Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tos_shai_hulud 01-08-08, 01:25 PM	Characters with Uncanny Dodge can sense attacks from invisible opponents. The rules mention nothing about the target of a feint needing to see the feinter. Would an invisible rogue be able to feint his target (especially a target with Uncanny Dodge)? Would the feint break invisibility? He is not actually attempting to make contact with his target (and in fact, it is impossible to make contact), but feint is listed under special "attacks" which may break the invisibility, nonetheless. Any ideas?
Marcus Majarra 01-08-08, 01:32 PM	Although there aren't any strict rules on this, I find it difficult to perform a feint maneuver against someone who can't see me.
darokinblade 01-08-08, 01:49 PM	From the SRD: A bluff requires interaction between you and the target. Creatures unaware of you cannot be bluffed. Since the rogue is invisible, the foe is unaware.
Simonides 01-08-08, 01:50 PM	My first thought was: you can't feint if you can't be seen. My second thought was: why would you want to feint while invisible. My third thought was: oh wait. Feint relies on a person being able to trick out an opponent by making a false attack to catch them off guard with the real attack. The benefit is that your opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against your next attack, your real attack. Generally, an opponent is also denied his Dex bonus to AC when attacked by an invisible foe. So in most cases, it really doesn't matter and, in those cases, I would rule that the opponent cannot react to a fake attack he cannot see. I would also rule that feint, in those cases, does not break invisibility because it isn't really an attack. Because feint provides the same benefit as being invisible in the first place, it probably shouldn't come up. However, I can see two cases where it would be an issue: Blindsight (but not Blindsense) and Uncanny Dodge. With Blindisght, an opponent can react normally to a creature it cannot see with the same precision as normal sight. Uncanny Dodge allows a rogue to continue to apply his Dex bonus to AC even when flat-footed or attacked by an invisible opponent, thereby meaning he can react to an invisible opponent. I would rule therefore, that Feinting against a creature with Blindsight or Uncanny Dodge while invisible would work. However, because they require the creature to interact with the opponent and, if successful, penalize that opponent, this falls within the spirit of an attack and therefore would break invisibility. After all, spells like Bane and Doom break invisibility. However, I would understand if a DM did not have feint break invisibility.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 01-08-08, 01:50 PM	Feint is visual. It works by tricking the target into thinking you are going to do one thing then instead doing another. If he can't see what you want him to believe you are going to do then it fails. In short, it can be used by someone without breaking invisibility but it will be unsuccessful precisely 100% of the time.
J.B. 01-08-08, 01:57 PM	Generally I would say no since common sense dictates that an opponent needs to SEE your feint/bluff to fall for it. However, considering rogue's senses are finely tuned enough that they can anticipate attacks from invisible opponents, it seems likely enough that a rogue can still be fooled with a carefully placed/timed noise or movement in order to cause him/he to anticipate incorrectly. As for breaking the invisiblity, I think we could use more info on what your guy is trying to do if not attack a person after feinting.
Finarin Panjoro 01-08-08, 02:25 PM	And why exactly couldn't the invisible rogue use sound to fake out the target? It seems to me that if they're in combat with each other they're interacting. If the rogue faked a high attack perhaps the sound of his sword through the air or the leather on his arm would be enough to fake out someone, so they didn't see the real low attack coming.
tos_shai_hulud 01-08-08, 03:08 PM	My first thought was: you can't feint if you can't be seen. My second thought was: why would you want to feint while invisible. My third thought was: oh wait. Feint relies on a person being able to trick out an opponent by making a false attack to catch them off guard with the real attack. The benefit is that your opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against your next attack, your real attack. Generally, an opponent is also denied his Dex bonus to AC when attacked by an invisible foe. So in most cases, it really doesn't matter and, in those cases, I would rule that the opponent cannot react to a fake attack he cannot see. I would also rule that feint, in those cases, does not break invisibility because it isn't really an attack. Because feint provides the same benefit as being invisible in the first place, it probably shouldn't come up. However, I can see two cases where it would be an issue: Blindsight (but not Blindsense) and Uncanny Dodge. With Blindisght, an opponent can react normally to a creature it cannot see with the same precision as normal sight. Uncanny Dodge allows a rogue to continue to apply his Dex bonus to AC even when flat-footed or attacked by an invisible opponent, thereby meaning he can react to an invisible opponent. I would rule therefore, that Feinting against a creature with Blindsight or Uncanny Dodge while invisible would work. However, because they require the creature to interact with the opponent and, if successful, penalize that opponent, this falls within the spirit of an attack and therefore would break invisibility. After all, spells like Bane and Doom break invisibility. However, I would understand if a DM did not have feint break invisibility. This is what I was getting at with feinting a player with Uncanny Dodge (thank you for explaining it more clearly than I did). The specific situation is, I have an assassin that I was trying to pin against a rogue. He cannot use his death attack if he cannot sneak attack. Being invisible is not enough to sneak attack a rogue (because of Uncanny Dodge). The only thought I had was feinting in combat, but I couldn't figure it the feint would break invisibility. Eventually, I ruled just as you did, that feinting would work, just as it should, but it would break invisibility as it is considered an attack by the game mechanics, even though it is not designed to do damage.
