Can i deliberately fail attack roll? Or rather can i fail critical confirmation roll/opt to not confirm?
I don't know that there are any actual rules spelled out for this situation; however, I would say yes. The PC is consciously making the decision to attack someone/thing, so I would imagine you could intentionally miss an attack. I'm not sure why you would do that though. A little more information on the specific incident would really help to clarify the answers.
Like if i want to hit someone with 1d12 or 2d6 weapon to bring him to negatives, but if i crit it may outright kill the person (wich is not desired result).
I'd actually have to say no. I only say this because you are not the only one reacting to combat its also your opponent. Say you aimed for there shoulder but the guy moved just a hairsbreadth to the left and your attack takes him in the throat? Critical hit when you only meant to injure.
|
Actually...you might be able to. Much like choosing not to roll a save you can choose not to roll to confirm a critical. There is technically nothing in the rules to support being able to make that choice but a player may always choose not to roll a die, no amount of words on paper can force your hand to pick up and roll your die. Pretty much the Pathfinder equivalent to a filibuster. Now I don't recommend pushing this with a GM who is trying to force you to confirm as it's bad sportsmanship on your part to push the issue, but simply holding your die and calmly saying "I choose not to roll" is good enough for most GM's out there. But if the GM says "You still have to", just drop the issue and roll the die, because the GM has both the rules and the fact that he's the GM backing him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably best to take the -4 and attempt to deal non-lethal in that case, if it's an option.
Well yea...I mean you can always say "I'm not going to roll." but thats not exactly supported by the rules a crit is a crit...it happens again combat is an abstract thing the person your fighting is also moving and unfortunatly moved in a way you didn't expect.
|
I'm not so sure you can forego that crit. I also don't think you should be allowed to do so.
An attack roll against a non-helpless enemy is not 100% under your control; the enemy might twist aside, but in doing so expose a more vulnerable spot so that your attack hits harder than you intended.
To paraphrase a gun safety maxim, don't hit anything with a greataxe that you're not prepared to kill.
I would say it it depends on the character that's attacking. For example, skilled dualist type would be better able to control their attacks better then a raging barbarian. You also have the option of dealing nonlethal damage.
|
|
I'm not going to weigh in one way or the other.
I will point out though, that there is a feat which allows you to give up your critical for a benefit. (Butterfly Sting)
The question is - is being able to give up the critical an added benefit of the feat, or is it simply allowing you to benefit from something which you're allowed to do anyway.
|
|
Ascalaphus, in a two year old thread on this same topic you said exactly the opposite. Was there something in particular that changed your mind?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is likely in each individual GM's realm to decide on.
You should be able to deliberately fail an pure "attack roll", but also should have to roll a Bluff check if you don't want others to realize it.
I would think you shouldn't be able to deliberately fail a crit confirmation once you hit though. Hitting something with your weapon could always lead to critically injuring them, even if you didn't intend to (e.g., they might lung into your attempt at 'just grazing them'). If you aren't trying to kill something, just use non-lethal. Or, just announce your intentions to immediately stabilize/cure the target once dropped.
Just off the top of my head, I would allow a player to announce their intent to hit, but not critically injury before an attack roll. I would give something some suitable penalty to hit (like -4) since you were trying not to hit them critically, and then let any crit confirmations immediately fail as the player desired.
By RAW, no.
GMs may, of course, allow it at their discretion.
The moral of the story: do a non-lethal hit early in the fight. Vastly reduces the likelihood of unintended death.
Just off the top of my head, I would allow a player to announce their intent to hit, but not critically injury before an attack roll. I would give something some suitable penalty to hit (like -4) since you were trying not to hit them critically, and then let any crit confirmations immediately fail as the player desired.
Which ends up being a lot like non-lethal damage attacks.
|
|
Ascalaphus, in a two year old thread on this same topic you said exactly the opposite. Was there something in particular that changed your mind?
Oops :P
Made me doubt for a moment. I'm sticking with my current position though; I think people should play smart or accept the consequences for playing dumb. Trying to arrest people by hacking at maximum force with an axe sounds like a dumb thing to me. You're trying to hit someone just hard enough to cause him to lose consciousness and start bleeding to death, without outright killing him. That shouldn't just be risky, that should be really really hard.
Don't be DPR-greedy; if you need to capture someone, hit them a few times with the sap, not just the greataxe.
I think justaworm's idea for taking a penalty in order to restrain your force makes sense.
I concur with the rest of folks that if you attack something and you hit on a crit threat, well... such things happen in combat. Non-lethal damage is definitely the way to go in that instance.
And for those types of characters, use a non-lethal weapon like the sap, or take the -4 penalty to attack to deal non-lethal damage. You can still get a critical hit with non-lethal damage, just like you can Coup de Grace with non-lethal damage.
The idea behind a lethal weapon is to kill and maimed/injure, that is their sole purpose. If you don't want to kill/maim/injure, then pick up a different weapon, or use your weapon in a way not to kill/maim/injure.
The issue here I think, is that we are examining this in a mechanical perspective as opposed to a fluid, thematic perspective. You hack at someone's arm with your sword thinking, I want to injure the arm to hamper this ability to attack (cool); however, just as you do so, your aim goes off slightly or your opponent moves said arm in a weird way and your sword chops the guy's arm off (critical hit!). Think of it that way as opposed to, okay I hit his arm, now do I want to just injure it, or chopping it off?
|
Not killing, with a lethal weapon, requires skill.
