Defensive Feint

[SofS]

I just had an idea for a house rule that I haven't seen elsewhere. Please let me know what you think.


Defensive Feint
When a character successfully feints an opponent, he or she may elect to forego the opponent becoming flat-footed against the next attack in favour of gaining either a +4 dodge bonus to AC or partial (20%) concealment against that opponent for the duration of the following round.


I think that this ability would increase the versatility of feinting while maintaining a degree of verisimilitude. I claim no expertise in fighting, but I do find that it's possible to fake out an opponent in such a fashion as to make their next attack rather awkward. The idea of gaining concealment in this fashion is more than a little abstract, I admit, but I think it's relatively in line with other options available for physical actions in D&D.

So. Thoughts?

[TheGeek]

If I'm reading this correctly, the PC can choose to either gain a +4 bonus to AC OR gain partial concealment?

I don't think I'd ever take the AC bonus, concealment is pretty good.

Other than that, it's a great idea-though I'm not sure how to interpret the flavor. :smallwink:

[SofS]

Yep, a character can pick either. Concealment is better, and I imagine that anyone would take it over an AC boost under normal circumstances. However, if someone already has concealment, they might elect to take the boost in order to cover themselves even better. It could also turn a good AC into an excellent AC, which could be useful for some builds. The main reason it's there is that I came up with the idea for getting concealment and figured that someone should have access to a weaker defense as well if they want it.

It's definitely weak flavour-wise. I wanted it to be about as generic as feinting is in the standard rules. I'd interpret the in-game actions to be feints that bring the opponent off-balance and in bad position to strike, dirty tricks like flinging dirt or raking the eyes, shifty fighting styles that draw attention to your offense while you stay mobile otherwise, or anything else that seems to make sense at the time. It's quite abstract, but that's how D&D tends to be right now.

[Kizara]

Yep, a character can pick either. Concealment is better, and I imagine that anyone would take it over an AC boost under normal circumstances. However, if someone already has concealment, they might elect to take the boost in order to cover themselves even better. It could also turn a good AC into an excellent AC, which could be useful for some builds. The main reason it's there is that I came up with the idea for getting concealment and figured that someone should have access to a weaker defense as well if they want it.

It's definitely weak flavour-wise. I wanted it to be about as generic as feinting is in the standard rules. I'd interpret the in-game actions to be feints that bring the opponent off-balance and in bad position to strike, dirty tricks like flinging dirt or raking the eyes, shifty fighting styles that draw attention to your offense while you stay mobile otherwise, or anything else that seems to make sense at the time. It's quite abstract, but that's how D&D tends to be right now.

I like it in general, but you don't specify how much concealment. 20% sounds about right to me.

It's a nice feat that I think I'll add to my own Tome of House Rules.

[SofS]

I like it in general, but you don't specify how much concealment. 20% sounds about right to me.

It's a nice feat that I think I'll add to my own Tome of House Rules.

Thanks. I thought that partial concealment always meant 20%, but I could be wrong. I'll edit it. Also: it wasn't originally intended as a feat, but I can definitely see that being a desirable way to use it. One never knows what sort of power level is appropriate for games in general, so it'd probably be good as a feat for feat-heavy or low-power games and a flat rule for games where players get few feats. Either way, thank you for the consideration.