|
And this is exactly my argument Elbedor. If I had written:
"The benefit (and point) of Greater Feint is that you deny the target it's Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) not only for your next attack but for any other attacks anyone makes until the start of your next turn."
You would have no problem with this wording. But you are also reading in to the wording to suit your interpretation. Those words (in bold) are nowhere to be found in the Feat description, the Feat rules, the PRD or the CRB. So where are you finding these words? Why is your assumption any more valid than mine or someone else's who reads in yet some other meaning?
I stated in a previous post the common assumptions for the Greater Feint feat. Because of the vagueness of the feat text each assumption is as valid as the other. Until we get a FAQ, neither are right or wrong.
2. "Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus (to everything), he loses that bonus (to any attacker) until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus (to everything) against your next (any type) attack."
3. "Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus (to AC), he loses that bonus (to your attacks) until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus (to AC) against your next (melee) attack."
|
Demoralize
You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. This shaken condition doesn’t stack with other shaken conditions to make an affected creature frightened. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier.
Success: If you are successful, the target is shaken for one round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent this way if it is within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.
Fail: The opponent is not shaken.
Greater Trip (Combat)
You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.
Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.
Normal: Creatures do not provoke attacks of opportunity from being tripped.
Startling Shot (Ex): At 7th level, a gunslinger with least 1 grit point can spend a standard action to purposely miss a creature that she could normally hit with a firearm attack. When she does, that creature becomes flat-footed until the start of its next turn.
Satire (Su): A court bard can use performance to undermine the confidence of enemies who hear it, causing them to take a –1 penalty on attack and damage rolls (minimum 1) and a –1 penalty on saves against fear and charm effects as long as the bard continues performing. This penalty increases by –1 at 5th level and every six levels thereafter. Satire is a language-dependent, mind-affecting ability that uses audible components.
Slow Reactions (Ex)
Benefit: Opponents damaged by the rogue's sneak attack can't make attacks of opportunity for 1 round.
Power Attack (Combat)
You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.
Need I go on? I could go on. There is lots more out there. Lots and lots more. I haven't gotten into spells like Bane or hold person, or bungle, or misfortune, etc.
I'd like to further point out with greater trip its wording esspecially
|
|
Demoralize causes the Shaken condition. Refer to the Shaken rules. How does this apply to more than one person?
Greater Trip causes the Prone condition. Refer to the Prone rules for how it specifically applies.
Startling Shot causes the Flat-Footed condition. Refer to the Flat-Footed rules for how it specifically applies.
Satire specifically states in the text that "A court bard can use performance to undermine the confidence of enemies who hear it" The text expressly states it applies to multiple targets.
Slow Reactions states and opponent cannot make AoOs for 1 round. Sounds specific to me.
Power Attack? What is your point with Power Attack?
|
|
You.. kinda don't understand what I'm saying.
If you take a -2 to attack rolls, you take a -2 to attack rolls against EVERYONE. Unless, like Befuddling Strike specifically states
Befuddling Strike (Ex)
Benefit: When the rogue deals sneak attack damage against an opponent, that opponent takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls against the rogue for 1d4 rounds.
Greater Trip does two things. Causes the Prone Condition, which applies a penalty to AC, but thats not the reason I pointed it out. It also causes the enemy to provoke an Attack of Opportunity.
When you take a penalty its applied to everyone. Not like if you get shaken, everyone get shaken, but you suffer those penalties to attack rolls regardless of you are trying to attack.
Slow reactions does not specifically call out that you cannot Make AoO against the rogue. But rather, you flat out cannot make AoO.
In fact.. noticing things more Buffs also act the same way unless specifically stated they do not. For example, 3.5 dodge vs Pathfinder Dodge. In 3.5 you specifically had to set it to an opponent. In Pathfinder its just flat out +1 dodge.
Its also a matter of reading comprehension as well.
If you go to the store to get candy, get eggs, in addition to the candy for your next party.
As per the reading where The "in addition" for greater feint, this would mean that the eggs are candy for the next party.
Why is your assumption any more valid than mine or someone else's who reads in yet some other meaning?
Not meaning to make anyone feel like they're being ganged up on, here. So apologizes if that seems to be the intent or effect. I'm just here to discuss and ponder the rules...which ironically is not my greatest desire, since I'm generally drawn more to Rule-light, High-roleplay games.
Anyway, "More valid" is an interesting choice of words. Obviously one interpretation of these rules is "more valid" than another since both interpretations can't be right. One is right and the other is wrong. So one is "valid" while the other is "invalid" (unless both are invalid). But you're asking why I think mine is valid and yours is not.
