Jantin's page

Feryn wrote:

As I read the feats, it looks like the real error is that improved two weapon feint is supposed to be regular two weapon feint, and that feat shouldn't exist.

If a character takes two weapon feint, and full attacks, they sacrifice their primary (full str bonus) attack to bluff. They then attack with -2 from twf, and if they hit, they deal only half str damage. Even if your put your good weapon in your offhand, you're losing to hit and damage.

Compare that to improved feint. Spend a move action to feint, then if you hit you deal full strength damage, possibly strength and a half even, and there is no penalty to hit. Both are a full round of actions.

Other than being a prerequisite for improved tw feint, it serves no purpose. And then we see that it ISN'T a prereq for it, so it really has no purpose.

I think at best, improved feint should be a prereq for improved two weapon feint(which should be renamed two weapon feint), which I don't think should have itwf as a prereq either. You'll notice improved feinting flurry does the same thing but doesn't require "improved flurry of blows." Yes I realize it doesn't exist, but it still doesn't hardly seem fair, since the feinting flurry feat is itself already waaaaay more useful than two weapon feint. They could at least not lay on the suck extra thick for the two weapon version.

As for extra evidence, notice the way improved feinting flurry references using "feinting flurry" but improved two weapon feint gives the full explanation for how it works, as if it was written before the weaker version which would have then copied it.

Anyone know who actually wrote the feats? I suspect they all have the same author (except the mysteriously useless two weapon feint).

Two-Weapon Feint is a de facto Rogue feat. If you're a Fighter, giving up your first attack is not worth the AC penalty they take on your next attack. But if you're a Rogue that's choosing between full attacking for 1d6/1d6 or Two-Weapon Feinting for 1d6+5d6...

In what way has it served the rogue better than improved feint?

EDIT: Well, I suppose if you have 5d6 sneak attack that means you have an iterative attack, and in the case that you don't fancy the idea of gaining a 2nd offhand attack and also don't want to feint your opponent for the full attack instead of just the next one, you could use two weapon feint to make 3 attacks, dropping the first to feint and not gaining sneak attack (and probably not hitting) with the 3rd. I don't think that justifies the existence of the feat though.

As I read the feats, it looks like the real error is that improved two weapon feint is supposed to be regular two weapon feint, and that feat shouldn't exist.

If a character takes two weapon feint, and full attacks, they sacrifice their primary (full str bonus) attack to bluff. They then attack with -2 from twf, and if they hit, they deal only half str damage. Even if your put your good weapon in your offhand, you're losing to hit and damage.

Compare that to improved feint. Spend a move action to feint, then if you hit you deal full strength damage, possibly strength and a half even, and there is no penalty to hit. Both are a full round of actions.

Other than being a prerequisite for improved tw feint, it serves no purpose. And then we see that it ISN'T a prereq for it, so it really has no purpose.

I think at best, improved feint should be a prereq for improved two weapon feint(which should be renamed two weapon feint), which I don't think should have itwf as a prereq either. You'll notice improved feinting flurry does the same thing but doesn't require "improved flurry of blows." Yes I realize it doesn't exist, but it still doesn't hardly seem fair, since the feinting flurry feat is itself already waaaaay more useful than two weapon feint. They could at least not lay on the suck extra thick for the two weapon version.

As for extra evidence, notice the way improved feinting flurry references using "feinting flurry" but improved two weapon feint gives the full explanation for how it works, as if it was written before the weaker version which would have then copied it.

Anyone know who actually wrote the feats? I suspect they all have the same author (except the mysteriously useless two weapon feint).

For reference here's the Swordlord ability that has "no offhand weapon" ability and it calls out unarmed strikes as one of those weapons.

Deft Strike (Ex)

A swordlord can add his Dexterity bonus (if any) on damage rolls made with an dueling sword instead of his Strength bonus. This bonus on damage rolls applies whether the swordlord is wielding an dueling sword one-handed or two-handed, though the swordlord does not apply 1-1/2 times his Dexterity bonus on damage rolls while fighting two-handed. A swordlord cannot use this ability if he is wielding a shield or an off-hand weapon, including armor spikes, unarmed strikes, or natural weapons.

So it would seem the official position is that offhand weapons include unarmed strikes.

Should characters who are fighting in melee need precise shot to avoid the penalty for shooting the enemy they're engaged in melee with?

One thing that we actually have NOT done a lot of in Golarion is simply illustrate scenes, be they of architecture or environment. That's something I've been championing a change to for a long time... and it looks like we're finally drifting in that direction. Less art of iconics fighting monsters with locations in the background... more of scenes that the GM can use to say things like "THIS is the haunted castle you're approaching" or "THIS is the skyline of the city you live in."

Absolutely superb idea. Way more beneficial to both GMs and players.