I don't want to use my feat!

[KarinsDad]

How can one pretend to be a deaf-mute? Blind? Can you pretend you can't read? Can you pretend to be left handed? Are any of these deceptions automatic successes, or must the pretender make a Bluff check?

Yes, you can pretend to not read.

Many people do that on this forum every single day.

You can pretend to be left handed if you had left handed skill in the first place.


The problem with the Bluff check answer is that it is not RAW. Bluff does not do the things that people are wanting it to do in this thread. It also assumes that performing at a lesser skill level is some sort of fake out as opposed to an intentional use of the skill that the character already has (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).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Rogue picking the lock cannot pretend to not be successful and someone else can easily tell so because he sucks at Bluff?

The Cleric turning cannot pretend to not be successful and someone else can easily tell so because he sucks at Bluff?

The Bard playing his lute cannot purposely be a little off key and someone else can easily tell so because he sucks at Bluff?

Once again, it depends on the situation and the DM.

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

Favorable and unfavorable circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome of the bluff.

A Master Thief or Epic Bard trying to act like he's sucking it up had better have bluff or no one would believe it. If Eric Clapton walked onto the stage and butchered "Leila" he'd have everyone there wondering what the hell he was doing. No one would believe he couldn't play the song- they'd think drugs, drink, distraction or intentional screwup as the reason. A newbie thief, on the other hand, could probably mess up picking a lock without raising suspicion at all.

As for the Cleric...seeing as how Turning is the Cleric's channeling of Divine energy, I would say he would need a MASSIVELY successful Bluff roll to make someone believe his Turn simply fizzled. While only Undead are adversely affected by the Cleric's attempts to Turn, that direct channeling of his diety's power should be noticeable to everyone in the Cleric's immediate vicinity. A Cleric trying such a subterfuge would probably get questions like "I didn't feel anything...did you even TRY?"

Other DMs could, of course, have different feelings about Turning. They could rule that like a RL modern day priest presenting a cross, a Turning attempt in game would have no detectible effects to anyone who wouldn't be affected by it.

That DM would not be me. I figure that being in the presense of the Divine, even briefly, would have tangible effects, like a tingle to the skin, a particular scent, a burst of light, whatever...Not something one could bluff.

And the zombies surely won't help you trick others.

And as for this:

Keep in mind, it's not that he doesn't have bluff, it's that he cannot train bluff.

Its not quite right- he doesn't have Bluff as a class skill, but he can still take levels in it.

When champion atheletes or sports teams lose BIG games to massive underdogs, the question of intentional failure is ALWAYS brought up. In Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, Bill Buckner let a slow dribbling roller pass between his legs and under his glove...He STILL gets death threats for "throwing the game," even though it was a simple error. No one could believe that a pro athelete of his caliber could gaffe that badly- yet he maintains his innocence, and no one has proven he missed intentionally.

Now, imagine if he HAD!

Let's put it this way:- if you're an expert and people know it, a display of a lack of expertise in your chosen field is inherently NOT believable. If they personally know you to have displayed expertise before, its even LESS believable.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Aw, crap, Danny you had to bring that up, did you?

Infiniti2000, Huge Bosox fan who's still reeling from the Pats and Red Sox defeats of 1986.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Check me if I'm wrong but the OP's question is simply one of semantics. "You gain" as opposed to "you are allowed to" or something similar. The answer is that no, the rules do not say anywhere that you ARE allowed to "pull your punches", but it also doesn't say anywhere that you are NOT allowed to pull your punches. The rules have nothing to say on the matter.

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. What they all get you is a +1 bonus to your roll (assuming we're still talking about feats similar to Weapon Focus). Nothing says you MUST use that bonus but then the game isn't written from the perspective of NOT wanting to use all the advantages that your character would get.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with a PC intentionally NOT using any feat, bonus, skill or advantage he is allowed to use. The only exception MIGHT be if there is an attempt to DECEIVE someone in the game by that omission. That alters the question from whether it is simply possible to decline to use ANY ability (it should be unless it is so specifically inherent or ingrained to the degree that it CANNOT be adjusted by the posessor) to whether the character has the ability to deceive in that manner.