The point, I think, is that language in the game is used to specify conditions.
"Against this attack"
"enemies who hear it"
"in a 20ft radius spread"
Without this language, the effect can assume to be generally applied. A good example of this is the Stunned Condition.
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). (Bold, mine)
The condition doesn't state who he loses his Dex bonus against. It is assumed to be against anyone who attacks him. If the rules meant for a Stunned character to lose his Dex bonus against the stunning attacker only, it would specifically say so, just like it does with Befuddling Strike, Shatter Defenses, and other effects.
As Espy has pointed out, this is the case throughout the books. Inclusive language is there to spell out specifics where needed. In the absence of specification or obvious application (see Two-weapon Rend), general application can be assumed.
Therefore, Greater Feint doesn't need to add "to any attacker". The absence of "to your attacks only" is enough.
Are you saying that Greater Trip allows everyone who threatens to take an AoO from the trip?
...and yes, if Player A, B, and C threaten Target and A Greater Trips Target, then A, B, and C all get AoOs against the Target.
Do'h! Ninja'ed by Espy
|
|
Have you read the FAQ?
Greater Trip: How does this interact with Vicious Stomp (APG)? Do you get two AOOs or just one?
Using these feats together provokes two AOOs, because the two AOO-triggering acts are similar, but different.
Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe. Vicious Stomp gives you an AOO occurs when a foe falls prone.
Bolded for clarity.
|
|
Oh yes, I've read the FAQ. Have you?
Do you notice a specific lacking of the words "When you use Greater trip.."
Or for that matter Read the question? The question wasn't "Does all your allies get an Attack of Opportunity" But rather a specific question of If greater trip happens, and you have vicious stomp, do you get two AoOs or just one.
|
|
So in answer to your question/challenge
Actually its more than just reading into it Midnighter.
Show me one feat/ability/spell where someone takes a penalty and it is not expressly stated that it only applies to you, but it does.
Penalties are universal unless otherwise stated.
Penalties stack unless otherwise stated.
The rules for Greater Trip do not expressly state that the AoO applies only to the tripper but according to the FAQ it does apply only to the tripper.
|
|
Oh yes, I've read the FAQ. Have you?
Do you notice a specific lacking of the words "When you use Greater trip.."
Or for that matter Read the question? The question wasn't "Does all your allies get an Attack of Opportunity" But rather a specific question of If greater trip happens, and you have vicious stomp, do you get two AoOs or just one.
Huh what?
The FAQ states specifically "Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe." I do not know how much more clearly it can be written. At this point Espy I think you are just trolling.
Have you read the FAQ?
Greater Trip: How does this interact with Vicious Stomp (APG)? Do you get two AOOs or just one?
Using these feats together provokes two AOOs, because the two AOO-triggering acts are similar, but different.
Greater Trip gives you an AOO when you trip a foe. Vicious Stomp gives you an AOO occurs when a foe falls prone.Bolded for clarity.
You have not bolded for clarity, you have bolded to mislead here (intentionally or not).
Question: Do YOU get two AoO's...
Answer: X gives YOU an AoO...
It is not saying that only you get an AoO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so now we're on to discussing Greater Trip in addition to Greater Feint? Oh the humanity! Where does it end? :P
For the record, yes Greater Trip provokes "attackS of opportunity." Meaning multiple ones. And since you can't dish out more than one per event, the "multiple" applies to anyone else within melee who is threatening.
The FAQ in question was discussing a specific issue concerning the generation of multiple AoO's for yourself with specific feats and wasn't touching on the topic of does Greater Trip generate AoO's for everyone threatening.
|
|
Ok, so now we're on to discussing Greater Trip in addition to Greater Feint? Oh the humanity! Where does it end? :P
For the record, yes Greater Trip provokes "attackS of opportunity." Meaning multiple ones. And since you can't dish out more than one per event, the "multiple" applies to anyone else within melee who is threatening.
The FAQ in question was discussing a specific issue concerning the generation of multiple AoO's for yourself with specific feats and wasn't touching on the topic of does Greater Trip generate AoO's for everyone threatening.
Well, Greater Trip has similar lack of 'everyone' as does greater feint when dealing with the disability crated from using the feat. While normally when 'everyone' is able to take advantage of a disability they don't specify.
Even though when feats and abilities specific that 'not everyone' is able to take advantage to a disability.
Like Befuddling Blades (Only rouge) vs something like Bane (Unspecified, so it must mean only the cast of the spell).
