Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Official Ruling Question: Feint


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So, this last Monday I was in Public play and had a small argument with two of the venture captains (The first, who got the second to confirm the position). I am playing a Rogue and used "Feint" the combat maneuver.

To be clear, I have no feats that enhance Feint whatsoever. What was argued to me is that Feint, as a combat maneuver, is entirely and completely useless without having said feats. The understanding presented to me by the Venture Captains was that you had to use the attack on the same round as you Feint (Which isn't possible with Feint being a Standard Action) and since you can't Feint and Attack, that Feinting is totally useless without at least the feat Improved Feint.

My intention was to Feint, and then use my first attack on my next turn to exploit the Feint, as the text in the book stated "On or before your next turn". I was told by both venture captains that what the text really meant was that you had to use it on your turn or before your next turn... which is exactly backwards how it reads in both the Pathfinder core book as well as the Starfinder book (which described it in clearer fashion to mean exactly what I had expected it to mean, that I could exploit the feint sometime between when I performed it and my next turn)

If someone official could chime in and clarify, specifically for the PATHFINDER application of Feint, as I expect pointing out the Starfinder wording will not be good enough for the Venture Captains I had this interaction with, I would greatly appreciate it.

Many Thanks

Grand Lodge **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Feint wrote:
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent’s base attack bonus + your opponent’s Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent’s Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

The VCs were wrong. The rule is pretty damn clear about how it works.


Sure, and as you said, I made the argument that it's pretty clear it says ON my next turn or BEFORE it (Thus allowing for attacks of opportunity, etc.), they said I was wrong and that it meant the opposite, that it meant I had to use is on my turn or before my next (Which is exactly backwards).

So, the Venture Captain called the other Venture Captain over and they ruled that they were correct. They also said a lot of the combat rules were that way (Where they were useless without feats), I asked for another exampled, and they didn't have one, they just ruled that I was wrong on the matter.

Grand Lodge **

Shimitsu wrote:

Sure, and as you said, I made the argument that it's pretty clear it says ON my next turn or BEFORE it (Thus allowing for attacks of opportunity, etc.), they said I was wrong and that it meant the opposite, that it meant I had to use is on my turn or before my next (Which is exactly backwards).

So, the Venture Captain called the other Venture Captain over and they ruled that they were correct. They also said a lot of the combat rules were that way (Where they were useless without feats), I asked for another exampled, and they didn't have one, they just ruled that I was wrong on the matter.

You're welcome to elevate the issue to the person above them if you'd like.

Here is a link to the list of PFS coordinators. If they were Venture-Lieutenants or Agents then you'd want to contact the actual Venture-Captain for your area. If they were full on Venture-Captains (a bit unlikely to have 2 in one place outside a con) then you can contact the Regional Venture Captain.


I'm in Austin, at Dragon's Lair. They have about 6 tables any given monday or thursday.

EDIT: Oh, I get you. As in, they're probably support Captains, rather than full fledged ones. Sorry, my misunderstand.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Interesting. I wonder if THIS poster also plays in your region.


Nefreet wrote:
Interesting. I wonder if THIS poster also plays in your region.

Yes, actually, I think they were the Cleric in the group. All the players were kind of flummoxed as to the unilateral nature of the decision, they were very uncompromising. I had the core book there on the table and asked both the VL running us and the other guy he called over to read it and explain to me how "ON or before" doesn't mean ON or before.

The Starfinder explanation is clearer, but I expect neither of them will reconsider when I take the book there tomorrow, which is why I was hoping for, say, some absolute officialdom answer.

Grand Lodge **

Shimitsu wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Interesting. I wonder if THIS poster also plays in your region.

Yes, actually, I think they were the Cleric in the group. All the players were kind of flummoxed as to the unilateral nature of the decision, they were very uncompromising. I had the core book there on the table and asked both the VL running us and the other guy he called over to read it and explain to me how "ON or before" doesn't mean ON or before.

The Starfinder explanation is clearer, but I expect neither of them will reconsider when I take the book there tomorrow, which is why I was hoping for, say, some absolute officialdom answer.