YMMV on the issue, but simply asking the question puts you into house rules territory because the rules don't cover the possibility one way or the other.

If you like you can at the least take a cue from Saving Throws where a character is permitted to VOLUNTARILY FAIL a saving throw regardless of all special abilities, resistances, and bonuses. It would be more than a little silly to be able to be WILLINGLY charmed despite immunity to charm, WILLINGLY burned despite inherent resistance to fire, WILLINGLY exhausted despite massive bonuses from a high constitution, and yet not be allowed to make an attack with anything but absolute, unconditionally maximized lethality and ferocity without a specific, carefully phrased ability that will let you do anything less.

But really, the question as it stands is pretty pointless. It seems to be seeking argument for no good reason using the weakest possible basis - willfully torturing the text to attempt to create the appearance of discontinuity - and the derision in the responses is quite justifiable since the OP doesn't seem inclined to rephrase the question and responses to something that IS more meaningful.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If you like you can at the least take a cue from Saving Throws where a character is permitted to VOLUNTARILY FAIL a saving throw regardless of all special abilities, resistances, and bonuses. It would be more than a little silly to be able to be WILLINGLY charmed despite immunity to charm, WILLINGLY burned despite inherent resistance to fire, WILLINGLY exhausted despite massive bonuses from a high constitution, and yet not be allowed to make an attack with anything but absolute, unconditionally maximized lethality and ferocity without a specific, carefully phrased ability that will let you do anything less.

Actually, if you are immune to being charmed, you cannot willingly be charmed. Likewise, someone immune to fire cannot be harmed by fire, willingly or not. Your point still stands, though, I'm just picking nits on this comment because I'm not sure you intended it.

But really, the question as it stands is pretty pointless. It seems to be seeking argument for no good reason using the weakest possible basis - willfully torturing the text to attempt to create the appearance of discontinuity - and the derision in the responses is quite justifiable since the OP doesn't seem inclined to rephrase the question and responses to something that IS more meaningful.

I agree with you that the OP was purely seeking an argument.

 

[KarinsDad]

Check me if I'm wrong but the OP's question is simply one of semantics. "You gain" as opposed to "you are allowed to" or something similar. The answer is that no, the rules do not say anywhere that you ARE allowed to "pull your punches", but it also doesn't say anywhere that you are NOT allowed to pull your punches. The rules have nothing to say on the matter.

Actually, this is not quite accurate.

The rules state:

ATTACK ROLL

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.
ATTACK BONUS

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier

With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is:

Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty

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.

 

[KarinsDad]

A Master Thief or Epic Bard trying to act like he's sucking it up had better have bluff or no one would believe it. If Eric Clapton walked onto the stage and butchered "Leila" he'd have everyone there wondering what the hell he was doing. No one would believe he couldn't play the song- they'd think drugs, drink, distraction or intentional screwup as the reason. A newbie thief, on the other hand, could probably mess up picking a lock without raising suspicion at all.

As for the Cleric...seeing as how Turning is the Cleric's channeling of Divine energy, I would say he would need a MASSIVELY successful Bluff roll to make someone believe his Turn simply fizzled. While only Undead are adversely affected by the Cleric's attempts to Turn, that direct channeling of his diety's power should be noticeable to everyone in the Cleric's immediate vicinity. A Cleric trying such a subterfuge would probably get questions like "I didn't feel anything...did you even TRY?"

The original question was whether RAW could be used to "pull a punch".

You are adding examples (e.g. Eric Clapton) where the spectators KNOW that the character can do something at a given level and have FOREKNOWLEDGE of the ability of the character.

You are adding examples where the spectators have some mystical knowledge of whether positive energy is being channeled by a Cleric or not. Where in RAW does it state that the channeling of positive energy is "noticeable to everyone in the Cleric's immediate vicinity"? That is something that you merely said would occur in YOUR game.