Just use your brains and do the math. Check how it impacts CR appropriate encounters. Sometimes it won't offer much to the hulking creatures with low dex. More often than not it makes a CR appropriate encounter a joke and would in turn make it the most valuable feat in the game.
The investment required for Greater Feint (three feats, one probably the most complained about entry feat), plus many many ranks in Bluff makes it a very reasonable value. STRONG - but not too strong.
As for the Pit Fiend? At DC 43 to feint, he doesn't have all that much to worry about if someone's going to walk up to him for that. It's a DC 23 Will save to even get that close (which probably is a mistake, I think it should be DC 28).
|
What builds would those be? Could you give some example?
I'll add some restriction on the builds. Since greater feint was CRB you can only make a build using that book. Why do you ask? Because it was introduced in the CRB one year before any other books came out.
So what builds could make good use of greater feint with those restrictions.
|
|
Allowing the interpretation of Greater Feint that works for EVERY party member breaks the feat. It becomes too powerful of a tool in that it can reduce a creatures AC drastically. I pointed out in the other thread about the CR 20 pit fiend that would become AC 29 and a joke to hit for anyone beyond the 1/2 BAB classes and even then they usually target touch AC with attacks and make that same pit fiend a Touch AC of 9. So the +10BAB wizard fails on a critical miss only.
Just use your brains and do the math. Check how it impacts CR appropriate encounters. Sometimes it won't offer much to the hulking creatures with low dex. More often than not it makes a CR appropriate encounter a joke and would in turn make it the most valuable feat in the game.
20 ranks + 3 class + 6 feat(10 with 2 feats) + 1 trait + 3 circlet of persuasion (or +5 competence item) = 33(39) [Half elf favored trait gives another +10 and now you don't have to roll at all]
And again, I'll point out Startling Shot and Superior Feint. Ya know, the things that Gunslingers and Swashbucklers get. Sure they are not the feint manuver. But then again, they are not..
1) Spending 3 Feats on getting Combat Expertise, imp Feint, and Superior feint.
2) Spending another 1 or 2 feats to gain a +6/+10 on bluff checks.
3) Spending a trait on improving your feint.
4) Being Restricted to playing a Rogue that has to get up to level 10 in order to get Skill mastery and then spending a talent to get said talent
5) being restricted to being a Half elf to get the favored trait.
6) Spending a rather large sum of money just to get items to improve your feint Check
7) Spending 20 skill points to buff up your bluff even further.
No. You don't even spend a grit/panche point. You just simply make an attack roll you purposefully miss.
OF course, that is just too powerful. Bad mundane characters. Bad.
Really. I consider Combat Expertise to be a handy little Feat for a Flanking Rogue. At level 6, the -2 to Hit is nullified by the +2 for Flanking... but the additional +2 to Armor Class can help keep the Rogue alive. And if the Rogue has Offensive Defense, then once a sneak attack succeeds it's an additional +3 to Armor Class as of level 6, so you've a Rogue who's managed a +5 to Armor while sneak attacking a foe.
I think there's another Feat that can boost the armor class bonus further, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. But it's definitely no worse than 3rd edition Power Attack (and in many ways is better than it).
A feat is only as useless as you let it be. Some people have demonstrated builds that can make effective use of Greater Feint. Of course, the same build can be done with Improved Two-Weapon Feint, while also allowing a Rogue to get multiple Sneak Attacks without relying on theoretical Attacks of Opportunity, but that doesn't negate the fact that GF can be made to not be completely full of suck. (Only partially.)
Really. I consider Combat Expertise to be a handy little Feat for a Flanking Rogue. At level 6, the -2 to Hit is nullified by the +2 for Flanking... but the additional +2 to Armor Class can help keep the Rogue alive. And if the Rogue has Offensive Defense, then once a sneak attack succeeds it's an additional +3 to Armor Class as of level 6, so you've a Rogue who's managed a +5 to Armor while sneak attacking a foe.
As an aside, I pretty regularly take the Threatening Defender trait if I'm planning on a build that requires Combat Expertise.
If you do a search on these forum for greater feint, you will find that back in 2009 when the CRB came out the same questions were asked and most people who responded to the question said that the dex loss to AC was to all opponents in melee range.
Which has been my point all along. All I can do at this point is repeat myself, since I don't know any other way of saying it. If rules are being applied to specific instances, those instances are spelled out. In the absence of these specific instances, the application can assume to be universal in nature. I and others have given numerous examples of this.
