Greater Feint


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

32 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good Afternoon,

I am trying to get some sort of official clarification on Greater Feint. When it says that your target loses it's dex bonus to AC until your next turn, does it mean to just you or you and your companions. I don't want to be using it wrong.

Thank you for your time,

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Reading Greater Feint, it says they are flat-footed until the start of your next turn. It does not say they are only flat-footed against you. That also means that if the enemy provokes an AoO from you, it is against his flat-footed AC.

Shadow Lodge

I marked this for FAQ. Lets see if we can get enough for it to be answered some time this year.

Dark Archive

What would be the benefit of loosing the bonus for a full round of it only worked for you? Maybe Aoo, but that's a bit limited. Judging by the wording, I'd say that it looses the benefit for everyone.

Sovereign Court

That was my assumption as well, that you really only get maybe 1 more flat footed attack and AoO's. Improved Two Weapon Feint does as much and is a little better because it's prereq's are more useful.

S.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No FAQ necessary, it's painfully obvious that he loses his dex bonus until the beginning of your next turn. It doesn't say "only to you" because it doesn't apply "only to you".

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

claudekennilol wrote:
No FAQ necessary, it's painfully obvious that he loses his dex bonus until the beginning of your next turn. It doesn't say "only to you" because it doesn't apply "only to you".

You haven't played with many GMs.

Has it lost it just for your or others?

Has it lost if just for melee attacks?

Those are the two passionate debates that have happened over the meaning of this feat.

Liberty's Edge

It may seem obvious to you, claudekennilol, but there have been numerous threads about this question, and in the past it has been rather contentious. I believe this thread is a follow-up to this one.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
No FAQ necessary, it's painfully obvious that he loses his dex bonus until the beginning of your next turn. It doesn't say "only to you" because it doesn't apply "only to you".

You haven't played with many GMs.

Has it lost it just for your or others?

Has it lost if just for melee attacks?

Those are the two passionate debates that have happened over the meaning of this feat.

It does what it says it does. The target loses dex bonus to AC until the feinter's next turn. Period. It's incredibly plain. I don't see where the contention is. Anyone that says otherwise (i.e. says it doesn't apply to others or says it's only for melee attacks) is applying more rules than what the book does.

Greater Feint (Combat) wrote:


You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: 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.
Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

Sovereign Court

All the same, I would love an official response, as in PFS without such, you face table variation.

S.

Liberty's Edge

claudekennilol wrote:

The target loses dex bonus to AC until the feinter's next turn. Period. It's incredibly plain. I don't see where the contention is. Anyone that says otherwise (i.e. says it doesn't apply to others or says it's only for melee attacks) is applying more rules than what the book does.

.
.
Greater Feint (Combat) wrote:

You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks.

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.
Benefit: 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.
Normal: A creature you feint loses its Dexterity bonus against your next attack.

No, it is not "incredibly plain". I was in agreement with you until I read it again. You may want to as well.

There is no reason for the ability to say "in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack" if "he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn" means that it applies to everyone. 'Everyone' would include the feinter. It is much more likely that the loss of Dexterity is only against the feinter's weapons.

No matter how you look at the passage, the writing is not structured as well as it could be, so it is probably worth some clarification.

Grand Lodge

/shrug We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sovereign Court

RedDogMT wrote:


There is no reason for the ability to say "in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack" if "he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn" means that it applies to everyone.

There's a reason for it - it just doesn't come up every turn.

For example: If you move up to someone and give up your standard action to use Greater Feint against them - you won't be able to attack them until your next turn - when they have their Dex bonus back against everyone. However, they still won't have it against you for your first attack.

The wording was put in there to make sure that Greater Feint still did what Feinting without any feats does, plus extra.


"You are skilled at making foes overreact to your attacks."

From a realism stand-point, I'd say it applies to everyone. I have fought with people in melee combat who have feinted an opponent so well that the opponent left themselves open to attacks from other fighters.

