Feint... Does the player know if it worked?


Rules Questions


Simple question that came up this weekend. If a PC feints, does he know if he has succeeded or not?

Can't find anything solid on this, but it makes sense to me the PC would know. Opinions at the table differed.


Not aware of any specific rules. I could see either\or.

Personally, I'd probably use a combination of the two: I wouldn't volunteer the information on whether it was successful or not, but if the player asked directly, I would allow a quick perception check (DC dependent on circumstances); on a success I would relay something like, "His eyes flickered almost imperceptibly when you faked a slash."

Shadow Lodge

I'd look for a flinch.

If you want to go that route i'd go perception with bonus for each point over up to 5 wherein it would just be obvious.


Not knowing will set up wasted actions if your not careful feinting is about creating an opening if you can't see that you created one then how do you exploit it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Gonna have to agree with Talonhawke. If your feint works then you can exploit it for the sneak attack damage or for the easier hit. If you don't know it worked then you wouldn't attempt to take advantage of the opening you created.


Considering the whole purpose of a feint is to get your opponent to lower their guard and create an opening, yes. If the character, who is making the maneuver, must know it in order to take advantage, then the player should likewise know.


Xaratherus wrote:

Not aware of any specific rules. I could see either\or.

Personally, I'd probably use a combination of the two: I wouldn't volunteer the information on whether it was successful or not, but if the player asked directly, I would allow a quick perception check (DC dependent on circumstances); on a success I would relay something like, "His eyes flickered almost imperceptibly when you faked a slash."

When a character uses feint as a standard tactic (as anyone with improved feint or two-weapon feint would), this creates a lot of extra work. The player will ask every round, because why wouldn't they?

I'm in Talonhawke/Robert Jordan's camp, personally.

I guess there is no RAW for this one, it just isn't covered.


Yeah, but how do you know you're not being lured in with a counterfeint?

You thought you bluff/intimidated the bank clerk but as you walk out the door you realize you got the ink pack.

You feint you attack, you find out whether it worked when you attack. It doesn't prevent your opponent from acting so you're not just going to stand there dancing all day.

Sczarni

You know. Feint gets your opponent to prepare for a false attack, negating their Dex to AC. I would say this is obvious.

If you want to throw off the attacker, counter-bluff, making the feint-er roll a sense motive.


Live Bait wrote:

Yeah, but how do you know you're not being lured in with a counterfeint?

You thought you bluff/intimidated the bank clerk but as you walk out the door you realize you got the ink pack.

You feint you attack, you find out whether it worked when you attack. It doesn't prevent your opponent from acting so you're not just going to stand there dancing all day.

Because counterfeint isn't an action. Feint is a standard action normally, a move action with a feat, or replaces an attack if you have certain feats. Letting people counterfeint as an immediate response w/o even having to invest a feat is kind of bogus.


When you feint, you not only know that you're trying to deceive your opponent to create an opening, but you also know where and when that opening will be: "I'm going to fake a high thrust at his eye to get him to snap his head back and raise his weapon to block; this will take his weapon out of mid-guard position and briefly take his eye off my blade, creating the perfect time to skewer his spleen before he knows he's been duped, right..........NOW!"

Yeah, it takes way longer to write it, read it, or think it than it actually takes to do it. Combatants who have trained at using feints in combat don't only train in how to feint, but every feint they practice comes with an attack to make immediately after the feint. In a sense, one feint is two moves, the fake attack and the real one, honed to the point that the second happens automatically and immediately after the first.

Do you know if the opponent snaps his head back and raises his weapon? Absolutely. You knew he would, you knew what to watch for, and you see it happen or not happen.

Is it possible that he's well-trained too and knew just what to do to fake you out, make you think your feint worked when really he's luring you in like a spider lures a fly? Yep, it's possible. Combatants train to do exactly that. Sometimes this "counter-feint" is referred to as a "rope-a-dope" trick, it's like you have a dope at the end of a rope, and you're reeling the rope in to get him close enough to finish him.

In game terms, it would have to work somewhat like Disarm or Trip, such that if you fail badly enough, your opponent gets a free chance to apply the maneuver against you. Alas, no such mechanic exists in the game, though it might be a good niche for a houserule for those who have the notion.

Mechanically speaking, there are lots of other things that you can do in game and instantly know if it worked. A mage can cast Charm Person on someone and know if it worked before he ever speaks to his target. Or the target could make his WILL save and instantly know that some magical thing attacked his mind. With far fewer visual clues, these things are known. Feint is very visual and very obvious IRL, no reason why it wouldn't be in Pathfinder and there are no mechanical rules to say that it is not obvious, and yet plenty of precedent to say that it should be.

Also mechanically, as previous posters have mentioned, not knowing if it worked would make many possible folow-up actions impossible to resolve mechanically (or at least very difficult).


DM_Blake wrote:
Mechanically speaking, there are lots of other things that you can do in game and instantly know if it worked. A mage can cast Charm Person on someone and know if it worked before he ever speaks to his target. Or the target could make his WILL save and instantly know that some magical thing attacked his mind. With far fewer visual clues, these things are known.

This was actually one of the examples given by the DM of where you actually WOULDN'T know the result of your action (casting Charm Person). Can you cite the rule that makes this so?


"A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic

You know if they're charmed or not.

As for the topic, since you know if you're spell works or not, knowing if your Feint worked or not seems to be along the same line of thought.


slade867 wrote:

"A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic

You know if they're charmed or not.

Thanks!


I agree with most of the above. A feint is getting your opponent to react in a way to open them up. Getting them to zig instead of zag. Not knowing if it works essentially mitigates the usefulness of the tactic. Even adding a perception check would tip this to much in favor of the enemy that I'd hesitate to feint. You're already rolling against the opponent CMD to get it to work in the first place, now I have to roll again to validate? Doesn't seem legit.


Kyaaadaa wrote:
I agree with most of the above. A feint is getting your opponent to react in a way to open them up. Getting them to zig instead of zag. Not knowing if it works essentially mitigates the usefulness of the tactic. Even adding a perception check would tip this to much in favor of the enemy that I'd hesitate to feint. You're already rolling against the opponent CMD to get it to work in the first place, now I have to roll again to validate? Doesn't seem legit.

You do not roll against CMD. You roll against either 10 + Sense Motive check or 10 + BAB + Wis Modifier.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Feint... Does the player know if it worked? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.