that would rule out that posibility.

I should get a copy of the PHB because I find the SRD very misleading sometimes.

1. Yes, you should get a copy of the PHB.
2. Feinting in combat is a standard action, so, at best, your rogue could feint in one round and spring attack in the next round. 1 attack every other round.
3. You must be in melee combat. This means in contact (with your weapon, at least) with the enemy (or at least within threat range of a melee weapon). Note that:

...Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. ...

It would not need to even be a defined action if you were not within the range of an AoO.

If that and common sense are not enough, then, from the PHB glossary:

Melee combat consists of physical blows exchanged by combatants close enough to threaten one another's spaces, as opposed to ranged combat

 

[DarkMaster]

It says you can use bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat. If I'm 30 feet away, he isn't an opponent in melee combat. He's not an opponent in melee combat unless at least one of us threatens the other.

Therefore I can't use Bluff to mislead him.

-Hyp.

The reason I am asking is the rogue is my wife and thing can get a bit nasty. I told her that but she said yes I mislead him in melee combat (since she did a melee attack) she says that it is not written that you have to be in melee combat while performing the bluff only that the effect can only be applied in melee combat. Also that brings me another question (that one from me), what if the barbarian is fighting an ogre can she bluff it since he is in melee combat (with somebody else but in melee combat)?

Hyp, please do not respond if you are going to tell me again that they need to be in melee in order to feint. I gave her that argument already but she replied that since I have been playing for so long I assume stuff. I was actually happily surprised she usually trust me on all the rules.

I can't find a clear definition of melee combat anywhere.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, please do not respond if you are going to tell me again that they need to be in melee in order to feint.

All right.

I can't find a clear definition of melee combat anywhere.

From the Combat section:

"Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)"

-Hyp.

 

[DarkMaster]

1. Yes, you should get a copy of the PHB.
2. Feinting in combat is a standard action, so, at best, your rogue could feint in one round and spring attack in the next round. 1 attack every other round.
3. You must be in melee combat. This means in contact (with your weapon, at least) with the enemy (or at least within threat range of a melee weapon). Note that: It would not need to even be a defined action if you were not within the range of an AoO.

If that and common sense are not enough, then, from the PHB glossary:

Thanks that is what I needed, will try to get a copy of the PHB before next session. I always assumed that it was not necessary because of the SRD(prefer spending on other books). guess I was wrong. It is the third time the answer I am looking for is in the PHB. The only thing I am scared is that she will come back with do I really need to be in melee when I do the feint. But I will handle that

I don't like to brush aside inovative idea without a second taught, She has been gaming for less then a year and sometimes bring fresh idea to the game, because she is not stuck with pre-assumed concept.

as for common sense, be careful. I would see a possibility of a feat here where it could be possible to feint from a limited distance when you are out of reach from your opponent. I see easily the rogue from let's say 10-20 feet (depending on the base speed or some jumping ability) pretend he is looking for a scroll or casting a spell, then the opponent get prepared to receive a spell just to see the rogue jump on him with the rapier when he expect it the least. I mean it would not be more far fetch than whirlwing attack with a chain.

I prefer to answer my player no because of "state the rule" but we can develop a feat (spell whatever) that will allow you to perform something similar, then no you can't. That keeps the players interested in the game. They have a feel that they can make the game evolve as much as I do.

 

[Artoomis]

...as for common sense, be careful. I would see a possibility of a feat here where it could be possible to feint from a limited distance when you are out of reach from your opponent. I see easily the rogue from let's say 10-20 feet (depending on the base speed or some jumping ability) pretend he is looking for a scroll or casting a spell, then the opponent get prepared to receive a spell just to see the rogue jump on him with the rapier when he expect it the least. I mean it would not be more far fetch than whirlwing attack with a chain...

Sure, a new feat for this could work. I'd require the character to have no melee weapon in hand (they could draw it during movement anyway, so it's not that big a deal) to help support the idea that it's a misdirection sort of thing. Also, allow the check at -4 or allow a sense motive check followed by a spot check vs. the Bluff - to represent getting folled AND not spotting the approaching rogue until too late. The two checks may seem harsh, but most characters other than rogues do not have high sense motive or spot checks anyway, so she'll succeed most of the time, most likely, but it will seem fairer to opponents.

Well, something like that, anyway.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I don't like to brush aside inovative idea without a second taught, She has been gaming for less then a year and sometimes bring fresh idea to the game, because she is not stuck with pre-assumed concept.

I agree - keep the innovative ideas coming. It's your game, after all, and it's fun to come up with new rules or variants of existing rules.

The thing is, this is the Rules forum and you asked a rules question. Hypersmurf and others here respond to rules questions with literal rules answers. Your wife's use of Spring Attack and Bluff is neat, but it's against the literal rules and the folks on this forum are here to tell you that.

-z