I don't want to use my feat!

[KarinsDad]

You want to fool someone into thinking that you are worse than you are.

If you don't use the bluff skill to mislead people, then what the hell do you use it for?

So, you use the Bluff skill EVERY time someone wants to mislead someone else?

A spell caster uses Bluff to cast at a lower caster level? Where is RAW does it state that he must also use a Bluff check in order to lower his caster level?


The original question was whether you could lower your "to hit", not whether you could fool people by doing so.

That is a side tangent that the thread has gone off on.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A spell caster uses Bluff to cast at a lower caster level?

No. He uses bluff to conceal his ability to cast at a higher level ( or to conceal his motives for doing so, or conceal his ACTUAL target, etc.). He can lower his casting level at will (down to the minimum power of the spell), but whether anyone believes he can ONLY cast at that lower level is a matter for Bluff vs Sense Motive.

If he just wants to cast at a lower level to cast at a lower level and he doesn't care who knows he's casting below his potential, no bluff roll is needed.

As for the tangent, the OP brought it up himself in Post#15.

Egres
Actually, I choose a feat like WF because it's hard to find a good reason to not use its benefit, but you could think to a disguised fighter that wants to mask his real fighting level.

As mentioned before, this comes up time and time again, in fiction and in fact. When the little guy in "13th Warrior" beheaded his opponent after letting him knock him around for a while, it was a perfect example of bluff vs sense motive.

When Alexander the Great used motion in his cavalry to cover his skirmishers moving into position to flank the Persian cavalry, that was bluff vs sense motive on a grand scale.

 

[Storyteller01]

Thanks for the "stupid".

BTW, I agree that a fighter can't voluntarily lower his bab too.

What's the problem with that?

HR are made for this kind of issues.

I asked for feedback about a RAW issue: there's no need to be harsh.

Can't see why not. A character can voluntarilty fail a save. WHy not lower your attack (for whatever reason. Although rp wise, I can see a fighter having tothrow a fight and still keep his head intact).

 

[Egres]

I'm just assuming here (because to actually verify would be a waste of time), but I believe all those feats are phrased something along the lines of "you gain, get, are given, are endowed with, granted, permitted, allowed or recieve this bonus" and it's manifestly obvious that they all mean the same bloody thing.

Nope.

You "gain" and you "are allowed to" are quite different.

If you gain you cannot choose to not gain it.

if you are allowed to you can choose to avoid the feat's benefit.

Heck, by your reasoning I could choose to avoid the 3 extra hps from the Toughness feat...


TOUGHNESS [GENERAL]

Benefit: You gain +3 hit points.


Just another note, for those of you who state that you can act as a rookie:

EXOTIC WEAPON PROFICIENCY [GENERAL]

Choose a type of exotic weapon. You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat.

Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1 (plus Str 13 for bastard sword or dwarven waraxe).

Benefit: You make attack rolls with the weapon normally.

Normal: A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

As you can see, you can't choose to get a -4 penalty due to the lack of proficiency, and this means that your training results cannot be avoided.

Maybe disguised, but not avoided.

Edit: posted while I was replying:

Can't see why not. A character can voluntarilty fail a save. WHy not lower your attack (for whatever reason. Although rp wise, I can see a fighter having tothrow a fight and still keep his head intact).

You can't see why not?

Because the RAW don't allow so.

 

[Storyteller01]

You can't see why not?

Because the RAW don't allow so.

You might want to check the current 'Lance as a one handed/two handed weapon' thread. Me and the RAW don't get along very well.

 

[Egres]

You might want to check the current 'Lance as a one handed/two handed weapon' thread. Me and the RAW don't get along very well.

I see, but let me quote myself:

Premise: I would like to have RAW based replies.

 

[Storyteller01]

Don't think you'll find one, although the voluntary failure of a save or rules for lowering spellcaster levels set a decent example of writer intent.

Honestly, I don't think they expected this situation.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

In other words, the rules state how to calculate combat and it tells you what you add and subtract. A literal reading of this is that you cannot add part of your BAB, you add your BAB, etc.

Yes, a VERY literal reading by a mindlessly literal reader. But if you have a lick of common sense you can see that the rules just do not address the idea of using less than your full bonuses that you are entitled to. The literal verbage being used in the rules is irrelevant because the rules do not incorporate in any way the concept of using only part of a given bonus, which you must admit is a very odd thing to want to do from a game-rules standpoint.

It is not attempting to tell you that you MUST use ALL your bonus if you have a bonus coming to you - it is not even being considered. If it were, it would use rather different language if not simply spell it out in no uncertain terms: "You must use the full bonus or none of it at all." To otherwise fail to use tedious notations like, "Other bonuses may apply to this roll" would lead to equally foolish notions such as, "Well it says RIGHT THERE that BAB, STR and Size are the only modifiers to the attack roll so the weapon bonus itself doesn't actually add in!"

You can, unfortunately, misinterpret the language used to mean that the rules ARE addressing the idea that you can't use only part of a bonus - but only a pedantic goofball could seriously believe it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

As mentioned before, this comes up time and time again, in fiction and in fact. When the little guy in "13th Warrior" beheaded his opponent after letting him knock him around for a while, it was a perfect example of bluff vs sense motive.

Well it doesn't come up as often as all that, but this scene from "13th Warrior" is a good example of using less than your full attack bonuses - AND attempting to bluff an opponent while doing so. These are actually SEPERATE questions. The rules do not address the idea of using less than the full bonuses that you are entitled to. However, a situation where one warrior is, FOR ROLEPLAYING REASONS ALONE, attempting to fool an opponent and observers into thinking that he is a much weaker fighter than he actually is, is well covered by bluff/sense motive.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Nope.

You "gain" and you "are allowed to" are quite different.

If you gain you cannot choose to not gain it.

if you are allowed to you can choose to avoid the feat's benefit.

Heck, by your reasoning I could choose to avoid the 3 extra hps from the Toughness feat...

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. The point is that the wordage is NOT RELEVEANT TO THE ISSUE, because the use of the word "gain" is NOT an attempt to make a statement about whether use of LESS THAN your full bonus is ALLOWED in the rules. The point it is making is that a bonus is being imparted, and THAT'S ALL. Use of less than the full bonus or willingly not using the bonus at all is not addressed anywhere in the rules despite the fact that you CAN be stupid and attempt to read alternate intent into sentences by interpreting them absolutely literally without considering ACTUAL intent.

Premise: I would like to have RAW based replies.

And you have been REPEATEDLY given the only applicable RAW-based reply - IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THE RAW.