In the case of Greater Feint (and Greater Trip), the rules do not have these specific instances. There is no mention of "just to your attacks" or whatnot. The application is universal. That is RAW anyway. If the designers intended otherwise, then they have written the rules wrong. But considering the time and development of the CRB, its errata and FAQs, I believe the rules for these Feats stand as they are.
As an interesting point, once someone says "Well it HAS to work this way because otherwise it would be too powerful or too weak" (something I've been guilty of on here as well), they are interjecting their opinions and departing from anything the RAW may be telling us. So for that I apologize for my part in it and go back to looking just at RAW regardless of where it leads me.
If you wish to convince me that Greater Feint (Trip) do not work the way I've stated here, then please provide me with evidence and examples of how these rule specifically apply their effects (i.e. "against the rogue/fighter/attacker" as opposed to universal application). Example below:
Befuddling Strike** (Ex): When the rogue deals sneak attack damage against an opponent, that opponent takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls against the rogue for 1d4 rounds.
(Bold, mine)
As opposed to this example of universal application:
Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).
(which ironically is pretty much the same wording that Greater Feint gives us...coincidence?) ;)
|
If you do a search on these forum for greater feint, you will find that back in 2009 when the CRB came out the same questions were asked and most people who responded to the question said that the dex loss to AC was to all opponents in melee range.Which has been my point all along. All I can do at this point is repeat myself, since I don't know any other way of saying it. If rules are being applied to specific instances, those instances are spelled out. In the absence of these specific instances, the application can assume to be universal in nature. I and others have given numerous examples of this.
In the case of Greater Feint (and Greater Trip), the rules do not have these specific instances. There is no mention of "just to your attacks" or whatnot. The application is universal. That is RAW anyway. If the designers intended otherwise, then they have written the rules wrong.
I understand your rationale, but you are missing one key point--this feat isn't an action that is separate from everything else in the game--it modifies the feint action in combat, which only affect the rogue. That wording is explicit. This issue was described in excellent detail in another related topic a few days ago on this forum--which eloquently described how the feint feats are not a selectable action like power attack but instead modify what happens when the feint action is taken and follows the other rules of feinting. I refer you back to my earlier post in this thread which tears apart the language of the feat:
And since James Jacobs weighed in on the matter, this portion of the discussion is, in my eyes, sealed.
What's the counter-argument?
--That the language of the one feat is slightly ambiguous?
By the same token, one could argue that this feat does not incur any penalties to female enemies, because the feat specifically says "he." But, we know better.
--That James Jacobs isn't THE rules developer?
No, he isn't, but he is the one developer who takes his precious time to try to answer everyone's questions, including the rules. He has a famous Ask James Jacobs thread you are sure to be familiar with. In my opinion, to go against what a developer has explicitly stated is true when the justification is essentially slightly ambiguous wording for a single feat that could have easily been caused by terseness due to word count restrictions is self-serving and trollworthy at worst and a difference of personal opinion at best.
I'm afraid that some of the posters have taken this conversation to a personal level--I hope people can keep it civil just because they disagree over a feat.
In case people aren't aware that JJ weighed in on this issue this week, here are his comments with links:
...All Greater Feint does is extend the duration of the bonus you get against a target with your melee attacks.
...Likewise, Feint only affects attacks you make against the feinted creature—YOU tricked him, not everyone. Greater Feint makes no mention of "all creatures treat him as flat-footed" or the like, so it works the same as a normal feint. ALL Greater Feint does is extend the duration of the feint maneuver. For you, the one who made that maneuver...
|
|
...Beyond that, and beyond my interpretation, I suppose you'll need to take the question over to the rules forum.
You cut off this part of the quote.
Sooo.. then, when the gunslinger uses Startling Shot (Or possibly in the future the Swashbucklers Superior Feint) is only giving you the bonus of them being flat footed.Good question...
...for the rules team!
But yes, I would say exactly that. Ranged attacks have always been more difficult to link to sneak attacks, which is unfortunate since that makes a sniper a really kinda difficult class to pull off in Pathfinder.
And there is that one too.
He has explicitly stated several times in this issue that its not his bag, Yes he is the lead developer. A lead developer who has said "Go to team that actually are more into the rules."
All he did was just give a quick interpretation of what he thinks the rules are. Hence the statement "Beyond my interpretation." and then said to take this to the rules forum, and ask the rules team. Now we just need to wait for the rules team
@Arliss Drakken: I'm aware that JJ weighed in on the issue. I also respect JJ's opinion. But I also disagree that his word ends the matter. There have been several cases (I'll provide some examples later if desired) where JJ's personal opinion of a game mechanic turned out to be wrong.
