Hi

Yesterday evening, I discover the optionnal tactic combat "Double Feint" disappear in the fith edition. I search quickly on the forum and I don't find a reason for this ! Anyone have an idea (Greg, I suppose) !

Caball

It got taken out because people were turning naked Picts into superknightly threats.

It got taken out because people were turning naked Picts into superknightly threats.


Actually, I originally invented it to give the Picts something to do against knights besides test their running or stealth skills.

I haven't thought of this for years, but it was because it was easily abused in some manner.

I understand very well.

thanks for answers.

How about (as a replacement):

-5 to skill, reduce foe's Armor by half your DEX
-10 to skill, reduce foe's Armor by your DEX.

The only people who would use it are those who already have high sword (weapon) skills - exactly the people you don't want getting extra benefits. Weapon skill is important enough already. Then again, maybe the people who had 21+ skill are less likely to use it, because they lose their critical chance.

It also leads to odd situations - being combined with all out/berserk attacks, being used against people you know are significantly inferior, or when you have an unopposed attack (when an unopposed attack is already a substantial advantage). I'm sure more abusive situations would crop up.

I think Double Feint, whether flawed or not, had the right idea by basing the chance of success on something independent of attack success.

The only people who would use it are those who already have high sword (weapon) skills - exactly the people you don't want getting extra benefits. Weapon skill is important enough already.

I disagree. The characters who are most likely to use it are those who would benefit more by reducing a foes Armor rating than say by improved crtical chance. This makes the tactic more likely to be used by those with low damage bonuses (and or those using light weapons, like daggers), and then only against foes in heavy armor.

Or by those with very high skill (those who are inpsired) who would like to trade off a little (or them) skill to get through armor.



Then again, maybe the people who had 21+ skill are less likely to use it, because they lose their critical chance.

That is what I think. A character with, a 25 sword skill and 4d6 damage is always better off with the higher skill. Even without a critical the +5 to the roll is better than halfing the foes armor.



It also leads to odd situations - being combined with all out/berserk attacks, being used against people you know are significantly inferior, or when you have an unopposed attack (when an unopposed attack is already a substantial advantage). I'm sure more abusive situations would crop up.

I would say the tactic is incompatable with the all out attack. einting, by it's nature is more o a planned tactic, as opposed to the headlong rush o the all out attack. As far as it being used against inerior foes or when unopposed, I don't see those as odd. Those are just the sort of situations where a skilled warrior would aim at the gaps in the armor.

In fact, the -5/-10 skill peanlty would make using the tactic against inferior foes or in unopposed attacks something of a risk. In the fomrer is reduces the attacker's advnatage and in the latter it reduces the chance of hitting when given a "free shot".






I think Double Feint, whether flawed or not, had the right idea by basing the chance of success on something independent of attack success.


Except feinting would be something that is mostly skill based. And since the benefit is tied to the feinter's DEX, how viable the tactic is depends quite heaviliy on the DEX score.

I think the alternate rule would work.