|
New rules
1. Combat Maneuver: Feint
As a move action, you can attempt to deny your opponent his Dexterity bonus to AC when you attack him. To feint, make a combat maneuver check and add your Bluff skill modifier or your Charisma modifier if you don't have ranks in Bluff). The DC of this check is equal to 15 + the target’s CMB + Sense Motive skill modifier (or Wisdom modifier if the target has no ranks in Sense Motive).
If the combat maneuver is 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 your next turn or before your next turn. When feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature with an Intelligence of 1 or 2, you take a –8 penalty. You cannot feint against a creature lacking an Intelligence score. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Justification
The Alpha 2 Feint doesn't seem to follow the same principles as the other combat maneuvers. I modified it to make it a more interesting combat option and more in line with the combat maneuver philosophy.
1. Move action: The other combat maneuvers provide same-round benefits. The Alpha 2 Feint maneuver does not, unless the character has Improved Feint.
2. Combat maneuver check: the other combat maneuvers use the combat maneuver check. The Alpha 2 Feint maneuver uses a skill check.
3. DC: The DC for all other combat maneuvers is 15 + CMB. The Alpha 2 Feint maneuver uses an unrelated DC.
2. Modified Feat: Improved Feint
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, BAB +1
Benefit: You can perform a Feint combat maneuver as a swift action.
Normal: Feinting is a move action.
A fighter may select Improved Feint as one of his fighter bonus feats.
3. New feat: Ranged Feint
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, BAB +1, Point Blank Shot or Careful Targeting
Benefit: You can perform a Feint combat maneuver as a ranged attack. The target must within 30 feet of your position when you make the combat maneuver check and when you perform the attack.
Normal: Feinting is a melee combat maneuver.
A fighter may select Improved Feint as one of his fighter bonus feats.
|
|
(update to the update)
Improved Feint
Prerequisites: Int 13, BAB +1 (1)
Benefit: You can perform a feint combat maneuver as a swift action. You receive a +2 bonus on feint combat maneuvers checks made to sunder an item. When you are targeted by a feint attempt, the DC of the maneuver is increased by 2. (3)
Normal: Feinting is a move action.
Ranged Feint
Prerequisites: Int 13, BAB +1, Point Blank Shot or Careful Targeting (1)
Benefit: You can perform a feint combat maneuver as a ranged attack. The target must within 30 feet of your position when you make the combat maneuver check and when you perform the attack. When you are targeted by a ranged feint maneuver, the DC of the maneuver is increased by 2. (3)
Normal: Feinting can only be performed in melee.
Justification
(1) Removed Combat Expertise as a prerequisite and added BAB +1 as some measure of fighting prowess should be necessary to qualify.
(2) Ranged feint maneuvers should be accessible to ranged combatants who have additional ranged combat training.
(3) I'm assuming that if you are better at feinting, you are also better at resisting feint attempts.
I like the modified ranged feint better. Throw in a ranged disarm; we've all seen it done in movies (particularly Westerns).
In general, the ranged people haven't been able to hold their own because a lot of the feats focus upon melee or spells. My largest concern with this block of feats is that it aids rogues (already a potent class) more than fighter or ranger.
THAT said, I'd like to see the bow become a decent weapon. I can see the Barbarian and Ranger needing access to the same feats, so the option of making fighter bonus feats is out. Heck, if there's a LG deity that doesn't limit paladins to Lawful Stupid combat options, I've no problems with Smite Arrow as a feat.
But I'm guilty again of moving outside the original intention of the thread. Sorry.
|
|
I like the modified ranged feint better. Throw in a ranged disarm; we've all seen it done in movies (particularly Westerns).
Done here.
And I'm glad you like the Ranged Feint feat. :-)
Maybe it's just me; I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around feinting with a bow or sling. I mean, yeah, you could pretend like you're gonna shoot it, but if the guy cringes or ducks or whatever, that won't make him any easier to hit if he's already 30 ft. away. Dunno.
I'd favor a feat that gives ranged weapons a bonus to attack (and/or damage) rolls if you spend a full-round action on a single shot, or something like that. Maybe it could require a Concentration check to work if you're also being fired upon (giving that skill some decent non-spellcasting usage).
Or what about this: Maybe the mechanics could be almost the same as the ranged feint, but you'd substitute a Concentration check for the Bluff check, and your opponent would substitute a Reflex save for the Sense Motive check (to simulate diving for cover). Rename it "aimed shot" or something, and you've got a ranged feint with supporting flavor text that makes more sense to me.
Then again, it still might be just me. I don't suppose anyone has any real-life gunfighting experience they could contribute?
|
|
Maybe it's just me; I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around feinting with a bow or sling. I mean, yeah, you could pretend like you're gonna shoot it, but if the guy cringes or ducks or whatever, that won't make him any easier to hit if he's already 30 ft. away.
