Why not use CMB for Feinting in combat?

[eric kiser]

I have been reading all of the discussions about skills, and I noticed that feint kept popping up as part of some variation of bluff or deception skill. However the ability to feint seems to be very specific to combat.

This seems like an old rule that is no longer consistent. Is there a precedence for keeping it as a function of a skill. If not, I suggest making it a function of CMB like disarm and trip.

Feint:
Feinting is a standard action.

If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). Additionally, if successful by 5 or more you are considered to be flanking. This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

If you fail the defender get to make an attack of opportunity. In affect they have seen through your feint and can take advantage of it.

When feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a creature lacking an Intelligence score, it’s impossible.

Associated Feats:
Improved Feint - You do not provoke an attack of opportunity if you fail a feint combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to feint against a foe. Also, increase the DC of performing a trip combat maneuver against you by +2.

Fast Feint - You may perform a feint combat maneuver as a move action instead of as a standard action.

Let me know what you think...

[Diego Bastet]

While I do understand your concern about the feint, in that even a great warrior won't be good at it if can't Bluff well, there is a little something that bugs me on that, and it's not the stirge.

The idea isn't bad, but... don't know.

[Quandary]

Feint is already a "Half" Combat Maneuver, in that it's OPPOSED by CMB (OR Sense Motive), but it's point is that it's a Charisma-skill based talent, distinguishing it from CM's.

CM's AUTOMATICALLY go up +1/level for Warriors. Feint (& Tumble) require 1 skill point/level to maintain parity with CMB (and 1 more into Sense Motive to counter Feint, if one wants to rely on Sense Motive instead of CMB). Nothing is stopping a Warrior-class PC from putting 1 skill point into Bluff/Feint, although they have much fewer skill points/level than the Rogue. This is a major differentiator in combat style between the Rogue and the Fighter, and shouldn't be swept away.

I would say that the skill-based "Half" Combat Maneuvers (Feint & Tumble) need to be clarified as such (Feint is outlined after the Combat Maneuvers, Tumble is only described in the Skill section - CONSISTENCY!) Note that Tumble's functionality overlaps with Over-Run - But one is better for Characters with full BAB, and the other is better for high Dex/high Skill characters (like Rogues). And Over-Run has a chance to knock opponents down, which Tumble doesn't do at all.

I just think the presentation/organization/consistency needs to be improved, putting both Tumble and Feint usages of Acrobatics/Bluff into a subsection of the Combat Maneuvers, with an explanation of both skill-based "Half" Combat Maneuvers.

[Arnim Thayer]

It always bothered me that "Feinting" in combat is based off of Bluff and opposed by Sense Motive... niether of which are Fighter skills. Does that not seem strange?

It makes a Swashbuckler build impossible with a Fighter.

[Quandary]

Right. Much more optimal to take at least SOME Rogue Levels. Who gets to actually use their Bonus Damage vs. opponents denied their Dexterity (Feinting). Pathfinder's Fighter Abilities (Armor Training...) don't at all correllate to a "Swashbuckler"... I'd think that could be much better achieved with a "Combat Rogue" with maybe half their levels in Fighter, or less. And you get a bunch more points for stuff like CHA skills, Know:Local/Nobility, etc, etc...

[Kalyth]

Quandary wrote:

Right. Much more optimal to take at least SOME Rogue Levels. Who gets to actually use their Bonus Damage vs. opponents denied their Dexterity (Feinting). Pathfinder's Fighter Abilities (Armor Training...) don't at all correllate to a "Swashbuckler"... I'd think that could be much better achieved with a "Combat Rogue" with maybe half their levels in Fighter, or less. And you get a bunch more points for stuff like CHA skills, Know:Local/Nobility, etc, etc...

My issue is that feinting is based on Bluff rather than combat skill. Sure you could use your charisma and personality to feint but you could also use your dexterity and weapon skill. Alot of your best skilled swordsmen would not have high charismas or a lot of ranks in the bluff skill but should be able to pull of a feint manuever in combat. This is part of learing to fight and manuever in combat. So while bluff can achieve a feint result swordsmanship should be able to as well.

[Quandary]

Perhaps...
But I don't understand why Swordsmanship =/= (Combat) Rogues (esp. w/ Fighter multiclass)
In any case, Rogues ARE the class best able to take advantage of Feinting, HOWEVER Feint's mechanics work, because they get to add extra damage, whereas non-Rogues merely ignore Dodge bonuses.

