Feint

[Cassandra]

Just add more CSL: HTH Combat and treat the Feint as a Special Effect.

[dsatow]

Here's my $0.02.  Take it for what its worth, $0.02.

 

Instead of an OCV bonus based on sleight of hand, how about PRE based on sleight of hand?

 

10 +25 PRE attack only -1, requires a sleight of hand roll -1/2 *

* you might add more limitations such as concentration, instant, etc.  Instant because the effect is only for the sleight of hand user.

 

So, it would work like this, your character would try the feint and roll the sleight of hand roll at -2.  If successful, then the character does their presence attack against the target of the feint.

• If the roll fails to reach the target's PRE, the target acts as normal.
• If the roll matches target's PRE, even if the target has a delayed action, the target has hesitated enough so that they can only abort their next action in response following all the rules for an abort.  They must keep all levels as assigned before the feint but can abort to reassign the levels.
• If the roll matches target's PRE+10, the target can not abort their next action in response and lose any held action.  They must keep all levels as assigned before the feint.
• If the roll matches target's PRE+20, the target can not abort their next action in response and lose any held action.  They must keep all levels as assigned before the feint.  Furthermore, they are at 1/2 DCV.
• If the roll matches target's PRE+30, the target can not abort their next action in response and lose any held action.  They must keep all levels as assigned before the feint.  Furthermore, they are at 0 DCV.

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 8:32 AM, MrAgdesh said:

I agree with Greywind in that if you are playing NPCs then matters like this are less relevant. However If you’re talking about player knowledge not influencing gameplay how do most of you games master the occasional (and thematic) hero vs hero punch up?

Do you ask the player on the higher dex (player A) for a general statement of intent? E.g. “I’m going to somehow attack player B” and then require a reaction from player B; “I abort to a block” 

or does player A say “I’m going to martial strike player B sticking my two Levels with HtH combat, and my 1 overall level in OCV”

To which player B might say “I abort to a martial dodge” (as the attacker’s OCV might be better than his own at this point )

 

 

I think that this depends on the players.  If the players are leveraging out of character knowledge, a very simple solution is, rather than:

 

Player 1:  I Feint [roll roll]

Player 2:  Wow - his OCV will be realty enhanced  - I Dodge

 

or

 

Player 1:  I Tumble in acrobatically, leap to my feet behind him and elbow smash.

GM:  Make an acrobatics roll and that will be a Surprise Move, +1 OCV, +2 if you make it by half and +3 if you roll a 3

Player 1:  [roll; 3]

Player 2:  I dodge

 

perhaps it has to be

 

Player 1 writes note to GM.

Rolls ensue. 

 

GM:  PC 1 attacks PC 2, but misses widely.

 

Player 2 does not know that was a feint and must decide on his next action without OOC knowledge.

 

or

 

Player 1 writes note to GM.  Rolls ensure

GM:  PC 1 tumble rolls past PC 2

[Pause, silence]

GM:  PC 1 rolls to his feet, and elbow smashes PC 2

PC 2:  Dodge

GM:  Too late to abort - he has already attacked.  You could have aborted when he Tumbled by.

 

[megaplayboy]

I think, to model the mechanic, it's good to think about what feints are IRL.  A feint is a move that "telegraphs"--falsely signals, in this case--a move, such as a punch or kick or even a move that appears to create an opening for a counterattack, in order to draw the opponent to react to the feint(blocking or dodging the false attack, possibly moving into the follow-up real strike).  It's also possible that the feint draws the opponent to attempt an immediate counter-strike, which might put them at a disadvantage to the fainter's own real attack, or boosts the fainter's DCV as the opponent chases after an illusory opening.  The idea is that the opponent's natural response to the false signal reduces the effectiveness of the maneuver versus the real attack or defense.  

[clnicholsusa]

Ok. Since a feint is all about 'surprising' your opponent, how about re-purposing a skill that uses a 0 phase action to add points to OCV based on a skill roll when used to do exactly that?

