maybe for the .4 seconds between when you realize that you've been duped and when the club smacked you across the head. Probably enough time for a single free action.
No it any meaningful way within the game's rules. Otherwise as lazarx notes, what would be the point?
However, in the moments preceding the next hit they probably realize at some point that they frak'd up
Hindsight, being 20/20, I think would allow him to say "Aw, Man! I totally fell for it!" Assuming he ultimately survives.
Maybe they know, but they're already physically committed to the action so it doesn't matter. (Like the goalie who guesses wrong on a penalty kick--that's a pretty decent example of feint in the real world.)
In game i allow my players to know it somebody made a feint on them. And if they decide to take a withdraw action i wont complain. And if some badguy is feinted he may try to run.
Don't think of feinting as a head fake or something along those lines. Think of it as setting up your opponent for a maneuver. Instead of thinking each "attack" in a combat is the swinging of a sword, think of it as a combination of maneuvers (jabs, thrusts, parries, cuts, etc.) designed to weaken an opponent's defense and/or cause injury.
Your feint then isn't you throwing a head fake out wide, it's you throwing a series of moves which causes your opponent to anticipate your next attack, which you then use to your advantage. They're expecting you to next attack their right side, putting them out of position for your true attack. Or, you "stumble" in the middle of a strike, drawing your opponent in to attack when s/he thinks you're vulnerable and you counter accordingly because you never actually lost your balance.
A fighter might notice that his or her opponent reacts a particular way whenever s/he throws a (e.g.) right cross; the opponent tries to time it and slip in close for a counter. So, the fighter might then throw a few combination which end with a right cross, to reinforce the opponent's confidence in timing the technique.
The next time the fighter throws a combination however, instead of the right cross the fighter fakes the cross and throws a back leg kick. The opponent stepped in thinking the cross was coming and expected to block/slip and counter. Unfortunately, the opponent was unaware s/he was being set up and now is the recipient of a heavy shin on the side of the head as a result. Perhaps the opponent realized the mistake an instant before the kick lands, so s/he could cover enough for the blow not to be a knockout shot, but certainly s/he wouldn't realize it before that last combo is thrown. In fact, if the feint (or set-up) was sold really well, the opponent is caught completely off-guard and out of any kind of defensible position (flat-footed, subject to sneak, etc.).
That's when you realize you were feinted. Not before. If you realize you were feinted before the payoff, the bluff check failed. Allowing someone to realize they were just feinted means the feinting party just had their turn wasted. If it's a PC getting (successfully) feinted, just tell the player that an attack was made and missed. If the feint fails, tell them that because they clearly saw through the attempt.
I disagree. Just because you were put into a position that you cannot muster a true defense, does not mean that you can't step out of range of the attack. There are plenty of cinematic instances of this.
I may be over exerted and not able to put my arms up, but breaking off the attack isn't excluded.
"Doctor, Doctor, I have this stabbing feeling right here...."
I disagree. Just because you were put into a position that you cannot muster a true defense, does not mean that you can't step out of range of the attack. There are plenty of cinematic instances of this.
I may be over exerted and not able to put my arms up, but breaking off the attack isn't excluded.
And yet if the person who feinted you follows and attacks, they still get to deny you your DEX modifier. That doesn't make much sense if all it did was put you in an awkward position that you can then walk away from. After you walk away, you're not in that position anymore.
And yet if the person who feinted you follows and attacks, they still get to deny you your DEX modifier. That doesn't make much sense if all it did was put you in an awkward position that you can then walk away from. After you walk away, you're not in that position anymore.I disagree. Just because you were put into a position that you cannot muster a true defense, does not mean that you can't step out of range of the attack. There are plenty of cinematic instances of this.
I may be over exerted and not able to put my arms up, but breaking off the attack isn't excluded.
It is a little convoluted, I have to give you that. But if the feint is so slow that I still have an entire round worth of actions before the feinter can do anything, then I can do things to ignore the feint.
And with that being the case, it can't really be imagined as "fake with the left, punch right"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way the victim realizes that he fell for a feint is when the blow lands.
The Bluff check is the mechanic for knowing whether or not it's coming-- if the feint fails, the victim recognized the feint and reacted accordingly. If the feint succeeds, the victim never saw it coming until it's too late to react.
So then what do you do when the player/victim legitimatize wants to move away from the feinter? It is not like he that the feinter was just standing there doing nothing for the entire round.
So then what do you do when the player/victim legitimatize wants to move away from the feinter? It is not like he that the feinter was just standing there doing nothing for the entire round.
This is when the GM rolls both bluff and sense motive where only he can see them, to avoid metagaming. The player wont know what happened, if anything. Then they can reasonable take any course of action.
Things like this are why I tell players I require copies of their character sheets.
|
I disagree. Just because you were put into a position that you cannot muster a true defense, does not mean that you can't step out of range of the attack. There are plenty of cinematic instances of this.
I may be over exerted and not able to put my arms up, but breaking off the attack isn't excluded.
