PDA

View Full Version : Can a character "miss on purpose"?



Sir_Chivalry
2010-11-12, 04:44 PM
Besides choosing to deal nolethal damage or using the Bluff skill to disguse skill, I need a way to lessen the chance an NPC's skill will show. Is there anyway for a character to lower their attack bonus or some such in order to not always hit a target?

i.e. an archer wants to lose a competition, a swordsman is masquerading as a simple noblewoman, but wishes to gauge a possible opponent, etc.

Tyndmyr
2010-11-12, 04:45 PM
Sure. Aim a target near the actual target instead.

Just describe things as "his arrow flies just to the right of the target, burying itself in a tree".

blackjack217
2010-11-12, 04:46 PM
power attack with a light weapon

DementedFellow
2010-11-12, 04:46 PM
Why not just say that the character aims to the left of the target rather than lowers base attack bonus? That way you don't break flow, but you still get the point across.

Dragon Star
2010-11-12, 04:47 PM
I could be wrong, but i think you can just lower your attack or skill bonus whenever you want. at least, thats how i've always played. i mean, i doesn't give an atvantage at all

Mikka
2010-11-12, 04:49 PM
Anyone can miss on purpose, the question is, how obvious is it that the person missed? Bluff check : )

AtwasAwamps
2010-11-12, 04:51 PM
Sheesh…you really want to use mechanics for this? Just have him swim his sword or whatever around clumsily. It takes no skill to do that.

If you really, really want mechanics…

Combat expertise/stone power…both are useful feats that subtract from you attack. I think they can be used together, resulting in a net -10 to attack. Have them wield a weapon they aren’t proficient in (there’s a number of exotic weapons that basically look like regular weapons with a doohickey…broadblade shortsword comes to mind, as does Longstaff) to add an extra -4. If you want, have them two weapon fight while not proficient in two weapon fighting. I mean, there’s a ton of mechanical ways to do this, but the best way to do it is to fluff it, since it really shouldn’t take a bunch of feats and such to say “I swing my sword like a lazy duck”

Anterean
2010-11-12, 04:58 PM
Anyone can miss on purpose, the question is, how obvious is it that the person missed? Bluff check : )

That is my take on it as well

The Big Dice
2010-11-12, 06:12 PM
Play L5R. You roll the dice and pick which ones you want to keep.

Coidzor
2010-11-12, 06:14 PM
Attack the square next to him? Squares have... AC 5, I think. Rules for attacking 'em are for splash weapons, but, y'know... Attack his square but not him? Just say he's purposefully missing.

Rasman
2010-11-12, 06:29 PM
I agree with the fluff. But I don't see why you couldn't choose to fail an attack roll when you can choose to fail saves. So Fluff wise and mechanics wise, I think you'd be fine either way. If you look at it in a RL perspective, people in a real fight tend to hold back a little if they don't want to kill the person or are gauging their abilities.

LibraryOgre
2010-11-12, 06:42 PM
In most of these, I would still require a Bluff check (in 3.x/4e) to disguise the fact that he's purposefully fighting beneath his ability. This might be against take 10/passive Sense Motive/Insight if no one is just watching the fight.

AslanCross
2010-11-12, 06:54 PM
In most of these, I would still require a Bluff check (in 3.x/4e) to disguise the fact that he's purposefully fighting beneath his ability. This might be against take 10/passive Sense Motive/Insight if no one is just watching the fight.

This is how I'd rule it too. No real mechanics for "I swing around blindly with my sword" (ie, he's not really making an attack roll), but I'd call for a bluff instead. The skill here is not swinging and forcing yourself to miss; the intention is to fool your opponent into thinking you're lousy. As such, it is a Bluff check, not a penalized attack roll.

Psyren
2010-11-12, 06:57 PM
Thirding (Fourthing?) the Bluff check route - especially since it gives a perceptive onlooker (i.e. high Sense Motive) a chance to realize something is up.

