I haven't done any number crunching on this idea yet, and I'm fairly new to homebrew, so please be gentle!
Also, before anyone suggests, I've already read Kirthfinder and I like some of his ideas on this topic, but I want thoughts on these options specifically.
I have always felt that feinting really got the shaft in 3.5 and Pathfinder. In reality, feinting is not only a valid combat option, it is downright essential to swordplay. In 3.5/PF, however, feinting at it's absolute best (using Core) allows you to make one attack that is slightly more likely to hit and makes the target susceptible to sneak attack (or Deadly Stroke) for that one attack. The only class that would use an option is the rogue, and even then it's not a very good option. However, the rogue creates another problem: if we improve feint, for example allowing feint as a swift action, the damage per round of a rogue skyrockets. If this option was made as a followup to Greater Feint (which causes the opponent to lose his dex bonus for the entire round), perhaps at BAB +11, it means that a standard rogue could deal an average of 84 (8d6*3) damage to one enemy in one round, double that with a TWF rogue. So, my first questions are: Would it be a horrible, horrible thing to allow feinting as a swift action? What if the effects of a feint only affected the next attack for the feinter? So a rogue could feint as a swift, get SA on his first attack and finish out his full attack normally.
My second issue is that feint works in a weird way against many opponents. Feinting an incredibly skilled, high dex opponent renders them incredibly susceptible to attack, while feinting a dragon yields exactly no benefits whatsoever. My second set of questions: What if the requirements for the Feint chain relied on Bluff, not BAB, and rather than causing an opponent to lose their Dex bonus to AC, the feinter gains +1 to attack, plus an additional +1 per 4 ranks in Bluff (ala Power Attack). A character with 16 ranks in Bluff gains +5 to attack, which is the same as causing a Dex 20 character to lose their bonus and significantly better than causing a lumbering oaf monster to lose their Dex bonus.
I offer these thoughts because I really feel that Feint is a TERRIBLE option in 3.5/PF, an option so bad that most character don't even consider it without extensive homebrew or prestige classing (ala invisible blade), and I'd like to find an appropriate fix for that.
The fix is not to add another feat to the chain and certainly not one with a massive BAB requirement when rogue is the main customer to begin with. Your damage calculations assume all attacks hit, which will not happen. And a Fighter or Barbarian can do similar damage anyway. Full attack sneak attack does not cause the rogue's damage to "skyrocket".
Any feint related feat should have bluff rank requirements. You want it to be a 6th level option? Make it require 6 ranks in Bluff. Simple.
I'm not sure how to fix it, either. I'd probably just have Feint last for 1 round's worth of attacks and Greater Feint makes it a swift or free action. Or vice-versa (it's a swift before Greater, and Greater makes it last for 1 round).
EDIT: For non-rogues and against foes like dragons, you probably would want to add another option you can get from feinting instead of loss of dex to AC.
The issue is that the feinting you're referring to as being essential to swordplay is just automatically included. It takes no action, it's just part of your attack roll.
The Feint action is really, "here's another option to let you sneak attack."
And yeah, I never saw anyone use Feint except for Invisible Blades, who used it constantly.
|
The issue is that the feinting you're referring to as being essential to swordplay is just automatically included. It takes no action, it's just part of your attack roll.
The Feint action is really, "here's another option to let you sneak attack."
This is how I understood it since D&D3.0. While a low level attacker may only have one attack roll, there are actually other swings, parries, feints, maneuvers, etc that are done during a combat round. The Feint maneuver using Bluff is way to open up the opponent's defenses more than usual.
I personally don't think any change is needed for the existing feinting rules. The only thing I would have liked to see is if it makes sense to use it to nullify a shield for an attack.
Ok, so I think I'm going to go with something like this for testing:
Improved Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at fooling your opponents in combat.
Prerequisites: 1 rank in Bluff, Int 13.
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action. In addition, your opponent loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action, and a creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
Greater Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.
Prerequisites: Improved Feint, 6 ranks in Bluff, Int 13.
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a swift action. In addition, you may choose to gain a +2 bonus to attack instead of causing your opponent to lose their dexterity bonus to AC. Your opponent is still considered flat-footed for the purposes of determining sneak attack. When your ranks in Bluff reach 8, and every 4 ranks thereafter, the bonus increases by +1, to a maximum of +6 at 20 ranks in Bluff.
Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action, and feinting an opponent causes them to lose their dexterity bonus to AC.
"In addition, your opponent loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack."
What bonus? I assume you mean dex bonus to AC, but it could be written more clearly.
Greater Feint: "Your opponent is still considered flat-footed for the purposes of..."
Whoah there, Nellie! Feinting makes a foe lose their dex bonus to AC. It does not make them flatfooted. Flatfooted is a specific condition that causes loss of dex to AC, but they are not equivalent things. If this feat makes feinting cause the flatfooted condition... it could actually be seen as a nerf. Uncanny Dodge (and possibly other things, like the Foresight spell) give blanket immunity to the flatfooted condition with no way to counter said defense. "Lose dex to AC" is a much more generic effect and nearly impossible to gain an immunity to -- I don't know of any way. So it's actually better NOT making them flatfooted.
Of course, if you were to import the Iaijutsu Focus skill (which works only on flatfooted foes, not on ones who have merely lost dex to AC) from 3E, things might look different. :)
Feint isn't that terrible, you lose dexterity bonus but also dodge bonus, meaning expertise and defensive fighting is negated as well as feats like dodge and mobility. Last encounter I ran greater feint caused a lot of damage to a horned devil engaging the party (they are level 13) called by a diabolist.
In any case your first attack is generally the best, the other attacks matter much less, it does not play nice with TWF, natural attacks or haste though vital strike and maneuvers might work well.
I would middle-ground this:
No change to Improved Feint.
No change to Greater Feint.
Add a Quick Feint feat with a BAB requirement of +3 or +4 which also requires Improved Feint. This feat can be used in two different ways:
1. You give up your first attack in a full round attack to make a feint attempt. Bluff check as normal. You may then continue with your full attack action and your foe is denied his DEX against any attacks you make this round if your bluff check succeeded.
2. You can attempt a feint action at the end of any normal move action as long as you move more than 5'. This feint is considered part of your move action much like the melee attack is considered part of a Charge action. Bluff check as normal. If successful, your foe loses his DEX modifier against your next attack as long as you make that attack during the same round.
This way there is still a little give and take. In the first case, a full round attack loses one attack to get a quick feint. In the second case the attacker is moving and therefore only gets one attack, but this feat allows him to move, feint, and attack all in the same round.
How about making Feinting a Combat maneuver?
Feint: You can attempt to feint your opponent in place of a melee attack. You may add any ranks you have in the Bluff skill to your CMB for this maneuver; likewise, your target adds any ranks he has in the Sense Motive skill to his CMD. If your attempt to feint fails, you provoke an attack of opportunity from your target unless you possess the Improved Feint feat.
When you succeed at a feint combat maneuver, you immediately gain a free melee attack against the target of your feint. The target loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) against this free attack and for every 5 by which your combat maneuver check exceeds the target's CMD, you gain a +1 bonus to this attack roll. This free attack suffers a -5 penalty for each previous attack you've made this round (regardless of who or what you targeted), but not counting successful feint attempts.
We could then change Improved and Greater Feint to be:
Improved Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at fooling your opponents in combat.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, 1 rank in the Bluff Skill
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity if you fail the combat maneuver check to feint an opponent. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to feint a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to feint you.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity from your target if your combat maneuver check fails when attempting a feint combat maneuver.Greater Feint (Combat)
You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, 6 ranks in the Bluff Skill
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to feint a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Feint. When you successfully feint an enemy, he loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and you gain a +1 bonus to melee attack rolls against him for every 5 by which your combat maneuver check exceeds his CMD until the beginning of your next turn.
Normal: Only during the free attack granted by a successful feint does your foe lose his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and you gain a +1 bonus to melee attack rolls against him for every 5 by which your combat maneuver check exceeds his CMD.
Is this too complicated? Over powered?
No. Combat maneuvers are only viable for fighters, polymorph builds, strength bonus stackers, and Tetori or possibly maneuver master monks, none of which benefit from feint.
Even with adding Bluff ranks to CMB? What if it were your entire bluff skill bonus?
Personally I think that feint should cause a flanked condition rather than a loss of dexterity, if you actually flank increase the bonus to +4.
If you gives rogues a +1 to hit for every 4 levels when flanking it makes them much more viable in combat.
There is already two weapon feint and improved two weapon feint which I am happy with, though I would delete the improved two-weapon fighting feat requirement from the latter (it makes sense to take it, but shouldn't be required).
