First off, I understand and accept that the DM has the final say regarding rules.
However I feel that, over the past 2 years at least, the DM that heads up the games I play in is abusing this rule specifically to spite me. This occurs in games outside of pathfinder, however we mostly play pathfinder.
What I'm looking for is advice I guess. I don't really want to walk away from the table, or be a jerk and tell the guy off. All I really want to do is play the game and enjoy time with friends.
It just gets a little hard when everything, regardless of whether or not RAW supports my case or it helps/hinders the rest of the party, is judged more by the fact that I'm presenting the case then what is actually presented.
Case in point. I attempt to feint an opponent using the Improved Two Weapon Feint feat. The opponent in question is a headless undead angel with Blind Sight. I believe the angel had an intelligence score which, to my knowledge, is the only real requirement for a target to be feint worthy. DM ruled that the target of my feint was immune to feint because it does not have eyes, and would not react to a feint maneuver. Yes that is literally how he explains it.
Another questionable ruling is that a swarm of spiders is immune to a spell that requires a will save, such as Holy Smite, or the destruction variant of Judgement Light. Note he did not say that they were immune to the potential side effects of such spells (the 1d6 rounds of being shaken by Judgement Light, or the blind effect from Holy Smite). He stated that they were immune to the damage caused by these spells because they require a will save.
These are just 2 rulings. The list is too long for me to post, mostly because I feel a bit whiny when I go on too much. In both cases, he had to make an obvious effort to figure out how to explain it.
Talk to him about it. Say that it feels like you are being targeted by unfair rules.
If he's unwilling to discuss this as a mature adult, then you have one of the following choices:
1) Put up with it
2) walk from the table and get better friends
3) start your own game where you are the GM (or at least someone who is not him runs the game)
4) ask everyone around the table to kick him and only him
5) do what I did and propose a rule change the the entire game: the GM is *not* the final arbiter of the rules, but is rather just one voice of everyone at the table where everyone makes a decision together whenever a rules argument comes up. I find this works the best and puts everyone at equal footing, ensuring that if the GM changes the rules, it's a rule change that everyone is ok with. If the GM makes a bunch of house rules, then it ensures everyone wants to play that kind of game.
Not everyone likes #5, and that's ok. I simply don't play at tables where someone needs to feel that they rule over me because they have the title of GM.
Talk to him about it. Say that it feels like you are being targeted by unfair rules.
If he's unwilling to discuss this as a mature adult, then you have one of the following choices:
1) Put up with it
2) walk from the table and get better friends
3) start your own game where you are the GM (or at least someone who is not him runs the game)
4) ask everyone around the table to kick him and only him
5) do what I did and propose a rule change the the entire game: the GM is *not* the final arbiter of the rules, but is rather just one voice of everyone at the table where everyone makes a decision together whenever a rules argument comes up. I find this works the best and puts everyone at equal footing, ensuring that if the GM changes the rules, it's a rule change that everyone is ok with. If the GM makes a bunch of house rules, then it ensures everyone wants to play that kind of game.Not everyone likes #5, and that's ok. I simply don't play at tables where someone needs to feel that they rule over me because they have the title of GM.
Thanks for the response. I actually suggested 5 to a friend who hosts the game at his house. He's been my vent, knows my frustrations, and also agrees that the DM is abusing his powers and apparently singling me out.
Problem is, neither of us are super confrontational. And we are both old school D&D players with that rule ingrained. Fighting tradition is traditionally hard.
I believe the majority of my issues aren't so much that I'm getting screwed in the game. I feel more insulted that someone I thought of as a friend (haven't for a while now), COULD do this to me.
The angel one is so dumb that walk away seems the only option.
He did state that I could instead attack the thing with my first attack, instead of attempt to feint it, because he was making that call.
I spent a good 3 minutes thinking about whether or not I would walk away though. In the end, it had an AC of 32, my bonuses ranged from +29 to +19 at the lowest iterative, and I turned it into hamburger before I rolled out my 4th attack, it wasn't "game breaking" enough at the time. The only real reason I was feinting it was because my feint partner (his character) had improved feint partner and I wanted to give her the AoO that came with it (role play reasons). That and, despite my +27 bluff, I had yet to successfully feint anything....
I'll bet he has a ton of logical inconsistencies. Like the angle can't see so it isn't effected by feint, but it can sure enough see you to attack, huh?
Did the GM impose a 50% miss chance and treat you as invisible to t because it can't see? If not, then feinting should dang well work.
Basically, since he said it was immune to feints because of its blindness, it should have been subjected to this:
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
Oh wait - he didn't because it had blind sight - which meant it could "see" enough to be feinted against.
This is a prime example of what I would call GM Cheating.
Nothing about feint mentions senses of any kind. Come on. If the enemy was actually blind, you wouldn't need to feint it!
Preaching to the choire... As I said that is just 2 examples. I think I've forgotten more "bad calls" then I can remember, mostly because I do tend to get over this stuff pretty quick. It is just a game after all. My estimation is that, for at least the past year, we've gamed at least once a week (twice a week for a time), and every single game has had a disagreement of some sort. From 2 years to 1 year ago it's been a gradual degrade from fun to aggravating.
The ones that can be proven by RAW or that I actually agree with the logic behind, I immediately accept the call and continue without issue.
Most of the time I sit down, shut up, and glower for the rest of the night... I hate those nights.... Being forced into a position where I know I'm acting like a child, but can't help it because DM said so. And for even weaker reasons or no reason at all.
Problem is I see this guy as a bully of sorts. He won't back down unless out numbered in any sort of confrontation. And even then it is always "grudgingly", so talking to him one on one is all but impossible.
As I said, I hate being a jerk. I really hate having to choose between serious argument (that excludes but affects friends in the room), or bending over for it.
The angel was undead, which obviously puts intelligence score into question. I asked if it was a potential feint target and he said he didn't know. So I asked if it had an intelligence score, he checked as he said "yes", then said "you don't know". So I admit I don't know if it actually had an intelligence score. It's his careful 8 minutes of research and reasoning that leads me to believe that yes it had an intelligence score, yes my roll was high enough, but no it wasn't susceptible to feint because it doesn't use it's eyes.
Sorry for the constant rant. I am trying to be as fair as possible in my retelling, providing as much detail as I can with as little bias as possible.
Also yes bookrat, he does have lots of "reason" and "logic". Most of which I dismiss as either irrelevant or so far off the beaten path as to not be worth responding to.