Shpadoinkle
2010-11-12, 07:04 PM
I'd say... Bluff check. Yeah yeah, everyone's already said that, but I'd give the person doing it a circumstance bonus based on his attack bonus with the weapon to the check. Maybe 50 to 100% of his attack bonus, depending on how hard you want it to be for the PCs to spot this.

I'd also give a circumstance bonus to any PC's Sense motive check based on their BAB. If they think to make one, anyway.

Curmudgeon
2010-11-12, 07:06 PM
No, in D&D you can't "miss on purpose", or alter your attack bonus. However, you can simply not attack. You're going to be wielding your melee weapon for defensive purposes anyway, and that includes blows intended to make the other character sidestep or parry and thus reduce their chances of hitting you. This is largely indistinguishable from attacks that simply don't connect.

Psyren
2010-11-12, 07:06 PM
I always thought choosing to roll Sense Motive was silly. It's a passive skill by its very nature. You should be rolling it for them, imo.

WarKitty
2010-11-12, 07:14 PM
I always thought choosing to roll Sense Motive was silly. It's a passive skill by its very nature. You should be rolling it for them, imo.

I just tell my players to roll checks at random times. Keeps them on their toes.

Psyren
2010-11-12, 07:18 PM
I just tell my players to roll checks at random times. Keeps them on their toes.

Indeed, and record the results. You can then just apply their modifiers later when the situation arises.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-12, 07:25 PM
Question for you: if you are trying to intentionally miss, and roll a one, what happens?

Psyren
2010-11-12, 07:29 PM
Question for you: if you are trying to intentionally miss, and roll a one, what happens?

Something like this (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1017)

Drolyt
2010-11-12, 07:40 PM
Besides choosing to deal nolethal damage or using the Bluff skill to disguse skill, I need a way to lessen the chance an NPC's skill will show. Is there anyway for a character to lower their attack bonus or some such in order to not always hit a target?

i.e. an archer wants to lose a competition, a swordsman is masquerading as a simple noblewoman, but wishes to gauge a possible opponent, etc.
Of course there's a way. It's called rule zero. Honestly, for something this simple even if there is an actual rule I wouldn't bother looking it up. Just rule that he can lower his attack bonus at will. Maybe have to make a bluff check. That's your job as a DM. If your player asked if they could do something similar you should probably let them. The rules can't handle every situation, and in those they can't it is your job to figure out what happens.

Lord Bingo
2010-11-12, 08:02 PM
If you go by this mechanically by intentionally lowering the NPC's attack bonus there is still the off chance that he/she will roll a natural 20. This is not really something you want to happen.

I'd recommend that you simply roll some dice behind you GM screen and describe a miss if that is what you want to.
The other option is to use a bluff, but this will likely result in your players getting suspicious.

To keep the NPC alive and avoid him/her being taken out by a lucky shot I'd recommend Combat Expertise as a feat. That way you can commit his/her whole BAB to his/her AC.

Hironomus
2010-11-12, 08:12 PM
I agree with the whole bluff check thing but the problem is sword swinging martial types often aren't very good at bluffing. Which makes that option slightly more difficult. To answer the original question alittle more directly, in our circle we have usually ruled that if you succeed on a roll you have access to any level of success (or failure) below what you rolled. except when it comes to damage. And possibly some other things that we never came across.

Psyren
2010-11-12, 08:36 PM
I agree with the whole bluff check thing but the problem is sword swinging martial types often aren't very good at bluffing. Which makes that option slightly more difficult.

"Circumstance bonus based on BAB" (as shpadoinkle suggested) would work. After all, this is a very specific application of Bluff (hiding your true combat ability), something an experienced fighter should be able to do pretty well. Ranks in the Bluff skill itself would more represent general capability at deception.

Hironomus
2010-11-12, 08:45 PM
"Circumstance bonus based on BAB" (as shpadoinkle suggested) would work. After all, this is a very specific application of Bluff (hiding your true combat ability), something an experienced fighter should be able to do pretty well. Ranks in the Bluff skill itself would more represent general capability at deception.

Sounds good to me.