Rogues fixed, feint fixed, all good.
EDIT: I would still like it if rogues could do this stuff with a single weapon in one hand, feinting as a swift or move action if you do not wield anything in your off-hand that round. Might be a feat with prerequisite weapon finesse.
Thanks for all the great suggestions!
AnnoyingOrange yeah, the issue of losing all those bonuses is part of the problem I mentioned in my original post. It bugs me that it's very effective against a few enemies and not effective at all against others. I hadn't considered feinting granting a flank or improved flank bonus, that's a really interesting idea. It brings in some of the same issues as flat-footed mentioned by StreamOfTheSky, but since Uncanny Dodge specifically states that a character with Uncanny Dodge can still lose their dex bonus to AC due to feint, saying that feinting still grants a +2 flanking bonus isn't too much of a stretch. I still like the idea of the feat itself granting a scaling bonus, but I'm a sucker for scaling feats.
DM_Blake Interesting idea, I'd still change the prereqs of all the feint feats to Bluff instead of BAB, but I like allowing Feint as an option before an attack without making it a swift action option. Honestly, I've always felt like the Feint option took too many feats for too little return, so I'd be tempted to fold your suggestion in with Improved Feint or Greater Feint.
Honorable Goblin I have a few issues with combat maneuvers anyway, but I've considered using Feint as a combat maneuver before, especially since it's the only option in that section of the book that ISN'T a combat maneuver. Using the normal Feint rules and saying that the DC is the target's CMD makes sense, in a way. For instance, it ought to be harder to feint against something so big that it's watching you dance around its feet like a little monkey. The biggest problem, to me, is that Feint is different enough that most of the CM mechanics don't really apply. For instance, how does Strength apply to feinting? If I was going to do it as a CM, I think I would use something like what you've suggested, but say that you make a Bluff check as normal vs CMD and the opponent can use their Sense Motive bonus instead of their BAB+str+dex if they choose.
So far, I really like the idea of the Quick Feint feat and Feint granting a flanking bonus instead of opponents losing their dex. Really enjoying this discussion! :)
Quick Feint
requirement : Improved Feint, Combat Expertise, Bluff 3 ranks
You can feint as a swift action but all your attacks get a -2 penalty on attacks until the start of your next turn.
* considering feint gives a flanking bonus, this will effectively eliminate the penalty but still allows a rogue to sneak attack provided the check succeeds, it is also possible to move and feint for a sneak attack.
|
I like the idea of feinting one opponent, but at higher levels of feat chaining, providing the benefit to your allies as well; first you only feat to get your own sneak attacks in, but at Greater, you can distract/confuse an enemy so that the martials have an easier time as well. What about...
Feint (move action, available to everyone)
Roll Bluff against the best of your opponent's [Sense Motive +10], [HD + Wisdom Modifier + 10]; on success you gain the benefits of feint on the next attack made against that enemy before the end of your next turn.
Benefits of Feint: +2 to hit (stacks with flank, not with feint), and the attack can be a sneak attack.
Uncanny Dodge protects against feinting in the same way it protects against flanking. Creatures immune to flanking are also immune to feinting.
The target of the feint must be within your reach. Feinting does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Improved Feint
Requires: Bluff 1 rank, (Combat Expertise?)
You can make a feint as a swift action instead of as a move action. If you feint as a Move action the benefits apply to ALL attacks you make on the target until the end of your next turn.
Greater Feint
Requires: Improved Feint, Bluff 6 ranks.
You can feint as a swift action or as a move action, and the benefits apply to all attacks you make against that enemy until the end of your next turn.
Cooperative Feint (teamwork feat)
Requires: Improved Feint, Bluff 4 ranks.
Allies with Cooperative Feint benefit from your succesful feints. If your feint applies to only the first attack made, then only the first attack made by you or an ally gains the benefit.
AnnoyingOrange I'm trying to make an option that's attractive to more fighting styles than just the rogue, so giving the swift action version a penalty that makes it so the feat is good for nothing other than sneak attack goes against what I'm looking for. Perhaps a penalty if the Bluff check fails? That makes it a bit of a gamble, which I'm ok with, but keeps it a somewhat viable option for other classes.