Tedronai 01-08-08, 04:05 PM	Feinting is not an attack, it is an opposed skill check. As such, it will NOT break invisibility, though the attack, that likely immediately follows, will.
tos_shai_hulud 01-08-08, 04:13 PM	Feinting is not an attack, it is an opposed skill check. As such, it will NOT break invisibility, though the attack, that likely immediately follows, will. Grappling is also an opposed check, yet it is an attack. Tripping is opposed ability checks, yet it is an attack. Both of these are listed under the Special Attacks section of the Combat chapter of the Player's Handbook. As "Special Attacks" they still seem to be "Attacks". The nature of the Feint may well fall under the realm of a skill check, but it is using opposed skill checks to make a "special attack".
Sinis 01-08-08, 04:51 PM	I think darokinblade's quote from the SRD is still relevant.
Merestil Haye 01-08-08, 05:06 PM	This is what I was getting at with feinting a player with Uncanny Dodge (thank you for explaining it more clearly than I did). The specific situation is, I have an assassin that I was trying to pin against a rogue. He cannot use his death attack if he cannot sneak attack. Being invisible is not enough to sneak attack a rogue (because of Uncanny Dodge). The only thought I had was feinting in combat, but I couldn't figure it the feint would break invisibility. Eventually, I ruled just as you did, that feinting would work, just as it should, but it would break invisibility as it is considered an attack by the game mechanics, even though it is not designed to do damage.I don't think the feint will do what you want anyway. The Death Attack power works only if the victim "does not detect the assassin or recognize the assassin as an enemy." If you manage to make the victim react to a feint, he has (a) detected you and (b) recognised you as an enemy because he knows you are there and aware that you are attacking him. This automatically voids any chance of using the death attack.
tos_shai_hulud 01-08-08, 06:49 PM	If the assassin were still invisible, the target would have detected an attack, not the assassin. Greater invisibility should allow an assassin to feint, then death attack a rogue. Normal invisibility should not. The fact that his invisibility was broken was what ended the potential for the death attack (I already ruled that), but I think that Greater Invisibility would allow it to work. I disagree with your definition that the assassin himself has been (a) detected or (b) recognized to be an enemy. Something is recognized, but it was not the assassin. The one I am not sure about is Superior Invisibility: How would the rogue be able to defend himself if there is no evidence of an attack (no sound, no sight, no scent, nothing). It seems that Uncanny Dodge is almost a form of prescience, so regardless of the rogue's ability to see its target, feinting in combat should work against him. Again, the rules provide no justification for this. I am attempting to use my best deductive reasoning. As the situation is already over, and the assassin's death attack already failed, I suppose it doesn't matter much. Thank you all for the help, and I hope you enjoy debating it further without me :D.
mvincent 01-08-08, 07:38 PM	Since the rogue is invisible, the foe is unaware.It seems possible to be aware of someone that you cannot actually see (indeed, that is how I often combat invisible creatures).
mvincent 01-08-08, 07:46 PM	Eventually, I ruled just as you did, that feinting would work, just as it should, but it would break invisibility as it is considered an attack by the game mechanics, even though it is not designed to do damage.Agreed. Interestingly this subject was previously discussed here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13532728#post13532728).