How would other NPCs know any of this?

I might understand a Bluff check if the spectators have intimate knowledge of the character (as per your Eric Clapton example here), but why would a Bluff check be needed when the spectators have zero knowledge of the character?

If the 20th level Rogue tries to pick a lock that he does not want to open, what stops him from failing automatically?

What stops the 20th level Fighter from swinging one inch to the right of the opponent? He doesn’t have to look like a dork if he misses.


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's silly. There is a difference between intentionally not trying your best and trying to con someone into believing that something false is true. You are trying to equate the two and they are only remotely similar.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Bluff and OP

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.

The whole reason that Bluff came up in the first place was the OP's suggestion that one would wish to intentionally lower thier BAB in order to mask his real fighting level.

In other words, he wants to make his opponent believe his skill is less than it actuallly is...

Which fits the Bluff/Sense Motive mechanics perfectly.
If you are not attempting to fool your opponent, but are only fighting half-heartedly, I would grant a Sense Motive check to notice the half-hearted swings.


And the original question was actually "Does the RAW mention anything about not gaining the benefit of a feat such as the +1 bonus to hit from WF."

The answer, iterated much above before the thread wandered off, is No. The only time a Feat does not grant its benefit is when the character no longer meets the prerequisites.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The original question was whether RAW could be used to "pull a punch".

I know. And now we're discussing methodology.

You are adding examples (e.g. Eric Clapton) where the spectators KNOW that the character can do something at a given level and have FOREKNOWLEDGE of the ability of the character.

You are adding examples where the spectators have some mystical knowledge of whether positive energy is being channeled by a Cleric or not. Where in RAW does it state that the channeling of positive energy is "noticeable to everyone in the Cleric's immediate vicinity"? That is something that you merely said would occur in YOUR game.

How would other NPCs know any of this?

I might understand a Bluff check if the spectators have intimate knowledge of the character (as per your Eric Clapton example here), but why would a Bluff check be needed when the spectators have zero knowledge of the character?

Sorry, I'm an old schooler. It was spelled out in 1st and 2nd, but it may not have been spelled out in 3Ed, but here you go: Any character above a certain level is going to have a reputation. Lets just look at warriors: A 1-5th level warrior is as well trained as your average soldier to average officer, so wouldn't have much of a rep. A warrior of 5-10th level is starting to get famous. His name wil be recognizable at tournaments, he may have a title, lands or commendations. Someone of 10--15th level is starting to get recognition on a national or international level. This would be someone like Audie Murphy or Douglas MacArthur. Someone 15th or higher level is going to be legendary- like hall of famers, gold medal atheletes, cultural icons. Baron Von Richtoffen...Bruce Lee...Ghengis Khan...Hannibal...Muhammed Ali...Alexander the Great...Leonidas and the 300- like Clapton and our posited 20th level Ftr, these people are immortalized.

Why? Because at that level of ability, you are talking about someone performing in his area of expertise at the top 1% of the top 1% of all beings who have that skill.

Examples: I don't watch martial arts competitions in any form, nor do I read any of the magazines, but I've heard of the Gracie family of Jui-Jitsu masters, and they don't do movies.

Wyatt Earp was known throughout the USA during his lifetime, even though he never went far beyond a few states in the middle of the country, and Buffalo Bill Cody was known worldwide. In those days well before the concept of merchandizing yourself, there were dime novels featuring both of them, complete with illustrations (of varying accuracy).

As for the Cleric question, I already said that would vary from DM to DM.

If the 20th level Rogue tries to pick a lock that he does not want to open, what stops him from failing automatically?

Nothing. Whether someone thinks he did it on purpose is what is at issue.

What stops the 20th level Fighter from swinging one inch to the right of the opponent? He doesn’t have to look like a dork if he misses.