From a rules perspective, if Greater Feint does not apply to other attackers, then it is useless. Here's a few examples of why I say that:

Scenario 1 - Greater Feint only applies to the Feint-er: You use your move action to move up, your standard action to feint, your opponent losses his Dex bonus against your first attack next round since you can not make any further attacks this round. This is no different than feinting without feats.

Scenario 2 - Greater Feint only applies to the Feint-er: You use your move action to Feint (as per the Improved Feint feat), you use your standard action to attack, your opponent losses his Dex bonus against this attack, then your opponent regains their Dex bonus at the beginning of your next turn, so you can make no further attacks with the lowered AC unless you feint again. This is no different than the Improved Feint feat alone.

If the intent was to deny the opponent Dex bonuses only against the Feint-er, it would make more sense to have Greater Feint read something like: "You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a swift action, and whenever your feint causes an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus for the remainder of your turn."

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
It does what it says it does. It's incredibly plain.

You may be surprised that I'm totally agreeing with you. But you and I don't have the power to reject other interpretations of the RAW.

Other read the same rules and believe it to be limited to melee attacks and not ranged attacks.

Grand Lodge

James Risner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
It does what it says it does. It's incredibly plain.

You may be surprised that I'm totally agreeing with you. But you and I don't have the power to reject other interpretations of the RAW.

Other read the same rules and believe it to be limited to melee attacks and not ranged attacks.

To those GMs I'd have to ask to point to where it says anything about melee. I feel perfectly fine rejecting someone else's RAW interpretation if they can't find the W to point to.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

claudekennilol wrote:
I feel perfectly fine rejecting someone else's RAW interpretation if they can't find the W to point to.

But you would be wrong.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
I feel perfectly fine rejecting someone else's RAW interpretation if they can't find the W to point to.
But you would be wrong.

Your rejection confuses me.

So you're telling me that if I told you I had +5 BaB as a first level wizard because the book told me so, but I can't point you to where the book has it, you would be wrong to tell me that that's not a correct RAW interpretation?


The issue though, is that regardless of any PFS variation issues, it's still a GM's call how he runs his table regarding interpretation.

Effectively this means, unless you are GM'ing the table, your choices are
Accept the ruling
Leave the table

The melee vs ranged debate comes in because GF references the Feint rules without being clear that it actually changes them beyond the duration. Feint defaults to melee attacks, and in most respects I'd expect a FAQ to come down on this side of things.

Reading through various threads, I also find it quite plausible that the original intent was "until the beginning of your next turn plus your next attack after that [before the end of your next turn]". (Bracket language being found in the Feint description*)
*A very literal reading of GF would also imply that there's now no time limit for "your next attack" since it also fails to mention this, despite being heavily implied that the base Feint rules are being used. (The point I'm making is that without clarification, every interpretation relies on selectively applying those base rules to some extent.)

RAI is not particularly "plain" regardless of how clear RAW may seem.

Sovereign Court

Archaeik wrote:


Reading through various threads, I also find it quite plausible that the original intent was "until the beginning of your next turn plus your next attack after that [before the end of your next turn]". (Bracket language being found in the Feint description*)

It's not plus because if you make an attack before your next turn (more common) - the feint wouldn't apply to your first attack the following turn.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Archaeik wrote:


Reading through various threads, I also find it quite plausible that the original intent was "until the beginning of your next turn plus your next attack after that [before the end of your next turn]". (Bracket language being found in the Feint description*)
It's not plus because if you make an attack before your next turn (more common) - the feint wouldn't apply to your first attack the following turn.

"in addition to" can be interpreted as "plus", it's the "after that" which does not appear RAW that leaves this debatable (and probably wrong).

Keep in mind, I'm speculating intent, not RAW (and original intent at that)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

claudekennilol wrote:
I had +5 BaB as a first level wizard because the book told me so, but I can't point you to where the book has it, you would be wrong to tell me that that's not a correct RAW interpretation?

That never happens. They point to a passage and they read that passage different than I do. It doesn't make them wrong. It makes me wrong to reject their interpretation.

