I don't want to use my feat!

[FreeTheSlaves]

So how can an uber fighter pretend to be lowly mercenary as he travels through a hostile land?

Your answer seems to be either to pump almighty into a crossclass skill (which is based on charisma rather than fighting skill) or not leave witnesses in a fight.

 

[Goolpsy]

I cant see the problem of allowing the Character NOT to use all of his strenght and power...

A- "Break down the door"
B- "Do i really have to? Why dont u jsut lockpick it"
A- "Yes you have to! Dont expect me to do everything"
B- "o..k... ("bah i wont use all my strenght, maybe it will still hold and he gets to lock pick it.. lazy thieves)"
SMACK
B- "Wow wtf!? i thought it was stronger... oh well,.. theres always another door"

 

[Quasqueton]

If you have Weapon Focus (Longsword), attack with a greatsword, or a shortsword. Or a scimitar. Or a spear. There's your RAW solution.

Quasqueton

 

[apesamongus]

So how can an uber fighter pretend to be lowly mercenary as he travels through a hostile land?

Your answer seems to be either to pump almighty into a crossclass skill (which is based on charisma rather than fighting skill) or not leave witnesses in a fight.

Or avoid fights.

 

[apesamongus]

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.

Oh, I'd allow (house rule territory) then to not take BAB or WF if they really wanted to. No reason to force them to hit something. I'd also allow anyone watching a sense motive to spot that they were faking. "Why do I get the feeling you're not trying your best?"

 

[AuraSeer]

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.

That's easy enough. Remember that a high attack roll doesn't automatically mean you hit your opponent; it means you hit what you were aiming at. If you want to miss, aim your weapon at a point two inches east of his head.

Say we're talking about Robin Hood in disguise at the archery contest. He wants to mask his true ability so the Sheriff's men don't figure out who he is. If he's smart, he will aim some of his shots outside the bullseye. Rolling high on that attack means he puts the arrow where he intended, outside the bull.

Giving up the bonus from Weapon Focus (longbow) would still be undesirable here. Robin doesn't want to lower his attack bonus, because that would mean he has less control over the weapon. With the lowered bonus his performance is random; he might land too many bullseyes and make the Sheriff suspicious, or too few and lose the contest. It's better for him to have as high a bonus as possible, and do his best to choose the location of every arrow.

 

[The Souljourner]

You can always choose not to use full BAB or any other ability (perhaps with some exceptions), it's ridiculous to say otherwise. Are you telling me a pro basketball player can't choose to miss a dunk? Whether or not you can convince someone that you're actually trying your hardest while you do so is another question entirely. That requires a bluff check.

[edit] Auraseer - you bring up a good point... but there's a problem. It might become obvious from the way Robin shoots that he's really skilled, and just choosing to miss. Skilled bowmen can probably tell when someone else is really good... the way they breathe, how they hold the bow, how they fire an arrow, etc.

The only thing I can compare it to is the only physical thing I'm really good at - foosball. I can generally tell in about 5 seconds if someone is good, regardless of how often they score. You could probably fake being sucky, but an instinctual response could easily give you away. To properly fool someone for a significant length of time would take a bluff check.

-The Souljourner

 

[radferth]

Most games I have be in do not let a mage lower the caster level of a spell to something lower than could cast the spell (i.e. no 3d6 fireballs). I do play that way, and it is the sole exception to my houserule that you are allowed to suck as much as you want, regardless of what anyone else says, even the almighty RAW.

 

[AuraSeer]

To properly fool someone for a significant length of time would take a bluff check.

Yes it would, as well as a Disguise check in most cases, but I didn't want to clutter the issue. Impersonating a lower-level person is just one example illustrating the original question.

The OP asked whether you could turn off the benefit of Weapon Focus. I think the answer is "No, but you wouldn't ever want to anyway."

 

[billd91]

With respect to any kind of skill checks, and for this I'm going to add in combat as well, you can take 10 to do a routine-style job at it. Though not in the RAW, I don't see anything wrong with intentionally doing a really half-assed job by taking a 5 or even a 1.

Ultimately, I do agree that fooling anybody for a length of time is really a bluff/disguise sort of operation.