"My character spins as if attempting to kick the buccaneer as a feint; then acrobatically halts his spin, plants his feet and thrusts with his rapier. My acrobatics roll is made by three, do I get a bonus?"

It's always up to the GM to determine bonuses for surprise.

[MrAgdesh]

I think that I'll go along the lines of what I said about Feint halving the target's DCV - but Only if they choose to Abort. Otherwise just straight OCV modifiers.

[Lucius]

 

How does this grab you?

 

Feint:  (Total: 26 Active Cost, 5 Real Cost)

Telekinesis (10 STR), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (Uses INT not STR to resist; +0), Invisible Power Effects (Inobvious to [two Sense Groups]; +1/2) (22 Active Points); Limited Power Cannot damage, move target, or immobilize limbs: only to impose"Grab" penalties and only vs "grabber" (-1 1/2), Only Works On Limited Types Of Objects Very Limited Group of Objects (Melee opponents; -1), Requires A Roll (Skill roll, -1 per 20 Active Points modifier; Jammed; -3/4), 3 Recoverable Continuing Charges lasting 1 Extra Phase each (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Conditional Power Can be negated with Tactics or appropriate Analyze Skill Roll (-1/4) (Real Cost: 4) <b>plus</b>

+2 with grab (4 Active Points); Requires A Roll (Skill roll, -1 per 20 Active Points modifier; Jammed; -3/4), Linked (Telekinesis; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; -3/4), 3 Recoverable Continuing Charges lasting 1 Extra Phase each (-1/2), Conditional Power Can be negated with Tactics or appropriate Analyze Skill Roll (-1/4) (Real Cost: 1)

 

On buying this ability, the player must choose a Skill that lets it work: Appropriate choices include Acting, Sleight of Hand, Tactics, Analyze, or a martial type Power Skill. Using it is a half phase attack action. Roll for the Skill, and the target may roll Tactics or Analyze (or possibly Danger Sense) to negate the effect. If the Skill Roll fails, no one is falling for this kind of trick in this combat. If it succeeds? Roll a to-hit with the +2 OCV bonus added to either the standard Grab maneuver or any special Grab maneuver that the character may use with this ability (for a Martial Maneuver treat this as a "Weapon Element - or, given the enormous difference between what the feint is actually doing and what an actual Grab is doing, perhaps it will be disallowed unless a maneuver is bought to apply to it specifically.) The target gets to use "Casual INT" to "break" the feint, but failing that the target is at -3 OCV and half DCV against the feinting attacker long enough for the attacker to get one phase to attack them in.

 

Variations are possible such as:

For less of a Limitation, the feint could "grab two limbs" and stop the target from making effective attacks for the duration of the feint.

The Continuing Charge could last an entire Turn if the feint lures a target really far out of position.

Use more or fewer Skill levels.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary points out that if the target has higher SPD and gets a full phase before the attacker does, they may use a phase to apply full INT to "breaking" the feint: "You're trying to trick me now. It won't work."

 

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, clnicholsusa said:

Ok. Since a feint is all about 'surprising' your opponent, how about re-purposing a skill that uses a 0 phase action to add points to OCV based on a skill roll when used to do exactly that?

"My character spins as if attempting to kick the buccaneer as a feint; then acrobatically halts his spin, plants his feet and thrusts with his rapier. My acrobatics roll is made by three, do I get a bonus?"

It's always up to the GM to determine bonuses for surprise.

 

6e finally got us to the point where being a capable combatant at a reasonable point cost does not require a level of agility comparable to, or exceeding, an Olympic gymnast.  I'd really rather not make Acrobatics the basis of combat skills again, and even more directly than before, thanks.

 

Actually, if I had to select an existing skill, I am thinking Acting would be more appropriate than Acrobatics - it's your ability to fool the opponent into believing your phony 'tells'.

[TheDarkness]

On 3/28/2018 at 9:08 PM, Doc Democracy said:

I think feinting would be the preserve of the highly skilled tackling opponents that were not as skilled and relied on natural talents to make up the difference.