Preaching to the choire... As I said that is just 2 examples. I think I've forgotten more "bad calls" then I can remember, mostly because I do tend to get over this stuff pretty quick. It is just a game after all. My estimation is that, for at least the past year, we've gamed at least once a week (twice a week for a time), and every single game has had a disagreement of some sort. From 2 years to 1 year ago it's been a gradual degrade from fun to aggravating.
The ones that can be proven by RAW or that I actually agree with the logic behind, I immediately accept the call and continue without issue.
Most of the time I sit down, shut up, and glower for the rest of the night... I hate those nights.... Being forced into a position where I know I'm acting like a child, but can't help it because DM said so. And for even weaker reasons or no reason at all.
Problem is I see this guy as a bully of sorts. He won't back down unless out numbered in any sort of confrontation. And even then it is always "grudgingly", so talking to him one on one is all but impossible.
As I said, I hate being a jerk. I really hate having to choose between serious argument (that excludes but affects friends in the room), or bending over for it.
The angel was undead, which obviously puts intelligence score into question. I asked if it was a potential feint target and he said he didn't know. So I asked if it had an intelligence score, he checked as he said "yes", then said "you don't know". So I admit I don't know if it actually had an intelligence score. It's his careful 8 minutes of research and reasoning that leads me to believe that yes it had an intelligence score, yes my roll was high enough, but no it wasn't susceptible to feint because it doesn't use it's eyes.
Sorry for the constant rant. I am trying to be as fair as possible in my retelling, providing as much detail as I can with as little bias as possible.
Also yes bookrat, he does have lots of "reason" and "logic". Most of which I dismiss as either irrelevant or...
You don't have to be confrontational to confront the DM. I would respectfully ask that DM to show me the rules that support his decision, and be ready to show him the rules that support your position. Tell him you don't really understand his reasoning and would like to, but could he show you where that decision comes from.
I have been in games where the DM was making bad calls like that because he didn't really know what the rules were in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh dang this sounds like a pickle to be in, must say.
I have been part of games too where some players have felt they got trembled down like this and it´s never fun. I have never experienced it on myself but I have heard some of my friends having similar problems with GM´s making odd calls like this.
Okay, trying to put on my boring and responsible adult hat here
*Puts on a fancy tophat*
There can be various reasons to why your GM does this.
1) He doesn't fully understand the rules.
- It happens, even for the best of GMs. But some GMs won´t accept it if they´re proven wrong, and others will accept it.
2) He doesn't like you getting an advantage over his creature.
- Oh flipping hell I have been in campaigns with GM who do this crap and it is such a mood killer.
3) I know I was going to write something here, but I forgot what it was Damn it.
Anyways the best thing you can do is actually sit down, just the two of you and talk it over. Find out where the problem is and why. Make sure you tell him how you feel like with him doing this,, because if it affects you negatively then you have to damn well speak up! if you come to an agreement with him (maybe) learning from this and actually trying to improve himself, well then score! He is trying to get better! if not... then I say leave the table.
I mean 2 years with this? You should have been out there way earlier and tell him what you think (of course in a calm and grown up manner), instead of dragging yourself through the mud like this. Roleplaying is meant to be fun for all, and if you´re not feeling it then it´s not worth playing it.
TL;DR?
Talk to him about it, just the two of you.
If he changes and improves himself; stay.
If he continues doing this crap: Leave.
Don´t kill your own joy of roleplaying by bending over and accepting his rules, when you can talk about it and perhaps find a solution.¨
*takes off fancy tophat*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing: having negative emotions is not being a child. Everyone has negative emotions. We all don't like it when we're bullied or when we feel cheated or when things are unfair and beyond our control.
Some things in life we really can't control - getting laid off because your company went bankrupt, losing money when the entire stock market crashes, losing a friend or family member to death. Being in a game is very far from one of the things we can't control.
The primary thing in life we can control - how we respond to the bad things that happen.
How we respond to bad things that happen is what makes the difference between a child and a mature adult. Children throw fits, they get angry, they punch and bite those they're angry at, they bang their heads against the wall or the floor, they lash out and scream and fight. They harm others and themselves. Now, this is all normal and mostly healthy for children, but part of growing up is learning mature ways to handle our emotions.
For us adults, the mature ways are to talk it out with others, to think through a response and a plan so we can ensure it doesn't continue to happen (if possible), and to let out a good cry now and then in the safety and comfort of our loved ones.
Mature adults will respect other's thoughts and accommodate others when they find out that their actions are harming others. Sometimes - though our actions are harming others - there isn't much we can do, or it's a calculated risk with acceptable collateral damage (this may be a point of disagreement among some, but let's leave the politics out of it for now). A game is not one of those times.
So here's the thing; if you can talk out your issues and problems with your GM on a one-on-one basis and get him to listen to your concerns, and you've done what you can to calmly and politely explain how his actions and decisions as a person are making you feel, then you've responded to the situation like a mature adult. If he then chooses to ignore you and continue to be a bully, then he has not acted like a mature adult. Personally, I do not like playing with people who are immature jerks (a bit of an oxymoron).
Now, the standard advice around here is to walk or kick. I've given that same advise here before, and that advice has been given to me. But here's the rub - I've been in similar situations like yours, and I know how dang hard it is to actually kick someone or walk from a table. Especially a table you've been at for years. It can be very hard to walk away from people you've considers your friends and who you see on a weekly basis for years.
Trust me, I know what it's like.
But sometimes, that's what you have to do.
For me, here's where I will absolutely refuse to walk away or kick someone out for bad behavior: when I believe that my actions can correct their bad behavior and allow them to grow into a better person. So if you believe that you can do this with your GM, then I believe you should try - especially if you consider him your friend. If you don't, then Insteongly recommend that you talk this over with everyone in the group and go about seeing if people are willing to kick him and him alone from the group as a group decision. If everyone is ok with his actions and are perfectly fine with him bullying you and you alone, then none of these people are your friends and you need to find new friends.
I did, and both my gaming life and my personal life have improved dramatically. I now have a much better group of mature gaming friends and I am enjoying the game much much more. Sure, sometimes we get into disagreements; sometimes we do things or say things to each other that makes us mad. But when that happens, we talk it out with each other (sometimes privately, sometimes in group) and we get it resolved. Because that is what a mature adult does.