I think his opinion is a good thing to keep in mind, as he's very knowledgeable on the rules. At the same time, I think that his opinion is only as valid as any other GM - i.e., it's official at his table, but it's not equivalent to an official FAQ or errata. As Espy points out, in the very thread you quote he said that the best course of action in this case is to go ask on the rules forum.
While I appreciate your breakdown of the feat earlier in the thread, I also don't wholly agree that the language is as clear and unambiguous as you would paint it; if nothing else, the repetition and disparity of interpretation is a pretty clear indicator (to me) that it's not anywhere near as clear as you presume.
The matter is 'clear' in the sense that the interpretation of the Bible is clear (and since there are over a thousand major denominations of Christianity...).
Nor do I think it's fair to call it 'trolling' to ask for an official FAQ; this is a frequently asked question (do a search and you'll come up with at least a dozen threads on the topic) and there appears to be roughly equal support for both interpretations.
Xarathures started a thread about this greater feint question back in july and it netted over 30 faq flags and we still havent gotten a faq.
The flag also says its been answered in the faq......
Anyone see this answer any where?
Nope. I searched the whole bloody thing.
@Jacob Saltband: Nope, no actual FAQ answer. It's possible that it was 'marked' before they had other options (like "No response required" or "Question unclear").
It's possible that it was a "No response required". Not the first time one of my FAQ questions has come up that way, heh. :)
|
|
Nor do I think it's fair to call it 'trolling' to ask for an official FAQ; this is a frequently asked question (do a search and you'll come up with at least a dozen threads on the topic) and there appears to be roughly equal support for both interpretations.
What I mean is that if someone had less than honorable intentions ("at worst") they could be just inciting a flame war using this topic.
Nor do I think it's fair to call it 'trolling' to ask for an official FAQ; this is a frequently asked question (do a search and you'll come up with at least a dozen threads on the topic) and there appears to be roughly equal support for both interpretations.What I mean is that if someone had less than honorable intentions ("at worst") they could be just inciting a flame war using this topic.
They could, but I don't believe that to be the case here. That wasn't the intent of my FAQ request on the matter.
There is another build I once theory crafted that makes good use of Greater Feint, currently working on him in PFS, but he's still low.
Greater Feint then a single attack with felling smash into a provoking greater trip. Gain an advantage on your standard, a combat manuaver and a AOO all on your turn, and with combat reflexes an additional one if the enemy stands.
However it doesn't come into play until level 8 as a fighter. For the record I think greater feint should affect all attacks.
...Beyond that, and beyond my interpretation, I suppose you'll need to take the question over to the rules forum.You cut off this part of the quote.
Good catch Espy.
This is a few times now that someone has "fudged the roll" through either omission or misdirecting emphasis. If people have to manipulate a quote to fit their argument, then maybe they should reconsider their argument. *sigh* Or maybe it was just unintended lack of context. Could be that, I guess.
<Ok, gripe finished.>
I can honestly say that I have really, really, really tried to see Greater Feint the way Midnighter and Khrysaor and others interpret it. But I keep coming up against 2 main problems. The first is an application issue and the other is RAW.
Let’s consider a few scenarios here to look at this first problem of application. For sake of argument I'm going to stick with CRB since this is the rule set that gave us Greater Feint and nothing else was available to players for a while.
Scenario 1; Feint (move), Attack (standard), AoO (free)
Ok, so you’re in position and you feint your target. Good for you. Now you get to attack him while he’s denied his Dex. This attack satisfies the rule of feinting as “your next attack”, so you normally couldn’t get another one. But thanks to Greater Feint, your target is still denied his Dex until your next Turn. And as luck would have it, he does something that allows you to get in an AoO. Good job. Granted, you could have just attacked with the 3-8 attacks you’d normally be allowed in the Round, but since you went with Feint, you at least got in 2 that benefitted from his lowered AC. Never mind that he’s full-attacking you right now. Let’s just hope that your AC is high enough, your mound of Hpts is big enough, or the Party healer is close enough. Hmm…
Scenario 2; Feint (move), Attack (standard), no AoO
Well, you got your feint in and you attacked once against a target with no Dex bonus. That’s something. But darn it, he didn’t draw an AoO. So even though he’s got no Dex for the next full Round, there’s nothing you can do to benefit from it. That attack you made fulfilled the “your next attack” portion of feinting, so you have nothing to look forward to now except maybe for his full-attacking you. And that’s not really anything to look forward to. Greater Feint isn’t looking so good here. At least with Vital Strike you would have gotten in some bonus damage. Ouch.