Sovereign Court

James Risner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
I had +5 BaB as a first level wizard because the book told me so, but I can't point you to where the book has it, you would be wrong to tell me that that's not a correct RAW interpretation?
That never happens. They point to a passage and they read that passage different than I do. It doesn't make them wrong. It makes me wrong to reject their interpretation.

I believe that was his point. They need to have a "Written" part of the RAW, even if you may disagree as to precisely what it says. There is no "W" which comes anywhere close to saying that a wizard would get +5 BAB at level 1.

Sovereign Court

Archaeik wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Archaeik wrote:


Reading through various threads, I also find it quite plausible that the original intent was "until the beginning of your next turn plus your next attack after that [before the end of your next turn]". (Bracket language being found in the Feint description*)
It's not plus because if you make an attack before your next turn (more common) - the feint wouldn't apply to your first attack the following turn.

"in addition to" can be interpreted as "plus", it's the "after that" which does not appear RAW that leaves this debatable (and probably wrong).

Keep in mind, I'm speculating intent, not RAW (and original intent at that)

It's not "plus" - because "plus" means that it's both together. "In addition to" means that it does the first thing and the second thing separately. (and therefore one may override the other) Entirely different connotation.

For example: (a bit of a silly example - but it kept it simple/obvious)

A turtle "plus" a teenager = TMNT

A turtle "in addition to" a teenager = a disappointed teenager with a turtle


You're still missing the point that I'm arguing it's possible they used incorrect words for the desired intent.

Sovereign Court

Archaeik wrote:
You're still missing the point that I'm arguing it's possible they used incorrect words for the desired intent.

So basically - "My guess at what they really meant is more likely correct than the actual rule despite it being internally consistent"?

Is that what you're arguing?

If not - I'm just getting more confused at what you mean.


I think the key misunderstanding is related to the inclusion of the words "You" and "Your" in the description. As singular pronouns, they SEEM to indicate beneficial application to the owner of the feat, and not the world at large.

I would rule it as a GM as the poor feinted bugger is hosed to the world.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I believe that was his point.

Then he started talking about something different than my point and I missed that he changed the subject.

My point is just because he differs with the meaning of RAW, doesn't give him or I the right to say their meaning of the RAW is wrong.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
You're still missing the point that I'm arguing it's possible they used incorrect words for the desired intent.

So basically - "My guess at what they really meant is more likely correct than the actual rule despite it being internally consistent"?

Is that what you're arguing?

If not - I'm just getting more confused at what you mean.

Well, technically it's not my guess, I saw it brought up as a possibility and personally find it plausible as I said, particularly because they seem to have gone to such great lengths to prevent the feat holder from taking a full attack as a benefit that it seems a bit weird to have such a strong team play effect, which is less "internally consistent" to me than you would suggest.

Shadow Lodge

Only 16 FAQ flags, guess this is why the greater feint question never gets answered.

Sovereign Court

Perhaps not enough people use feint to care about a feat that far up the chain. I use it on every rogue I have (and I have ALOT).

S.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the feat - I'm just already sure of how it works - so why would I FAQ?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I like the feat - I'm just already sure of how it works - so why would I FAQ?

Because if you played it with a new GM he might disagree with how it works. Who can take advantage of the denied Dex. Whether or not you get the benefit of the denied Dex with a ranged attack.


RedDogMT wrote:
There is no reason for the ability to say "in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack" if "he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn" means that it applies to everyone. 'Everyone' would include the feinter.

I think it's intended to show the improvement over normal feint:

Feint wrote:
If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).

Can't say whether it's intended that others profit from your feint. Personally, I think it would make sense since the opponent is generally distracted and it's a reasonable power level for burning two feats. However, Shatter Defenses needs about the same investment and only applies to your attacks.


SheepishEidolon wrote:
However, Shatter Defenses needs about the same investment and only applies to your attacks.

But SD is not the same action economy even if it lasts until the end of your next turn (allowing a full attack -- or more if you can successfully apply one of the conditions as part of a first full attack).