You can represent that with the Golden Legion's Stayed Blade feat.
|
Since you could choose to intentionally fail the will save of a spell an ally is casting on (example: dimension anchor) you could try to intentionally miss the target. I would allow it but you would need to try a bluff check for the act of not revealing that you are purposely missing. Like others before me have already stated, take the -4 penalty for non lethal damage.
That's an awesome feat, BBT.
Also, if you're taking the -4 penalty and want to keep your enemy alive... Why not just hit them with non-lethal damage?
Just off the top of my head, I would allow a player to announce their intent to hit, but not critically injury before an attack roll. I would give something some suitable penalty to hit (like -4) since you were trying not to hit them critically, and then let any crit confirmations immediately fail as the player desired.Which ends up being a lot like non-lethal damage attacks.
Yes, but still does lethal damage instead if you like. Target maybe has DR or fast healing vs. non-lethal, or for character/style reasons you still want to do lethal damage.
Do a feint maneuver.
Like if i want to hit someone with 1d12 or 2d6 weapon to bring him to negatives, but if i crit it may outright kill the person (wich is not desired result).
Just take the -4 attack penalty to do nonlethal damage. Problem solved.
There's nothing I know of to allow attacking "suboptimally", i.e. forgoing the use of feats or more attack bonus (other than various explicit penalties like fighting defensively and attacking for nonlethal).
(Not actual rules, just how I'd adjudicate) I would tend to allow you to fight as though you were worse (e.g. less BAB, don't use all your strength, etc.) but only before the initial attack roll. Likewise I'd allow you to not use certain feats, mostly before the initial roll, though I'd allow you to "disable" Critical Focus after just because it's otherwise not relevant. I wouldn't let you not use buff spells, though, since that's not something you have learned.
Edit: the reason I would allow it before the initial roll but just before the confirmation roll is I think those don't represent distinct events in-universe. It's not like you hit and see if you can follow through on the crit.
Not killing, with a lethal weapon, requires skill.
You can represent that with the Golden Legion's Stayed Blade feat.
That's nice, did not knew about this feat.
I myself think that you cannot forgo the roll, but since there is things like "you can choose to fail saving throw" or "you can choose to lose your DEX bonus to AC" thought maybe there is something like that for an attack. Still it mostly relies on the GM's judgment.
Even if allowed, you must be in full control of your character to attempt it. No "I take a 1" while dominated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, you cannot deliberately fail an attack roll, unless you have a feat/special ability that lets you. This is in direct contrast to the rule that allows you to deliberately fail a save.
However, in this case, this is not because the designers don't think you should be allowed to deliberately miss, just that you don't need rules to do that, just your DM. That's what he's for! Space in the CRB is at a premium, and there aren't rules for every single thing. There are no rules for shaving, does that mean that everyone has a beard?
A confirmation roll is a different thing! It does not represent a separate attack that you could choose to miss! It's a way to determine how deadly the attack roll you just made was.
This models real life. If you attack someone, you might accidentally seriously injure, or even kill, without meaning to. It's a risk you take when attacking someone, and there are people in jail right now who killed someone when they didn't mean to.
Saying to the judge, 'Sorry, M'Lord, when I deliberately belted him with my six-foot +5 vicious adamantine greataxe, I didn't mean to actually kill him!', won't save you from the murder conviction.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to refine my position vis a vis 2 years ago, that That Crazy Alchemist so finely called me on. Back that I argued that the higher you roll, the better you succeed; that you should not be punished for rolling well.
I still hold to that position, kinda, but when you make a normal attack roll, your implicit intent is to hit as hard as possible. Your intent is always to score a perfect hit, roll maximum damage etcetera. That is what it means to roll a standard to-hit roll.
If that's not what you want - if you want to take a careful swipe with your axe, only chop off a few fingers maybe - then you have to say do before you make your attack roll, otherwise you're stuck with the default assumption (MAXIMUM CARNAGE!). I think the option of taking a -4 to hit to guarantee not getting a critical hit is a fair GM call, especially compared to the option of taking a -4 to do nonlethal damage.
Also, remember that you're not obligated to use feats like Weapon Specialization, but if you don't want to use them, you should announce that before making your attack roll. Again, the default assumption is that you're attacking for maximum effect.
I still hold to that position, kinda,
Off the original topic ...
Mechanics-wise, rolling the dice is strictly about probability. A 15 isn't any better than a 17, assuming both beat the Target AC.
If it were meant to indicate a better attack, then you wouldn't roll a completely separate damage roll that received no bonus for how "good" your attack roll was. I often roll a 19 and still roll a 1 for damage.
The crit chance, sort of breaks this conceptually, though the math is still valid in that you have a 1 chance in 20 that your hit is a critical. The rules could have been written that any time you hit, you also roll a second die and if you get a 1 on that die then your hit is a possible crit, etc. But thankfully, they aren't :)
|
To "deliberately miss:"
"I attack the empty square next to the foe I'm trying to miss." No hit, no damage, no problem.
But, if you're trying to hurt a foe without killing him, you attack non-lethally and hope for the best, or have trained significantly enough to know exactly how to leave foes incapacitated and alive (represented on your character sheet by Golden Legion's Stayed Blade as a feat).
Sometimes, when you try to shoot a guy in a nonlethal spot, the "perfect shot" happens and he dies. You can't choose to do exactly enough damage to put him at "-1" without a feat.