Ascalphus Do you mean that Improved Feint allows a "regular" (move action) feint to function as Greater Feint(Core)? As written your feat makes it seem like the opponent only loses their dex bonus against you for the rest of the round, which is nigh useless if you just spent a move action to feint. So your Improved Feint lets you feint as a swift action OR gain the benefit of the core Greater Feint, and your Greater Feint lets you feint as a swift action AND gain the benefit of core Greater Feint, and Cooperative Feint lets you do a swift feint using Improved Feint but all your allies act like you had Greater Feint.
There has to be a simpler way of writing that, but I think I get what you mean. Interesting, but I don't know if the whole party will be interested in dropping a feat to get the benefits of a feat that they could wait for two levels and get.
AnnoyingOrange I'm trying to make an option that's attractive to more fighting styles than just the rogue, so giving the swift action version a penalty that makes it so the feat is good for nothing other than sneak attack goes against what I'm looking for. Perhaps a penalty if the Bluff check fails? That makes it a bit of a gamble, which I'm ok with, but keeps it a somewhat viable option for other classes.
Ascalphus Do you mean that Improved Feint allows a "regular" (move action) feint to function as Greater Feint(Core)? As written your feat makes it seem like the opponent only loses their dex bonus against you for the rest of the round, which is nigh useless if you just spent a move action to feint. So your Improved Feint lets you feint as a swift action OR gain the benefit of the core Greater Feint, and your Greater Feint lets you feint as a swift action AND gain the benefit of core Greater Feint, and Cooperative Feint lets you do a swift feint using Improved Feint but all your allies act like you had Greater Feint.
There has to be a simpler way of writing that, but I think I get what you mean. Interesting, but I don't know if the whole party will be interested in dropping a feat to get the benefits of a feat that they could wait for two levels and get.
Very true, a -2 penalty on AC for 1 round if you fail to feint seems fair.
So, using the flanking bonus:
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 gains a +2 flanking bonus to attack. This bonus increases by +1 when you have 8 ranks in Bluff, and by an additional +1 per four ranks after that, to a maximum of +6 at 20 ranks in Bluff. The opponent is considered flanked for the purposes of feats and abilities. This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
Improved Feint
Requires: Combat Expertise, 1 rank in Bluff
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action.
Quick Feint
Requires: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, 3 ranks in Bluff
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a swift action. If the Bluff check fails, you take a -2 penalty to AC until the start of your next turn.
Greater Feint
Requires: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, 6 ranks in Bluff
Benefit: Whenever you use feint to gain a flanking bonus against an opponent, anyone who attacks that opponent until the start of your next turn receives the flanking bonus as well.
If you didn't like the flanking bonus, then perhaps only adopt the change that feinting prerequisites are based on Bluff, and add the Quick Feint feat with the alteration that instead of taking a -2 penalty to AC, you lose your Dex bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack.
This means that any character with 6 ranks in Bluff can feint as a swift action by level 7, level 6 if it's a fighter. Using the Two-Weapon Feint feats, a two-weapon fighting character can feint as part of a full attack by level 9, or level 6 if it's a fighter. I'm still thinking about DM_Blake's suggestion for the Quick Feint feat, mainly because I know there are lots of other things that take up swift actions. Would a free action be too much? Quick Feint does have a penalty for failure . . . Maybe if the penalty for failure was equal to the flanking bonus you would get, so that the penalty scales as well . . .
Thoughts?
Whoops, yeah, NOT a free action. Thanks for catching that. Making it part of the attack is a much better idea. For some reason I was thinking that making it part of the attack action was synonymous with "free action". Derp.
|
|
Ascalphus Do you mean that Improved Feint allows a "regular" (move action) feint to function as Greater Feint(Core)? As written your feat makes it seem like the opponent only loses their dex bonus against you for the rest of the round, which is nigh useless if you just spent a move action to feint. So your Improved Feint lets you feint as a swift action OR gain the benefit of the core Greater Feint, and your Greater Feint lets you feint as a swift action AND gain the benefit of core Greater Feint, and Cooperative Feint lets you do a swift feint using Improved Feint but all your allies act like you had Greater Feint.
There has to be a simpler way of writing that, but I think I get what you mean. Interesting, but I don't know if the whole party will be interested in dropping a feat to get the benefits of a feat that they could wait for two levels and get.
There's no loss of dexterity anywhere in my version - it's a +2 to hit bonus that follows the same rules as flanking (same critters immune, Uncanny Dodge etc.), so that feinting is also worth trying on dragons.