(A CORE Fighter ability now is ARMOR TRAINING. Not relavent to Swashbucklers, right?)

[Xaaon of Xen'Drik]

Quandary wrote:

(A CORE Fighter ability now is ARMOR TRAINING. Not relavent to Swashbucklers, right?)

A CORE fighter abilitynow is Weapon Training.

Negating a dodge bonus is a very good thing to do for fighters...

[Larry Lichman]

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

Negating a dodge bonus is a very good thing to do for fighters...

Then they can put some skill points in Bluff. The option is still there if a Fighter wants it, but I wouldn't take it. I'd have to give up my full attack option (re: multiple attacks) to reduce a foe's AC by a couple points. Not worth it IMO. Feinting just isn't as important to a Fighter's ability in melee as it is to a Rogue.

As for tying it to a CMB, I vote for keeping it tied to the Bluff (Cha) skill. A feint is basically a bluff in combat, so the maneuver and skill go hand in hand.

[Kalyth]

Larry Lichman wrote:

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

Negating a dodge bonus is a very good thing to do for fighters...

Then they can put some skill points in Bluff. The option is still there if a Fighter wants it, but I wouldn't take it. I'd have to give up my full attack option (re: multiple attacks) to reduce a foe's AC by a couple points. Not worth it IMO. Feinting just isn't as important to a Fighter's ability in melee as it is to a Rogue.

As for tying it to a CMB, I vote for keeping it tied to the Bluff (Cha) skill. A feint is basically a bluff in combat, so the maneuver and skill go hand in hand.

Most trained fighter/fencers/martial artists/boxers etc. include feints as part of their training. Some are exceptional at feinting and yet cant talk their way out of babysitting for their sister or even call in sick to work without getting tongue twisted. Basically my issue is that feinting with a weapon in combat is something Fighter should be VERY GOOD at doing as part of their training and not dependent on them spending ranks in the Bluff skill. I think being able to use Bluff in place of CMB should be an option with CMB being the base used to feint. With Bluff being the base for Feinting a fighter than specializes in Feinting can NEVER be as good at it as a Rogue that specializes in Feinting or even just devotes a bit more than average attention to it.

For a fighter to be better than a max rank rogue the fighter would have to spend half of their base skill points just on ranks in Bluff and take Skill Focus: Bluff and then would only equal a Rogue with max ranks in bluff (+3 bonus for class skill) and only when he had 10 or more ranks in bluff would the fighter actually be better at feinting than the rogue (Skill Focus +6 at 10 ranks).

So yes while rogues get a much better benefit from feinting is should still be something that a fighter should be able to do equally as well if not better than a rogue in my opinion.

[Larry Lichman]

Kalyth wrote:

So yes while rogues get a much better benefit from feinting is should still be something that a fighter should be able to do equally as well if not better than a rogue in my opinion.

Why does a Fighter have to be better than (or even equal to) a max rank Rogue in Feint?

Feinting in combat is a form of bluffing your opponent, so of course a deceptive character will be better at it than others. (And for the record, in medieval times most infantry were not trained to feint in combat. Only the nobility and officers received training advanced enought to include this ability, so I don't buy into the argument that all Fighters are trained to feint as part of their education).

Bluff is a class skill for a Rogue because a Rogue's class emphasis is on deception and using skills to get out of situations.

Bluff is not a class skill for Fighters because a Fighter's class emphasis is on combat.

Both classes may choose to max out the skill if they desire, but there is no valid reason both classes should be equally proficient in Bluff and therefore feinting.

I've seen this argument about making classes equal in all skills/feats/abilities in a lot of posts, and I have to say it's a weak point. Each class is strong in different ways. If there was a way to make all classes equally good in all things, why bother with classes at all?

Just because a Rogue is better at a few things than a Fighter doesn't make the Fighter weaker, and vice versa.

Take my opinion as you like, but I believe removing the link between Feint and Bluff would be a huge mistake.

[Kalyth]

Larry Lichman wrote:

Kalyth wrote:

So yes while rogues get a much better benefit from feinting is should still be something that a fighter should be able to do equally as well if not better than a rogue in my opinion.

Why does a Fighter have to be better than (or even equal to) a max rank Rogue in Feint?