Drolyt
2010-11-12, 08:46 PM
"Circumstance bonus based on BAB" (as shpadoinkle suggested) would work. After all, this is a very specific application of Bluff (hiding your true combat ability), something an experienced fighter should be able to do pretty well. Ranks in the Bluff skill itself would more represent general capability at deception.
Agreed, but the character being bluffed should get to add their BAB to their Sense Motive check as well. That said, this is more of a situation where I think the DM should just decide that whatever they want to happen happens. If a PCs successful Sense Motive would throw off the story, don't include that mechanic. It's up to what the DM wants and the DM should do whatever he/she thinks will result in the most fun.

Psyren
2010-11-12, 08:59 PM
Agreed, but the character being bluffed should get to add their BAB to their Sense Motive check as well. That said, this is more of a situation where I think the DM should just decide that whatever they want to happen happens. If a PCs successful Sense Motive would throw off the story, don't include that mechanic. It's up to what the DM wants and the DM should do whatever he/she thinks will result in the most fun.

I think it's a bit more cooperative than that. "It's up to what the DM wants" sounds suspiciously like railroading.

If I have an extremely perceptive character - say, a cleric or ardent - I would at least like the choice to be "in the know" and either voice my suspicions or stay silent depending on what my character would do.

Drolyt
2010-11-12, 09:12 PM
I think it's a bit more cooperative than that. "It's up to what the DM wants" sounds suspiciously like railroading.

If I have an extremely perceptive character - say, a cleric or ardent - I would at least like the choice to be "in the know" and either voice my suspicions or stay silent depending on what my character would do.
It can be railroading, yes, but we would have to know more of the situation to know whether that is the case. It may be that allowing the player to sense motive would add literally nothing to the game. See the line after "it's up to what the DM wants", it says the DM should do whatever he thinks will result in the most fun. Remember also that some groups don't like too many choices and prefer a little railroading, I've DM'd for groups that couldn't make a decision to save their lives, allowing them a sense motive in this case would've been a huge waste of time. In the end the DM has to make an educated decision for the good of the group.

Zhalath
2010-11-12, 09:16 PM
Sheesh…you really want to use mechanics for this? Just have him swim his sword or whatever around clumsily. It takes no skill to do that.


How does one swim a sword? It sounds like a ToB maneuver.
Sword Swimming
Your blade cuts through the foe like a fish through water. It easily exits, taking some of the enemy's blood with it.
Effect: Make a Concentration check against your enemy's AC. If successful, make an attack against the target's touch AC. If this attack is successful, you deal 2 Con damage in blood loss, in addition to normal damage.
I'm thinking Diamond Mind, which is why I used Concentration.

I believe I've seen rules for "taking 1", that you can always just take 1 on a d20 roll and use that. Whether it looks convincing or not would probably be a bluff check.

Fiery Diamond
2010-11-12, 09:47 PM
I'll add my vote to "it depends whether you want the players to have a chance to notice it is faked." If you think that it will be good for the group if the players have a chance to tell, go the bluff route (with circumstance modifier is a good idea). If you think that it won't add to the story, just roll behind the screen and declare a miss and be done with it. That's my opinion.

Psyren
2010-11-12, 09:51 PM
It can be railroading, yes, but we would have to know more of the situation to know whether that is the case. It may be that allowing the player to sense motive would add literally nothing to the game. See the line after "it's up to what the DM wants", it says the DM should do whatever he thinks will result in the most fun. Remember also that some groups don't like too many choices and prefer a little railroading, I've DM'd for groups that couldn't make a decision to save their lives, allowing them a sense motive in this case would've been a huge waste of time. In the end the DM has to make an educated decision for the good of the group.

This comes back to how I was saying sense motive should be rolled - in advance, and secretly. Asking the players "okay guys, you saw his display, now give me some rolls" - followed by "you notice nothing suspicious - well, that would instantly make me, the player, suspicious. And it would take a lot of time.

But taking a moment to refer to your handy list of prerolled sense motives? That won't hold up a game.

If nobody made the check: after the deception is revealed, you have the satisfaction of holding up the sheet and saying "See? I did everything by the book. Your cleric didn't notice anything."