I'll also warn you about bottling emotions up; I used to be that way too (heck, I still do!). It *can* be a healthy way to deal with thing - especially minor things - but you must find a way to vent in a healthy manner. Let things bottle up for long enough and you're going to have a blow out - and if you're unlucky, that blow out will happen against the wrong person. My wife and I have an agreement to prevent this from happening in our marriage: We have a two week rule where if you can't bring it up and talk about it within two weeks, then it's not important enough and you have to just let it go. But if it keeps on happening, if it is nearly continuous every single time we interact, then that two weeks will never end and it must be brought up so it can be fixed. My wife and I have been together for 5 years now, and not once have we yelled at each other - we've been in disagreements, we've been mad at each other, we've had arguments - but we've never yelled. We talk it out calmly and listen to the other person, and then we come to a solution together. This is what mature adults do.
Unless the DM is allowing the other players to do things he doesn't alllow you to do or is changing his mind on rulings when a player other than you presents the argument, I'm not sure I understand why you appear to feel so personally slighted when you and the DM disagree about the rules.
I must say that I feel you. Had a DM like this as well, it got to extreme extents where he wouldn't allow me to do the things I had built my character to be able to do (with the argument "I don't belive you have that many 'command' prepaired this day" when I played a spontaneous caster, trying to cast my 4th first level spell that day...) while he just hand-waved some of the other players' acts, giving out extra uses per day and such.
*blink blink*
Did he not know what a spontaneous caster was?
Unless the DM is allowing the other players to do things he doesn't alllow you to do or is changing his mind on rulings when a player other than you presents the argument, I'm not sure I understand why you appear to feel so personally slighted when you and the DM disagree about the rules.
You have a point, however I've considered it pretty carefully. 2 years I have sat on this issue. 2 years considering, weighing, testing, and noting.
I understand there is always a possibility of bias thinking affecting how I perceive things. This is why I asked my friend who plays with us. Why I asked friends and co-workers about this situation. Why I do my best to explain the situation as fully as possible. And why I have come to forums filled with total strangers such as yourself to attempt to explain the problem and read opinions of fellow gamers and DMs. Because I am well aware that I could always be wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I respect and accept your suggestion and opinion on the matter. I've just been considering these things for years, not hours.
There is a dramatic difference when HE use to ask ME about whether or not I knew a rule off the top of my head. Usually my response was "no" because it was not something directly related to my character. I do feel that I should darn well know the rules governing my character and what I intend to do with it. So I read up on feint, and knew what does or does not make a target "feintable".
I would like to add that I have had Improved Two Weapon Feint for a bit, tried feinting every target I could, have never once successfully feinted a target, save for one that didn't have a Dex bonus anyway. My Bluff bonus to feint is +29 I think.
Take out a notebook and start writing down all his rules he makes. Then if he goes back on a ruling, you can show him. since it's his "rule" he'd be less apt to change it again, probably.
Also, honestly, the two examples you gave aren't extreme enough for me to walk away from.
Try, "Okay, you have house rules to make things harder to hit, have you added any special weaknesses to them?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, I don't see that there is a lot you can do without at least a minor discussion. Try to make it as non-confrontational as possible. Talk to him separately (not at the game table even) but in person. Many people write emails or messages like an attack, even if they don't many people read them like an attack.
"Look I want to just put this out there as something I would like you to consider. For a while now I've been feeling like you are out to get my PC in particular. It seems like you constantly change the rules just to hurt what my character wants to do. You don't have to respond right now, just think about it."
To be honest, I don't see much chance of things getting better. But that is the only way that I see even a slim likelihood of improvement.
The only other thing you could try would be to take a turn at being GM yourself. But that might be even worse. Sometimes not-so-great GM's make absolutely awful players.
I recently had to leave a group for fairly similar reasons. The type of game I wanted to play just wasn't what he wanted. I blamed the decision to leave on work schedule, a class I take, and family commitments. I still hang out with those guys occasionally. We grill on a Saturday afternoon, watch a movie, or play cards, just not RPG's. Might have been some hard feelings, but it would have been much worse if I had stayed until I blew-up and said some not nice things.
I found a different group that meets at a different time that just happens to fit better into my busy schedule.
Edit: Did want to bring up one other possibility I just remembered. I have seen a few GM's do this for a 'reason' that makes sense to them. I still think it is lousy way to handle things, but it isn't unknown.
If one player is head and shoulders above the other players in building an optimized character or very tactical about how he plays his character, he can seem to be marginalizing the other PC's/players. This can be an actual problem. A few GM's will try to correct this by continually shutting down anything they try to do because it must be overpowered if they are the one trying to do it.
As I said, I think it is a horrible way to handle things. But I have seen a couple of GM's that think it is what they are supposed to do. In those cases I was able to work out a different solution with them. I optimized a very weak concept and made sure my tactics were to give others a bonus not myself.
A GM like that isn't worth the trouble....
1) A GM has to be atleast fluent in all the rules... This guy obviously has no idea what he is doing regarding rules...
2) A GM should also be ready to adapt to the party and should expect NOTHING is going to go as he planned. Funny thing is, as hard as you try, the party will always find a answer you never thought of if you allow them to do anything but roll combat. Rail-roading is never popular and creating contrieved circumstances just to hate the wizard tends to leave bad feelings.
What is your relationship with the GM like outside of gaming?
Are you the only one who is feeling "picked on"?
GM's are people, and sometimes there are dynamics that don't surface until you get into an "authority" situation. Different expectations; different preferences; different styles of play.
Maybe you remind him of someone with whom he has an issue. Not even consciously, but just something about you triggers that in him.
Does your group rotate GM's? That alone might help. Take a break from his game. See how you do with someone else as GM. (Or when you GM.)
While your vent friend may sympathize, do they also feel shut down by the GM, or is it just you the GM seems to be singling out?
GMing is a lot of work. It can feel like pressure rather than fun, and sometimes I rule against something in the moment that I might have allowed if I didn't feel put on the spot.
As ElterAgo has said, approach them (as far as possible) with respect. Let them know that you appreciate their time and effort to run these games for you. And then bring up your experiences and seek clarification on what the GM's goals are. Is he concerned you're trying to powergame or break the game? Whatever it might be, and they might not even know themselves or be aware that they are "picking" on you.
Good luck and best wishes! Even people who enjoy the same pastime don't necessarily make the best partners for sharing that pastime.
Edit: Did want to bring up one other possibility I just remembered. I have seen a few GM's do this for a 'reason' that makes sense to them. I still think it is lousy way to handle things, but it isn't unknown.