As a general FYI, one real challenge is precluding the meta-gaming from both GM and player that might reasonably follow. If at the beginning of the attacker's turn, a feint is declared and rolled, the opposing player/GM is going to know if they were faked out. So GM's NPC suddenly decides to leave the fight one round early? PC suddenly decides to withdraw and drink a potion? All these are actions that a player might declare regardless of the feint. And while the GM can make their feint roll in secret, a player doesn't have that option.
In this situation you, as a player, would have to set up a readied action (can you even set up a move for a readied action) where it's "if I'm feinted move back 5'". Which also completely negates the improved feint feat.
Haladir is right, it's built into the mechanic. If feint is successful they're denied their dex bonus. If feint isn't successful then the target stays there, keeps their dex, and the user just wasted an action. Letting the target also move away is just completely negating the purpose of the PC ever using feint.
I disagree. Just because you were put into a position that you cannot muster a true defense, does not mean that you can't step out of range of the attack. There are plenty of cinematic instances of this.
I may be over exerted and not able to put my arms up, but breaking off the attack isn't excluded.
As a general FYI, one real challenge is precluding the meta-gaming from both GM and player that might reasonably follow. If at the beginning of the attacker's turn, a feint is declared and rolled, the opposing player/GM is going to know if they were faked out. So GM's NPC suddenly decides to leave the fight one round early? PC suddenly decides to withdraw and drink a potion? All these are actions that a player might declare regardless of the feint. And while the GM can make their feint roll in secret, a player doesn't have that option.
Yeah but the GM should be fair. Generally speaking however there is not much you can do about a metagaming GM.
I will add, after having been feinted once by a specific enemy it might be reasonable for a character to recognize further attempts to feint against him. In which case, he might realize the enemy is trying to feint him, having seen it 6 seconds ago and decide move away. But I'm not sure.
There is surely nothing wrong with the concept of kiting the rogue to be sure that even if he can sneak attack you he only gets one attack. Especially after you've been the victim of a sneak attack.
One thing that I have said in many times in my years of gaming is that metagaming works both ways. I am not going to be metastupid either. If it makes sense for me to move away, I am going to. If I need to cast a spell, drink a potion or whatever, there is no reason why I have to stand in that square.
There is no indication in the rule as to if the target knows they have been feinted. If the fight is say 6 rounds long and every other round a character is getting feinted, that character knows they are being set up when the enemy keeps trying it. A good trip and 10' move will end all of that. You can't tell me the target should just stand there, meta-stupid like. Making the target stand still is WAY outside the scope of feint.
I will add, after having been feinted once by a specific enemy it might be reasonable for a character to recognize further attempts to feint against him. In which case, he might realize the enemy is trying to feint him, having seen it 6 seconds ago and decide move away. But I'm not sure.
There is surely nothing wrong with the concept of kiting the rogue to be sure that even if he can sneak attack you he only gets one attack. Especially after you've been the victim of a sneak attack.
I don't think each feint looks exactly the same. Even if you know someone is trying to set you up, then you still have to be able to tell the fake attacks from the one they are wanting to actually land.
One thing that I have said in many times in my years of gaming is that metagaming works both ways. I am not going to be metastupid either. If it makes sense for me to move away, I am going to. If I need to cast a spell, drink a potion or whatever, there is no reason why I have to stand in that square.
There is no indication in the rule as to if the target knows they have been feinted. If the fight is say 6 rounds long and every other round a character is getting feinted, that character knows they are being set up when the enemy keeps trying it. A good trip and 10' move will end all of that. You can't tell me the target should just stand there, meta-stupid like. Making the target stand still is WAY outside the scope of feint.
Well if someone is trying to feint it makes sense to move away once you believe that is their primary method of attack, but I think the question is about using "player" knowledge that you failed a sense motive check.
I disagree. Just because you were put into a position that you cannot muster a true defense, does not mean that you can't step out of range of the attack. There are plenty of cinematic instances of this.
I may be over exerted and not able to put my arms up, but breaking off the attack isn't excluded.
As a general FYI, one real challenge is precluding the meta-gaming from both GM and player that might reasonably follow. If at the beginning of the attacker's turn, a feint is declared and rolled, the opposing player/GM is going to know if they were faked out. So GM's NPC suddenly decides to leave the fight one round early? PC suddenly decides to withdraw and drink a potion? All these are actions that a player might declare regardless of the feint. And while the GM can make their feint roll in secret, a player doesn't have that option.
It really helps to decide and write down what the combatants will do when certain triggers happen (e.g. retreat on X hps or when so many allies have fallen or whatever) when preparing for the session. You can stick to it when tempted to meta-game, and produce it in your defense if accused of meta-gaming
It really helps to decide and write down what the combatants will do when certain triggers happen (e.g. retreat on X hps or when so many allies have fallen or whatever) when preparing for the session. You can stick to it when tempted to meta-game, and produce it in your defense if accused of meta-gaming
This is big thing too. While I don't do it, I feel I should do a better job of writing in such actions. Just the PCs might flee an overwhelming battle, so should NPCs. They should try to use potions or such at the appropriate times as well.