Actually, it's the opposite. In many boxing and fencing manuals, they are quite clear about the fact that the less training an opponent has, the less likely that the response to a feint will fit a rational response against that attack, and so the openings desired might not occur at all. They often recommend sticking to straight up techniques against the less trained, as they do not have good responses to attacks anyway, and using draws and feints to make opportunities against equals, as they are harder to find an opening against.

 

That said, because of the fact that the timing of these don't really fit well in the speed chart(as most of the time, the next phase, in real time, would be way too late to take advantage of most openings created by a feint), I'd almost feel better making a build based on two attacks, one being the feint, so that the worst scenario is potentially aborting twice for only one real attack, but I like to overcomplicate things.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah a lot of highly trained combat is memorized reflexes, muscle memory, and unthinking response, so if that kind of thing is seared into your memory and muscles, you're more likely to respond to split second stimuli than someone who really doesn't know what they are doing. 

 

I saw a demonstration once, with two people.  The first was an ordinary person, the other a very highly trained martial artist.  Both were sat by a machine with lights and target to hit.  They were told to hit the targets with their hand when they saw the light.  The person with martial arts was much, much faster than the normal person, because someone like me has to think through a process:

 

1) see a light being turned on

2) recognize where the light is

3) tell my hand to punch that target

4) hand moves to punch the target

 

The martial artist, however, has trained his body and mind to respond to information without thinking it through, they just fire off the attack,  So the skip a step which is one of the longer ones:

 

1) see a light being turned on

2) recognize where the light is

4) hand moves to punch the target

 

Its why if someone pulls a gun on you, unless they are some kind of master, you can usually knock the gun away or even take it before they can pull the trigger.  Its why if you act, someone who reacts is usually slower.

[TheDarkness]

4 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah a lot of highly trained combat is memorized reflexes, muscle memory, and unthinking response, so if that kind of thing is seared into your memory and muscles, you're more likely to respond to split second stimuli than someone who really doesn't know what they are doing. 

 

 

And actually, that's why feints are more effective and necessary against people who have trained the 'right' responses. The feint is intended to summon up the correct response to the move that appears to be coming, only to then switch to something that capitalizes on that. If you feint with a jab, and I do something that is totally ineffective against a jab, but happens to block the line of attack of a hook, and your real attack is a hook, the hook will fail, irrespective of the fact that my response to your feint was totally wrong for what I thought was coming.

 

Well trained techniques are a double edged sword that way.

[mallet]

It can also go the other way as well. Although it is not stated directly in the rules, I also have a house rule with Feints that they can only be used against sentient/intelligent beings. A zombie or a wild boar isn't going to be tricked into "falling for" a feint, because they have no real concept of attack - counter attack, etc... they just go full out to the best of their abilities, there is no attempt to "out think" their opponent and they don't have the awareness that they opponent is trying to out smart them. And now that I am writing this down, I also think that Feint should also not work against a character that is Berserk as those characters are also going all out attacking and not caring if they get hit or what their opponent is doing. 

[TheDarkness]

1 hour ago, mallet said:

It can also go the other way as well. Although it is not stated directly in the rules, I also have a house rule with Feints that they can only be used against sentient/intelligent beings. A zombie or a wild boar isn't going to be tricked into "falling for" a feint, because they have no real concept of attack - counter attack, etc... they just go full out to the best of their abilities, there is no attempt to "out think" their opponent and they don't have the awareness that they opponent is trying to out smart them. And now that I am writing this down, I also think that Feint should also not work against a character that is Berserk as those characters are also going all out attacking and not caring if they get hit or what their opponent is doing. 

Totally agree, good points.

[clnicholsusa]

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

6e finally got us to the point where being a capable combatant at a reasonable point cost does not require a level of agility comparable to, or exceeding, an Olympic gymnast.  I'd really rather not make Acrobatics the basis of combat skills again, and even more directly than before, thanks.