If one player is head and shoulders above the other players in building an optimized character or very tactical about how he plays his character, he can seem to be marginalizing the other PC's/players. This can be an actual problem. A few GM's will try to correct this by continually shutting down anything they try to do because it must be overpowered if they are the one trying to do it.
As I said, I think it is a horrible way to handle things. But I have seen a couple of GM's that think it is what they are supposed to do. In those cases I was able to work out a different solution with them. I optimized a very weak concept and made sure my tactics were to give others a bonus not myself.
I'm guilty of this, I'm sorry to say. I have one player who just isn't in sync with the rest of us, and I've begun to start shutting him down because he just doesn't seem to get it - to have the awareness of how his choices are marginalizing the rest of the players - and how I often am being asked for exceptions by him so that he can "realize his character". I got so sick and tired of it that I almost resented playing with him and took a break from GMing. Unfortunately, he is the alternate GM. So I'm starting to look around for a new group. 1 player's left already, and - like you - I'm just not getting out of the experience what I'm interested in, so it seems like it is may be time to go. :(
Incoming wall of text, I'll highlight the important parts of the quotes, but I'll try to include the context for anyone who wants to see it.
But what exactly is a Game Master?
Judge: The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law. He must not antagonize the players or work to impede their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor them and coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules.
Player: Just because he’s playing dozens of characters during the course of a session doesn’t make him any less a player than the others who sit at the table.
(Core Rule Book p396)
GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game. His reading of the rules should be respected and adhered to. It’s easy to get hung up on complicated aspects of the game during play, but the game is never enhanced by long, drawn-out arguments over these complications between players and GM. When complications involving rules interpretations occur, listen to the player and make the decision as quickly as you can on how to resolve the situation. If the rule in question isn’t one you’re familiar with, you can go with the player’s interpretation but with the knowledge that after the game you’ll read up on the rules and, with the next session, will have an official ruling in play. Alternatively, you can simply rule that something works in a way that helps the story move on, despite the most logical or impassioned arguments from the players. Even then, you owe it to your players to spend time after the game researching the rule to make sure your ruling was fair—and if not, make amends the next game as necessary.
(Core Rule Book p402-403)
Many groups maintain a set of house rules for their games, and the Game Master has the final say on particular interpretations and arbitrations of rules (though everyone in the group should be aware of any house rules beforehand).
(Game Mastery Guide p8)
Don’t Stymie the PCs
This is another way of saying “play to the PCs’ strengths,” but is worth reiterating. Part of the fun of playing is leveling a character and gaining new abilities. If you create encounters that circumvent the PCs’ newest abilities, it takes away some of the fun of the game because it’s like they didn’t gain all the benefits of their level.
(Game Mastery Guide p42)
(This last quote has a whole page on this, but really this section says enough)Remember that while he's the judge, and his word is law during the game, he is also only one of the players at the table. Respect the rule while you're playing (you don't want to ruin the scene for everyone by stopping the game) but at the end of the session, bring it up. While the game's not "in session" the GM is no longer the Judge. You are now all equals discussing how to get the most out of your games together.
If everyone thinks it was a fair ruling, it can become a new house rule. Write it down somewhere so people can refer to it later if need be.
If people think it was unfair, then strike that "rule" from the books and it should never come up again (maybe note it somewhere if you think the GM might try to use it again).
If the GM really won't take the group's advice, he's clearly not cut out to be a GM, and everyone should clearly see that.
As a general rule, any house rules should be given to the players before the session begins. If the GM surprises the players with ad-hoc rules that the players don't like, they can Rightly get upset (this is another reason to write down any changes you make to the rules, then you can simply show them to any new players who join the group).
If you're feeling like this would be too much confrontation, ask someone else at the table to bring it up. Even your friend you mentioned who's also fairly non-confrontational might feel more comfortable doing it - it's not his problems he's bringing up, he's simply being the medium.
The points I'm making are:
1. Don't interrupt the game, speak to the group afterwards.
2. After the game, everyone's opinion is equal.
3. The GM has a duty to ensure ALL players are having fun (including you), and to make sure their own rules are fair and consistent.
4. Any house rules should be given before the game, if they come up in a game, roll with it and refer to point 1.
One last thing I'll bring up is to be diplomatic. I know you know this, but sometimes it's hard to put into practice. I'd suggest aiming your hostility at the game itself: It was Paizo's fault for wording the spell in a confusing way, it was Paizo's fault for not specifying the rules for feinting blind opponents (or blind-fighting).
There are 2 advantages to this.
Firstly, the team at Paizo are big boys and girls and have big manly chins (or womanly chins) and they can take the criticism without getting too hurt, they're good like that. As well as which, they're not going to be there to take offense, while your friend is.
The second is that it changes the feel of the intervention from "pointing fingers" to "research". The group is finding the best way to interpret the "poorly written" *cough cough* rules. Now you're not pitted against the GM, you're on the same team (Incidentally, that's pretty much what the GM's guide says GM's should be doing, if you get this right it's good practice for when you run your own game).
I hope that helps, and I hope that wasn't too much text.
Edit: I did about 10 minutes of grammatical editing after posting this, it really is a lot of text, sorry. Hopefully it's all good now =P
... I often am being asked for exceptions by him so that he can "realize his character". I got so sick and tired of it that I ...
This is a very slippery slope. I rarely make exceptions for a character. Especially not often after the campaign is started. I try to get everyone to agree on any campaign/house rules long before character creation is started. They will be used because we all like them, they fit the campaign, or clearing up 'not sure about this' issues in the rules.
Some examples have been:
Allow crossblooded and wildblooded to stack. No somatic or verbal components means you can't tell someone is casting a spell. Spell like abilities usually have the same components (VSMDf) as spells and provoke AoO. Dragon Disciple works with Draconic Bloodrager bloodline.
I won't often make more changes just to make someone's character more powerful. I have very rarely found rule changes are really needed to make a concept viable. Note: I said viable not optimal.
"Well you chose to have umpteen natural attacks. Of course they don't each do much damage. I'm not giving you weapon specialization on 5 different kinds for 1 feat just to benefit Gremerton."
When something comes up that we don't know how it works, I generally say. "Ok we'll allow it to work (or not) this once (in the PC's favor) But I will read up on it this weekend and ask on the boards what others opinions are. I will let you know what the permanent rule is next week. So don't build your character around it yet."
... Unfortunately, he is the alternate GM. ...
