| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi, guys!
So, I'm really confused with this things here. I think this question actually was here before my post, but, if you don't mind, I'll ask it again.
Improved Feint: Allow to feint with move action instead of standart action. It's OK for me.
Greater Feint: Almost useless. You need +6 BAB, but you still feint with a move action that DOES NOT allow you to take full attack action.
So, I can not make a swashbuckler without those boaring flanking.
BUT! There is an intresting idea!
Two-Weapon Feint: No first attack - feint for another attack. Not bad, but still keeps me with one attack per round. What for? I can just take improved feint and two-handed weapon.
Improved Two-Weapon Feint: Best at all. Feint for first attack, than take your full attack with 3 (!) other attacks.
So, what is the question?
The main question is: There is no mistake in requirements in "Improved Two-Weapon Feint"? It does not need the "Two-Weapon Feint", just "Improved Two-Weapon Fighting", "Combat Expertsise" and +6 BAB.
If it is a mistake - it's OK. But if it is not... Why do we need those Two-Weapon Feint and Greater Feint at all?
Thanks for your answers!
Example:
Swashbuckler 4
Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, Elven Curve Blade in hands. Feint - than strike with 2d6 sneak.
Swashbuckler 5
Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, Two-Weapon Fighting. Rapier and short sword in hands? What for? Take thee elven curve blade.
Svashbuckler 9
Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Feint (retrained Improved Feint). Now take rapier and shortsword and take them down with 18d6+strength of damage.
While there doesn't seem to be any official ruling on Improved Two-Weapon Feint, it's almost certainly a mistake and should require Two-Weapon Feint.
My interpretation of Greater Feint would be that it makes the target flat-footed against everyone, so you could use it to help your allies as well. Also, if they provoke any attacks of opportunity from you, they'd be flat-footed against that. (Still agree that ITWF is way better, though.)
You could go for Moonlight Stalker Feint. Feint as a Swift Action when you have concealment. Then all you need is a reliable source of concealment, like Blur.
Hm... So, it is a mistake? It does not also require it when i read about feat on Pathfinder SRD site.
About Moonlight Stalker Feint... I don't think, that swashbuckler needs so spesific feat for just feinting in simple duel.
While there doesn't seem to be any official ruling on Improved Two-Weapon Feint, it's almost certainly a mistake and should require Two-Weapon Feint.
My interpretation of Greater Feint would be that it makes the target flat-footed against everyone, so you could use it to help your allies as well. Also, if they provoke any attacks of opportunity from you, they'd be flat-footed against that. (Still agree that ITWF is way better, though.)
Oh we have a misunderstanding. By "pump fake" I meant that as a way to feint an opponent at range with greater feint to make them lose their dex bonus to all attacks until the start of your next turn through an over reaction to the maneuver.
So did you say?
It's intended that you feint in melee range.
Greater feint does just remove the dex mod to AC. So if a rogue feints the target with greater feint, his fighter buddy can hit that target without that target having its dex mod to AC.Feint works for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. Nothing in the wording of Greater Feint mentions ranged attacks, so it still only helps you with 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.
That's correct. That has no impact on whether or not you can trick an opponent into moving in any direction while you move in another direction though. Tricking a foe into moving in the wrong direction is not what feint does, in any of its incarnations. It's an interesting idea for a new combat maneuver... but it would be a really tricky one to pull off, since when you reverse it and use it against PCs, that basically lets the GM move the player characters as he wishes and that can get ugly and weird.Ah ok, some of us were under the impression that greater feint just removed the target's dex bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.How would that change anything? All Greater Feint does is extend the duration of the bonus you get against a target with your melee attacks.What about when someone uses greater feint?Since feinting is an action that modifies melee attacks, the implication is that you need to be close enough to the creature to actually make a melee attack. This action doesn't really account for tricking a person into thinking you're going to move in one direction when you really want to move in another if there's no immediate followup melee attack.RAI question.
Do you have to be next to a creature to feint it? Like can you do a Peyton Manning pump fake to feint an enemy?
Oh we have a misunderstanding. By "pump fake" I meant that as a way to feint an opponent at range with greater feint to make them lose their dex bonus to all attacks until the start of your next turn through an over reaction to the maneuver.
So did you say?
It's intended that you feint in melee range.
Greater feint does just remove the dex mod to AC. So if a rogue feints the target with greater feint, his fighter buddy can hit that target without that target having its dex mod to AC.
So, Greater Feint is good only for fighter, who can feint the enemy, and rogue than can sneak it. But actually they can just flank it and get +2 bonus on attack rolls... i think it is useless :(
And what is about "mistake" in Two-Weapon Feint?
