Broken Wing Gambit Feat Useless?

[Dameragon]

Broken Wing Gambit - Ultimate Combat wrote:

Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

Everyone I've discussed this feat with thinks the judge can just choose to have the opponent not take the bonus and hit you you without provoking the attacks of opportunity. With this interpretation being widespread, there is not much use taking this feat.

Is this interpretation actually true?

[ShadowcatX]

By RAW, maybe. The phrase "If that opponent attacks you with this bonus" seems to imply the opponent can attack you without the bonus. However, any DM that actually ran it that way is being a jerk. If a pc spends such a limited resource as a feat on something he expects it to do something and denying that if just not cool.

[Odraude]

I think as written, it means that the opponent attacks you within that time period (one round) of having the bonus. I've never heard of anyone not taking a bonus in something and I can't seem to understand how anyone can read it like that.

[Archaeik]

Curious.
The language is certainly strange.

Calling it a bonus sort of implies they can choose whether they want it, and saying "if [they] attack you with this bonus" also implies they can choose.

Although, in my experience, anything like this should be considered a debuff(non removable). (This is my take on RAI)

This still allows an intelligent opponent to CHOOSE not to attack you.
However, without some way of perceiving your intent(such as having done it the prior round), it would be a rather blatant case of metagaming to just switch targets. -I'm not even sure they should get a sense motive check out of it, at least not automatically.

So it just means this feat is a bit more limited than some.
vs. unintelligent monsters, or anything you can repeatedly provoke into attacking you, it should work pretty well, but as your opponents get smarter, and especially if they are tactically savvy, it will be harder to trick them with it

[Dameragon]

Archaeik wrote:

Curious.

So it just means this feat is a bit more limited than some.
vs. unintelligent monsters, or anything you can repeatedly provoke into attacking you, it should work pretty well, but as your opponents get smarter, and especially if they are tactically savvy, it will be harder to trick them with it

Actually I'm totally fine with them not attacking me/us. The idea is that this feat will be on a light fighter team of three. We have mediocre AC and hit points so if the opponent picks on one of us, great, he takes a couple of AoO, if not, we'd rather not take the damage anyway.

Since we play in Society play, we are always going to have new judges so the risk of three us taking a feat and not being able to prove to the judge that he can't just not take the bonus is scaring us away from this feat.

[KrispyXIV]

Dameragon wrote:

Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

My reading of the bolded section makes it sound like they have that bonus for the listed duration, like it or not.

"If that opponent attacks you with this bonus..." is equivalent, in my mind, to "If that opponent attacks you with this condition..." And you certainly can't just choose not to suffer a condition, can you?

[Dameragon]

KrispyXIV wrote:

My reading of the bolded section makes it sound like they have that bonus for the listed duration, like it or not.

"If that opponent attacks you with this bonus..." is equivalent, in my mind, to "If that opponent attacks you with this condition..." And you certainly can't just choose not to suffer a condition, can you?

That is a great way to interpret this. He has it like it or not until the end of my turn or until he attacks.

[Mort the Cleverly Named]

I agree with Krispy. It says "to grant that opponent," not "that opponent can choose to take." The opponent HAS the bonus, whether they want it or not. If they attack you while having it, the effect triggers.

[Moglun]

I agree that the opponent cannot choose to not use the bonus. The reason for the language being "If that opponent attacks you with this bonus" would be to eliminate any stretch of RAW that you could choose not to give the opponent the bonus and still take the AoOs, as you could technically argue that "if that opponent attacks you" applies to the opponent you hit whether you gave him the bonus or not.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Put another down for "attacks you with this bonus" meaning "attacks you before the bonus expires"

[Norren]

Seems to me the target of the Gambit would get a Sense Motive check if it would be within the character/creature's normal faculties to do so.

After all, they're on that side of the fourth wall, right? How do they know you've just given them a +2 bonus?

[TriOmegaZero]

The feat has no wording stating the opponent can choose not to accept the bonus. There is no saving throw to avoid it. The opponent cannot attack you without adding the bonus and incurring the AoO. He can only attack a different target to avoid the AoO.

[Set]

Seems to me that 'if he attacks you' is the factor.

The attacker might, particularly if familiar with the feat, choose not to attack you at all that round, and attack someone else, or take a Total Defense action, or step back 5 ft. and drink a potion, rather than risk falling for that Broken Wing Gambit he's heard about (or that you pulled on him last round...).

I don't think you get the option of not accepting a morale bonus from bardic inspiration or a bless spell, or an enhancement bonus to attack and damage from a magic sword, so I'm not sure you'd get the option of not accepting this bonus either.

[Bobson]

Set wrote:

I don't think you get the option of not accepting a morale bonus from bardic inspiration or a bless spell, or an enhancement bonus to attack and damage from a magic sword, so I'm not sure you'd get the option of not accepting this bonus either.

This would come up a lot when charmed or dominated. "Oh, I choose not to benefit from my magic sword, the enemy bard who's buffing me now, or that bless spell my cleric cast a few rounds ago. I miss you. Yay, you don't die!"

[Umbranus]

Norren wrote:

Seems to me the target of the Gambit would get a Sense Motive check if it would be within the character/creature's normal faculties to do so.

How do they know you've just given them a +2 bonus?

I think the name and the prerequisite of the feat implies that you act like you're hurt or otherwise easy pray. By doing so you open up your defence and thus make the enemy attack you.

Your buddies, knowing what you're doing (because they have the same teamwork feat) attack him the moment he attacks you and thus gain an AoO.

So normally your opponent shouldn't know the mechanic behind it, but he knows that he can hit you more easily right now that would be normal and most likely use that opening.

If the attacker is a very cautious fighter he could be suspicious about that opening. But I'd only allow a sense motive roll for someone who roleplays that he will not take any opportunity.
But that again opens up other uses of the feat.

That way you could have a squishy use it. If the cautious fighter didn't take the bite before, why should he now?