Scenario 3; Move (move), Feint (move), AoO (free)
Ok, so this time you had to move into position in order to deliver your Feint. But now his Dex is down and you get in a nice AoO to add insult to injury. But wait a second. This AoO is an attack, so it counts as “your next attack”. So unless you get another AoO somehow, his Dex will be back up before your next turn and you get no further benefit. So this isn’t really any better than a regular feint. Well that sucks.
Scenario 4; Move (move), Feint (move), no AoO
Here you move and Feint. He doesn’t do anything to let you get an AoO, but at least your next attack in the following round will still enjoy the benefit of his denied Dex since it will be ON your next turn. So that’s something…sort of…actually…it really isn’t any better than a plain old Feint without any feats either. Well that just %#@$#!
So basically you have a scenario where you only benefit if you get an AoO, another one where you have to get 2 or more AoO’s to see a benefit, and 2 other scenarios that don’t give you any benefit at all.
And THIS is the rule interpretation that you’re fighting for? This is all the Feat offers after being as prereq-expensive as it is? Really? Who would want such a crappy thing?
Anyway, I’m breaking my own rule about not including opinion, so let me turn to my 2nd issue with this interpretation. RAW. As I and others have stated before, all throughout the rule system when an effect is being applied it is either specific or universal. Ok, makes sense so far. Specific applications include language in the description to tell us how, in what way, or to whom the effect is applied. “Target suffers -2 to all attack rolls against you” is a perfect example. Take the same wording, but remove “against you” and what do you have? “Target suffers -2 to all attack rolls.” Now this penalty is universally applied. The target doesn’t just suffer it against you. He suffers it against everybody. The rule doesn’t have to add “against everybody” to make this point clear. It is inferred.
Our regular old Feint is a standard action that applies “against your next attack”. No problem there. Then Improved Feint comes in and changes the rule on us. Now Feinting is a move action instead of a standard, but it still keeps in place the “against your next attack” part of the rule. Looks good so far. But now Greater Feint comes in. He doesn’t change the move rule or even the “against your next attack” rule. What he does is add something entirely different. So now in addition to what we’ve had so far, Greater Feint adds in “When you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dex bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn.” This is in addition to the "against your next attack" part.
The question I’m left with is “If this is specifically implied (i.e. against my attacks only) as opposed to universally applied (i.e. against anyone’s attacks), where in the description of the rule does it state that? What part of the description offers me language telling me that this new addition is specifically against my attacks only? I don’t see anything. It’s not offered in the fluff. That just says targets overreact to my attacks. Sure I made the guy stumble, ‘cause I bluffed him good. That doesn’t mean my fighter friend can’t pounce all over him now. Anyway, it’s not offered in the Prerequisites either. Nor the Benefit or Normal sections. Nowhere does it state that this Round-long loss of Dex bonus can only be enjoyed by me. If you or anyone know where to look for this, then please share, because I can’t find it. And until then, I really have no choice but to assume that it is intended as a universal application. Hence, the loss of Dex bonus is enjoyed by anyone wanting to pound away on our poor target.
Good for us. Bad for him…or her, as the case may be. :)
(Edited to make it slightly less snarky. Hey, it's late here)
|
|
Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
That is the deviation from the rules. The rules have changed.
Again, this is the mentioning that the wording deviates from the normal rules.
IT Mentions it right here.
The rules are no longer what was in the past, but have been now been replaced with..
Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
It is not
Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn against all of your attacks, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack.
Actually, a level 15 Rogue gets 3 attacks a round. At that level he or she can also take Greater Two Weapon Fighting. The end results is, before Haste or anything the Rogue can, with a Full attack, get six attacks a round.
With Improved Two Weapon Feint, he sacrifices the first attack to feint. If successful he then gets five attacks, each of which use Sneak Attack bonuses (which for his level would be 8d6).
Why waste two Feats to reach Greater Feint? Just in case the target attacks before you in the next round? This enemy just took a potential of 40d6 sneak attack damage. And the Rogue could very well hold his or her action until the very start of the next turn (and in essence NOT lose an action) and have ITWF in effect for the whole round. Not that it's needed because a level 15 Rogue would have enough magic to ensure he or she is hitting with pretty much every hit. And anything that WAS hit that survived? Probably does enough damage to kill the Rogue before he or she can act again. (Though with Offensive Defense, said Rogue's AC jumped up by 8 points so there is a chance of survival.)