I had a concept for a very support style monk who used feint to help their allies strike the enemy, can I dual wield war fans and get a +4 bonus on a feint? Or is just a static +2?

I can't really find a ruling anywhere


Yes, although there is room for interpretation.

The distracting weapon quality provides an untyped bonus.

You gain a +2 bonus on Bluff skill checks to feint in combat while wielding this weapon.

The bonus applies for just wielding the weapon, not for making a specific attack or maneuver with it. And interestingly enough, feinting is not actually a combat maneuver; it is a skill check, independent of a specific weapon or attack bonus. So all your bonuses should apply!

However, your GM may rule differently here, because even though untyped bonuses normally stack, there is one exception:

Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

By RAW, since the fans are two individual weapons, they should count as different sources for the purposes of stacking untyped bonuses, whether or not they are the same style of weapon.

But the GM may rule that because the weapons are identical, the bonus is the same. If so, then you could circumvent this by wielding two different weapons with the distracting quality (e.g. fighting fan in one hand, and sickle-sword in the other hand).

Or, the GM may rule that the "source" of the bonus is the distracting quality itself, in which case you cannot stack them. There is no counter for this; simply respect the GM's verdict and move on, as there are many other ways of improving a character's feint check.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I was waffling on this. I think the actual source may be the weapon feature distracting rather than the weapon itself so multiple weapons with the same feature wouldn't stack their bonuses. I think I'd rule this way not because it's overpowered for a monk or whatever, but because ruling the bonuses stack has the potential to cascade into other similar weapon features… and give an even bigger advantage to creature that have lots of hands! (+1ed this, by the way. Excellent job presenting both sides.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan May 17 '18 at 6:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @HeyICanChan I was tempted to mention debating semantics with one's GM about what exactly is the "source" in this situation, but I think it's one of those weird ambiguities that is 100% up to GM discretion. \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ May 17 '18 at 6:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.