And if someone made it, you pass a note to that player. "Something seems off about his swings." Boom, roleplay. Now the character who noticed can figure out "what would my character do with this information?"

Seems like the point of D&D to me - involving the players. And you avoid that nasty moment of "why didn't I notice something was up before now! I have 22 Wis and max Sense Motive!" "Well, plot." "So what's the point in me even putting ranks into Sense Motive?" "I dunno :-/"

Curmudgeon
2010-11-12, 10:03 PM
I believe I've seen rules for "taking 1", that you can always just take 1 on a d20 roll and use that.
Those would be house rules, I'm afraid. I typically say "I take 1" for skill checks where the DC is known and any rolled d20 value would succeed; that's just shorthand for "I don't need to roll because all values will have the same result". The rules don't allow this as an actual mechanic.

Drolyt
2010-11-12, 10:40 PM
Seems like the point of D&D to me - involving the players. And you avoid that nasty moment of "why didn't I notice something was up before now! I have 22 Wis and max Sense Motive!" "Well, plot." "So what's the point in me even putting ranks into Sense Motive?" "I dunno :-/"
The point of D&D? I wonder what that is. I've always assumed it was to have fun, and different groups do that differently is all I'm saying. Giving characters a chance to use their abilities is a good thing, and in some games the scenario you describe will add to the experience. I'm just saying that might not be true for everyone's game.

Kantolin
2010-11-12, 11:30 PM
My problem with using bluff is that the people who should be best at playing down their swordsmanship (Fighters) end up being very poor at it (poor charisma, no bluff in-class).

I mean, it makes sense that bards would be very good at it, as they're tricksters, but it also makes sense that the master swordsmen could play with it.

Now that said, bluff absolutely makes the most sense, so meh. ^_^

Drolyt
2010-11-12, 11:37 PM
My problem with using bluff is that the people who should be best at playing down their swordsmanship (Fighters) end up being very poor at it (poor charisma, no bluff in-class).

I mean, it makes sense that bards would be very good at it, as they're tricksters, but it also makes sense that the master swordsmen could play with it.

Now that said, bluff absolutely makes the most sense, so meh. ^_^
Which is why myself and several others think your attack bonus should be a circumstance bonus on the bluff check.

Psyren
2010-11-12, 11:47 PM
The point of D&D? I wonder what that is. I've always assumed it was to have fun, and different groups do that differently is all I'm saying. Giving characters a chance to use their abilities is a good thing, and in some games the scenario you describe will add to the experience. I'm just saying that might not be true for everyone's game.

Fair enough, and I didn't mean to come off brusque.
But I am curious; how would you deal with the aforementioned high-Wis player asking why he didn't notice anything? (I ask because, that player would likely be me in many cases, so I have a vested interest :smalltongue:)

Foryn Gilnith
2010-11-12, 11:51 PM
This is how I'd rule it too. No real mechanics for "I swing around blindly with my sword" (ie, he's not really making an attack roll)

The Warblade's reference to a standard-action martial flourish would likely be the closest approximation.

Drolyt
2010-11-12, 11:59 PM
Fair enough, and I didn't mean to come off brusque.
But I am curious; how would you deal with the aforementioned high-Wis player asking why he didn't notice anything? (I ask because, that player would likely be me in many cases, so I have a vested interest :smalltongue:)
If I had such a character in my group I would have let him make the sense motive check because I would know that that was how he would have the most fun. I've learned to adapt to different groups. Let me explain about a group I DM'd for in high school. I created a very open ended game, I put them in a city, had them meet in a tavern, and gave them a map of the city and the surrounding area. I had several different plot hooks they could learn about by asking around and whatnot. Some plot hooks weren't really available to them yet, they certainly weren't strong enough to fight the ancient red dragon in the nearby mountain, but that would give the sense that the campaign was more than just the players and their actions/quests. That way they could choose the adventure that most interested them. This. Didn't. Work. They couldn't figure out what the hell to do until I told them "why don't you ask around at the bar?". Then they took the first plot hook they could find. Failing this they would do something stupid like try to rob the king (this was admittedly entertaining the first couple times). I found the only way to get through the game was to railroad them as much as possible. Thankfully most groups are not like that, but I thought you needed an example of where I am coming from.
Edit: By the way, that group did have fun, despite the railroading play style.