I hate to say it (and I hope it doesn't apply to me), but sometimes GM's make incredibly obnoxious players.
When something comes up that we don't know how it works, I generally say. "Ok well allow it to work (or not) this once (in the PC's favor) But I will read up on it this weekend and ask on the boards what others opinions are. I will let you know what the permanent rule is next week. So don't build your character around it yet."
This is a perfect example of what a GM should be doing. This is what I meant in my last post when I said: "don't interrupt the game, talk to them afterwards". Really the GM should be doing this (exactly as ElterAgo is is doing it, good work ElterAgo), but if they're not, the rest of the group might have to help fill that role.
... I often am being asked for exceptions by him so that he can "realize his character". I got so sick and tired of it that I ...This is a very slippery slope. I rarely make exceptions for a character. Especially not often after the campaign is started. I try to get everyone to agree on any campaign/house rules long before character creation is started. They will be used because we all like them, they fit the campaign, or clearing up 'not sure about this' issues in the rules.
Some examples have been:
Allow crossblooded and wildblooded to stack. No somatic or verbal components means you can't tell someone is casting a spell. Spell like abilities usually have the same components (VSMDf) as spells and provoke AoO. Dragon Disciple works with Draconic Bloodrager bloodline.I won't often make more changes just to make someone's character more powerful. I have very rarely found rule changes are really needed to make a concept viable. Note: I said viable not optimal.
"Well you chose to have umpteen natural attacks. Of course they don't each do much damage. I'm not giving you weapon specialization on 5 different kinds for 1 feat just to benefit Gremerton."
When something comes up that we don't know how it works, I generally say. "Ok we'll allow it to work (or not) this once (in the PC's favor) But I will read up on it this weekend and ask on the boards what others opinions are. I will let you know what the permanent rule is next week. So don't build your character around it yet."
me and my group allow "exceptions" at creation, why? a lot of the crunch is determined by flavor, like why can't someone be a dragon disciple with a divine caster class and not need to take racial heritage kobold and scaled disciple.
or what if someone wants to play a werewolf, etc.
of course we also play where only the GM knows what's on other people's sheets. (we just describe out intended role prior to creation)
It just gets a little hard when everything, regardless of whether or not RAW supports my case or it helps/hinders the rest of the party, is judged more by the fact that I'm presenting the case then what is actually presented.
My advice- leave the game.
I have encountered this sort of thing, and its unlikely to stop. And you will just get increasingly frustrated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like we’re getting a little carried away with demonizing this GM. Honestly, A creature with no eyes that had Blindsight could very well be immune to feint. Maybe not RAW, but as a GM, I don’t see a problem with that; feinting is all about getting the target to think you’re going to lunge right, and instead lunge left. This can be done in a number of ways that don’t involve big jerky movements (like using facial hints that would throw off a creature who could see you, but would be hidden to a creature with Blindsight). This is pure GM fiat territory, and making a creature immune to it is definitely plausible. To be fair, I could also make a solid case to say that a creature that can still make out my physical presence with perfect clarity – but simply not with a visual medium – could still be fooled to think I was going to lunge right. I think the better solution here would have been to make the DC to feint a little higher, since it may not be obvious to the feinter what method he would have to use to trick such a creature on the spot.
As for the swarm ruling, I do agree with you that it was a bad call, but GM’s do sometimes make bad calls. They’re not perfect, and getting hung up on a personal perception of how a bug interacts with magic can leave you with incorrect rulings. However, I believe it’s better to simply make the call (even if it’s wrong) and move forward, instead of stopping and looking up a rule. After the game, the appropriate research should be done, and it should be addressed at the beginning of the next session. I don’t know if this is what happened, but based on your summary, it doesn’t sound like the GM is following through, and is maybe even making these calls knowingly. My advice, like others, is to talk to the GM about this. However, try not to do so with the perception of him as the bad guy.
Seems like we’re getting a little carried away with demonizing this GM. Honestly, A creature with no eyes that had Blindsight could very well be immune to feint....
My understanding of feint mirrors JJ's. If the target can perceive you, and has an intelligence score, you can feint it. Blindsight not only allows this target to perceive you, it allows this target to perceive you as clearly as if he could see you (no AC penalty, no miss chance, and no flat-footed).
This means that, as I see it, you can feint a blind target. If all you do is suddenly shout out, that target's attention is drawn to your words, not your actions.
If the target has improved blind fighting, or blind sight, or blind sense, or relies on hearing rather then eyesight, shouting as you attack overpowers the sound of your movement with the sound of your voice, rendering your victim effectively blind to the attack.
The core principle behind a feint is to perform a misleading action to convince your opponent that either an attack is not imminent, or that one is coming from a direction that it is not.
How much good does feinting a blind target do? Not much, since he is flat footed anyway. That is unless both the feinter and a partner have the Improved Feint Partner feat, which grants a free AoO to the partner.
In this case, I distract my target in some way shape or form to allow my partner to get in a quick shot.
If I take the normal -4 penalty because the target was not a humanoid (it was undead), I'd be fine with that. My case is that virtually everything with an intelligence score should be a fair feint target, unless something specifically states "you are immune to feints", as some rogue abilities do I believe.
A creature with blindsight recognizes shapes like Daredevil, he can dodge attacks because he sees them coming so you can make misleading moves against him (feint.) otherwise he's blind against you with all the penalties related to it
To answer other questions, his personality towards me is questionable but he does not have a great personality to begin with.
He has stated his awareness of certain habits of his, which I accept and ignore. That being he likes to deliver bits of information to people as if it was the most obvious thing in the world.
His personality is something of a micro-bully (I suspect it's more subconscious then conscious). He pretends to know a lot of things, memorizing and repeating useless tidbits of information. He is quick to point out the mistakes of others and extremely defensive when his own mistakes are pointed out, part of the problem between us I suspect. If I play dumb and ignorant things would go more smoothly, obviously. He will join any discussion, even regarding subjects of which he knows nothing about, and inevitably turns those subjects into arguments if anyone disagrees with him on the matter. And as I said, he does not concede points unless out numbered.
To summarize, I kinda compare him to forum trolls. A lot of what he says is more or less geared towards raising someone else's ire. He's no better when he is a player, argues with DMs over everything he disagrees with, regardless of RAW or the DMs wishes.
Politically speaking, my best friend and I are sort of the "new comers" to this group. We met this guy and the other player at our table through another friend. And they have been gaming together for decades, so my friend and I are probably out voted.