I would highly recommend against trying to use Starfinder to support your argument. They're completely seperate systems and using it as a reference would only hurt you.

As I said earlier, your best bet is to raise the issue up the chain. But if you play there again in the meantime make sure they know that the burden of proof is on them to prove that you are wrong. The rules say you are right.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The burden of proof is not on the GM. If they honestly feel something works a certain way, you gotta just suck it up.

That being said, why write a whole section in the book about how feinting works if you need a feat to use it. Just write a longer feat and save space in the maneuver section.

I agree that feint works without a feat.


Wow somehow you spelled feint different every time.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Wow somehow you spelled feint different every time.

Sometimes I hate my phone.


Tallow wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Wow somehow you spelled feint different every time.
Sometimes I hate my phone.

I understand. your phone wanted to say something completely different.

Scarab Sages *****

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Wow somehow you spelled feint different every time.
Sometimes I hate my phone.
I understand. your phone wanted to say something completely different.

One of my older phones would turn off auto correct if I typed the word exactly the same a second time. This one does not.

Grand Lodge ****

If you're fine attacking a feinted target only once per two rounds, there is no problem. If the GM makes a bad call during a game, you have no choice but to bear it the first time, but there will be no problems reminding the error should not be repeated again. That's optional but being a little more lax (without throwing rules out of the window) in the next borderline sequence would be fair from their part.

Sovereign Court *** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Well, they were wrong, but there's a difference between being right, and "getting right".

During a game session there is only so much time to argue rules with the GM. If you can't convince the GM in a minute with the book in hand, and it's not a life and death thing, then you should postpone the argument.

However, sometimes people get used to being right (yes, even us, particularly us venture critters) and it can be easy to dismiss some new guy making a rules claim that you're sure you know how it works. Except anyone can be wrong sometimes. So we don't always listen well enough to someone with the book in hand contesting our rulings. Which is bad, but we're only human, and it happens.

What I would recommend at first, is writing those venture people a polite email. Explain that you're bothered by what happened at the table, that you backed down at that point because the game had to go on, but that you want to continue the conversation. Write down your rule research so that they can re-read the whole thing in a non-rushed environment.

If that doesn't work, you can still go up the chain, but try convincing them, rather than going over their heads, at first. Just, not in the middle of a game.

Hopefully you'll also get them to start thinking of you as someone who actually understands the rules, and should be listened to first, rather than immediately overruled.

Scarab Sages *****

Unless a GM was trying to avoid some shenanigans that would have negated the encounter, I can't see them actually getting all officious over a single sneak over two rounds.

Sczarni *****

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It may have simply been a case of misunderstanding. I await an update after the follow up discussion has been had.

**

First of all, please don't refer to Feint as a maneuver. That just opens up inconsistent terminology.

But to get to case in hand, Feint says:

Feint wrote:
This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

Not, "on your current turn or before your next turn."

Instead it should be read/interpreted as: "This attack must be made [on your next turn] or before your next turn," as grammatically, they're both ("on" and "before") referring to your next turn.

So whoever you were arguing with, yeah they're pretty much completely wrong. Are they actual VCs or just local organizers?

Scarab Sages ***

Nefreet wrote:
It may have simply been a case of misunderstanding. I await an update after the follow up discussion has been had.

This. People aren't perfect. Even groups of people. Which is why I think it's premature to go over them and talk to the VC or RVC about it. Point them over to this thread, or the one in the rules forum. They are misreading the rule, and hopefully seeing so many people agreeing that they are misreading it will be enough. Feint works just fine without Improved Feint (or Two-Weapon Feint or whatever). You Feint one turn, you get the benefit on one attack, even if that one attack is on your next turn.

