[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Either would I.


I fully do agree. Which is why skill is important here. It must become instinctive. Which is possible with training. A lot of training.

Yep, I make it a Perception based skill roll (and like feint I'd make it highest skill in case you were fighting with an unfamiliar weapon) I;d also consider giving a bonus form various advantages that would be relevant to keeping calm in combat situations e.g. combat reflexes etc

Originally Posted by Gollum

Kromm precisely said that feint was the exception.

I know, my question is why is it an exception? Other then for the reason it can't exist unless you make it an exception to the system premise that everyone knows what their opponents are doing in system terms.

The entire premise of a feint is that you don't automatically know what your opponent is doing. Moreover a feint works because you don't know when they are they are feinting and when they are not* Which implies that you don't automatically know what they are doing.


Now all this is fine because all the this is a question of game balance not reality, and that's fine (it's extra work to add this stuff in, and even ignoring that it only going to be appropriate for some games styles anyway).

As I said above I see this as a game switch only, not something the system has got wrong


*if you did then any instance of suddenly not being able to recognise what they doing would mean they where feinting, you would know that and thus the feint would be foiled anyway

Originally Posted by Gollum

The telegraphic rule contains its own answer: it directly gives a bonus to the defense roll. So, it is necessarily obvious. No roll required to take benefit from this bonus.

Yep, alternatively you could add the same bonus to the perception roll. And expanding that thought, I'd possibly give a penailty to the perception roll for assessing a deceptive attack equal to the defence penalty it gives