Can you miss on purpose?

[airwalkrr]

If you intentionally want to attack and miss, that's one thing. But the idea behind combat advantage is that your attack is serious enough to be distracting, which means it is serious enough to potentially damage an enemy, even if only on a 20. So no, I wouldn't think you can attack just to grant combat advantage and miss intentionally.

And if the cleric is truly a pacifist, he wouldn't be trying to grant combat advantage to others since that would just be assisting others in fighting, which isn't very pacifistic at all. Healing people who are beaten and bruised and using it to point out their folly in the process is one thing. Actually assisting in the killing is entirely another.

For that matter, pacifism isn't generally a good trait to take along with you when playing a game like D&D.

 

[Turtlejay]

Everything after the OP is a blur to me.

I saw Pacifist Cleric and Spiritual Weapon on the same character, and none of the rest of the arguments even mattered.

Pacifist Cleric. Spiritual Weapon. Doesn't even make sense.
Not on a mechanics level, don't get me wrong.

It's like MADD handing out flasks, or Oncologists using cigars as air fresheners. It does not compute.

The Pacifist Cleric *deserves* to be stunned if his weapon hits, for the vows he is breaking to his God/church/religion. In fact, just summoning such a wanton instrument of damage should be difficult with such a vow.

From the mechanics side, CA comes from the victim being distracted by two possible threats. If the controller of the glowing phantasmal sword was having a seizure (lying down and shutting her eyes every six seconds, then standing up), I'd certainly take the sword less seriously. Sure, let the character purposely miss, but the sword is ineffective from that point forward.

Jay

 

[Mort_Q]

It's like MADD handing out flasks, or Oncologists using cigars as air fresheners. It does not compute.

That would depend entirely on how they played it.

The Pacifist Cleric *deserves* to be stunned if his weapon hits, for the vows he is breaking to his God/church/religion. In fact, just summoning such a wanton instrument of damage should be difficult with such a vow.

Again, that depends on how they play it.

Though, as I said, it 'doesn't sit well.'

 

[Turtlejay]

That would depend entirely on how they played it.

Again, that depends on how they play it.

Though, as I said, it 'doesn't sit well.'

Several definitions, courtesy of Google:

Definitions of PACIFIST on the Web:

• someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes
• pacifist(a): opposed to war
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• One who loves, supports, or favours peace; one who is pro-peace; One who avoids violence; One who opposes violence and is anti-war
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pacifist
• pacifism - the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable
• pacifism - the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• pacifism - The doctrine that disputes (especially between countries) should be settled without recourse to violence; The active opposition to such violence, especially the refusal to take part in military action
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pacifism
• pacifistic - Of or pertaining to pacifism
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pacifistic
• person who opposes the practice of war.
  www.hsp.org/default.aspx
• An individual who disagrees with war on principle.
  www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/struggle/suffrage/background/glossary/suffrageglossary.html
• pacifism - The belief that war and violence are morally wrong, regardless of the circumstances
  highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072963352/student_view0/chapter11/glossary.html

I oppose using real-world situations in D&D most of the time, but in this case the distinction is clear. You are a peace loving cleric, and doing harm to someone already in destress violates that part of your nature. I don't think coddling a Player who took such a feat and then attempts to get around it with metagamey machinations is the best thing to do, but to each their own.
Jay

 

[Mort_Q]

A pacifist struggling with choices... nah... no way that could be fun or interesting.

 

[Starfox]

I say its fine to auto miss or cause no damage.

A pacifist cleric is still a hero and a player character. Anything else would be boring and make the character a burden to the rest of the team. Pure healing just doesn't cut it. Not when defenders can cut down party damage to almost insignificant levels. He still has to contribute to the action at the table and he still HAS to take attack powers. Of course it will take running trough hoops to make those mandatory attack powers work for a pacifist cleric.

 

[abyssaldeath]

I say its fine to auto miss or cause no damage.

A pacifist cleric is still a hero and a player character. Anything else would be boring and make the character a burden to the rest of the team. Pure healing just doesn't cut it. Not when defenders can cut down party damage to almost insignificant levels. He still has to contribute to the action at the table and he still HAS to take attack powers. Of course it will take running trough hoops to make those mandatory attack powers work for a pacifist cleric.

If healing isn't that big of an issue for the party then don't take the feat. You don't need the feat to play a pacifist. If you let the Pacifist Cleric auto-miss why not let the Wizard or Sorcerer auto-miss their allies when they cast their AOE's?

It's a slippery slope and it's best not to even go there.

 

[Turtlejay]

A pacifist struggling with choices... nah... no way that could be fun or interesting.

If that was what this thread was about, sure, I'd agree with you.

It isn't. It is a *rules* question about a player trying to wring the most out of his feat. And I tried to come at it from a fluff or a gameplay side. At its core, the problem is that a player took a very powerful feat that has a cost associated with it (stun when you damage a bloodied creature) and would like to do everything in his power to eliminate that cost.

It sounds to me like the player is not struggling with being a pacifist, he's struggling with the rules constraints placed on him by taking a powerful feat.

A player struggling with being a pacifist would be:
- A powerful demon captures his party members and requires him to face somone in arena combat to win their freedom.
- Standing behind a weak enemy about to slit the throat of an innocent person.
- A twisting of a vow forces a choice between loyalties (I vow to serve you, Duke Liarton of Dishonestyville).

Those are interesting. This feat and its interactions (and I maintain that summoning a *weapon* is incongruous) are about as interesting as a player with Weapon Focus (Flails) Finding a magic dagger. Not at all.

Jay

 

[DracoSuave]

It isn't. It is a *rules* question about a player trying to wring the most out of his feat. And I tried to come at it from a fluff or a gameplay side. At its core, the problem is that a player took a very powerful feat that has a cost associated with it (stun when you damage a bloodied creature) and would like to do everything in his power to eliminate that cost.

This.

But, again, he doesn't have to attack with the weapon to get the effect.

I don't agree that 'pacifism' means 'never does violence' because obviously that doesn't work with an adventuring party. There's other definitions of pacifism that are not incongruous, and obviously that's what we're going for.

Not to mention you can reskin the damn thing to 'Over-Empathic Priest Healer' and you still have the same problem. However, the player has an option in the rules, he can take it (don't bonk them on the head so much), and so it is.

Or, if the DM rules he must bonk to get combat advantage (which is incongruous with the rules on flanking, by the way), he can go bonk someone else. If they need this power for combat advantage, they're not a melee heavy group, or their controller needs to step up.

 

[CAFRedblade]

hrmm, just thinking out loud to myself on this, but, if the spiritual weapon attacks on a sustain (minor) and aid another is a basic attack (roll versus opponents AC) for no damage, could this work in combination with the pacifist healer feat..?