***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Clarification on the incident, as I was the GM who made the ruling.
It was a misunderstanding, the wording from greater feint and the redundancy of the wording "on or before your next turn" rather than something like "before the end of your next turn" as many other abilities use had me confused.
I was running cold as we have had a large influx of new players and a shortage of GMs due to GM fatigue from our regulars.
I tried to handle the situation as best I could in the limited time I could, by explaining why I was ruling it that way, and then getting the only Venture Officer present to help on a ruling (I am not a VL or in any way an organizer for the group, just a person volunteering to GM), who sided with my ruling either to not undermine the GM or because he understood it as I did.
Do not present it as if all of the players were on your side during the ruling, at least two said that they could see it being read either way.
Instead of assuming that I won't listen, try just talking to me before or after the scenario instead of being confrontational. You might find that I am a pretty agreeable person when you don't immediately put me on the defensive and dismiss everything I say with "we'll see".

Sorry for the incorrect ruling. Enjoy your time here at our lodge.

Scarab Sages *****

I know I can get my hackles up when someone aggressively challenges me mid game when I'm trying to move things along.

Dark Archive *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Segovax wrote:


Do not present it as if all of the players were on your side during the ruling, at least two said that they could see it being read either way.

Remember though, someone seeing why you are understanding the rule a way, and agreeing with your ruling are different things. Plenty of times I have seen a GM rule in a manner against the way a mechanic worked because of the wording Pathfinder likes to use is not always clear. I understood why they misunderstood, but that did not mean I agreed with them.

As a GM I also know that it is a littler harder to want to hear the player's side of things when they are being combative. As the rest of us were not present for the game, there is no way to know how the interactions had been up to that point, though it does sound like maybe it was a bit tense.

On the brightside, you probably will not forget how feinting works going forward.

Grand Lodge **

I think the issue is that the wording of feint was not in fact vague, and you chose to rule in a way that hurt the player and actually made feinting actually do nothing. Running cold has nothing to do with ruling against something from the core rulebook.

Now I wasn't there, so maybe the player was confrontational or rude and if was off putting to you. But regardless, the grammar of the rule clearly leads to only one correct conclusion.

Anyways, I'd suggest that in the future if you're trying to speed things up by making a quick ruling on something you're unsure of, maybe lean towards the player friendly interpretation rather than the one that makes the option useless.

Scarab Sages *****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:


If you dont know the rules that well perhaps you shouldnt be the DM.

Its a fairly unused rule to be honest. I'd have to look up Feint to use it correctly (or at least before this particular conversation I would have.) And I would say I'm a master of Pathfinder rules. You can't expect your GMs to be encyclopedias, that's just not fair. They aren't computers either.

And while I have my issues with running anything cold, the reason why its relevant is because when you do that, your focus and attention are to trying to get the adventure as right as you can for the players, and when dealing with rules items you can be a bit mentally distracted and your logic brain doesn't necessarily kick in correctly when parsing the oft-vague, ambiguous and poorly worded core rule book.

So until you've actually sat behind the GM screen a few times, maybe you shouldn't be making comments like this about someone who's willing to do so. Even if they are really new to the game, all GM's have to start somewhere.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:

I think the issue is that the wording of feint was not in fact vague, and you chose to rule in a way that hurt the player and actually made feinting actually do nothing. Running cold has nothing to do with ruling against something from the core rulebook.

Now I wasn't there, so maybe the player was confrontational or rude and if was off putting to you. But regardless, the grammar of the rule clearly leads to only one correct conclusion.

Anyways, I'd suggest that in the future if you're trying to speed things up by making a quick ruling on something you're unsure of, maybe lean towards the player friendly interpretation rather than the one that makes the option useless.

This is a fair point, and one that I brought up above. I'm unclear why a player unfriendly ruling and bringing in another of higher authority would be brought in to help rule on something that really isn't game breaking at all.

It really is strange to me, that this became a rules argument when the end result would have had minimal impact on the game in the end run. In this case it is almost always best to rule in the favor of the players.

That being said, when I have a player who aggressively challenges me, for something that likely has no impact on the game like this, I have a tendency to want to say no, just to spite them for being a jerk to me. I do my best not to do that, but I am human.


Tallow wrote:
Halek wrote:


If you dont know the rules that well perhaps you shouldnt be the DM.

Its a fairly unused rule to be honest. I'd have to look up Feint to use it correctly (or at least before this particular conversation I would have.) And I would say I'm a master of Pathfinder rules. You can't expect your GMs to be encyclopedias, that's just not fair. They aren't computers either.