Psyren
2010-11-13, 01:33 AM
I don't consider guiding players to suitable challenges to be railroading.

What I consider railroading is "yeah I know you sunk a bunch of ranks into the one skill that would mess with my plot, so I'm going to just pretend you didn't, okay?"

It is the DM saying "I don't care what your character can and can't do well; this is what I want to happen, so you are now officially a spectator." Totally different from what you just described.

Drolyt
2010-11-13, 01:36 AM
I don't consider guiding players to suitable challenges to be railroading.

What I consider railroading is "yeah I know you sunk a bunch of ranks into the one skill that would mess with my plot, so I'm going to just pretend you didn't, okay?"

It is the DM saying "I don't care what your character can and can't do well; this is what I want to happen, so you are now officially a spectator." Totally different from what you just described.
Perhaps what I described isn't railroading, but it is a good example of a situation where I might not allow sense motive checks all the time because the players wouldn't use them in a constructive fashion.

Thrawn183
2010-11-13, 01:39 AM
Besides choosing to deal nolethal damage or using the Bluff skill to disguse skill, I need a way to lessen the chance an NPC's skill will show. Is there anyway for a character to lower their attack bonus or some such in order to not always hit a target?

i.e. an archer wants to lose a competition, a swordsman is masquerading as a simple noblewoman, but wishes to gauge a possible opponent, etc.

I would, at the MOST require it to be a bluff check. It would probably be easier for an archer than a swordsman, but really, they need all the nice things they can get.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-11-13, 03:38 AM
I'm surprised this thread got to page two without the obvious I am not lefthanded (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmNotLefthanded) reference/solution.

Kurald Galain
2010-11-13, 05:46 AM
How does one swim a sword? It sounds like a ToB maneuver.

Or consider Scrooge McDuck, but with a bin of swords rather than money... :smallbiggrin:

Xuc Xac
2010-11-13, 05:46 AM
My problem with using bluff is that the people who should be best at playing down their swordsmanship (Fighters) end up being very poor at it (poor charisma, no bluff in-class).


After you've dedicated most of your life to making correct sword technique come to you as second nature without having to think about it, it's not so easy to go back to doing it wrong.

Dr.Epic
2010-11-13, 05:47 AM
Just have them aim for a something right next to the person they want to fool people into thinking they're hitting.

Timeras
2010-11-13, 06:01 AM
My problem with using bluff is that the people who should be best at playing down their swordsmanship (Fighters) end up being very poor at it (poor charisma, no bluff in-class).

I mean, it makes sense that bards would be very good at it, as they're tricksters, but it also makes sense that the master swordsmen could play with it.

Now that said, bluff absolutely makes the most sense, so meh. ^_^

You don't make a check to fight with less skill, you make one to pretend that you're doing the best you can. A good fighter is not necessarily good at acting like someone with no or little training. The bluff skill is appropriate for this.

Dracons
2010-11-13, 06:06 AM
XD It's like the age old I purposefully choose to fail to not land on ground. Yay for free fly spell!


I tend to use bluff myself if I fake miss.


Or, roll to hit something nearby, like a fly near by. Though once I failed to do that as a player, and ended up hitting the bullseye in the archery contest. My character was hung that very night.

LibraryOgre
2010-11-13, 11:34 AM
Personally, I see the take 10 mechanics as being ideal for the "I need to check their sense motive, but don't want them to know" or "The rogue is sneaking up on them... do they notice". Those who have put ranks into will be rewarded by creating a higher DC. Those who have not rely somewhat on their target messing up (the d20 roll). Over time, it balances out, and it is a simple rule to follow consistently (unlike a sheet of prerolls, which can sometimes seem really unfair when someone gets a 1 on an important secret check), without bias.

