Can you miss on purpose?

[Kingreaper]

I do, in fact, see it as ridiculous. But the reason it's ridiculous is that I'm forcing the cleric to jump through a lot of silly hoops to justify imposing a penalty on his own attack roll.

To take a less extreme example, suppose the cleric decides to run someplace while ordering the spiritual weapon to attack. I point out that running imposes a -5 penalty on the attack roll. The cleric's player shrugs. "I don't care if I hit, I just want to provide flanking for Stabby McRogue while I get to a safe spot."

At this point, I can try to divine whether the cleric's player is acting primarily out of a desire to acquire a penalty or primarily out of a desire to get somewhere, and allow CA or not based on this guess (which is a recipe for discord at the table).

Or you can go "Alright, well, make the attack first, that way you won't have to take the attack penalty"* and if they go "But I want to miss" you have your answer.

*(because that's how the rules for running work)

 

[Goonalan]

Or you can go "Alright, well, make the attack first, that way you won't have to take the attack penalty"* and if they go "But I want to miss" you have your answer.

*(because that's how the rules for running work)

In answer to the original question, 'yes.'

Cheers PDR

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All of your considerations don´t take into account, that the attacked target can close his eyes and render himself helpless to negate all the penalties someone impose on himself to miss.

But actually, using spiritual weapon just to grant combat advantage is not really overpowered.

And band of fellows, when you look at it can be a funny power. Imagine how manyy tales are told about the fight, where willy the warlord was so incompetent and bob the barbarian and richard the rogue.

And all in all, it is only 1 base attack more than a normal walord at-will would grant.
Take into account, that reliable powers with no miss effect are not that great:

lets look at brute strike:

hit 3w damage. cool. this results in 3w+modifier damage/2 damage per round if you miss at first round and hit on the second.

If you use a non reliable 3w power you deal 3w/2 modifier in the first round, and maybe you even have an effect already. If you hit with your regular at will on the second round, you deal 1w+modifier damage. Half w less, half modifier more and your at will usually has an aditional effect on a hit.

So what does brute stike offer? the feeling you did not waste your daily. So i believe reliable powers actually need an effect that makes them somewhat worthwhile. (If band of followers was hit: 2w damage, effect: 1 base attack, it would be a little bit better than the regular warlord at-will that grants basic attack with +int to damage. With a hit resulting in a nice "dual attack")

Make it:

hit: 2w+str. 2 allys make a basic attack.
miss: 1 ally may make a basic attack

reliable and you are certainly on realistic things that a leader daily at that level may do.

 

[The Human Target]

Actually, they are not really all that different. Knocking an ally unconscious is terrible, heck, in certain situations it could even lead to said ally's death (which is much worse than being stunned for a round).

As mentioned above, there are options for dealing with the pig farmer. Just declare the damage subdual. Heck, the rules even allow you to declare subdual after the attack has been resolved. Odds are said pig farmer would even be grateful for the PC's actions in that situation.

In the OP, the cleric is indeed attempting to get around the drawback that comes with the otherwise very powerful feat. Given the situation, as a DM, I wouldn't have a problem with him asking the question (I think its fair to ask), but I wouldn't allow it. If I allow that, I would have a difficult time convincing the wizard that he can't intentionally miss his allies that are in the area of his attacks.

I know, I'd whack the pig farmer unconscious myself.

But I don't think wanting to not hurt him at all is out of the question.

 

[thewok]

I do, in fact, see it as ridiculous. But the reason it's ridiculous is that I'm forcing the cleric to jump through a lot of silly hoops to justify imposing a penalty on his own attack roll.

Here is something that I feel is a very important distinction*: the cleric isn't making the attack roll--his/her player is. I'm not saying you can't make the distinction Dausuul, as I know you meant the cleric's player. But I think that it is an important distinction for the discussion.

Why is it important? Because in the game, you roll is the vessel to determine success or failure at what you want to do. If you want to lie to someone, you roll a Bluff check. If you want to hide, you roll a Stealth check. If you want to attack someone, you make an attack roll. If you don't want to attack someone? Don't make a roll. Maybe Intimidate, if you want them to back down without hurting them, or Bluff, if you're putting on a show for a third party.

As said before, it smacks of the new Bag O' Rats problem. RAW, maybe you're good. But it completely flies against RAI and what I would personally allow at my table.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'm sorry, the player willingly took a feat that said if he attacks within certain specific circumstances, he gets stunned. Let's not make this penalty out to be some ogrish rules-requirement or tax that the rules forces him to go through in order to play the game. It's a cost appended to one of the most powerful feats in the game.

The best way to circumvent this cost is to not take the feat. It's quid-pro-quo here. The only time he gets stunned or otherwise suffers the penalty is when he, as a player, makes the conscious choice to do so. No, I would not bend on things like Spiritual Weapon for him. When he presents me with the character sheet at the begining of game, I'll be frank and remind him that dailies that do damage are probably going to be subpar for his build, but if he accepts the risks, go for it.

Is it fair? You bet your ass it's fair.