A pretty picture, this is not. He is/was a friend so his faults outside of game are immediately on my ignore list, I do not fault people for being themselves. Writing them all out now is something of a slap in the face to me, but it is the honest truth. He's nice enough when you agree with him, when you aren't discussing anything with anyone else terribly important or that you have extensive knowledge or experience with, or when you don't point out his many mistakes. In short, be stupid and ignorant and he likes you just fine... I guess...
|
Another closed mind with an open mouth. I'm beyond sick of people like that. I wouldn't continue playing - as someone once advised me, "no gaming is better than bad gaming." If you and your friend can at least make the other players appreciate you enough that they'll miss you when you're gone, and if it's clear to them they're missing you because of this DM, I would consider that some victory - and no, I don't think that's being petty. Behavioral patterns like this are a real problem with the world in ways far bigger than this, and fighting them where you can in what ways you can is a genuine and important part of the struggle make the world a better place.
He's nice enough when you agree with him, when you aren't discussing anything with anyone else terribly important or that you have extensive knowledge or experience with, or when you don't point out his many mistakes. In short, be stupid and ignorant and he likes you just fine... I guess...
I had a friend who was like this, he'd shout at people for making tiny mistakes etc.
nobody wanted to deal with it, it was too much trouble to argue with him so people let him get away with it.I ended up calling him on it, explaining quite calmly that I didn't like him as a person because of this. He tried to say that's just who he was, and i replied with "well this is who I am, someone who doesn't want to deal with you".
After that, other people felt less intimidated by him, and a couple of other people called him out as well.
It didn't even break up the group. Because he heard it from a few people, and because none of us were yelling at him or anything, he took it to heart. He acknowledged that the problem was with him and worked on it. He's still kind of a nob at times, but he's a lot better, and he's aware of it now.
I'm not saying you have to do the same, but sometimes it works. And remember just because no-one else has said anything doesn't mean they're not thinking it. People just don't like to be the first to break the silence.
Seems like we’re getting a little carried away with demonizing this GM. Honestly, A creature with no eyes that had Blindsight could very well be immune to feint....
My understanding of feint mirrors JJ's. If the target can perceive you, and has an intelligence score, you can feint it. Blindsight not only allows this target to perceive you, it allows this target to perceive you as clearly as if he could see you (no AC penalty, no miss chance, and no flat-footed).
This means that, as I see it, you can feint a blind target. If all you do is suddenly shout out, that target's attention is drawn to your words, not your actions.
If the target has improved blind fighting, or blind sight, or blind sense, or relies on hearing rather then eyesight, shouting as you attack overpowers the sound of your movement with the sound of your voice, rendering your victim effectively blind to the attack.
The core principle behind a feint is to perform a misleading action to convince your opponent that either an attack is not imminent, or that one is coming from a direction that it is not.
How much good does feinting a blind target do? Not much, since he is flat footed anyway. That is unless both the feinter and a partner have the Improved Feint Partner feat, which grants a free AoO to the partner.
In this case, I distract my target in some way shape or form to allow my partner to get in a quick shot.
If I take the normal -4 penalty because the target was not a humanoid (it was undead), I'd be fine with that. My case is that virtually everything with an intelligence score should be a fair feint target, unless something specifically states "you are immune to feints", as some rogue abilities do I believe.
I understand where you're coming from, and I get that Rules as Written, feint does apply in this scenario. All I'm saying is that GM's do have the liberty to make calls like that. Was it an unpopular decision? Did anyone else at the table raise an eyebrow when he said the Angel couldn't be feinted? I'm genuinely curious.
Also, in situations like this, it's very possible that the GM is pushing back for a reason. I'm assuming you came to these forums because you want an unbiased opinion, so I trust you won't take offense to my next question: are you sure you're not part of the problem? Maybe he is targeting you (which he definitely shouldn't be doing regardless), but it's possible he's doing it for a reason. I'd like to challenge you to take a step back and look at your own behavior at the table. Are you the type of player who's always looking for a way to beat the GM? I mean, not the GM's encounters, but the GM himself? Let me put it another way: if the GM has put you on a path where it's very clear you're supposed to use diplomacy skills to gather information - say, at a noble's ball - is your character instead spending his time picking pockets and sleeping with the noble's daughter? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with doing this - it's a role-playing game - but a GM could very easily take this behavior personally, and get the feeling you don't care about his game, and he might feel he needs to push back in the form of tweaking rules against you.
Again, please don't take this as an accusation - I have no idea what kind of person/gamer you are. These are just questions that no one else has asked, that may help us solve your problem.
This isn't complicated. If he declares enemies immune to feint because they are blind, remind him of the -2 to AC and no DEX that should apply as well.
Make sure he rolls his miss chance on attacks.
Either it is blind, or it is not.
Remind him of that.
If your character _pretending_ to swing isn't noticed, your regular attacks should have the same benefit.
I've had GMs like that, one thing that works (this may sound weird) is to show them that you have given up. When it is your turn, ask him which of your characters abilities work normally, and which he has decided to alter.
Every single turn. Talk to your fellow players before hand about this, it's going to be annoying.
Make a point to letting him know that he is not using the rules properly, without being rude. Ask lots of questions. Ask him if he will be providing documentation of his alterations of the core rules to all the players.
Then, decide if you want to stay.
If you have enough people to continue gaming without him, seriously consider that. Guys like this are usually just on the lamest power trip on the planet.
I would try these first, then walk if he continued being a Troglodyte.
This isn't complicated. If he declares enemies immune to feint because they are blind, remind him of the -2 to AC and no DEX that should apply as well.
Make sure he rolls his miss chance on attacks.
Either it is blind, or it is not.
Remind him of that.
It had Blind Sight, so no it isn't blind. The question is: does that make it immune to feints? I'd say "no" because Blind Sight allows it to track my movements, and I trick it into thinking I'm aiming left when really I'm aiming right.
Blind Sight eliminates concealment issues (darkness; mists; invisibility), not the ability to be distracted or mislead by your senses.
This isn't complicated. If he declares enemies immune to feint because they are blind, remind him of the -2 to AC and no DEX that should apply as well.
Make sure he rolls his miss chance on attacks.
Either it is blind, or it is not.
Remind him of that.
It had Blind Sight, so no it isn't blind. The question is: does that make it immune to feints? I'd say "no" because Blind Sight allows it to track my movements, and I trick it into thinking I'm aiming left when really I'm aiming right.
