Can you miss on purpose?

[The Human Target]

Well, the fluff of the power's pretty clear.

I do, in fact, have a lot of problems when a cleric who takes up the mantle of pacifism (even the 'you can hurt them a bit but not finish them off'-style pacifism the feat requires) is using magic from the god who empowers them with the powers inherent in pacifism, who makes them better at pacifism....

...and they go around summoning weapons.

Look, I mean... seriously. Come on. Game-crunch effects don't even play into this. The cleric is empowered to be a man of not-killing, and he goes about summoning killing instruments that fly around.

This doesn't make any sense. The player should have to sit down and explain how the hell this doesn't break versimilitude. He'll have to go into what the heck his ethos is here, and how this actually works. Why is that? Just because the rules say you can take power A and feat B and feature C doesn't mean you're absolved from the responsibility of making a character that makes rational sense.

4E power fluff is not the place to go for rules issues. If that were true, Warlords could only Inspiring Word on conscious non-deaf allies.

Also in 4E clerics are empowered by the church and not a god directly, so "pacifism" is more a worldly concept. Nothing stops you from being a pacifist cleric of Kord that refuses to wound enemies he after he has drawn first blood.

My groups pacifist cleric also carries a mace. That's a weapon, and he's supposed to be a "pacifist" (which in game terms doesn't mean he can't hurt others, but that he is forbade to himself kill.)

So would your force a pacifist cleric to not use a weapon at all? Or any damaging prayers?

The argument that a summoned Spiritual Weapon somehow breaks that concept of pacifism more than a +2 Lullaby Mace or a Lance of Faith doesn't hold any water.

If the PC wanted to not make the attack roll at all, I would refuse them. But the OP is about making the attack roll but intentionally trying to create a penalty to the to-hit roll.

If falling prone and closing eyes leads to a penalty to hit, then so be it. It's the player's choice. This does not circumvent the rules, this actually adheres to the rules. The roll must be made, and there is a chance of success. I'd say The Game is satisfied.

That does however end up being kinda... silly looking and weird.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think removing the Reliable keyword, or making the Effect into an on-hit effect would be better for that power.

I don't at all care for the idea of wanting to miss. If you don't want to hit someone, don't attack them.

The power´s flavour text says the contrary:

an miss actually is the desireable outcome. But in this case, i would just allow the opponent to accept the hit, to cancel the effect...

Maybe a rewrite as a stance, that allows a bluff check or something would be even better....

 

[DracoSuave]

4E power fluff is not the place to go for rules issues. If that were true, Warlords could only Inspiring Word on conscious non-deaf allies.

This isn't a 'Fourth Edition' conceit. This is a general conceit with any character you create in any roleplaying game ever. The players have a responsibility to create characters that make some semblance of sense relative to the world they are in. The fact the book they pull the rules from say 'Dungeons and Dragons' on it does not in any way exempt them from this responsibility.

Also in 4E clerics are empowered by the church and not a god directly, so "pacifism" is more a worldly concept. Nothing stops you from being a pacifist cleric of Kord that refuses to wound enemies he after he has drawn first blood.

Except for the fact that the empowerment IS by the church, which implies some sort of lip service to the ethos of said belief system. Now, you could justify the clerics of Pelor giving some one the power to heal better at the cost of being less able to bring suffering to those near death. You could see Ilmater's clerics doing that. But could you then see said clerics investing the -same- initiate with the power to summon weapons and magics that are designed inherently to brain people to death?

Particualarily when such ethos have access to non-damaging methods of combating enemies of the church?

You have two options: Either the divine aspect of the diety gave the power to the adherant, or the church that espouses that diety's ideals gave the power to the adherant. Either way, it results in the same basic premise: Someone granted that adherant the power, and that someone did so on the basis of the ethos that someone wishes to espouse.

Kord, being a god of war, and of storms, doesn't exactly have an ethos devoted to simultaneously healing the wounded, granting succor to the downtrodden, AND summoning implements of destruction at the same time. The two are antithetical.

I'm not saying it's impossible to explain, but the fact is... you need a little better than 'OH A GOD DID NOT DO IT SO IT TOTALLY WORKS.' It's not even restricted to arcane characters... every single pip and dot on your character sheet for every character ever should have some sort of rational explanation, and if there are inconsistancies, or even contradictions, you need a LOT more of an explanation than 'The rules don't say I can't.'*

The DM is the arbiter, and -can- say 'This is stupid, try again, sir.'

My groups pacifist cleric also carries a mace. That's a weapon, and he's supposed to be a "pacifist" (which in game terms doesn't mean he can't hurt others, but that he is forbade to himself kill.)

There actually is a difference between carrying a mace, and using the same font of divine power to summon a mystical weapon as a manifestation of your diety's puissance.

So would your force a pacifist cleric to not use a weapon at all? Or any damaging prayers?

In the former, no. Again, he's carrying the weapon, and a weapon can be used defensively, to parry blows, and such. However, if he has a power that summons weapons, he has to be able to explain how he is simultaneously summoning divine power that heals AND punishes him for using violent powers, and using that -exact same power- to create implements of war.

That puts the onus on him to come up with a plausible explanation. This is not the same as forbidding that character, do not mistake me. But he had better have some sort of explanation other than 'It gives combat advantage.' Some characters are easier to explain than others; the fighter with axe-based attacks who takes weapon focus: axe doesn't need to state one because the explanation here is obvious: He's an axe-specialist. Go team.