So, Greater Feint is good only for fighter, who can feint the enemy, and rogue than can sneak it. But actually they can just flank it and get +2 bonus on attack rolls... i think it is useless :(
And what is about "mistake" in Two-Weapon Feint?
Actually no. The rogue didn't feint the target so the rogue does not benefit from the fighter's greater feint.
Really only useful to rogues with opportunist. And AOO builds
JJ himself in the past has noted that his answers cannot be taken as RAW as he is expressing only his opinion. So to quote him as if it were RAW might be considered a bit misleading by some.
The effects of Greater Feint, sadly, are still very much up for debate. Those that feel it only benefits the one doing the feinting and those that feel it benefits everyone for the Turn.
Quite a lengthy discussion about it here if you have the stomach and time to read through it all. :P
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qifj&page=1?Greater-Feint
JJ himself in the past has noted that his answers cannot be taken as RAW as he is expressing only his opinion. So to quote him as if it were RAW might be considered a bit misleading by some.
True. It's not RAW. But if the RAW is obscure, I would lean on the side of how the devs run it in their games.
My interpretation of Greater Feint has always been that the creature loses dex to AC only to the feinter. This would only be helpful if the feinter gets to attack during someone else's turn, such as from an attack of opportunity.
My interpretation of Greater Feint has always been that the creature loses dex to AC only to the feinter. This would only be helpful if the feinter gets to attack during someone else's turn, such as from an attack of opportunity.
Or with the Outflanked teamwork feat, the Opportunist Rogue talent, the Assault Leader Rogue talent, or if you combine Greater Feint with something that lets you Feint as a lesser action than Move, such as Moonlight Stalker Feint letting you Feint as a Swift action if you have concealment from the opponent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF rules are usually very good at pointing out when a situation is talking about a blanket effect or a specific one. Take Greater Trip for example.
In the description of this Feat, it says the "the opponent provokes attacks of opportunity." This is a blanket statement. He doesn't provoke from just you. He provokes from anyone in a position to respond with an AoO.
Compare this to Greater Bull Rush. This Feat specifically points out that the provoking taking place is against your allies and not you.
Compare all this again with Vicious Stomp that states the provoking is taking place against only you, not anyone else.
Even the general rule of Feinting points out that the Dex loss is only against your next attack...and this only if you make it sometime between the Feinting and the end of your next turn.
So with Greater Feint, we have a blanket statement here. The target not only has lost his Dex bonus against your next attack (as stated under the general Feint rules), but he has also lost his Dex bonus for a whole round. There is no mention of "lost his Dex bonus to you". The statement is a blanket one, so it applies to anyone that can take advantage of his lost Dex.
If the Devs intended it to be just for your benefit, they could have inserted the proper text to delineate this just as they have with all the other Feats that discriminate between blanket, just you, or just them.
So, guys, it is really good to discuss the theme of Greater Feint, but the question is now about IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FEINT.
Is it a mistake or not? Do you need a Two-Weapon Feint (wich is absolutely useless because of improved feint) to get it?
Ah, sorry.
From what I see in the PRD, Two-Weapon Feint is not listed as a prerequisite for Improved Two-Weapon Feint.
What are the uses for Two-Weapon Feint? That I'm not sure of. But someone may know of something.
As for Greater Feint, the benefit is that it drops the target's Dex bonus for a whole round, so if you have allies with you, they can attack a Dex-less target...which is a big bonus if one or more of your allies happen to have Sneak Attack.
Of course you are giving up all your other attacks just to bluff (move), attack (attack), and then hope your allies can take him down. So it's more of a party thing. Ultimately I'm not sure of the damage output total. It all depends who's giving up their attacks to bluff.
So, guys, it is really good to discuss the theme of Greater Feint, but the question is now about IMPROVED TWO-WEAPON FEINT.
Is it a mistake or not? Do you need a Two-Weapon Feint (wich is absolutely useless because of improved feint) to get it?
I agree with the guy who answered your question in the third post of the thread. It is almost certainly a mistake, if I were GMing I would require TW Feint before I allowed someone to take ITW Feint, but I don't know of any official answer.
As a GM, I don't argue with explicit RAW, I would not make two-weapon feint a prerequisite to improved two-weapon feint.
Although I would point out Greater Feint + two-weapon feint is a better combo.
The two-weapon feint, feint procs the additive effect of Greater Feint and unlike improved two-weapon feint, greater feint + two-weapon feint last 1 round instead of until the end of your turn. Which means you could use it with Opportunist.
When you are a rogue (even a swashbuckler) who wants to take two-weapon fighting and some other good rogue talents there is no space for GREATER feint + two-wepaon feint, a think, but maybe it is a good idea.
But Marthkus, why you would not make two-weapon feint a prerequisite to improved two-weapon feint?