1 ton ghost 01-11-08, 02:22 PM	Agreed. Interestingly this subject was previously discussed here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13532728#post13532728). ah, you remembered... that takes me back. thanks. to recap: Feint is NOT purely visual, though largely, it is in the traditional sense. Invis is not very traditional, desperate times, desperate measures, bla bla bla... i digress. -Feinting is the only way to breach Uncanny Dodge apart from Hold spells, etc., and can be expressed through Bluff, which ironically, is largely verbal (outside of combat). having said that, you can do the age old, "hey, over here!", shuffle your feet obscurely, pseudo-ventriloquism, whatever. it's a simple Sense Motive vs. Bluff. i would even go so far as to grant (sometimes, not always) a Circumstance Bonus to the Feinter vs. the Feintee if he/she was invisible. depends on scenario. relying on UD as a get-out-of-jail-free card is for the birds. that is, there's a counter-measure for every measure usually. this dynamic is no exception. this is why you support the rogue whereas usually it's vice versa. whatever. -i would still rule that the Feint maintains Invis integrity...it's the follow-up attack that doesn't. you're not making an attack roll yet, Invis is still in play. -rogues aren't the only ones that Feint despite their proclivity. i've had martial types do it w/ much acclaim when combating high Dex monsters, even magi that surely wanted to land that touch attack as well. rare, but a real gem. -and yes, Death Attack is null and void if the advesary is aware you're "out there" and "up to something", though Invis tends to change it a bit. open to interpretation.
Colmarr 01-13-08, 07:01 PM	Grappling is also an opposed check, yet it is an attack. Tripping is opposed ability checks, yet it is an attack. This is false logic. Both grappling and trip attacks start with a touch attack. It is the touch attack itself that breaks the invisibility, not the grapple or trip checks. In the case of feinting, the attack doesn't happen until after the bluff check, so the assassin remains invisible until after the attack is made. As for making feints while invisible, I would allow it (against my first instincts). The feinter could use sound, deliberately scuff the sand on the floor, swish the nearby curtains, etc.
weasel0 01-14-08, 08:42 PM	Grappling is also an opposed check, yet it is an attack. Tripping is opposed ability checks, yet it is an attack. Both of these are listed under the Special Attacks section of the Combat chapter of the Player's Handbook. As "Special Attacks" they still seem to be "Attacks". The nature of the Feint may well fall under the realm of a skill check, but it is using opposed skill checks to make a "special attack". Also, these are made in place of(read as) attacks themselves. Feint is it's own action outside of attacks and in and of itself does not deal any damage nor is it an action capable of dealing damage. A feint could be an invisible rogue tossing a rock behind another rogue to cause him to turn around and face the wrong way.
Euclid 01-14-08, 10:15 PM	And why exactly couldn't the invisible rogue use sound to fake out the target? They could. But it would require a really, really high check. Feinting is chiefly visual, so invisibility sort of messes that up.
instag8or19 01-14-08, 10:32 PM	If feint requires visual interaction....does this mean that a creature without normal sight cannot be feinted....ie a creature with tremorsense or blindsight.
weasel0 01-15-08, 02:25 AM	FEINT Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by a Sense Motive check by your target. The target may add his base attack bonus to this Sense Motive check. If your Bluff check result exceeds your target’s Sense Motive check result, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn. When feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid you take a –4 penalty. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2), you take a –8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it’s impossible. Feinting in combat does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Feinting as a Move Action: With the Improved Feint feat, you can attempt a feint as a move action instead of as a standard action. As it is left unmentioned, a feint could consist of any sensory misdirection input to conduct it's sneaky intentions to the victim.
eamon 01-19-08, 11:35 AM	Since uncanny dodge implies that the defender is sufficiently aware of the attacker to dodge him, it makes sense that the attack acting misleadingly in combat might mislead the defender. If you have a dex bonus to AC you're sufficiently aware of a defender to feint. Feint works whenever the opponent has a dex bonus to AC and can be bluffed, and is irrelevant when the opponent does not have a dex bonus to AC. You can feint while invisible and cause a barbarian or rogue to lose his Dex bonus to AC against your next attack. You don't become visible since you did not attack - except if the DM considers Feint to be an attack since it's in the special attacks section (it's also in standard actions, and what about mounted combat, which is in the special attacks sections too, then?). In any case, a death attack as I read it only requires that your target doesn't detect your malign intentions while you study him. Once you start acting (and have three rounds to perform the death attack), that's no longer a requirement, I think.