Feinting is making the opponent believe that you will attack spot A while actually attacking spot B or not attacking at all. The defender moves i.e. uses his natural agility/dexterity to protect spot A and intercept the incoming strike, thus making himself vulnerable at spot B.
The most obvious application is melee, but I think that a ranged attack during which the attacker pretends aiming for the defender's feet, when meaning to strike the head could work as well.
The most obvious application is melee, but I think that a ranged attack during which the attacker pretends aiming for the defender's feet, when meaning to strike the head could work as well.
Not convinced... feinting in HTH combat is an attempt to make your opponent shift his guard, creating an opening you can exploit. I've done a LOT of it in the past. I think we need a playtest. Let's get some volunteers we can throw rocks at, and we'll do what you propose, and see if it makes them easier to hit! I nominate Heathansson - there's no way he's even reading this thread, and unless they're silver rocks, they won't hurt him anyway.
|
Hmm... can we add something to make feint appeal to more than just rogues?
How about if a fighter successfully uses feint, can that deny a rogue his sneak attack, since the fighter is not where the rogue expected him to be?
(note: I don't expect this use to be for fighters only, I was just using it as an example)
|
|
I also think it should be Bluff *or* CMB (whichever is higher), vs. Sense Motive or CMB (again, whichever is higher).
Combining these two gets silly at the higher levels. And I think a 20th level fighter, a character who has trained in combat his whole life, should be able to feint (a combat skill) better than a 10th level rogue who has a maxed out Bluff (a social skill)
And I think a 20th level fighter, a character who has trained in combat his whole life, should be able to feint (a combat skill) better than a 10th level rogue who has a maxed out Bluff (a social skill)
I'll take it a step further; now that you mention it, I feel that feinting and countering feints should absolutely use BAB (or CMB), not Bluff and Sense Motive. (Yeah, that takes away from the rogue a bit, but I'm the berk calling for limiting sneak attacks anyway, so of course I'm on board with the switch.) I'd keep Bluff and Sense Motive for "feints" before combat actually begins ("Is he going to put his weapon down? Or attack me with it?") Good call!
|
|
I also think it should be Bluff *or* CMB (whichever is higher), vs. Sense Motive or CMB (again, whichever is higher).
Combining these two gets silly at the higher levels. And I think a 20th level fighter, a character who has trained in combat his whole life, should be able to feint (a combat skill) better than a 10th level rogue who has a maxed out Bluff (a social skill)
Based on the modified feint rule above (which builds the Bluff modifier into the CMB), here is a very rough comparison between a charismatic bluffer and a grizzled weaponsmaster.
The CMB formula
CMB = BAB + STR mod + size + CHA/Bluff mod
Naked 20th level fighter with 10 CHA and all ability boosts in STR
CMB = 20 + 7 + 0 + 0 = 27
Naked 10th level rogue with 14 CHA and max. ranks in Bluff
CMB = 7 + 0 + 0 + 12 = 19
|
|
(update to the update)
Improved Feint
Prerequisites: Int 13, BAB +1 (1)
Benefit: You can perform a feint combat maneuver as a swift action. You receive a +2 bonus on feint combat maneuvers checks made to sunder an item. When you are targeted by a feint attempt, the DC of the maneuver is increased by 2. (3)
Normal: Feinting is a move action.
D'oh! Sorry for the typo.
This should read:You receive a +2 bonus on feint combat maneuvers checks made to feint a foe. When you are targeted by a feint attempt, the DC of the maneuver is increased by 2.
|
|
The CMB formula
CMB = BAB + STR mod + size + CHA/Bluff modNaked 20th level fighter with 10 CHA and all ability boosts in STR
CMB = 20 + 7 + 0 + 0 = 27Naked 10th level rogue with 14 CHA and max. ranks in Bluff
CMB = 7 + 0 + 0 + 12 = 19
Don't forget that Bluff is a class skill. Max 10 ranks, + 3 class skill, +2 CHA. That would be a 15, not 12, so his bluff is a 23.
Now, rogues come in all shapes and sizes. Not all of them are Dex monkeys. Most of mine are actually more charisma based, as I love the idea of spies. So if you're going to make this example balanced, then it's only fair to assume the rogue puts as many ability mods into CHA as the fighter puts into STR, balanced for level (+5).
This gives the rogue:
CMB = 5 + 0 + 0 + 18 = 24
This is now only three points less than the fighter, at half the level. Lets hope he doesn't take skill focus...
