Voluntarily failing attacks

[TomatoFettuccini]

You can voluntarily fail a save, CMD, or Skill check.

Can you voluntarily fail a successful attack?

[Starglim]

If you rolled your attack and it exceeded the target's AC, you have hit and you do damage (but you may then be able to voluntarily forego a critical confirmation roll).

If you want to make a swing and have others think you were trying to hit an opponent, that's a Bluff check. Attempting to deceive someone with Bluff takes at least 1 round, so making one or more ineffective but dangerous-looking attacks would be a full-round action. I'd probably allow one "attack" and moving your speed, similar to a feint. Waving your weapon around in an unconvincing fashion takes less effort and skill than changing your grip, so it should be a free action.

[Jader7777]

If you already rolled the attack you have to 'commit' to that roll. You typically can't choose to take the lowest result if you've already rolled.

[Johnnycat93]

I'd allow you to voluntarily fail.

[jbadams]

Why would you want to?

If you can tell us the specific result you're trying to achieve we may be able to advise rules-legal methods of doing so.

[TomatoFettuccini]

jbadams wrote:

Why would you want to?

If you can tell us the specific result you're trying to achieve we may be able to advise rules-legal methods of doing so.

It's a question that came up at my table. No specific situation, just conversation.

[Johnny_Devo]

There could be several reasons, all of them RP related, so given the fact that you can voluntarily fail saves, I'd say you should be able to voluntarily fail attack rolls.

For example, if some of the players are wanted and one of the group is listed by that government as known to travel with them but unknown if he works with the group, they can cook up a plan to chase him visibly, tossing out attacks that purposefully miss as a show for the guards, who now believe he has escaped.

another example, a group of peons engages the party, and is convincingly routed. The last one decides to warn the others, and appears manic in his attempts to escape. The party, for whatever reason, decides they want a panicked account of today's deeds to reach their enemies, and they want it to be convincing. They shoot arrows that purposefully miss at the fleeing enemy.

[Azothath]

TomatoFettuccini wrote:

You can voluntarily fail a save, CMD, or Skill check.

Can you voluntarily fail a successful attack?

so just chatting -

some things are not failed, just not successful.
When a character makes an attack, that is an attempt to hit. A character could with GM's discretion take "1", that still might hit in some cases. Otherwise it could be a feint or bluff or some such type roll. This covers attacks, CMB, and other types of attack rolls. If the character wants to just look like they are attacking, that's a skill check. What I'm getting at is voluntarily failing on an attack is not an attack roll as it is not an attempt to hit a creature, it is an attempt to miss. Feinting is different.
One assumes sparring is done with the non-lethal -4 penalty to pull a punch and non-lethal weapons.
Attacking a specific area (called shot) may not be covered in PF but it's probably an option somewhere. Usually a -6 to attack and that would allow a character to attack a specific area (just miss the left ear) of the target.

With skill checks you are successful at your question or goal or not. It is more open to GM interpretation(roleplay). You cannot "fumble" a skill check.

Saves are made or not and it's a reverse logic as the spell affects the target or not. In the case of voluntarily failing the target simply declines to save or "accepts" the spell. SR can be voluntarily lowered (except in some rare cases).

[Jader7777]

Johnny_Devo wrote:

For example, if some of the players are wanted and one of the group is listed by that government as known to travel with them but unknown if he works with the group, they can cook up a plan to chase him visibly, tossing out attacks that purposefully miss as a show for the guards, who now believe he has escaped.

I'd have to run this with bluff or disguise checks to try and make your blows not look like feather taps AKA: Wrestling actors. That said, you could choose to deal non-lethal damage in this situation you just have to hope you don't accidentally crit. :)

[Gisher]

Starglim wrote:

If you rolled your attack and it exceeded the target's AC, you have hit and you do damage (but you may then be able to voluntarily forego a critical confirmation roll).

You can choose to take a -4 penalty on an attack so that it deals no damage even if it is successful. You can take the Stage Combatant feat to avoid the penalty entirely.

Ultimate Combat wrote:

Stage Combatant (Combat)

You are a master of stage and nonlethal combats.

Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, base attack bonus +5

Benefit: When you make an attack with a weapon that you have Weapon Focus in, you take no penalty on the attack roll when you are attempting to make an attack that deals no damage or nonlethal damage.

Normal: When making attacks that deal no damage or nonlethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

[Dalindra]

Swashbucklers have this deed:

Superior Feint:

At 7th level, a swashbuckler with at least 1 panache point can, as a standard action, purposefully miss a creature she could make a melee attack against with a wielded light or one-handed piercing weapon. When she does, the creature is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC until the start of the swashbuckler's next turn.

So yes, you can voluntarily fail an attack... at least if you are a swashbukler.

If I was GMing, I'll let you decide to autofail your attack before you make the attack roll, but without Bluff, Feinting or similar checks I'll rule that it is obvious what you are trying to do. And, of course, no benefits from it.

[Azothath]

Dalindra wrote:

Swashbucklers have this deed:

** spoiler omitted **

So yes, you can voluntarily fail an attack... at least if you are a swashbukler.

If I was GMing, I'll let you decide to autofail your attack before you make the attack roll, but without Bluff, Feinting or similar checks I'll rule that it is obvious what you are trying to do. And, of course, no benefits from it.

I think you are still successful or not with the Feint. Feint is not an attack roll, it's a DC check. Yes, I'm being a bit overly specific 8^) but I'd agree a Feint is an attack.

{ed} Voluntarily failing a successful attack then becomes voluntarily failing at a feint. My view of the game model is with DC checks and GM approval you have two options; to take "1" or to change the goal to make a successful bluff to seem to feint.

The conundrum of the OP comes from the fact he used "successful" attack and then wanted to fail at it. That is a switching of goals or contradictory attributes ascribed to the same state.