I don't want to use my feat!

[glass]

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.

Then what are you doing in the Rules forum? :\


glass.

 

[glass]

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.

No need to SHOUT!

Anyway, this is the Rules forum. Litteral reading of the rules is where it's at. The rules say what they say, whether you like it or not.

Speculation about intent is just that: speculation.


glass.

 

[apesamongus]

(i.e. that it is some half hearted attempt to do the action as opposed to a very serious attempt to do the action incorrectly).

So, trying really hard to hit the guy's shield instead of his throat is indistinguishable from someone trying to hit his throat and failing to while hitting his shielf instead?

 

[apesamongus]

I am a computer programmer. Are you telling me that someone looking over my shoulder will be able to tell that I am putting an intentional bug in my code if he is watching me type it in? If I type in a ">" symbol instead of a "<", the code will just not work properly. But you are claiming that I would have to make a bluff check to do this.

That looks like a successful bluff check to me. I the movie Mean Girls a similar ruse happens. The main character is faking being bad at math for ulterior purposes. The teacher comments on how odd it is that all the work is done correctly, yet the final answer is still wrong - which causes her to be suspicious and figure out what's going on. That's a failure on the bluff check.

Bluffing poor fighting ability for a single sword swing might be fairly simple, just like your typo. Doing so for an entire fight is different. The same could be said of the programming bluff. If you continuously mistyped symbols with their opposites, the it becomes more and more likely that someone would figure out that you were throwing the game. If you mix it up well enough with different mistakes that they never suspect anything, then you're succeeding at your bluff.

 

[elrobey]

By the RAW, the following applies to all feats:

Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

Thus, feats are enabling, i.e. discretionary, not mandatory. In the case of WF, having the feat *enables* you to gain a bonus; it does not require you to gain the bonus.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

I guess it could be interpreted that way.

I would interpret it slightly differently- He was using his full attack bonuses, but he was aiming at a particular spot on his opponent's person (called shot: -8 to hit is traditional), using Combat expertise to avoid being hit (-5 BAB), possibly Power Attack (any hit he would make would be powerful...but he's aiming for non-vital attacks: the opponent will feel the powerful blow glancing off of his shield) and Improved Feint...and maybe some other feats as well.

 

[elrobey]

Also, as far as the more general question about whether someone can "pull his punches" when making an attack roll, or a skill check, or whatever ...

With a skill check, the SRD provides for a circumstance penalty when the ability to perform is hampered. Presumably an attempt to voluntarily underperform qualifies for this sort of penalty. By the SRD, the penalty must be -2. So there is some modest ability to pull your punches on a skill check, by the SRD.

With d20 rolls other than skill checks, I don't believe there is similar language in the SRD that allows for a circumstance penalty (or bonus, for that matter), though perhaps it exists in one of the core books but outside the SRD.

And I don't believe there is language in the SRD that allows for a penalty other than -2, though perhaps it exists in the core books but outside the SRD.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Nonsense.

There is nothing in RAW at all that states that when you cast at a lower caster level that there is ANYTHING to indicate that you are not that caster level.

There is absolutely no way in RAW to tell if a 5th or 15th level caster is casting a 5D6 Fireball spell.

Adding Bluff in this circumstance is a house rule.

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.

Again, nonsense.

If such an action is done in the game, it is merely an action. No Bluff roll involved. How the NPCs react is based off how the DM makes them react.


There are a lot of actions in the game that are misleading that do not require Bluff rolls.

For example, your PC runs away down the street and around a corner. What the PC is actually doing is moving to a position to cast Summon Monster where it is difficult to disrupt the spell. But, you do not roll a Bluff versus Sense Motive for the NPCs to think that you left and are not coming back.

Bluff: You can make the outrageous or the untrue seem plausable...This skill encompasses acting, conning, fast talking, misdiredction, prevarication and misleading body language.

Bluff is for specifically attempting to mislead by communicating (4 out of the 5 listed here include verbal communication), not by taking other actions. You are attempting to use the phrase "misleading body language" to expand upon what Bluff is used for and say that any action you are doing can be misleading, hence, can require a Bluff check.

 

[Egres]

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.

Mmmh?

Who the heck are you to tell us what the author's intent was?

You are using what many call "common sense", but you don't understand that what's common sense to you might seem absurd to me and vice versa. You can't rely on people having common sense.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Point - counter point

Egress, Funny Hat.. keep it civil. flame wars are a quick way to get your intelligent ideas discredited.

Karins Dad.. I disagree. I think that if you run around the corner to cast a summons spell, the DM could be in the right to have the NPC's roll a Sense Motive to determine if they think you are leaving permanently. You could even actively attempt to improve on thier misinterpretation of the activity by rolling a Bluff check.

Most of the time these rolls are not done for the purpose expiditing play and the GM wings it. A comment like "How the NPCs react is based off how the DM makes them react." reads as if the social skills in your campaign would be a waste of skill points.

As an aside... if the General does not use Bluff to hide his real intentions with tactical manuevering, what would he use?