And while I have my issues with running anything cold, the reason why its relevant is because when you do that, your focus and attention are to trying to get the adventure as right as you can for the players, and when dealing with rules items you can be a bit mentally distracted and your logic brain doesn't necessarily kick in correctly when parsing the oft-vague, ambiguous and poorly worded core rule book.

So until you've actually sat behind the GM screen a few times, maybe you shouldn't be making comments like this about someone who's willing to do so. Even if they are really new to the game, all GM's have to start somewhere.

I have DMed numerous times. This isnt a wonky rule issue. This is glance at the core rulebook section and not trying to hose over a player.

Here were the choices for him

Option 1
Let the player do their thing with a suboptimal build and eke out a little more damage. Get ruling after game

Option 2
Say no to it working and grind the game to a halt as they show proof you are wrong. We can start diagramming sentences or we can just agree he was wrong.

Even assuming the GM has no rule knowledge and has to learn every rule at the table option 1 is still better.

My point is that people talk about as a player just going along with the dms ruling for the game and bringing it up later as being for the best is wrong. The dm should just let the players have their fun unless something wonky is going on. This wasnt a wonky sitation with room for interpretation.

***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I bring up running cold because it is absolutely relevant, my focus was divided.
So divided in fact that the conversation got to the point of discussing the rules of using feint to bluff instead of just telling the player the attempt failed because the creature lacked an intelligence score.

And as I said before between Greater Feint's function, and the wording from the feint entry in bluff being worded as it is, I was under the impression that it was "your next attack on (this turn) or before your next turn"

The only reason I brought another person in to the conversation was because the player was being confrontational and would not let it go. And even after the the only VO present agreed with my ruling the player still refused to back down. And again, I don't know why the VO ruled with me if my reading was incorrect, but even after that the player continued to argue and eat up table time. I was just trying to keep things moving.

I was not trying to ruin a person's fun, if that were the case when I found out that the table probably wouldn't make if I didnt GM it instead of play it, I would have just gone home. I was making a call on what I thought was a correct reading of the rules, I was wrong.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can we stop beating on a volunteer GM that stepped up under fire and made a go of it, please?

It's not like they were trying to run it from a Post-It note or anything, right?

Back to the topic at hand: Given Feint works like that, why don't we see it more often at lower levels? Is it because of a perceived lack of utility?

At higher levels 'Rocket Tag' can kick in, so that makes things a bit different.


He was probably being confrontatial because he was right.

Notice how you had to add (this turn) to get your interpretation of the rules.

I dont know what the VO was thinking.

Thanks for dming. Is it normal for your groups to have dms just not show up for scheduled games like that or was this a weird night?

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Halek wrote:


If you dont know the rules that well perhaps you shouldnt be the DM.

Its a fairly unused rule to be honest. I'd have to look up Feint to use it correctly (or at least before this particular conversation I would have.) And I would say I'm a master of Pathfinder rules. You can't expect your GMs to be encyclopedias, that's just not fair. They aren't computers either.

And while I have my issues with running anything cold, the reason why its relevant is because when you do that, your focus and attention are to trying to get the adventure as right as you can for the players, and when dealing with rules items you can be a bit mentally distracted and your logic brain doesn't necessarily kick in correctly when parsing the oft-vague, ambiguous and poorly worded core rule book.

So until you've actually sat behind the GM screen a few times, maybe you shouldn't be making comments like this about someone who's willing to do so. Even if they are really new to the game, all GM's have to start somewhere.

I have DMed numerous times. This isnt a wonky rule issue. This is glance at the core rulebook section and not trying to hose over a player.

Here were the choices for him

Option 1
Let the player do their thing with a suboptimal build and eke out a little more damage. Get ruling after game

Option 2
Say no to it working and grind the game to a halt as they show proof you are wrong. We can start diagramming sentences or we can just agree he was wrong.

Even assuming the GM has no rule knowledge and has to learn every rule at the table option 1 is still better.

