The problem with feinting

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by weby

Game mechanically they produce very different results. In general if the deceptive attack is not enough to bring down the defenders defenses down enough then the "lottery" of feints is better else deceptive. Though at really high defenses and fairly high attack skills(16+) "critical hunting" is a better option. As for critical hunting, it should be noted that feints also allow some critical hunting as on the actual attack you will use the full skill and not the lower skill.

Right. But what I meant by saying they simulate the same thing is, I might say to a player "He feints a cut at your legs, but then thrusts at your heart! Defend at -2." when an enemy attacks at -3 for the Vitals and -4 worth of Deceptive Attack, with the latter representing the feinting part. The Feint mechanic just feels really unwieldy to me, plus it's another thing to keep in mind from one turn to the next. Deceptive Attack's a more elegant way to represent the same kind of thing in the game world.

[Adversary]

Originally Posted by Glimmerman

My thoughts about feints is that you are feinting to attack with one weapon (A), but you really are attacking with another weapon (B). You cannot benefit from Feint by attacking with weapon A after Feint.

Feinting to make a follow-up attack with "weaker" weapon (unarmed instead of armed, shield or knife instead of sword etc.) could give a bonus of +1 to initiate Feint. Now you have more reason to kick or slam your opponent instead of immediately trying poke holes with a sharp object.

I don't think there's a problem with the timing of feint, nor with feinting and attacking with the same weapon. I read the MMA writer Jack Slack a lot, and he talks about feints as a way of lulling you opponent. Say you fake jumping in with a left hook. Your opponent reacts, ducks/blocks or retreats, but then realizes you didn't actually attack. Next time you wind up as if to throw a hook, your opponent is going to think you are faking again, and, because he doesn't want to get thrown out of position for no reason, doesn't react. Except this time it is a real hook and you catch him standing still.

In combat sports this happens a lot with counter-punchers, whose plan is to punch their opponent as the opponent attacks. But one doesn't want to be punching at air all night. So if the opponent feints a lot, after a few whiffs the counter-puncher will tend to take his finger off the trigger, tend to wait to throw the counter-punch, hoping to see if this time the opponent is coming in for real. The opponent can capitalize on that moment of hesitation.

Granted, these types of mind games play out over a whole fight--a feint doesn't just affect the opponent for the next second.

But contrast this type of feint with a superman punch, where you fake a kick, then punch with the hand on the same side of your body as the kick was coming from (jerking back your leg while punching gives you the momentary appearance of Superman in flight). Those happen almost simultaneously, use different weapons, and are probably more like a deceptive attack.

[corwyn]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Does anyone recall any examples of Dual Weapon Attack being a mixed Feint/Hit? That seems more intuitive since it would seem harder to feint then hit with the same limb, easier to draw attention to a different limb first then hit with the other, worth a -4 instead of -6. The -1 would only apply once though at the end, not the QC.

I used to do this all the time with my pulp martial artist to make sure I hit with power blow. And no, we never applied the -1 to the qc. That's not an active defense.

[AlexanderHowl]

I agree. On another note, one reason to use feint is because you can combine feint with deceptive attack or riposte while you cannot combine deceptive attack with riposte.