But you're right that taking the feat chain to get to the Cooperative, will be rather expensive for other classes. Maybe teamwork feats aren't the way to go here.
|
|
I'll give it another shot...
Feint (move action)
Feinting doesn't provoke and you must threaten the target in melee.
Check Bluff against opponent's Sense Motive +10 or HD+WisMod +10, whichever is higher. On a success:
+2 Flanking Bonus and opportunity to Sneak Attack, on the next attack you make on the target, until the end of your next turn.
Feinting is worth it as a move action for a rogue who can't get around the enemy, or for a fighter really desperate for a +2 to hit. It doesn't stack with flanking, so flanking is a little nicer if you can get it.
Improved Feint (feat)
Requires: Bluff 1 rank, (something else? not this bedeviled Combat Expertise, I hope?)
You can make a feint as a swift action instead of as a move action.
You can feint as a Move action to provide the benefits of the Feint to all your allies, against this one enemy. (Unless you have Greater Feint, each of them can make only one enhanced attack, and must do so before the end of your next turn.)
This may seem powerful, but basically you can burn a move action to provide flanking through other means to your party. Useful but since it doesn't stack with flanking, not absurdly so. It's kind of an enhanced Aid Another.
The other part, feinting as a swift action, is particularly useful to rogues that move, then feint, then attack. This enables more mobile combat for rogues, and that's good.
Greater Feint
Requires: Bluff 6 ranks, Improved Feint
When you feint, the benefit applies to all attacks made against the target until the end of your next turn. (If you did it as a swift action, only your attacks are enhanced; if you did it as a move action, your allies are also enhanced.)
This is big; once every two rounds the rogue feints the enemy to let everyone flank that enemy. It's big and efficient, but rogues have lots of abilities that eat swift actions so if it costs much more it gets much less useful, and we want feinting to be relevant.
kyrt-ryder interesting idea, sorry I didn't mention this before but it only just occurred to me: how does your view of feint work with Greater Feint? Would you take Improved Feint to get a chance to feint every attack, and then take Greater Feint to . . . Well, as written, Greater Feint would make it so you only have to make one feint with your first attack, and then everyone benefits for the whole round. Unless you had a different idea for how it would work?
Ascalaphus for some reason your feats made me think of the Group Fake-Out skill trick from 3.5. Not similar at all, but yeah. I don't like the team feint ability with Improved Feint for some reason . . . Can't put my finger on it. But I like the idea of the team feint still being a move action with Greater. It creates choice, which I think is always good.
kyrt-ryder I'm slightly confused. You're suggesting that we have only one feint-oriented feat, and that it allows feinting for the entire party as a swift action for the entire round?
Interesting. My knee-jerk reaction is that feint starting as a swift action, with no feat requirements at all, is too much. If I was going to do it, though, I'd withhold improved/lasting feint until BAB or Bluff +6, because if it's available at level 1 then I can think of a handful of low-CR magical beasts that would be VERY interested in feinting with all of their natural attacks.
Alright, here's what I'm going to go with for testing
Feint
Feinting is a move 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 gains a +2 feint bonus to attack. This bonus increases by +1 when you have 8 ranks in Bluff, and by an additional +1 per four ranks after that, to a maximum of +6 at 20 ranks in Bluff. The opponent is considered to have lost their dexterity bonus to AC for the purposes of feats and abilities. This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
Improved Feint
Requires: 1 rank in Bluff
Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a swift action.
Greater Feint
Requires: Improved Feint, 6 ranks in Bluff
Benefit: Whenever you use feint to gain a feint bonus against an opponent, you gain that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to gaining that bonus on your next attack. Alternately, if you feint as a move action, all allies gain your feint bonus against that opponent until the start of your next turn.
Thanks for the suggestions! I'll test this out and see how it goes :)
Personally the only issue I have is that with no feats it requires a standard action. I am never a fan of combat options that supposedly anyone can attempt, but without a feat investment you lose too much for it to every be viable (hence why combat maneuvers only provoke on failed rolls at my table, for instance).
I say, make Feint by default a move action, swift with the feat. I don't see an issue with feint not making your strikes more accurate against low dex, high armor opponents because, thinking about it realistically, if their body is covered in steel/thick scales throwing them off guard isn't going to make it any easier to get past, only their active defense (dodging, parrying blows), represented by the Dex bonus, would be affected.