My point is that people talk about as a player just going along with the dms ruling for the game and bringing it up later as being for the best is wrong. The dm should just let the players have their fun unless something wonky is going on. This wasnt a wonky sitation with room for interpretation.

I don't doubt that you've GM'd plenty of times. But you've GM'd less than 10 reported times for PFS. So until you have a wealth of experience with the animal that organized play is, with time constraints and such, then calling someone out for making a mistake in that they shouldn't GM is just not fair.

You'll also note, if you've read the thread at all, that I agreed that the GM got the ruling wrong. But certainly there were mitigating circumstances it seems.

Additionally, people are human, they make mistakes. The GM has acknowledged that he got the rule wrong. Now he'll know about that rule for future reference.

This isn't a legal situation where getting a rule wrong might cost someone prison time. Give the guy a break, geesh.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Can we stop beating on a volunteer GM that stepped up under fire and made a go of it, please?

It's not like they were trying to run it from a Post-It note or anything, right?

Back to the topic at hand: Given Feint works like that, why don't we see it more often at lower levels? Is it because of a perceived lack of utility?

At higher levels 'Rocket Tag' can kick in, so that makes things a bit different.

Largely I think its a function of action economy. At levels 1-5 your action economy already sucks enough, that reducing it by half really is a suboptimal choice. However, I can see some reasons for doing so. Like say you are fighting a creature with hardness or DR that your meager damage without sneak attack is doing next to nothing to nothing. So you do what you can to ensure yourself a sneak attack, even if that is reducing your action economy to half.

***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Segovax wrote:

I bring up running cold because it is absolutely relevant, my focus was divided.

So divided in fact that the conversation got to the point of discussing the rules of using feint to bluff instead of just telling the player the attempt failed because the creature lacked an intelligence score.

Recognizing when a table argument is moot and should be dismissed is a difficult skill to master. Alas, making mistakes is how we learn.

Scarab Sages *****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Halek wrote:

He was probably being confrontatial because he was right.

Honestly, that isn't an excuse. There is not an excuse for being a jerk to anyone (even if you think they were a jerk first). Certainly no excuse to a volunteer or while playing a game.

Especially if the rule gotten wrong really isn't going to matter all that much in the end run.

Just suck it up, move on, and discuss it after the game calmly.

Dark Archive *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
Give the guy a break, geesh.

This.

Also with Feint being unused often(I have a two weapon feint build in an AP so I had to get real familiar, but my GM had to read the rules again the first time it came up), I know many experienced GMs that fail to remember all the nuances of how it works without having to reference the CRB.

Scarab Sages *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Segovax wrote:

I bring up running cold because it is absolutely relevant, my focus was divided.

So divided in fact that the conversation got to the point of discussing the rules of using feint to bluff instead of just telling the player the attempt failed because the creature lacked an intelligence score.
Recognizing when a table argument is moot and should be dismissed is a difficult skill to master. Alas, making mistakes is how we learn.

agreed. ultimately no character died, so no harm, no foul. Now the GM knows.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Tallow wrote:
Halek wrote:

He was probably being confrontatial because he was right.

Honestly, that isn't an excuse. There is not an excuse for being a jerk to anyone (even if you think they were a jerk first). Certainly no excuse to a volunteer or while playing a game.

Especially if the rule gotten wrong really isn't going to matter all that much in the end run.

Just suck it up, move on, and discuss it after the game calmly.

You're right about there not a good reason for an excuse, that the GM being a volunteer isn't an excuse for making up rulings and not following correct rules in PFS.

If the GM was worried about speeding up the table he should have just gone with the player's (correct) view, "Especially if the rule gotten wrong really isn't going to matter all that much in the end run." and not been a jerk and shut down the player's option for no reason other than he wanted to read the rules incorrectly.

I know I've almost walked out on a table and left the party to die to mummies when the GM refused to correct a ruling after being informed of the FAQ that said he was wrong.

If you're unfamiliar with a rule, go with the player that does know the rule rather than coming up with an incorrect rule that goes against the player.

Scarab Sages *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Halek wrote:

He was probably being confrontatial because he was right.