 

Actually, if I had to select an existing skill, I am thinking Acting would be more appropriate than Acrobatics - it's your ability to fool the opponent into believing your phony 'tells'.

I'm not suggesting Acrobatics be used as the 'skill' for a 'feint'. I'm suggesting the specific skill could be any number of things and the 'feint' be a 0 phase maneuver described by the player using the skill, success with the skill roll indicating the possible addition to OCV. For acting:

"My character appears to be terrified, but throws off the look as soon as Sir Chutzpah gets close enough, then throws a right hook! I made my acting roll by three, do I get a bonus?"

Once again, this appears to be an attempt at surprise and the GM determines surprise bonuses. Which means it's on the GM to say 'the zombies aren't thinking hard enough to be fooled by the feint' or 'the Kung Fu Kid reacts to your fake telegraphing of the kick and is wide open to a punch, +4 to your OCV' or even 'Sir Chutzpah is enraged and pays no attention to the fear on your face, you receive no bonus despite rolling a five and beating your skill by eight points'.

 

[TheDarkness]

It makes the most sense to just call the skill 'feint', since it doesn't tend to bleed over into other skills at all, judging from most fighters turned actors!

[Hugh Neilson]

17 hours ago, mallet said:

It can also go the other way as well. Although it is not stated directly in the rules, I also have a house rule with Feints that they can only be used against sentient/intelligent beings. A zombie or a wild boar isn't going to be tricked into "falling for" a feint, because they have no real concept of attack - counter attack, etc... they just go full out to the best of their abilities, there is no attempt to "out think" their opponent and they don't have the awareness that they opponent is trying to out smart them. And now that I am writing this down, I also think that Feint should also not work against a character that is Berserk as those characters are also going all out attacking and not caring if they get hit or what their opponent is doing. 

 

I don't think the typical animal just goes all out to attack with no regard for their own safety.  The trained fighter falling for a feint is not out-thinking his opponent, but reacting through reflex and instinct.  It is the fighter who perceives the feint for what it is that has out-thought his opponent.

 

I would suggest someone who is "going all out attacking and not caring if they get hit or what their opponent is doing" should probably have reduced DCV - DCV is simply passive dodging, which is why being surprised out of combat results in a DCV of nil, and being unable to perceive an opponent with a targeting sense halves DCV.  Combat is not won by paying no attention to what the opponent is doing.

[Lucius]

 

For the highly skilled warrior

 

 

That wasn't a miss, that was a feint!:  (Total: 20 Active Cost, 10 Real Cost) +4 OCV (20 Active Points); Conditional Power Only if just missed the target in the previous phase (-1/2), Conditional Power Melee only (-1/2) (Real Cost: 10)

If such a capable warrior seems to miss, it can only be because they were setting the target up for the real attack.

 

 

edit: variations

 

 

That wasn't a miss, & you walked into the real attack!:  (Total: 36 Active Cost, 21 Real Cost) +4 OCV (20 Active Points); Conditional Power Only if just missed the target in the previous phase (-1/2), Conditional Power Melee only (-1/2) (Real Cost: 10) <b>plus</b> Deadly Blow:  +1d6 (If attacking a target that was missed last phase) (16 Active Points); Linked (???; -1/2) (Real Cost: 11)

 

Too Good with a __(insert weapon type)___ to Miss - that was a Feint!:  (Total: 10 Active Cost, 5 Real Cost) +5 with any single Weapon (10 Active Points); Conditional Power Only if just missed the target in the previous phase (-1/2), Conditional Power Melee only (-1/2) (Real Cost: 5)

 

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Setting a palindromedary up for the tagline

[Ninja-Bear]

I like the idea of making Feint a skill roll. I want to say that that may have been suggested in one of the martial arts books.

[Hyper-Man]

6 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I like the idea of making Feint a skill roll. I want to say that that may have been suggested in one of the martial arts books.

