Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5423700" data-attributes="member: 58197">So, you would also rule that if the character is hit by a blinding effect, the weapon still attacks at full bonus?(To be clear, I'm not criticizing if this is the case; it's a perfectly valid interpretation. Just pointing out that this is a logical consequence of your approach.)Or, depending on your point of view, they are associated with stupid rules. Band of Fellows, linked above, is an excellent example. The power makes no sense in terms of what's going on in the game world, so why do you expect players to use it in sensible ways?In this particular case, I don't see the problem. You want to distract the enemy but you don't want to actually cause physical harm. So you feint an attack but do your best to ensure that it misses. I agree that calling for a Bluff check is reasonable, however. If you succeed, you attack but hit only on a natural 20. If you fail, you still hit only on a natural 20, but the foe sees through your bluff and doesn't grant CA.Edited to add: To me, the real problem here is the existence of a Pacifist Healer feat in the first place. You'd think they'd have learned their lesson from the endless arguments about the paladin code pre-4E: Trying to write roleplaying into the rules ends badly. Don't do it.</blockquote>