Effectively, what this means is that it's easier to offer the rest of creation access to their FF AC than it is to get it for yourself.

(But, ostensibly, this is in line with their design parameters according to the Startling Shot and Superior Feint deeds)

Sovereign Court

As a general rule, how may FAQ's are needed for someone from Paizo to take a look at a post and make a ruling?

S.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Seran Blackros wrote:

As a general rule, how may FAQ's are needed for someone from Paizo to take a look at a post and make a ruling?

S.

I"ve seen posts with 4 FAQ get attention and others took 500+ to get attention.

Scarab Sages Developer

WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
Reading Greater Feint, it says they are flat-footed until the start of your next turn. It does not say they are only flat-footed against you. That also means that if the enemy provokes an AoO from you, it is against his flat-footed AC.

If that is true, it makes the first ability of Mythic Greater Feint not only useless, but less powerful than base Greater Feint.

Even if Greater Feint only applies to the Dex bonus loss that is a direct result of the feint, it can still be usefully applied to AoO (which can be a big deal), Two-Weapon Feint, Moonlight Stalker Feint, (arguably) Feint Partner, (arguably) Sly Draw, Passing Trick, Feinting Flurry, and Wave Strike.

Shadow Lodge

Here is the first question on greater feint asked in the rules forums back in 2009. Only 2 people responded to that question.

Greater-Feint

2010 question.

Greater-Feint-whats-the-point-or-how-does-it

Shadow Lodge

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
Reading Greater Feint, it says they are flat-footed until the start of your next turn. It does not say they are only flat-footed against you. That also means that if the enemy provokes an AoO from you, it is against his flat-footed AC.

If that is true, it makes the first ability of Mythic Greater Feint not only useless, but less powerful than base Greater Feint.

Even if Greater Feint only applies to the Dex bonus loss that is a direct result of the feint, it can still be usefully applied to AoO (which can be a big deal), Two-Weapon Feint, Moonlight Stalker Feint, (arguably) Feint Partner, (arguably) Sly Draw, Passing Trick, Feinting Flurry, and Wave Strike.

A Feat should be useful when it is released, not dependent on feats that didnt come out until YEARS later.

When the CRB was released what benefit did Greater Feint give?


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
WiseWolfOfYoitsu wrote:
Reading Greater Feint, it says they are flat-footed until the start of your next turn. It does not say they are only flat-footed against you. That also means that if the enemy provokes an AoO from you, it is against his flat-footed AC.

If that is true, it makes the first ability of Mythic Greater Feint not only useless, but less powerful than base Greater Feint.

Even if Greater Feint only applies to the Dex bonus loss that is a direct result of the feint, it can still be usefully applied to AoO (which can be a big deal), Two-Weapon Feint, Moonlight Stalker Feint, (arguably) Feint Partner, (arguably) Sly Draw, Passing Trick, Feinting Flurry, and Wave Strike.

A Feat should be useful when it is released, not dependent on feats that didnt come out until YEARS later.

When the CRB was released what benefit did Greater Feint give?

This can be turned around on you to imply that Mythic Greater Feint should have the effect listed. (Yes, I know if has more to it than the attacks, but the author was obviously under the impression that standard version of GF affected only the feat holder.)

And while an interpretation that GF only extends the duration of the Feint to potential AoO's from the user is a miniscule power increase, it is still a benefit.

Shadow Lodge

Archaeik wrote:

This can be turned around on you to imply that Mythic Greater Feint should have the effect listed. (Yes, I know if has more to it than the attacks, but the author was obviously under the impression that standard version of GF affected only the feat holder.)

And while an interpretation that GF only extends the duration of the Feint to potential AoO's from the user is a miniscule power increase, it is still a benefit.

Personally....

With what it takes to get greater feint I wouldnt call a 'miniscule power increase a benefit, I'd call it a joke.


Jacob Saltband wrote:

A Feat should be useful when it is released, not dependent on feats that didnt come out until YEARS later.