Now, remove the combination of the two to an either or position:
Naked 20th level fighter:
CMB = 20 + 7 = 27
Naked 10th level Rogue:
Bluff = 16
Considering the Fighter is twice as experienced as the rogue, I think this is fair. Let's advance that rogue to be the same level as the fighter, continuing the progression
Naked 10th level Rogue:
Just Bluff = 28 (one higher than the fighter)
CMB + Bluff = 35 (can you say beatdown?)
JSyK, I'm not trying to tear apart your idea. If I missed something, or am not understanding your system accurately, I'm ready to admit my ignorance. I'm more than willing to be wrong in the face of a balanced system.
|
|
Don't forget that Bluff is a class skill. Max 10 ranks, + 3 class skill, +2 CHA. That would be a 15, not 12, so his bluff is a 23.
Indeed, I fumbled the rogue's skill calculation. Thanks for fixing this.
Now, rogues come in all shapes and sizes. Not all of them are Dex monkeys. Most of mine are actually more charisma based, as I love the idea of spies. So if you're going to make this example balanced, then it's only fair to assume the rogue puts as many ability mods into CHA as the fighter puts into STR, balanced for level (+5).
I was imagining the rogue as the standard DEX monkey opposed to the standard bull-necked fighter, but I also love my rogues as flashy swashbucklers or double agents, so let's roll with your concept.
This gives the rogue:
CMB = 5 + 0 + 0 + 18 = 24
A 10th level rogue had +7 BAB, so the formula should be:
CMB = 7 + 0 + 0 + 18 = 25This is 2 points less than the fighter at half the level. The naked 20th level fighter is slightly better than the naked 10th level rogue at feinting, which proves that "a 20th level fighter, a character who has trained in combat his whole life, [is] able to feint (a combat skill) better than a 10th level rogue who has a maxed out Bluff (a social skill)" and the CHA stat.
And please don't worry about working on my ideas and poking holes in them.
|
|
[This is 2 points less than the fighter at half the level. The naked 20th level fighter is slightly better than the naked 10th level rogue at feinting, which proves that "a 20th level fighter, a character who has trained in combat his whole life, [is] able to feint (a combat skill) better than a 10th level rogue who has a maxed out Bluff (a social skill)" and the CHA stat.
And please don't worry about working on my ideas and poking holes in them.
Oooh... Now all I have in my mind is the head of the Central Bureacracy in Futurama saying "You are technically correct... the *best* kind of correct..."
Touche.
|
|
The difference is minimal. Do you think that the fighter should be significantly better in feinting than the charismatic rogue?
I think that in direct combat, the fighter should be more prepared to feint than a rogue, yes. Moreso, considering sneak attack damage at high levels, it's even more important.
A feint success by a rogue at such a high level is pretty damaging, making the rogue just as good a choice, if not better, in a melee. This takes away the value of the fighter, since he's really not good at much else. My point being that one on one, a rogue should not be able to kick the fighters ass. The rogue is supposed to be giving up consistent melee success in exchange for skills and other special abilities.
If nothing else, a fighter should be naturally trained to know how to interpret the ducking and weaving of an opponent in combat, not the rogue.
|
|
I think that in direct combat, the fighter should be more prepared to feint than a rogue, yes. Moreso, considering sneak attack damage at high levels, it's even more important.
A feint success by a rogue at such a high level is pretty damaging, making the rogue just as good a choice, if not better, in a melee. This takes away the value of the fighter, since he's really not good at much else. My point being that one on one, a rogue should not be able to kick the fighters ass. The rogue is supposed to be giving up consistent melee success in exchange for skills and other special abilities.
If nothing else, a fighter should be naturally trained to know how to interpret the ducking and weaving of an opponent in combat, not the rogue.
Given the BAB difference, I'd think that the standard fighter is naturally better at feinting than the standard rogue.
If the rogue chooses to train specifically in that area (spending Bluff skill ranks and boosting CHA), I don't see an issue in him being as good or better than a generalist fighter.Also, investing resources and ability boosts in order to maximise CHA results in lower DEX, which reduces the rogue's attack rolls (if the rogue uses Weapon Finesse) and AC, which makes the rogue more vulnerable to the backlash.
I am not sure I understand why the rogue, a light melee combatant, should be designed to "give up consistent melee success in exchange for skills and other special abilities." The rogue's consistent melee success is the necessary condition for the party's survival, as it contributes to preventing the monsters from biting the spellcasters' and ranged combatants' heads off and it allows to shorten the time the monsters spend on munching on the heavy front line fighter. A front line made up of a rogue and a fighter working together is a killing machine which is a sight to behold.
In order to improve the fighter in the combat maneuvers area, I rearranged and improved Weapon Training and Weapon Mastery here. You may like what it does to our comparison between the fighter and the rogue.