Blind Sight eliminates concealment issues (darkness; mists; invisibility), not the ability to be distracted or mislead by your senses.
My point was that the GM was saying it was blind. So it's blind, the GM said so.
If he (GM) wants to make weird rulings, that is his right, but try to force him to at least be CONSISTENT.
If the GM says that Blindsight neutralizes the Blind penalties (make him say yes or no) then either it can be feinted, or you can attack it like it is blind.
It's kinda binary.
If he continues to give it the benefits he wants, the penalties to you and isn't doing it consistently (i.e. the rest of the party) then call him out on it.
Point out that he is making rulings specifically to affect your character.
It is confrontational, but you should at least ask him to explain why it is that he is doing it.
If he is going to change rules, it is not unreasonable to ask for a written copy, so you can know what to expect.
But the GM wasn't saying it was blind - he was saying it has Blindsight:This isn't complicated. If he declares enemies immune to feint because they are blind, remind him of the -2 to AC and no DEX that should apply as well.
Make sure he rolls his miss chance on attacks.
Either it is blind, or it is not.
Remind him of that.
It had Blind Sight, so no it isn't blind. The question is: does that make it immune to feints? I'd say "no" because Blind Sight allows it to track my movements, and I trick it into thinking I'm aiming left when really I'm aiming right.
Blind Sight eliminates concealment issues (darkness; mists; invisibility), not the ability to be distracted or mislead by your senses.
My point was that the GM was saying it was blind. So it's blind, the GM said so.
If he (GM) wants to make weird rulings, that is his right, but try to force him to at least be CONSISTENT.
If the GM says that Blindsight neutralizes the Blind penalties (make him say yes or no) then either it can be feinted, or you can attack it like it is blind.
It's kinda binary.
If he continues to give it the benefits he wants, the penalties to you and isn't doing it consistently (i.e. the rest of the party) then call him out on it.
Point out that he is making rulings specifically to affect your character.
It is confrontational, but you should at least ask him to explain why it is that he is doing it.
If he is going to change rules, it is not unreasonable to ask for a written copy, so you can know what to expect.
Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a non-visual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision. Such senses may include sensitivity to vibrations, acute scent, keen hearing, or echolocation. This makes invisibility and concealment (even magical darkness) irrelevant to the creature (though it still can't see ethereal creatures). This ability operates out to a range specified in the creature description.
This creature doesn't receive any penalties from being "blind". And as others have pointed out: being blind doesn't normally make a creature immune to feint. So if this particular gaming group conforms to all Pathfinder rules with no deviations, then yes, you are correct in saying it's not complicated because the GM is deviating from the rules. What makes it complicated is when groups start adding House Rules, which can be fun, but also runs the risk of misunderstandings and/or inter-group conflicts such as this.
In this case, the House Rule would be something like "creatures with no way of perceiving the world through a visual medium are immune to feinting". As I've said before, I can see some logic to this, but others are right too that there are other ways of feinting like simply shouting "BAH!" to cause the target to flinch even for a half second, which would leave them flat-footed for your attack. Although in this case, the Angel has no head, and therefore may also be deaf. But, like a Leukodaemon, it may still have some way to hear despite not having a head. My point is, there are a million ways to feint, and when you start facing creatures with strange anatomies, the correct way to feint may become less obvious, which is why a better house rule might be to just increase the DC to feint by 2 for these cases.
In conclusion: yes, it is complicated.
I played with gm's like that... Here's what I do:
- Before game, I ask for a list in writing with all house rules
- Each time the GM make a call I don't agree with, I write it down.
- AFTER the session I ask the table what they feel, and expect a consensus to be reached.
- The final ruling are written down as a guideline for next time the situation arises...
I don't mind gm bad rulings / cheating as long as it's consistent... I find that some players (and yes, I'm one if theese ) more often than others think of borderline options that call on a GM ruling...
Theses are all great ideas. It's a very diplomatic way to deal with this type of problem.
Cuup, you mentioned that the GM hadn't said it was blind, in literally the first (original) post this was said:
"DM ruled that the target of my feint was immune to feint because it does not have eyes, and would not react to a feint maneuver. Yes that is literally how he explains it."
Which is what I would draw attention to.
I would ask the GM _why_ not having eyes is relevant, if it has Blindsight...
Can it, or can it not, see? Is it blind and not blind at the same time, gaining the benefits and none of the penalties?
If this is how having no eyes and having blindsight works, then players should have the characters gain blindsight (magic items allow for this I believe) and GOUGE OUT THEIR EYES! Forever immune to feint, hooray!
No reason not to, mechanically... other than scrolls and spellbooks I guess.
Language: Braille.
If it cannot perceive it's opponents actions, then should it not be flatfooted against ranged attacks? (if it ignores feint because it can't see, it won't notice an arrow being fired either, right?)
If it has no head, then presumably it has no ears, shouldn't it then get a -4 to initiative?
Clearly this monster was designed to be functionally identical to a normal monster, just stylistically missing it's head.
It's really bad GMing, and the best way I have found to deal with it is to get the GM to tell us more about the condition.
If he is going to re-write how the game works, the players have a right to know.
I'm really sorry, but you've got me very confused at this point. Here is the first post of this thread, copy-pasted:Cuup, you mentioned that the GM hadn't said it was blind, in literally the first (original) post this was said:
"DM ruled that the target of my feint was immune to feint because it does not have eyes, and would not react to a feint maneuver. Yes that is literally how he explains it."
Which is what I would draw attention to.
I would ask the GM _why_ not having eyes is relevant, if it has Blindsight...
Can it, or can it not, see? Is it blind and not blind at the same time, gaining the benefits and none of the penalties?
If this is how having no eyes and having blindsight works, then players should have the characters gain blindsight (magic items allow for this I believe) and GOUGE OUT THEIR EYES! Forever immune to feint, hooray!
No reason not to, mechanically... other than scrolls and spellbooks I guess.
Language: Braille.
If it cannot perceive it's opponents actions, then should it not be flatfooted against ranged attacks? (if it ignores feint because it can't see, it won't notice an arrow being fired either, right?)
If it has no head, then presumably it has no ears, shouldn't it then get a -4 to initiative?
Clearly this monster was designed to be functionally identical to a normal monster, just stylistically missing it's head.
It's really bad GMing, and the best way I have found to deal with it is to get the GM to tell us more about the condition.
If he is going to re-write how the game works, the players have a right to know.
First off, I understand and accept that the DM has the final say regarding rules.