When the CRB was released what benefit did Greater Feint give?

While I agree with this, prone shooter (original version) says hi.

Should be useful doesn't mean it is useful.

Rules should not be argued from the perspective of their power levels (that has some value in a RAI discussion though). But understand RAW first, then tweak or adjust if the RAI seems to be different, or you want it different for your game.

Shadow Lodge

bbangerter wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:

A Feat should be useful when it is released, not dependent on feats that didnt come out until YEARS later.

When the CRB was released what benefit did Greater Feint give?

While I agree with this, prone shooter (original version) says hi.

Should be useful doesn't mean it is useful.

Rules should not be argued from the perspective of their power levels (that has some value in a RAI discussion though). But understand RAW first, then tweak or adjust if the RAI seems to be different, or you want it different for your game.

I dont see anything wrong with prone shooter, other then that it has nothing to do with shooting from prone only increases/decreases penalty/bonus to AC while prone but its is only a tier 1 feat after all.


If I know the way Feint works correctly, a regular Feint allows you to deny the enemy their dex bonus to the next attack you make, while the Greater version simply extends the duration of the feint's effect, from one action to one round.

Seems fair to me, considering it doesn't grant allies attacks of opportunity like Greater Trip or Greater Overrun does, nor allow extra actions like Greater Grapple.


Jacob Saltband wrote:


I dont see anything wrong with prone shooter, other then that it has nothing to do with shooting from prone only increases/decreases penalty/bonus to AC while prone but its is only a tier 1 feat after all.

The feat as is now is fine. The original version of prone shooter was "removes the penalty for firing a crossbow while prone". A penalty which does not exist. Yes the feat should have provided some useful benefit - but it did not.

The point is that some skills/feats/classes/etc are "better"* choices than others. There are two opinions on GF and what it does. The weaker version being only slightly better than just feinting in general does not mean that the stronger interpretation of GF is necessarily the correct one.

The existence of mythic GF strongly suggests that the weaker version of GF is indeed the correct one, making GF a weak choice in feats. But GF could see some mileage in the right build - e.g, Combat reflexes and teamwork feats with allies used to generate numerous AoO's for the character.

*Sometimes better is relative to a characters purpose and thematic elements having nothing to do with number crunching.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

If you wanted to have Greater Feint be actually useful, you'd have it become a Swift Action in addition to affecting the target for the rest of the round. But then that would make Rogues effective... similar to if they gain Shatter Defense, which makes multiple Sneak Attacks a viable strategy.

Seriously. What is the point of Greater Feint? Or even Improved Feint? A Rogue would be better off going with Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Combat Expertise... and then going with Improved Two-Weapon Feint (which doesn't even need Two-Weapon Feint as a prerequisite, though it does require an Intelligence of 13 and Dexterity of 17).


Tangent101 wrote:

If you wanted to have Greater Feint be actually useful, you'd have it become a Swift Action in addition to affecting the target for the rest of the round. But then that would make Rogues effective... similar to if they gain Shatter Defense, which makes multiple Sneak Attacks a viable strategy.

Seriously. What is the point of Greater Feint? Or even Improved Feint? A Rogue would be better off going with Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Combat Expertise... and then going with Improved Two-Weapon Feint (which doesn't even need Two-Weapon Feint as a prerequisite, though it does require an Intelligence of 13 and Dexterity of 17).

Improved Two-Weapon Feint is a good way to go if you're a dual wielder (though not requiring two-weapon feint is believed to be a typo/oversight, because come on, of course that'd be a prerequisite).

There is a way to get Bluff as a swift action via Moonlight Stalker Feint, but it requires a decent feat investment (though concealment is incredibly easy to get, especially since there's a 24k gold cloak that grants constant blur, meaning you qualify for the feat at all times)


Mythic Improved Feint also changes it to a swift. It seems they really don't think Feint should easily be used for full-attacks.

Sovereign Court

Still no official ruling on this?

S.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Greater Feint All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.