Feinting in combat is a form of bluffing your opponent, so of course a deceptive character will be better at it than others. (And for the record, in medieval times most infantry were not trained to feint in combat. Only the nobility and officers received training advanced enought to include this ability, so I don't buy into the argument that all Fighters are trained to feint as part of their education).

Bluff is a class skill for a Rogue because a Rogue's class emphasis is on deception and using skills to get out of situations.

Bluff is not a class skill for Fighters because a Fighter's class emphasis is on combat.

Both classes may choose to max out the skill if they desire, but there is no valid reason both classes should be equally proficient in Bluff and therefore feinting.

I've seen this argument about making classes equal in all skills/feats/abilities in a lot of posts, and I have to say it's a weak point. Each class is strong in different ways. If there was a way to make all classes equally good in all things, why bother with classes at all?

Just because a Rogue is better at a few things than a Fighter doesn't make the Fighter weaker, and vice versa.

Take my opinion as you like, but I believe removing the link between Feint and Bluff would be a huge mistake.

Rogues should be better at Bluffing than Fighters I agree with you on that issue. But a Fighter should be better or atleast just as good as a rogue at feinting as a combat manuever. I think out difference in opinion on this stims from how we are both looking at feint. I see it as a combat manuever utilized by back alley brawlers, gladiators, fencers and the like just as much as a tactic used by assasins and cutthroats. It just bugs me that if I wanted to make a expert swords man that use feinting alot in combat he would also end up being this expert lier and con artist. I know I could just choose to not play him as an expert con artist but I still have to have Max ranks in bluff to equal other people in the feinting department. My years of training with weapons and combat manuevers in no way helps me feint better.

A rogue does gain more of an advantage from feinting, being able to apply his sneak attack damage but a fighter should at times want to feint and it should be somethign that can be advantageous to the fighter as it stands the cost far out weighs the advantage gained for a fighter. A fighter should not have to spend half is skill points just on bluff to keep up with a rogue when using a combat manuever.

Sure most infantry and common soldiers were not given advance weapon train or taught manuevers that is a good point. However, I do not see fighters as common infantry soldiers, they are dedicated men at arms. The NPC Warrior class would be your common infantry and the like a fighter would be your swordsman that recieved extra training or practiced extensively on his combat skills.

[Crystal Frasier]

I don't see why everything in combat needs to flow back to CMB. It's nice that the basic maneuvers (Bull Rush, Trip, Grapple, ect) all use a single system now, but they're all things that relate to physically manipulating your opponent, not necessarily changing they're behavior. And Fighters, with their high Strength bonus and excellent BAB already master those tricks. The skill-based combat stunts like Feinting, Tumbling, and Taunting give Rogues (and multiclassed Fighters) something fun and unique to do in combat. Let's not fall into the 4e trap of oversimplification.

Besides, by default, your CMB is based on your strength, and there's no logical reason that being strong would make you more deceptive. It makes a little more sense if you take a feat to swap out your Str for Dex, but even then, feinting is more about tricking someone than being too fast for them. I don't even think feinting should OPPOSED by CMB, let alone initiated by it; You BAB certainly (as it represents skill and experience), but not your Strength.

[Quandary]

Seriously. The Rogue is a melee combatant. Get over it.
You say the Fighter "shouldn't have to spend half his (base) skill points just to keep up with the Rogue"... Except you actually mean a Rogue who is putting a rank into Bluff at every level. Not every Rogue does that. Not every Rogue has high Charisma.
You're insisting on Feint being a "Combat Maneuver", but you neglect to notice that Jason has made Combat Maneuvers based off of STRENGTH, and all of the Combat Maneuvers involve actually DOING something TO someone, not just in their vicinity. Likewise, Tumble does not benefit from CMB.
Sure Feint/Tumble are both useful in combat (Acrobatics is even a class skill for Barbarians), but what's wrong with Pathfinder saying that those combat tactics are optimal for the Rogue melee combat class?
You just seem to keep referring to your own assumptions about the "Fighter" Class even though MULTIPLE evidences exist to show that Pathfinder is NOT intending the Fighter class to be everything you are claiming. A Rogue can be a great melee combatant. Anyone taking a level of Rogue gains all their class skills AND Sneak Attack +1d6, so if you want to do Combat Feints, that's OBVIOUSLY the way to go, no matter your main class.