Feint and Spring attack

[mhd]

I'm wondering, could you do this:

A) Be in melee with someone.
B) Improved Feint
C) 5' Step Back
D) Free action, drop melee weapon.
E) Free action, Quickdraw Bow
F) Attack from 5' away, but get the benefits of Feint that you executed while in melee?

Nope. "If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterty bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it" (PHB, pg. 69, emphasis mine)

'Twould look too silly anyway. "Look, over there!" *hustle* *draw* *twang*

 

[Artoomis]

Well now YOU are overreacting it applies to your next melee attack only.

Good point.

 

[drnuncheon]

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

Now all we need is someone to put forth the argument that technically, it is only necessary for the opponent to be in melee combat, but not necessarily with the bluffing character.

J
Hyp?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp?

It could be argued, but it's not a reading I'd support... and since you brought it up, I think it's up to you to argue it

-Hyp.

 

[drnuncheon]

It could be argued, but it's not a reading I'd support... and since you brought it up, I think it's up to you to argue it

Well, if you insist...

The bluff skill allows you to do what? To "mislead". Who can you mislead? "An opponent in melee combat." The orc fighting your friend 20' away is an opponent, and he is in melee combat, therefore he is an eligible target for bluff.

A possible explanation of this would be to 'feint' as if you were going to move to attack a different person when the orc's attention is on you, and then move in to strike him when he is too distracted buy the person 5' away trying to kill him to worry about the person 20' away that isn't even coming his way.

How's that?

J

 

[DarkMaster]

Now all we need is someone to put forth the argument that technically, it is only necessary for the opponent to be in melee combat, but not necessarily with the bluffing character.

J
Hyp?

If you look in one of my previous post asked that question. Could the rogue feint the orc fighting with the barbarian? She actually came to me with that one. I said just flank the orc. I didn't felt like arguing with her about D&D.

 

[DarkMaster]

Well, if you insist...

The bluff skill allows you to do what? To "mislead". Who can you mislead? "An opponent in melee combat." The orc fighting your friend 20' away is an opponent, and he is in melee combat, therefore he is an eligible target for bluff.

A possible explanation of this would be to 'feint' as if you were going to move to attack a different person when the orc's attention is on you, and then move in to strike him when he is too distracted buy the person 5' away trying to kill him to worry about the person 20' away that isn't even coming his way.

How's that?

J

If you allow that it becomes more difficult to rule out, bluffing the non-meleing target, because you state that it is possible to feint from a distance.
What about if the target is flat-foot(actually no real advantage there).

 

[Hypersmurf]

The bluff skill allows you to do what? To "mislead". Who can you mislead? "An opponent in melee combat."

Right - it depends on whether you consider "in melee combat" to be an adverbial clause modifying "mislead", or an adjectival clause modifying "an opponent".

I read it as the first; it would be unambiguous were it written something like "mislead (in melee combat) an opponent", but it's more natural as written. Unfortunately, natural English frequently does lead to ambiguity, requiring context to differentiate between multiple 'valid' grammatical possibilities.

The only real context available is that the attack must be a melee attack, lending credence to the "mislead (an opponent) in melee combat" reading over the "(mislead) an opponent in melee combat" reading...

... but it's not definite.

-Hyp.

 

[Zoatebix]

I love when Hypersmurf talks grammar... and oh! especially the latin.