Having tactics written down for enemies helps a lot. It is one thing I love about APs, that at least for important battles they have tactics written in for behavior. Which means, you can justify why he ran away the next turn despite feinted. It's because he was at less than half hp and he spends his turn using his cure moderate potion and disengaging.
One thing that I have said in many times in my years of gaming is that metagaming works both ways. I am not going to be metastupid either. If it makes sense for me to move away, I am going to. If I need to cast a spell, drink a potion or whatever, there is no reason why I have to stand in that square.
There is no indication in the rule as to if the target knows they have been feinted. If the fight is say 6 rounds long and every other round a character is getting feinted, that character knows they are being set up when the enemy keeps trying it. A good trip and 10' move will end all of that. You can't tell me the target should just stand there, meta-stupid like. Making the target stand still is WAY outside the scope of feint.
Where does it say that the defender is just standing there? The defender can take any actions he wants on his turn. It's just that when the attacker uses a successful feint against a defender, on his next attack, the defender is denied his Dex bonus.
Honestly, most of the time, the defender will be standing there, so as to make a full attack on his turn!
Remember that combat is an abstraction-- PFRPG combat doesn't track every thrust and parry.
The way I see it: The feint attempt itself appears to the defender to be a missed or parried attack. The attacker's sudden countermove is the actual attack, and if successful, catches the defender off-guard.
GMing requires an ability to consider what a creature would do based only on that creatures in game knowledge and have them react accordingly. There isn't any real defense for a player against a GM metagaming except not to play with that GM.
This is true, and hopefully your player's trust you to be a fair arbiter.
The only reason any of this is a question is because a feint is a Standard Action. It seems to me that a move action would have been a legitimate action economy cost and then these questions would be moot as the defender would not have the time to react, which I agree, makes sense.
The problem stems from the idea that somehow use of this skill is unknown to the defender, which is never stated and the fact that the defender can act before the attacker gets to benefit from the feint. Then that will always lead to a claim of meta-game if the PC wants to do anything other than just stand there like a chump.
I like the ideas of Chief Cook and TPark.
I never considered writing down a "default" set of tactics to justify my actions but this makes sense. I might start doing this.
I also like TPark's idea of hidden rolls for the bluff check. Heck, I might go one step further and have my NPCs "miss" but not roll anything, then let the PC roll the SM when the actual attack takes place so the player never has any idea there was an attempt but still gets to roll for his PC.
And yet if the person who feinted you follows and attacks, they still get to deny you your DEX modifier. That doesn't make much sense if all it did was put you in an awkward position that you can then walk away from. After you walk away, you're not in that position anymore.I disagree. Just because you were put into a position that you cannot muster a true defense, does not mean that you can't step out of range of the attack. There are plenty of cinematic instances of this.
I may be over exerted and not able to put my arms up, but breaking off the attack isn't excluded.
It is a little convoluted, I have to give you that. But if the feint is so slow that I still have an entire round worth of actions before the feinter can do anything, then I can do things to ignore the feint.
And with that being the case, it can't really be imagined as "fake with the left, punch right"
That's the point of my lengthy explanation, though. If the "feint" is really envisioned as a combatant setting up his/her opponent through a series of maneuvers, it makes perfect sense for feint to work the next time the two engage, even if the victim of the feint attempted to leave the contest for a while.
The feint isn't a head fake. It's a series of maneuvers designed to look like it will culminate in a strike to the head, but actually goes to the body when the opponent brings his/her hands up to protect his/her head (for instance). It's not that the feint is slow; it's that you simply haven't capitalized on your set up, yet. As you get better and better at it (read: you take the relevant feats), you become more efficient at setting up your techniques and finding ways to capitalize on those openings.
I think it bears noting that there's no Sense Motive check to counteract a feint. The only check made is a Bluff check by the feinter. Ordinarily, the DC is 10+BAB+WIS. However, if the victim is trained in Sense Motive, then the DC is 10+Sense Motive Modifier, if higher.
Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. 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.
So there's no real need to hide anything as a GM more than normal. Roll a d20 and add up the numbers as you normally do. If the feint fails, tell the target that. If the feint succeeds, tell the target that s/he was attacked but no damage was caused. It's as simple as that. If the target wants to go somewhere else on his/her turn, that's certainly fine. But you shouldn't tell the target that the target has been the subject of a feint because it defeats the entire purpose; it's virtually impossible for the player not to metagame at that point.
Obviously, this is mostly an issue for standard action feinting because it carries across rounds.
You are correct, I forgot about the fact that is was base 10 rather than an opposed role.
And I get what your saying. The problem I see is when people feel it has to be meta-stupid by forcing you to stay in one place, when it does not say as much.
Never telling the target (player) that you tried it is a perfect way to run it at the table as any attempt to do something else would then clearly be genuine.
Great discussion!