I've considered what you're saying about armored opponents not being as susceptible to being caught off-guard, but I think that's open to interpretation. With my scaling-bonus feint, feinting against an armored/naturally armored opponent means they leave themselves open for me to slip my blade between their scales/plates. Either interpretation can work, I just happen to like mine.
I disagree with making the Bluff skill the requirement for Feint feats.
1. This penalizes the 2 skill point per level classes. Why should, for example, a rogue be better at using a weapon (qualifying for this feat) than a trained fighter? Or more oddly, a wizard (yes, only 2 skill points but way more INT bonus) be able to qualify for this feat more easily than a trained fighter?
2. Anyone who wants to use Feint will absolutely positively put ranks into the skill so it's not really a requirement at all - it's like giving it away for free.
3. By leaving it as a BAB requirement as written in the CRB, you make these feats available to anyone with COMBAT training/experience, not just to those who have the luxury of spending surplus skill points for it.
|
|
I like the Bluff requirement precisely for those reasons. Feinting is for rogues most of all; it's a way to get in sneak attacks without a flanking partner ("going rogue"!).
Not every fighting skill should belong to fighters most of all. It's not spectacularly useful to them anyway.
I wouldn't worry about feinting wizards; that would require them to be threatening enemies in melee. I don't think they want that.
If it required BAB +6 then it would be available to rogues at level 8 at the earliest. Bluff 6 is sooner than that, and rogues are (in my mind) the prime target audience.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Feint is not a terrible option. I think it works perfectly fine as is. The problem is that if is made any more powerful, then it is overpowered. At low level on its own, it is not close to being over powered, but when combined with the brilliant energy weapon special ability, it becomes awesome versus any creature without natural armor. And that is just one weapon ability. I have used Feint to great effect with spell-casters reliant on touch attacks. Also remember, there is no rule (that I know of) saying you have to be adjacent to the target of your Feint, so archers and ranged spells could be used as well.
If Feint could be used for more than one attack, the rogue replaces the fighter as a front line combatant.
The skill is already reliant on Bluff so adding it as a requirement is overkill.
So far the only sensible suggestion I have seen in this thread is the ability to grant the bonus to another PC. But I am sure there are prolly dozens of ways that could be easily broken as well.
EDIT I like that idea about granting someone else the bonus. If that mechanic is in from the beginning, Greater Feint makes a little more sense. Though some people might say that that trods on the toes of Aid Another. We'll see.
So requiring Dex 17 for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting is like giving it away for free, because obviously anyone using TWF will have a high Dex. It's synergistic, not free. I do, however, agree with you that it punishes low-skill classes like the fighter, who should have it as an option as well. I'd be more interested in making it an "or" option, as in,
Prerequisites: Improved Feint, 6 ranks in Bluff or BAB +6
I think that clears up your issue nicely, though if a fighter doesn't have the ranks to put points into Bluff to feint effectively than why is he whining about the requirements?
I hadn't thought about Brilliant Energy Weapons, but I'm not overly concerned about them, either. If they come up in one of my games, I'll deal with it. Only a truly inflexible DM lets magic item properties break his game.
As for casters and ranged characters, this text from the pfsrd:
If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
It works alright if you're standing next to an enemy and using a melee touch spell, but it does nothing at all for ranged attackers and ranged spells. So normally you could be standing next to an opponent, feint against them, cast your spell (either provoking an AoO or casting defensively), and deliver your touch. With mine, you can move first. I've got a magus in my home game, we'll see how broken it gets for him.
I think it's important to remind everyone that these are house rules. I'm not suggesting these become the new standard for everyone, I just think they'd more closely mirror my view of combat, and therefore be suitable for my games. House rules almost always start wonky, which is why I'm asking for suggestions, but please don't jump in and tell me I'm wrong for trying. Thanks.
|
|
The whole brilliant energy thing is much less acute if feinting gives a flanking bonus instead of negating dexterity bonus. Since it's a flanking bonus, it also won't stack with actual flanking; it's more for "repairing" missed flanking opportunities. Such as an opponent guarding a narrow tunnel or a rogue doing a solo assassination mission.
It's mostly powerful when compared to the feat that does a similar thing. Broken Wing Gambit Why have everyone take that feat when you can just have the rogue take a talent that's better? Yeah, it's a bit much.