However I feel that, over the past 2 years at least, the DM that heads up the games I play in is abusing this rule specifically to spite me. This occurs in games outside of pathfinder, however we mostly play pathfinder.
What I'm looking for is advice I guess. I don't really want to walk away from the table, or be a jerk and tell the guy off. All I really want to do is play the game and enjoy time with friends.
It just gets a little hard when everything, regardless of whether or not RAW supports my case or it helps/hinders the rest of the party, is judged more by the fact that I'm presenting the case then what is actually presented.
Case in point. I attempt to feint an opponent using the Improved Two Weapon Feint feat. The opponent in question is a headless undead angel with Blind Sight. I believe the angel had an intelligence score which, to my knowledge, is the only real requirement for a target to be feint worthy. DM ruled that the target of my feint was immune to feint because it does not have eyes, and would not react to a feint maneuver. Yes that is literally how he explains it.
Another questionable ruling is that a swarm of spiders is immune to a spell that requires a will save, such as Holy Smite, or the destruction variant of Judgement Light. Note he did not say that they were immune to the potential side effects of such spells (the 1d6 rounds of being shaken by Judgement Light, or the blind effect from Holy Smite). He stated that they were immune to the damage caused by these spells because they require a will save.
These are just 2 rulings. The list is too long for me to post, mostly because I feel a bit whiny when I go on too much. In both cases, he had to make an obvious effort to figure out how to explain it.
Bol;d and italics for my emphasis. I'm not sure what's getting you hung up on whether or not the Angle could see; the OP said very clearly that it had Blindsight. I agree with you that the GM may not be handling his gaming table as well as he should, but I can't help but feel you're missing why.
I'm really astonished by the number of people posting here who have been influenced by interpretations of blindsight like that featured in Daredevil.
Blindsight isn't "seeing a different way" or "heatvision" or "the world on fire" (although it can be if you want it to be), it's a "non-visual sense to operate effectively without sight". It makes the one with blindsense unaffected by blur or displacement, so I too would rule that feint is ineffective against blindsense.
I'm kinda iffy on the Judgement affecting a swarm, but a destruction-oriented smite sounds more like a reflex save than a will save anyway. I'd probably let it happen.
Some good posts here though about the real issue: getting along with people with whom you've developed an adversarial or at least an unfriendly relationship. It takes a dose of maturity to get past the rough edges we often show to one another, and it's usually time and perspective that get you to soften up and forgive one another. Communicating concerns and being assertive (rather than angry) is a good way to clear the air.
I had an issue similar to this over the weekend. The PCs were fighting a mimic which was currently flanked by the barbarian and the rogue. The rogue wanted to use his backstab, but I initially ruled "no" because I felt that the mimic was an unconventional creature without a true face or "facing" that would lead it to being unaware of incoming attacks such as a backstab.
One of the players suggested that unless it stated in the monster listing that it was immune to backstab or flanking that I should allow the backstab. I relented and agreed to let the rogue get his backstab because it is not listed anywhere that the mimic is immune to such attacks, regardless of whether or not I thought it should be immune.
I had an issue similar to this over the weekend. The PCs were fighting a mimic which was currently flanked by the barbarian and the rogue. The rogue wanted to use his backstab, but I initially ruled "no" because I felt that the mimic was an unconventional creature without a true face or "facing" that would lead it to being unaware of incoming attacks such as a backstab.
One of the players suggested that unless it stated in the monster listing that it was immune to backstab or flanking that I should allow the backstab. I relented and agreed to let the rogue get his backstab because it is not listed anywhere that the mimic is immune to such attacks, regardless of whether or not I thought it should be immune.
feels like your playing ADnD, or did 2e keep the back stab?
anyway in pathfinder things can have "all around vision" so it would require that in it's stat block in pathfinder.
Blindsight isn't "seeing a different way" or "heatvision" or "the world on fire" (although it can be if you want it to be), it's a "non-visual sense to operate effectively without sight". It makes the one with blindsense unaffected by blur or displacement, so I too would rule that feint is ineffective against blindsense.
Ok, so there's a lot of debate as to whether feinting would work against a creature with Blindsight. Personally I'm in the "Of course it does" camp.
In terms of arguing what kind of Blindsense the creature had - it didn't have a head. That means the only senses it has are touch, and any supernatural senses it might have (No eyes, ears, nose or tongue without a head). Therefore it's either relying on tremorsense (which you could debate feinting I guess) or has some "supernatural sight", which should be able to be feinted just like regular sight unless it specifically says otherwise.However you feel about it though, this isn't a regular feint, it's Improved Two Weapon Feint.
Improved Two-Weapon Feint (Combat)
Your primary weapon keeps a foe off balance, allowing you to slip your off-hand weapon past his defenses.
Prerequisite: Dex 17, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While using Two-Weapon Fighting to make melee attacks, you can forgo your first primary-hand melee attack to make a Bluff check to feint an opponent. If you successfully feint, that opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC until the end of your turn.
This isn't "I'm pretending to do one thing and doing another", this is "I'm using my first attack to knock them off balance instead of deal damage."
You can re-fluff it any way you want, the "feint" in this case is an actual attack. If the opponent can react to attacks, they're going to react to this one. It's then up to their sense motive to notice what you're actually doing. If they don't react to it, they're letting an actual attack - with a lethal weapon - slip past their guard (and if that's the case, they lose their dex bonus anyway, since they're actively ignoring your attack).I'd also like to point out that to have Improved Two-Weapon Feint the character has invested 4 feats and has to have good Int and high Dex, so the GM really should be vaguely generous if there's a rule debate.
I'm really astonished by the number of people posting here who have been influenced by interpretations of blindsight like that featured in Daredevil.
Blindsight isn't "seeing a different way" or "heatvision" or "the world on fire" (although it can be if you want it to be), it's a "non-visual sense to operate effectively without sight". It makes the one with blindsense unaffected by blur or displacement, so I too would rule that feint is ineffective against blindsense.
Blindisght makes you recognize shapes, otherwise it would be Blindsense. He can try to dodge dodge (dex to ac) because he can "see" your arm with the sword flinging at him. So the misleading movements of feinting can be sensed. The echolocation a la Daredevil IS how Blindsight works if supported by hearing. Otherwise is still something that lets you see without eyes shapes, maybe not colour. It makes you immune by blur or mirror image because those illusions do not "react" to other senses beside sight. But if I pretend to hit from the right mi making the actual movement, Blindsight doesn't let you ignore it