Feinting for someone else

[Fredrik Svanberg]

Is it possible to feint someone and allow someone else to reap the benefits? For example, let's say my bard spends a turn bluffing an orc into losing its dex bonus, could the rogue sneak attack the orc later in the same turn?

 

[Tabarnak Smokeblower]

Welcome to the boards!

I don't think it's allowed, nor should it be. Perhaps the bard could "aid" the rogue (giving the rogue a +2 circumstancial bonus to his bluff check), but in no way should the bard be able to bluff for someone else.

TS

 

[Orm]

from the SRD
Feinting in Combat: The character can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in combat so that he can't dodge the character's attack effectively. Doing so is a miscellaneous standard action that does not draw an attack of opportunity. If the character is successful, the next attack the character makes against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

From the books, it´s only the bluffing character, who benefits from the bluff.
But I don´t have too many problems to let the bluffed foe loose his DEX against one attacker if you exceed the DC by maybe 20. It´s just that you put up a really great show and he is so amazed, he can´t take his eyes from you. But remember, it´s difficult to bluff in combat, so the DC should be quite high. And thus, it should be almost impossible...

Orm

 

[sithramir]

Welcome to the boards!

I don't think it's allowed, nor should it be. Perhaps the bard could "aid" the rogue (giving the rogue a +2 circumstancial bonus to his bluff check), but in no way should the bard be able to bluff for someone else.

TS

Why not? It makes total sense that you could bluff for someone else. Hey big bad ogre come hit me you half-brained dolt! Instead of bluffing to make him not pay attention to you you are blufffing to make him direct his attack at you. Remember that the bard is spending a whole round to do that without the feat that lowers it to standard and that feat required 19 dex.

I think its a fair trade of to be able to be done since no bard would likely be able to get the feat easily and loses his action doing this. I think that its a great idea and makes sense if you think about fantasy novels/movies where someone has distracted a big baddie to let his friend whack it.

 

[MarauderX]

Well, the rogue would still have to make his move silently and hide checks... there is no getting around that. I would give circumstantial bonuses of course, as the orc is paying attention to the bard and looking the wrong way while the bard is doing his thing. Then again, if the bluff check fails there would be no circumstantial bonuses (for instance the bard looks at the rogue and sorta 'gives him away') and the rogue would be on his own.

I also like it when there are bonuses between PCs, like a synergy of sorts. It's a cool game effect, and encourages the players to be a team.

 

[LokiDR]

Why not? It makes total sense that you could bluff for someone else. Hey big bad ogre come hit me you half-brained dolt! Instead of bluffing to make him not pay attention to you you are blufffing to make him direct his attack at you. Remember that the bard is spending a whole round to do that without the feat that lowers it to standard and that feat required 19 dex.

I think its a fair trade of to be able to be done since no bard would likely be able to get the feat easily and loses his action doing this. I think that its a great idea and makes sense if you think about fantasy novels/movies where someone has distracted a big baddie to let his friend whack it.

That is not the way "feint in combat" is written. If this makes sense to you, it sounds like a good place for a house rule. The closest in the rules is bluff for a distraction to hide.

Incidently, it is a standard action to feint in combat. Quicker than the eye makes it an opposed spot vs your bluff as a move equivelant.

 

[Tabarnak Smokeblower]

Why not? It makes total sense that you could bluff for someone else. Hey big bad ogre come hit me you half-brained dolt! Instead of bluffing to make him not pay attention to you you are blufffing to make him direct his attack at you.

Actually, you're taunting the ogre (woudl the Bluff skill be the best skill for Taunting? Perform? Special Bard Perform Power?).

I agree with the possibility of making the ogre get momentarily distracted (and give the rogue) a chance to hide, but Bluffing the ogre so that the rogue could get his sneak attack off every round is a bit much for me.

Come to think of it, its not that much. The bard could flank the ogre and thus provide the rogue with more possibilities for sneaking. Still, I'm not comfortable with Feinting in Combat for an Ally (perhaps as a feat?).

TS

 

[LokiDR]

Actually, you're taunting the ogre (woudl the Bluff skill be the best skill for Taunting? Perform? Special Bard Perform Power?).

I agree with the possibility of making the ogre get momentarily distracted (and give the rogue) a chance to hide, but Bluffing the ogre so that the rogue could get his sneak attack off every round is a bit much for me.

Come to think of it, its not that much. The bard could flank the ogre and thus provide the rogue with more possibilities for sneaking. Still, I'm not comfortable with Feinting in Combat for an Ally (perhaps as a feat?).

TS

I'm sure some 3rd party book has a new use for some skill to taunt an opponent. It almost sounds like diplomancy.

Incidently, a friend was talking about the Star Wars Hero's Guide. This appearently has combat uses of skills such as diplomancy. I seem to remember a number required feats.

Quicky houserule: New use for diplomancy: taunt. As a miscelanous standard action that does not provoke a AoO, make a diplomancy vs oppents sense motive. If you succeed, the creature will take risks to attack you next and will ignore other opponents. The next ally to hit the taunted creature will ignore his dexterity bonus.

Taunting in this way against a nonhumanoid is difficult because it's harder to read a strange creature's body language; the character suffers a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2) it's even harder; the character suffers a –8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it's impossible. There is a -8 penalty if you and your oppent do not share a common language (or can otherwise communicate). A cumulative -2 penalty will be applied for repeated attepts on the same creature.

Thoughts?

 

[splitinfinitude]

Yeah, feinting only allows the bluffer to attack w/o dex bonus to the bluffee.

But, I have no problem with allowing taunt or a similar effect as a bluff check. Bluff allows the character to make another act as desired for up to a round, which IMO would allow a taunt. I would put a modifier on it b/c the target is not going to want to give up any tactical advantage - probably 4 to 8 - as well as the feint modifiers LokiDR suggests.

I like the dilomacy houserule, but diplomacy doesn't seem like as good a fit to me, although I like the houserule fine. Bluff seems a better fit for the short-term rage/attack of a taunt. Diplomacy gives a long-term change to attitude.

 

[LokiDR]

Yeah, feinting only allows the bluffer to attack w/o dex bonus to the bluffee.

But, I have no problem with allowing taunt or a similar effect as a bluff check. Bluff allows the character to make another act as desired for up to a round, which IMO would allow a taunt. I would put a modifier on it b/c the target is not going to want to give up any tactical advantage - probably 4 to 8 - as well as the feint modifiers LokiDR suggests.

I like the dilomacy houserule, but diplomacy doesn't seem like as good a fit to me, although I like the houserule fine. Bluff seems a better fit for the short-term rage/attack of a taunt. Diplomacy gives a long-term change to attitude.

Bluff is about lying/deception. Diplomancy is charisma-ing a person to act the way you want them to. Besides, it would be nice to see diplomancy have some decenct use in combat games.