 

It is already a skill roll - a custom application of Sleight of Hand.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

2 hours ago, Hyper-Man said:

 

It is already a skill roll - a custom application of Sleight of Hand.

 

That’s right, I forgot about that! However, for the same reasons why Hugh noted why he wouldn’t like it rolled into Acrobatics, would be the same reason for me to make it a separate skill.

[Hugh Neilson]

So I must be a skilled pickpocket to be a good combat faker. 

 

Well, in D&D 3e, it's Bluff, so con men, so OK.

[Hyper-Man]

I think it's one of those tweener abilities that anyone can attempt but actually having a prerequisite skill is better. Thats the hard part to model.

[TheDarkness]

My view is, the game has skills, they add to it, and the GM's job is making room for that to happen in a fun way. IF the skill based character is making way for more fun for the fight-based characters, my experience is they love that character.

[Doc Democracy]

On 4/1/2018 at 5:04 PM, Hyper-Man said:

I think it's one of those tweener abilities that anyone can attempt but actually having a prerequisite skill is better. Thats the hard part to model.

 

I think that there is a case for some of these things allowing a base 11 or less chance as a skill that can be supplemented by combat levels or additional points in acting, whichever is lower...So someone highly skilled in swordfighting with some acting ability gets to use their acting ability and someone with good acting ability and some combat skills gets to use their combat skills...

 

:-)

 

I think I am less simulationist than many - my aim is to provide decent game mechanics to enhance the gameplay.  As such, I am less concerned what niche knowledge of things are and cater more to how most people think such things should work.  

 

It may be that a neophyte may not respond in the way someone properly trained would but I think that a highly skilled opponent would be able to quickly read an unskilled, but naturally talented opponent and be able to lead them into poor choices of attack.  That to me is what feint is all about, leading your opponent into making sub-optimal choices that opens them up to attacks or making them easier to defeat.

 

There are a number of ways you might do this, with varying degrees of impact on gameplay...

 

 

Doc

[TheDarkness]

I tend to view rules on a spectrum that ranges between simulation and cinematic. As such, I am not in love with approaches that either fail to do both, or are too convoluted or costly for no reason. In my experience, a lot of times, such approaches are bells and whistles that break balance and fill gaps poorly. Just explaining why I can be nitpicky on some things, I don't expect others to share this.

 

My main reason for not viewing acting and feints as the same skill is that acting is a broad skill, feints a very narrow subset of a different skill. One should be able to have a high level of skill in feints and little or no skill in acting, I think most people would agree this fits their view of both things, so I would favor simply recognizing it as another skill, perhaps a subskill under martial arts, since it gives none of the other benefits of the acting skill. As a result, I don't think its cost should be the same.

 

Now, if I wished to model it to be more simulation, then I would model the fact that the feint attack, to be effective, must be a valid attack if continued, and so I would work from there, so that either the initial attack or the second attack, but not both, are used, depending on some initial result. As such, since it really is one attack, I would have it resolved in the phase it took place in, but any advantage would entirely be dependent on the result of the feint roll's success, and its failure would just make it a normal form of whatever attack is being done, no specific advantage.

 

This completes the entire process in one phase, which I find to be a better fit cinematically(the speed chart, and the splitting up of attacks, often kills the cinematic aspect; by going for a smaller immediate effect instead of a bigger one that gets stretched to another phase, I think feint has greater cinematic and simulation value, since a feint is just the hint of another attack, not an actual action that would take the time of a full attack).

 

Where simulation takes away from game play, I totally agree that it's probably not going to be the best standard practice. For example, I might build a character's counter-strike through powers in order to make a good simulation of what one really is, but the complexity of that build wouldn't be the best practice for a standard martial maneuver or necessarily be good to replace it because the system doesn't really facilitate that build outside of building it as powers.

 

However, builds close to simulation are not, by default, better or worse for game play, sometimes they are better, sometimes worse.

 

Further, given that many are not using the move, I think there is value in asking if there's a way to build it that is balanced and might prove more useful to players and GMs.