As a quick reality check, do you have a weapon that does fire damage and won't give away your position?
Note: the rules do include the clause that sense motive only replaces BAB if higher.
They cannot see you specifically because you made a stealth check to hide.
It's for a blistering feint + stealth build.
Why would you want to feint if you're already "invisible"?
If the opponent is unable to notice you, he's denied his DEX bonus, if you (succesfully) feint, he's denied his DEX as well. So what would be the point of feinting if you are already undetected?Wow those feinting rules are dumb, if you have just a single point into sense motive it tanks your save vs the effect. Definitely something I'm going to house rule to 10+bab+sense motive.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.
It is either one of the saves: 10+BAB+WIS or 10+SenseMotive. That means you basically have to roll a n10 for the feint to succeed. The ranks in sense motive can never be higher than the character's HD. So basically, if SenseMotive is a class skill, you'll get a +3 bonus on your Sense Motive if you have full BAB and have Sense motive maxed with ranks.
IF you use 10+BAB+SenseMotive, the player will have an almost unbeatable anti-feint.
For example a lvl 11 Paladin with full ranks in sense motive and a WIS of 12:
10+BAB+WIS = DC22
10+SenseMotive = DC25
10+BAB+SenseMotive = DC35
With a rogue of, say, lvl 10 with a CHA of 12 and bluff maxed in ranks, he gets a feint bonus of +14
That means, without feats to boost his bluff/feint, he can never feint the Paladin with the save you made a houserule
Without feint he loses a tiny amount of damage from blistering feint. I’m guessing that’s why he wants to still feint while invisible.
Since bluff is what is used for feint and you cannot bluff a person who is unaware of you, you cannot feint a person who is unaware of you. Considering that if the person is unaware of you they are already denied his DEX bonus vs you, it makes no sense to feint someone who is not aware of you.
Expect table variation. I can think of enough ways for a character to feint another character who couldn't see them that I'd allow it.
A stealth build implies you get sneak attacks.
Being invisible denies dex and qualifies you for sneak attack.
Feint is a standard action [or move with a feat]. This precludes a full attack. It denies dex on your next attack.
Blistering feint gives a small amount of fire damage as part of a successful feint.
I think the damage from blistering feint would break invisibility.
Since it prevents you making a full attack, you cannot benefit from something that gets you improved invisibility.
Best I can see is attack wile invisible with sneak attack, and then blistering feint with Improved Feint to get both in the same turn.
Arguably, you can also feint at a distance. Leastwise, I don't see feint requiring melee. [Is there any RAW preventing this?]
/cevah
I think you should be able to feint even if your foe can't see you. The feint is you tricking them into reacting in the wrong way, and that doesn't necessarily mean they see you coming.
My reasoning behind this is simple: There are niche cases where feinting allows you to sneak attack something, but surprising the enemy or attacking while invisible doesn't.
She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to armor class if immobilized. A barbarian with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to armor class if an opponent successfully uses the feint action against her.
So I'd say your efforts to feint would trigger a barbarian to react and move to avoid the strike instinctively, allowing you to make an opening for the true threat of your attack.