I don't want to use my feat!

[Jdvn1]

... I guess you could choose to miss (much like choosing to not resist a saving throw), but.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Come on...it's obviously an academic issue...or maybe it's not.

I'm only saying that, by the RAW, if you attack with the weapon you are focused with, you can't choose to not benefit from that +1.

Any RAW-based reply that can negate my statement?

Nope. No RAW based reply can negate this statement.

Please refrain for asking for discussion of a boolean {yes/no} question and then wonder why we are discussing the question instead of wasting bandwidth by posting "No", as has been answered 4 times above.

Now, if you had another question this one was leading to...which your 'or maybe its not' comment seems to indicate.. then we can discuss the whole A = B then C = D debate again.

And, incidently, the use of the Bluff skill to appear as if not as trained is proper by RAW, as opposed to ignoring a bonus to hit... after all, Joe doesn't know you hit because of your ability with the weapon or you just got lucky...

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

We have our Dungeon Master, which is a Genuine Human Being (Human Brain Inside).

I, and the rest of the ABiaJwDM, take great offense at this remark. Retaliation is imminent.

 

[dcollins]

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.

No. If this is his intent, then some rounds he should say "I don't attack, but I make it look like I'm trying to."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If I'm trying to disguise my fighting ability, I'd use Bluff. Furthermore, if I'm trying to be less lethal in my combat, I'd be using called shots- in which case that +1 is handy.

So the question remains- Why would you not want +1 to your attack?

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

By the RAW, as far as I know (and I am no great authority) you cannot opt to not use it if you satisfy the pre-requisite condition.

Otoh, we play that you can act within your capabilities in all things controllable, which is a houserule. Otherwise how could a BAB 16 fighter-lord pretend to be a common BAB 2 guardsman in a fight?

My governing thought is that high level = more capability & control.

 

[the Jester]

I, and the rest of the ABiaJwDM, take great offense at this remark. Retaliation is imminent.

ABiaJwDM = "Association of Brains in a Jar who DM"??

 

[Ballard_Alvar]

It's similar to a dervish, who gains an ability that says he treats a scimitar as a light weapon for all purposes.

By gaining this ability, he takes a -4 on disarm checks and can no longer Power Attack with a scimitar.

I would like this ability much more if it said: . . . Gains the ability to treat a scimitar as a light weapon only for the purposes of two weapon fighting penalties and for close quarters combat.

Edit: I know it is off the subject, but thats all I have to say.

 

[Egres]

So the question remains- Why would you not want +1 to your attack?

OMG...

I thought it was clear enough that I voluntarily choose a feat like WF because there aren't many reasons to not use it.

I simply checked if there were any RAW against my reasoning.

Did I make something wrong?

If you don't like the thread, ignore it.

 

[moritheil]

I, and the rest of the ABiaJwDM, take great offense at this remark. Retaliation is imminent.

While not affiliated with Mr. Mayhem, I agree. I have always maintained to my players that the DM is, in fact, a phrenic ooze.

Egres, you seem to have opened a can of worms.

I will say this re: Bluffing. I would not allow people to take any less on their BAB or WF, precisely because the Bluff skill exists. If you allow them to take less, then you allow them to get away with not having spent the requisite skill points in Bluff. The houserule is excellent if Bluff does not exist - but that is not the case.