I don't want to use my feat!

[KarinsDad]

Then you're not thinking this through very well.QUOTE]

Actually, I did think it out. I considered the feint option and found it lacking.

A spell caster can do it, but a Fighter cannot?

The fact that a spell caster does not need a bluff check indicates that a fighter should not either.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

If a spell caster can do it, a fighter should be able to, a rogue picking a lock should be able to, a ranger tracking, etc.

 

[Fieari]

A compromise, I think. Any character can willingly lower his BAB, or his dex bonus to AC, or whatever skill check he wants. But it will be plainly obvious to anyone watching that he is doing so. This "obvious" factor can be mitigated by a bluff check.

That makes sense to me...

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Then you're not thinking this through very well. The rules allow you to use the Bluff skill to make a feint, a combat maneuver that makes your opponent think you're striking one place before striking someplace else. It is combat subterfuge.

Disguising your level of skill is nothing if not a sophisticated feint maneuver, a meta-feint.

If you use the bluff skill the fighter will fail half the time vs a 1st level peasant without any combat skill. I can see why bluff would be appropriate, the fighter needs his comrades to not notice his skill but then what about the following:

****

2 fighters in an arena, one is clearly more skilled then the other that all can see; mr big toys with the other by beating him without using his full level of skill.

There is no deception there but the implication is that mr big, regardless of situational modifiers, must use his full 100% combat capacity at the base level.

I don't believe that approach is cinematically friendly nor granting the fighter some unfair advantage. He is fighting at less effectiveness and to all that say he can't do this easily, do you 'penalize' him with a 'bonus'?

While I'm delving into the murky world of realism there is probably noone on these boards with 14th level combat prowess & the personal knowledge of what is and is not possible. That is all I have to say about realism.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Disguising your level of skill is nothing if not a sophisticated feint maneuver, a meta-feint.

Sorry, are you meaning disguise or bluff?

 

[DungeonMaster]

I've both boxed and sparred with shinai. It is definitely possible to fight at a lower level - however it's almost impossible to fight at a lower level when it really counts, when say you're afraid for your life. Even someone untrained can kill someone trained with a weapon getting lucky. It's a difficult question to answer.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

1. Don't get into fights. Intimidate, cower, whatever, but don't fight because you're obviously too good to be what you appear to be.
2. If you do get into fights, leave no survivors. Dead men tell no tales--at least if you ensure that speak with dead won't work.

The mercenaries are being employed to deal with rampant lawlessness, will travel in groups commanded by a lawful knight (magi are 'knights' too in the campaign) and will see combat.

There seems to be 2 camps rejecting my houserule (or RAW as Karinsdad put it).

1) It is physically impossible to volunteerily lower values gained through experience.
2) It is possible to hide great skill via the bluff skill.

#1 is clearcut in that it disallows any possibility of success. #2 implies that only rogues & bards can hide their fighting prowess well & that clerics, rogues, bards & paladins are best to detect such skill.

My response to #1 is outright rejection on the grounds that it depowers high level characters from tactical choice that they have earned and deserve. The RAW give tacit support for this approach by extrapolating from a similar rule, & other than the fear of devaluing the bluff skill, there is no combat advantage to be gained.

#2 is far more tricky for many reasons:
* Is a bluff check necessary?
My houserule is that while they may deceive onlookers it is because they actually have the reduced skill within their upper limit. If the 14th level knight gets surprised with a power word, he functions at his current max hps.
* Does this depower the bluff skill?
The #1 camp would say no because +100 in bluff doesn't allow the actual reduction in base stats. Ok, that aside I actually do see a place for sense motive; given decent observation over a period of time a comrade/onlooker should be able to have a chance to detect something is amiss. On a similar note, if the sense motive succeeds the onlooker could ask a straight question and force a confession or a bluff check.
* Should a bluff check use opposed or a static DC roll?
It strikes me as wrong that the most skilled fighter is one of the least able to control their apparent skill while a 3/4 type is the most able; again I have to reject the bluff check but if a check had to be done I'd make it a static DC - DC 0.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, I did think it out. I considered the feint option and found it lacking.

A spell caster can do it, but a Fighter cannot?

The fact that a spell caster does not need a bluff check indicates that a fighter should not either.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

If a spell caster can do it, a fighter should be able to, a rogue picking a lock should be able to, a ranger tracking, etc.

A spellcaster can willingly cast a spell at a lower level, BUT cannot cast it at a lower level than the minimum level to cast the spell. So someone casting a Fireball MAY be 20th level or even Epic, but he is at least a Wiz5 or Sorc6. By casting at that lesser power, he gives up all that damage that he could have done, and he only disguises his abilities so much.

By way of contrast, a fighter with +N BAB can disguise his fighting ability by essentially throwing away his bonuses by aiming to miss (a called shot to 2" away from the target's arm, a called shot to glance off of the shield, a called shot to graze the helmet, etc). Repeated misses could come from an unlucky warrior of ANY level- even THOR could miss like a newbie. However, a successful sense motive check would determine that the fighter is missing deliberately.

This is where the Bluff comes in: it conceals the deliberate miss from someone who is actively trying to determine your level of skill. A hothead in a bar might not try to figure out how good you are- you're just cruisin' for a bruisin'- but a skilled warrior would probably want to know the nature of his opponent.

The warrior must make the Bluff check only occasionally (when someone is trying to guess his bluff), but the mage never does because the warrior has potentially a broader range of effects within his subterfuge.

If you have any kind of real skill at something difficult, like playing an instrument, it is difficult to play like an amateur. The Shaggs produced some of the worst music ever recorded. Many musicians have commented that it is extremely difficult to play like the Shaggs because the Shaggs don't follow any rules.

When "modern" artists of the early 1960's were critcized that they were painting like children, some responded that it was difficult to paint like a child, and thanked the critics for the compliment.

 

[Someone]

I thinka good idea would be to add half the BAB to the bluff/sense motive rolls, like in other weapon-related skill rolls.

 

[RandomPrecision]

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.

Just remember that he can't lower his bab.

Subdual damage?

 

[Egres]

Subdual damage?

I can't see how it could help.

Note: I have already obtained the answer I asked for: there are no RAW to allow you to lower your bab.

But the thread is interesting nonetheless.