Do Feint and Deceptive Attack maneuvers produce cumulative defense penalties?

[Captain-Captain]

A character has Broadsword 14 and Karate 16. with a kick attack techniqued up to 16. turn 1: Feint with a broadsword attack. Turn 2: Use Deceptive attack to make a kick. Assuming the Feint wins by 2 and the Deceptive attack at -2 produces a -1 penalty is the defender at -3 on the defense or the better of the two?

[Midelvia]

I don't want them to stack. It seems like they are both doing the same thing with a different mechanic. Can you really "double-fake" someone?

If you use the broadsword to feint and don't attack with it, but instead use deceptive attack on a kick... I only use the deceptive attack modifier. The feint was pointless.

I don't recall see a rule on this. I don't have my books so I can't check.

[Kromm]

They do "stack." If you use a sword fake to draw someone's guard and then kick so fast (speed is a valid Deceptive Attack!) that even if his guard were in place, he couldn't easily respond . . . well, it's more effective than if you just drew his guard or just threw a fast shot. Or for another example, if you spend a second pressing his weapon out of line (a valid Feint) and then suddenly drop your point on the ensuing thrust (a valid Deceptive Attack), it's more effective than if you pressed and then made the obvious attack. Generally, if a fighter is willing to dedicate an entire action to feinting, you shouldn't penalize him by denying him the right to use Deceptive Attack.

[Gudiomen]

The prophet has spoken, all hail!

Hehe, seriously my understanding is that they stack as well. They represent different things, although it was nice to be reminded that sheer speed can count as a deceptive attack, helps me describe attacks with more color.

From the balance point of view I see no issue, quite the opposite, you can waste a wonderful feint by overdoing it and doing a deceptive attack (reducing your chances to land the blow)...

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Midelvia

Can you really "double-fake" someone?

I don't see why not. I could even see using Feint multiple times in a row, using each to stack a bigger and bigger penalty to your opponents defense, until you finally go for the kill shot, which he won't be expecting in the least. Each time you're feinting you're tricking your opponent into thinking he knows what moves or combinations you're using, when in reality he's just being drawn into a well set up fake-out.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

I don't see why not. I could even see using Feint multiple times in a row, using each to stack a bigger and bigger penalty to your opponents defense, until you finally go for the kill shot, which he won't be expecting in the least. Each time you're feinting you're tricking your opponent into thinking he knows what moves or combinations you're using, when in reality he's just being drawn into a well set up fake-out.

Realistically, though, this just doesn't work. Following a feint with a tricky attack is one thing, but following a feint with a feint isn't very effective. You can very easily nullify your feints - you've wasted the first one to follow it up with another. You've created a gap, caused a reaction, forced an interruption in rhythm - and then tried to do that same thing again. It won't help you. Far from not expecting the attack in the least, he's very likely to be exceptionally on guard for it - you've telegraphed your intentions now matter how tricky your feints are, they're ultimately clearly feints...you didn't attack him.

I've heard the "get them so off-balance they can't defend" logic to stacked feints, but the overwhelming evidence I found from fighting manuals, discussions with fighters, books on the martial arts, and observations and participations in fights, is that following a feint with another feint merely wastes the first one, it doesn't make the second more likely to succeed or the defender less able to defend. Often, it encourages him to concentrate on defense until you're finished messing around (AOD in game terms) or just womp on you since you're clearly not about to whack him (Usually an Attack, but can also be an AOA).

[rosignol]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

I don't see why not. I could even see using Feint multiple times in a row, using each to stack a bigger and bigger penalty to your opponents defense, until you finally go for the kill shot, which he won't be expecting in the least. Each time you're feinting you're tricking your opponent into thinking he knows what moves or combinations you're using, when in reality he's just being drawn into a well set up fake-out.

IIRC, a Feint only counts for your next attack. If you don't use it, you lose the benefit.

[Gudiomen]

IMHO... if you were able to feint the defender wouldn't even react fully to your second feint. Thus it would be less eficient. If he doesn't react to your feint, or doesn't aknowledge it fully you can try to further deceive him... by the rules this would mean giving up on the effects of a bad feint to replace them with another feint hoping for a better gap. So if you won the first feint by 1 you may try another and maybe get a margin of 3... but they don't stack, the defenses of the oponent were reduced by 1, you just didn't take advantage of it and decided to try for a bigger gap, on the next one, defenses are down by 3... but they are not cumulative. Multiplie feints one after the other probably represent feints that weren't effective or not very good. Or simply an inexperienced fighter. A true master would not try to predict your "pattern of attack" so the "fake out" wouldn't work he's reading your movements and attacks 1 by 1, anything else is a dangerous hunch. A swordfight is not a chess game, if it is it's only in where it concerns the positioning of the fighters. In fact the reason a feing works is because we are letting ourselves be led and "thinking": 'oh, he is attacking me there the attack is coming that way and will land there, I better move my sword to interce... oh sh*t!'

I think Toadkiller worded this nicely.

[Kromm]

Just to pile on . . .

Going fake-fake-fake-fake-... is pretty silly. It's a good way to let the other guy know that you think you are t3h h4wt at fighting and are trying to feint him. A bit like the scene in some martial-arts movies where the showoff does all kinds of crazy moves while his opponent just stares at him like he's an idiot. I don't think there's much realism in allowing successive feints to stack or play off one another in any way.

Going fake-tricky attack-fake-tricky attack-... is effective. The opponent is barely defending himself, or even getting hit, and realizes you mean him harm. He's off-balance and barely able or unable to react. It's essentially the nature of progressive indirect attacking, the identification of which (I hesitate to say "invention") was arguably Bruce Lee's biggest contribution to martial-arts theory.

Martial Arts is going to come out and say that you can "stack" different mechanics intended to cause a defense penalty. It's also going to say that no matter how many times you feint, only the most recent feint is of value. A good feint followed by a bad one is undone. A bad feint followed by a good one is suddenly irrelevant.

[Midelvia]

Thanks for the clarification.... I will follow the rules.

For the record.... I have players that will bend the rules until the scream but don't break... I get them back by doing the same to them when they are GM.

That being said.... I still don't want them to stack because I'm mean. ;) LOL