|
Does anyone see a rules problem with purposefully failing a check. I started thinking of the 'casting defensively' action, but I suppose it falls in line with purposefully failing a skill check, attack roll, saving throw, etc. You wouldn't normally want to do that, but there are certain situations where it might help (such as with Bluff checks "Come on, guys - we can't let this guy escape!" <miss>).
Mechanically, it came up while working on this thought:
Destined Sorcerer with the Karmic (Wildblooded) variant.
Sorcerer steps up beside the two-handed fighter ally, who is facing off against an orc bad guy. The sorcerer casts a cantrip spell defensively, purposefully failing the check. Due to the Bloodline Arcana of Karmic, the orc triggers an attack of opportunity from the fighter.
Thoughts?
Not sure what you are trying to get at with your purposely failed bluff check example. It sounds like you might be intending instead to send a secret message through bluff, which requires a successful bluff check, not a failed one.
But otherwise there are no rules that discuss intentionally failing to do something. As a GM I'd allow you to intentionally fail something, but usually such a thing would probably be in association with you successfully making a bluff check of some kind to fool the onlookers into believing you are really trying to do what you just failed to do.
I would not allow the arcana of karmic to trigger an AoO. Trying to cast a spell defensively but failing to do so is not really the same as pretending to cast defensively and intentionally botching the spell by purposely messing up the gestures or words.
|
|
Not sure what you are trying to get at with your purposely failed bluff check example. It sounds like you might be intending instead to send a secret message through bluff, which requires a successful bluff check, not a failed one.
But otherwise there are no rules that discuss intentionally failing to do something. As a GM I'd allow you to intentionally fail something, but usually such a thing would probably be in association with you successfully making a bluff check of some kind to fool the onlookers into believing you are really trying to do what you just failed to do.
I would not allow the arcana of karmic to trigger an AoO. Trying to cast a spell defensively but failing to do so is not really the same as pretending to cast defensively and intentionally botching the spell by purposely messing up the gestures or words.
The first example I gave was a game I played a few years ago where we wanted a prisoner to escape a jail, but we had to put on the appearance of not letting him escape. While doing my bluff check, I swung my sword at the guy. Aside from doing the bluff check, the DM made me roll an attack roll.
There was also a case in a game I played where I purposely wanted to fail a saving throw (it had something to do with being polymorphed into another creature - but my character actually wanted it to happen).
I was looking more for a rules reference to something like that. I haven't seen anything in the rules about this, so I expect table variation...but I wanted to throw this out on the rules forum, see if anyone knows of a rule I'm missing.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2npb2?Can-a-player-willingly-fail-a-saving-thro w#3
It seems not to appear on the reference document, but yes.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2npb2?Can-a-player-willingly-fail-a-saving-thro w#3
It seems not to appear on the reference document, but yes.
In regards to your first question (the attack), you are making an attack. You're best option would be to take the -4 for using the weapon to do non lethal damage. This way you are making the attack (increased chance to miss as well) and if you succeed doing 'less damage' in effect. Otherwise you'd be rolling a bluff check to 'fake' an attack that missed, and if you are known to be a martial character as a GM I'd make the DC a bit higher. It is something you should succeed in.
Second case, you can fail saves as per the rules, but I think that is the only place it is stated. Any other rolls don't have that 'option' as far as I've seen. So it comes down to bluff checks for them all.
|
|
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2npb2?Can-a-player-willingly-fail-a-saving-thro w#3
It seems not to appear on the reference document, but yes.
Ah, thanks for the link. So it appears on purposeful failures...saves vs spell: yes, other types of 'rolls': ?
For some things, you can certainly weigh the 'roll' in your favor. So, for example in an attack, you could use a weapon you're not proficient in, use armor you are not trained in, fire weapons into melee without Precise Shot, etc. Of course, there's a '20' on every d20. <grin>
For skill checks and concentration checks, 20 is not an auto-success. That still begs the question.
In regards to your first question (the attack), you are making an attack. You're best option would be to take the -4 for using the weapon to do non lethal damage. This way you are making the attack (increased chance to miss as well) and if you succeed doing 'less damage' in effect. Otherwise you'd be rolling a bluff check to 'fake' an attack that missed, and if you are known to be a martial character as a GM I'd make the DC a bit higher. It is something you should succeed in.
Second case, you can fail saves as per the rules, but I think that is the only place it is stated. Any other rolls don't have that 'option' as far as I've seen. So it comes down to bluff checks for them all.
To add to the first though...
You could also choose to fight defensively giving you another -4 to attack for a +2 to AC. Now you are swinging at a total of -8 to hit for non-lethal damage and +2 to AC.
Sure you might hit, but it's much less likely now.
I don't know of other rolls. I think it's not written anywhere, so it's not possible.
I ruled yes for all d20 rolls. After all, if you want to fail a roll on purpose...you just decide to fail it.
Actually my GM got further and ruled that you can provoke an attack of opportunity as a free action. It was used by summons to occupy the attack of opportunity per round of a golem with reach. This interpretation was GM's discretion for sure, not RAW.
In regards to your first question (the attack), you are making an attack. You're best option would be to take the -4 for using the weapon to do non lethal damage. This way you are making the attack (increased chance to miss as well) and if you succeed doing 'less damage' in effect. Otherwise you'd be rolling a bluff check to 'fake' an attack that missed, and if you are known to be a martial character as a GM I'd make the DC a bit higher. It is something you should succeed in.
Second case, you can fail saves as per the rules, but I think that is the only place it is stated. Any other rolls don't have that 'option' as far as I've seen. So it comes down to bluff checks for them all.
To add to the first though...
You could also choose to fight defensively giving you another -4 to attack for a +2 to AC. Now you are swinging at a total of -8 to hit for non-lethal damage and +2 to AC.
Sure you might hit, but it's much less likely now.
And just to make sure you don't hit...
Two weapon fight with a gauntlet as well.
To make it look like you're trying to hit, but missing, you should ideally be attacking the air just next to the target, or sundering his gear, or something else. Clearly, a 20th level fighter using his favoured +5 weapon could just shave the escapee's hair whilst making it look convincing, whereas a 1st level commoner flailing around with his eyes shut would look like he was incompetent.
As GM, I'd require an attack at AC 20 or so, with one's Perform (act) check or Bluff ranks as a bonus. If you miss that, you might hit the target.