A highly trained athelete or warrior moves VERY differently from someone just starting out. They have trained to the point that they are seldom off balance or out of control, unlike someone who just picked up a weapon and started swinging. As much as he would like to bluff that opponent that he's not skilled, the bluffing warrior will still use enough of his skill so that the opponent is unlikely to land a killing blow by accident or by his own skill while he's pretending to be off balance or making errant strikes. His guard will still be up in a way that a noob wouldn't. Have you ever watched a pro-boxing match between unequally skilled opponents? You'll occasionally see the skilled boxer drop his guard to draw his opponent into a particular attack, setting up the counterpunch. But though his guard is down, it's not down like a rookie's defenses would be. There is still tension, the arms are still at the ready- just not at the ready around shoulder or head height.

And the thing is...the ringside announcers point it out! So do good cornermen! To the skilled eye, these differences are discernable. To a schmoe like me, it might as well be happening behind a wall.

That said, nothing stops him from swinging wide, and in fact I suggested that as an option in post#67 or so. What the bluff does is prevent his opponent from thinking the miss was deliberate.

And while we're at it- this is not a question of the most skilled being least able to hide it. Someone who is a skilled warrior and trying to hide it should get a Bluff bonus proportional to the difference between his skill (at fighting) level and the skill (at fighting) of his opponent. So a 20th level fighter trying to Bluff a 1st level fighter that he's equally unskilled might get a +10 to that Bluff roll, but a 3rd level fighter trying to Bluff that same neophyte might only get a +1 to his Bluff roll. If the opponent is NOT a trained fighter, the bonus should be DIRECTLY proportional. EG. if that 1st level type was a Wizard, that would give the 20th level warrior a +20 to his Bluff.

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's silly. There is a difference between intentionally not trying your best and trying to con someone into believing that something false is true. You are trying to equate the two and they are only remotely similar.

I, who know nothing of programming computers beyond some BASIC back in 1981 or so, would not be able to spot your intentional miscoding unless you highlighted it, and your intent- the result of the miscode- would elude me even then.

A guy who teaches the language you're programming in might, however, say "Hey, you goofed" the first time "You goofed again" the next time, and "What are you, some kind of moron?" the next time you did it.

When I go to my guitar lessons, my teacher knows exactly when, how, and why I screwed up- without looking. When he screws up, I can sometimes tell if I'm familiar with the piece...but I can't tell anything beyond that.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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?

The ranger makes a bluff check. If noone else can read the tracks, and he's tracking for his friends, there's a -5 to the sense motives. If everyone else can see tracks plain as day, there's a +10 to 20 added.

The thief makes a bluff check. Chances are the sense motive is at 0 (or -5 if there are ominous noises coming from the other side of the door). If he fails, his buddies get "you think so-and-so is hiding something from you".

The fighter makes a bluff check. Chances are his foe really DOES want to believe that he's gonna win. -5 to the sense motive. If he keeps landing telling blows and not getting hit though, that might change up to the +20... If he fails, "you don't think so-and-so is quite as bad as he's making out to be".

Seriously - how would it NOT be a bluff check? Just because a certain character (ie a fighter) might not be good at it??

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's silly. There is a difference between intentionally not trying your best and trying to con someone into believing that something false is true. You are trying to equate the two and they are only remotely similar.

The difference is between not trying your best AND LETTING PEOPLE KNOW YOU'RE NOT TRYING YOUR BEST, and not trying your best and MAKING PEOPLE THINK YOU ARE TRYING YOUR BEST.

Your buddy is gonna look over your shoulder and spot the error. And ask you why you did that. You failed your bluff check - your error was not convincing. Perhaps, if you'd been smart, you might have done something like use the MAX macro as if it were a function, or used some function you know that your buddy doesn't know. Used something subtle to slip the error past him, and make him genuinely not know what happened.

Or even just knocked your coffee mug on the floor as you changed the symbol, distracting him.

That sort of stuff. You know, bluffing, lying and successfully fooling someone, rather than standing in front of them yelling "I'm no good, I can't fight! See! I stabbed a rock! That's how bad I am!".