Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2325742" data-attributes="member: 32740">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.</blockquote>

Verification