If the player specifically asks, sure, let them roll. Heck, if he's specifically looking at the guy to see if there's anything funny about how he's fighting, that's worth a bonus (probably based on BAB). But if they're not asking, and there's just a chance of noticing... let the active party roll against a static "defense".

Psyren
2010-11-13, 11:37 AM
Personally, I see the take 10 mechanics as being ideal for the "I need to check their sense motive, but don't want them to know" or "The rogue is sneaking up on them... do they notice". Those who have put ranks into will be rewarded by creating a higher DC. Those who have not rely somewhat on their target messing up (the d20 roll). Over time, it balances out, and it is a simple rule to follow consistently (unlike a sheet of prerolls, which can sometimes seem really unfair when someone gets a 1 on an important secret check), without bias.

If the player specifically asks, sure, let them roll. Heck, if he's specifically looking at the guy to see if there's anything funny about how he's fighting, that's worth a bonus (probably based on BAB). But if they're not asking, and there's just a chance of noticing... let the active party roll against a static "defense".

I'm fine with this approach also. Anything that lets the player's modifier actually matter.

Thrawn183
2010-11-13, 11:38 AM
Could always make it an attack roll vs. their sense motive.

Drolyt
2010-11-13, 12:02 PM
After you've dedicated most of your life to making correct sword technique come to you as second nature without having to think about it, it's not so easy to go back to doing it wrong.
This is actually more true than people may think. There is a thing called muscle memory. It's not that muscles have memory, and really it isn't about memory. It's about the fact that your conscious mind is kind of slow. When you first learn something you have to think about everything you do. This is inefficient, so your brain starts to look at what is effective and what is not and store effective responses in your subconscious so that they are triggered by reflex rather than by conscious decision (although obviously there is a mix of the two). Your brain is pretty smart about this, it learns and adapts over time, but you don't have absolute control over it. It is difficult to just stop being good at something.

Psyren
2010-11-13, 12:04 PM
Hence why a bluff check is a good idea for this. It would be sort of a modified feint; you can override the conditioning of your muscle memory with what your mind wants to accomplish.

Zhalath
2010-11-13, 03:07 PM
Or consider Scrooge McDuck, but with a bin of swords rather than money... :smallbiggrin:

That mental image looks painful.

randomhero00
2010-11-13, 05:14 PM
Didn't read the whole thread, sorry if its been said, but the real reason I'd want to know is more for 4e because they have so many bouncy rider effects. Sometimes you want to bounce it off an ally but want it to miss. Can't recall if there's anything like that in 3.5. I'd think there'd be at least one spell like that, or ability.

mikau013
2010-11-14, 09:19 AM
Didn't read the whole thread, sorry if its been said, but the real reason I'd want to know is more for 4e because they have so many bouncy rider effects. Sometimes you want to bounce it off an ally but want it to miss. Can't recall if there's anything like that in 3.5. I'd think there'd be at least one spell like that, or ability.

In 4e you can't miss on purpose, thus look carefully if your skills say if they target enemies or creatures, though there is a feat that reduces your chance to hit and dmg with arcane spells if you hit allies in the forgotten realm player's guide (paragon feat)

Susano-wo
2010-11-14, 11:11 AM
Didn't read the whole thread, sorry if its been said, but the real reason I'd want to know is more for 4e because they have so many bouncy rider effects. Sometimes you want to bounce it off an ally but want it to miss. Can't recall if there's anything like that in 3.5. I'd think there'd be at least one spell like that, or ability.

well, since 4E is build on balance, I'd say you have to try to hit. versimilitude in powers takes a backseat to balance of abilities in 4E (but that's just my take. don't know the RAW or anything

Drolyt
2010-11-14, 12:47 PM
Didn't read the whole thread, sorry if its been said, but the real reason I'd want to know is more for 4e because they have so many bouncy rider effects. Sometimes you want to bounce it off an ally but want it to miss. Can't recall if there's anything like that in 3.5. I'd think there'd be at least one spell like that, or ability.
4e isn't my specialty, but I'm fairly certain you can't do that. Sorry.