Imagine instead if a sorcerer took a feat that said 'If you use a fire power, you take 5 points of damage' as a negative aspect. Then he takes an ability that is a fire power. I think some explanation is in order here.

The argument that a summoned Spiritual Weapon somehow breaks that concept of pacifism more than a +2 Lullaby Mace or a Lance of Faith doesn't hold any water.

1) Pacifist Clerics generally use implement powers in their builds
2) The cleric is not using his divine font of power to create these things. He is using it to undo wounds.

More over, there are ways available to a cleric to force combat advantage, through prayers, that don't involve conjuring a spiritual weapon. It's not like 'This is the way to do this effect I want' is even a valid argument.


*as an example, a cleric of the Raven Queen could belong to a mystery cult that states that her clerics are endowed with the abilities to represent her whim... as fate is dualistic, and as agents of her will can stave off death from those who are fated for other things, while using a summoned scythe as a symbol of her glory.

 

[Dausuul]

4E power fluff is not the place to go for rules issues. If that were true, Warlords could only Inspiring Word on conscious non-deaf allies.

Hmm. That's an interesting idea. Might have to implement that in my next campaign (and extend it to all the "Word" powers--no need to single out warlords). It'd be a good way to put some bite back into zero hit points; I get tired of PCs falling over and popping up again next round. And it'd make the "deafened" condition worth keeping track of, instead of just a random minor debuff that's more nuisance than it's worth.

 

[frankthedm]

I think this is is weird, as the warlord from my group just used this yesterday. He kept missing on purpose to dish out two surrounded-by-melee solos.

Don't you guys think it is a bit off to miss on reliable with effect powers?

Yes. I'd invoke "bag of rats" and say the ability does not work if the user does not attack at full bonuses.

 

[Kerranin]

So, to drag this back on-topic a bit, what about *other* cases where missing might be desirable.

Say, Band of Fellows.

My warlord would happily miss with this on purpose several rounds in a row when an opponent is surrounded...

In my view if you have not used your full abilities to try to hit the target, you have not used the attack power, and no abilities or effects can trigger from it.

So, where Band of Fellows is used, the Warlord must make every effort to hit the target otherwise the effect does not trigger. Think of using this power in RP terms - "Come forth my wonderous band and slay this creature! I'll just wave my sword a bit and make no effort to help you..."

I believe that this power shows how allowing players to deliberately miss can be abused, and as such we should not allow deliberate misses on powers. If a player wishes to deliberately miss an attack that is fine, but they cannot be allowed to use it to trigger some other effect.

 

[Dausuul]

In my view if you have not used your full abilities to try to hit the target, you have not used the attack power, and no abilities or effects can trigger from it.

So, where Band of Fellows is used, the Warlord must make every effort to hit the target otherwise the effect does not trigger.

What if someone goes with the "lazy warlord" build? Where you put an 8 in Strength, use a whip as your weapon (without bothering to become proficient), and rely on powers that enable your allies to attack? This is not a hypothetical, either. As I mentioned above, I made a hybrid wizard/warlord once that did exactly this--the idea was that she was a tactically savvy wizard, who alternated between casting spells and inspiring and directing her allies--and she was very effective. If I had gotten her to 15th level, Band of Fellows would have been stupidly powerful in her hands, even if she attacked at full bonus every time.

Band of Fellows is just badly written IMO. Any power that gives PCs an incentive to penalize their own attack rolls needs a serious infusion of basic game design.

Think of using this power in RP terms - "Come forth my wonderous band and slay this creature! I'll just wave my sword a bit and make no effort to help you..."

I wouldn't advise thinking of using this power in RP terms, because it doesn't make a damn bit of sense no matter how you slice it. It's not quite as bad as Come and Get It, but it's not far off. "Come forth my wondrous band and slay this creature! I will inspire you to feats of valor with my dramatic attacks! Until I actually hit, and then you won't be inspired any more."

 

[Steelwill]

I would allow missing on purpose, but i would use the bag of rats rule whenever needed:

It is the intend. If someone tries to abuse the rules, just say no. Cancel the power used entirely. As I interpret the rules, you need to try your best to have the power have a (miss) effect. Closing eyes and falling prone just makes you look stupid andincompetent, not inspiring your fellows to perform better or the gods to aid you in your tasks.

I agree with this, and would add that the pacifist so deliberately trying to make the attack fail undermines the spiritual weapon being a threat to the creature it is flanking and therefore no longer provides CA, as the creature may safely ignore it. The basis for this being that PC's who would be blinded, stunned, or otherwise in the similar status that the pacifist cleric is trying to achieve in order to miss on purpose would no longer grant CA either were they the flanker and the attack is made by the cleric. Also the tactic in question smacks of meta-game thinking, in that, its an attempt to manipulate a game mechanic, but in character makes little sense. Its not behavior that should be rewarded imo.

 

[twilsemail]

For those of you considering missing on purpose, what happens when the Wizard drops a Fireball? Out of curiosity.

 

[Dausuul]

For those of you considering missing on purpose, what happens when the Wizard drops a Fireball? Out of curiosity.

Uh... stuff catches fire?

As far as I'm concerned, Fireball presents no problem. It's all one attack; the fact that you have to roll that attack separately against each target doesn't change that. If you have a penalty on the attack, whether self-inflicted or not, it applies to all the attack rolls. So you can spare your allies at the cost of also sparing your enemies.