Honestly, that isn't an excuse. There is not an excuse for being a jerk to anyone (even if you think they were a jerk first). Certainly no excuse to a volunteer or while playing a game.

Especially if the rule gotten wrong really isn't going to matter all that much in the end run.

Just suck it up, move on, and discuss it after the game calmly.

You're right about there not a good reason for an excuse, that the GM being a volunteer isn't an excuse for making up rulings and not following correct rules in PFS.

If the GM was worried about speeding up the table he should have just gone with the player's (correct) view, "Especially if the rule gotten wrong really isn't going to matter all that much in the end run." and not been a jerk and shut down the player's option for no reason other than he wanted to read the rules incorrectly.

I know I've almost walked out on a table and left the party to die to mummies when the GM refused to correct a ruling after being informed of the FAQ that said he was wrong.

If you're unfamiliar with a rule, go with the player that does know the rule rather than coming up with an incorrect rule that goes against the player.

Way to twist my words to give a player the right to be a jerk to the GM.

GMs are human. They will make mistakes, and they will get things wrong. If you are going to be a jerk to them about it while that's happening, then you are going to likely cause the GM to become defensive and shut down to any thought of capitulating for the best of the table. And frankly, that's the fault of the player being overly aggressive and confrontational.

It doesn't matter if the GM was wrong.

There is a right way, and a wrong way to handle those situations. Being confrontational, aggressive and a jerk is not the correct way to handle things.

The goal is to get as many things as possible correct as many times as possible. The expectation of the players can never be perfection, because that's impossible.

The Exchange ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM has seen the post and examined the rule closer. The GM and player will see each other at a local game and can talk in person. Defensiveness and accusations will serve no purpose.

We're done here.

*** Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's see, one person wants to use a rules legal option and goes to do so and then gets told by the GM that they can't do that. Player pulls out rules to show GM the correct ruling, GM refuses to be corrected and insist that his ruling that invalidates the player's option is correct. Player is then very annoyed and disinterested in the game going off well because the GM is making up rules. And continuously brings up that the GM is wrong, cause he is.

Yeah, sure the player COULD have been nicer, but as you're saying we're all human, and it's far easier to sympathize with the offended player than with the GM in this situation. And all of the arguments to the player to "chill it wasn't a big deal" apply even more to the GM in the situation to just rule in favor of the player. Because really the GM is calling the player a liar and incompetent at understanding rules by holding onto their incorrect ruling. And I know it's VERY nettling to have a GM not care about getting the rule correct even after you've shown them the rule.

Sovereign Court ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Thomas Hutchins wrote:

Let's see, one person wants to use a rules legal option and goes to do so and then gets told by the GM that they can't do that. Player pulls out rules to show GM the correct ruling, GM refuses to be corrected and insist that his ruling that invalidates the player's option is correct. Player is then very annoyed and disinterested in the game going off well because the GM is making up rules. And continuously brings up that the GM is wrong, cause he is.

Yeah, sure the player COULD have been nicer, but as you're saying we're all human, and it's far easier to sympathize with the offended player than with the GM in this situation. And all of the arguments to the player to "chill it wasn't a big deal" apply even more to the GM in the situation to just rule in favor of the player. Because really the GM is calling the player a liar and incompetent at understanding rules by holding onto their incorrect ruling. And I know it's VERY nettling to have a GM not care about getting the rule correct even after you've shown them the rule.

The GM here did what they were supposed to do when flustered, and called in a VO to make a ruling.

Ultimately, the GM was right, not the player. Feint would not have had an effect on a mindless creature. They were just wrong about the reason.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Feint sounds like it could be very useful in the intermediate game with a TWF build.

Is that where it comes into it's own?


Two weapon feint exists and pulls twf feint with sneak attack into useable territory.

Dark Archive *

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Halek wrote:
Two weapon feint exists and pulls twf feint with sneak attack into useable territory.

These is what I do with TWF+two weapon feint, give up first attack, feint, take 3+ attacks with sneak. Very feat intensive though.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / Official Ruling Question: Feint All Messageboards

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.