Deliberate Failure [Archive] - Wizards Community

Deliberate Failure [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Bozwevial
09-03-07, 11:27 AM Can a character deliberately fail a check/save/attack roll?

Example 1: Bob has been captured and is being forced to attempt to pick a lock for a BBEG. He doesn't want to help the guy, so he deliberately gets his pick caught in the lock.

My guess would be that Bob can automatically fail the check, but that anyone watching with ranks in the skill is entitled to a Open Lock check opposed by a Bluff check from Bob to determine that Bob is in fact simply jiggling the pick around rather than trying to open the lock.

Example 2: Bob and his fighter friend Joe are being forced to fight in an arena. The duo do not wish to harm each other, but are attempting to make their misses seem realistic to the onlookers.

What mechanics would this entail? Someone with a high degree of fighting skill would be more likely than a wizard to determine that the combatants are not really fighting, it would seem. Perhaps: d20+BaB+Wis modifer against d20+BaB+Cha modifer, the former for the spectators and the latter for Bob and Joe, with a +2 bonus for our heroes since they are effectively aiding another.

Example 3: The heroes are fighting a lich, but unbeknownst to them, he regenerates when exposed to fire, due to a spell he's concocted. Also, in the party, one of the cohorts is a lackey for the villain looking for an excuse not to fight so as not to blow his cover (and hopefully scoop up the phylactery if the lich fails). The heroes cast fireball at the lich, and the lich casts a web spell on the party, catching the lackey in the spell's area.

Can the lich automatically fail the save? (It seems to me like it would be easy to just stand there and let it hit you.) Can the lackey get tangled in the web spell on purpose? Would this entail a Bluff check based not on Cha but on Dex?
Nephlite
09-03-07, 11:42 AM Can a character deliberately fail a check/save/attack roll?

Example 1: Bob has been captured and is being forced to attempt to pick a lock for a BBEG. He doesn't want to help the guy, so he deliberately gets his pick caught in the lock.

My guess would be that Bob can automatically fail the check, but that anyone watching with ranks in the skill is entitled to a Open Lock check opposed by a Bluff check from Bob to determine that Bob is in fact simply jiggling the pick around rather than trying to open the lock.

Spot check versus Bluff.
Because you have to have a good eye to see he isn't doing it right, but he can try to fake it with Bluff.

Example 2: Bob and his fighter friend Joe are being forced to fight in an arena. The duo do not wish to harm each other, but are attempting to make their misses seem realistic to the onlookers.

What mechanics would this entail? Someone with a high degree of fighting skill would be more likely than a wizard to determine that the combatants are not really fighting, it would seem. Perhaps: d20+BaB+Wis modifer against d20+BaB+Cha modifer, the former for the spectators and the latter for Bob and Joe, with a +2 bonus for our heroes since they are effectively aiding another.

Example 3: The heroes are fighting a lich, but unbeknownst to them, he regenerates when exposed to fire, due to a spell he's concocted. Also, in the party, one of the cohorts is a lackey for the villain looking for an excuse not to fight so as not to blow his cover (and hopefully scoop up the phylactery if the lich fails). The heroes cast fireball at the lich, and the lich casts a web spell on the party, catching the lackey in the spell's area.

Can the lich automatically fail the save? (It seems to me like it would be easy to just stand there and let it hit you.) Can the lackey get tangled in the web spell on purpose? Would this entail a Bluff check based not on Cha but on Dex?

You can auto fail save by choice.
Mysteria
09-03-07, 11:46 AM 1-I'd say spot vs bluff and the onlooker has to have at least 1 rank in open lock himself. Reasoning: somebody who has no idea how a lock is opened himself wouldn't be able to determine if he's doing it right or not. (open lock is trained only)

2- No idea.

3 - From the SRD: Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
darkneolink
09-03-07, 07:04 PM Cure light wounds
...
Saving throw: Will half (harmless); see text
spell resistance: Yes (harmless); see text
Words

so you can choose to fail your saving throw
Radijs
09-03-07, 07:14 PM In situation 1 I would say that there's a sleight of hand check opposed by a spot check

Situation 2: Bluff with the characters BAB added to the check.

Situation 3: Toughie. Bluff check would be the closest thing probably.
Capt. Pixel
09-04-07, 04:34 PM so you can choose to fail your saving throw

You do every time a Cleric heals you :cool:
StevenO
09-04-07, 06:57 PM Yes you can deliberately fail a die roll.

1 & 2. In cases were you want to appear like you are trying but aren't you would use opposed checks. The question is what is being opposed. The most basic answer is Bluff vs. Sense Motive but that probably isn't accurate enough. In the examples I'd allow half of the modifier to the skill you are bluffing to be used instead of your normal bluff modifier; if looking for something stronger add half the normal bluff plus half the skill or just use the full skill modifier. The idea is that if you know how to do something you also know the key to failure so you should be able to fake that better. So for these I'd use:

1: 1/2 Open Lock modifier + 1/2 Bluff vs Sense Motive (SM -2 if no OL ranks or +2 if 5 or more)
2: Sense Motive + 1/2 BAB vs Bluff + 1/2 BAB
Nytmare
09-05-07, 10:14 AM My vote'd be a bluff check with a synergy bonus of +2 for 5 ranks of lock pickery vs a sense motive check with a +2 bonus granted to the motive senser if they had 5 ranks as well.

As for the fight, it would depend on what you were describing. What I'd probably do is try to convince the people fighting that it would make more sense for them to really fight, but to try to hide the fact that they were dealing nonlethal damage. Fighting for real, but trying to pull your punches makes more sense to me. Faking a fight is something you normally need to choreograph and practice.

So either:

Bluff checks, with a +2 synergy for a BAB of 5, and a +2 if the other guy made his check in the previous round vs a Sense Motive check with a +2 synergy for a BAB of 5 - to hide the fact that you aren't really trying to kill each other.

-or-

Bluff checks, with a +2 synergy for 5 ranks of Perform, and a +2 if the other guy made his check in the previous round vs a Sense Motive check with a +2 synergy for a BAB of 5 - to hide the fact that you're dancing instead of fighting.
Mælstrøm
09-07-07, 03:20 PM lock pick: he simply makes a normal open lock check but states that he wants to fail elegantly, then the bad guy makes a sense motive check against the open lock roll normally. The better someone is at picking locks, the better he can act as though he is doing the right thing without actually doing it.

On part 2, I agree that the BAB should be added to the bluff check! The better someone is at fighting the better he can direct/pull his punches.
Nytmare
09-07-07, 03:55 PM The better someone is at picking locks, the better he can act as though he is doing the right thing without actually doing it.

It's more than just knowing how to do it though, it's being able to stop yourself from glancing nervously over your shoulder and overdramatizing the fact that you failed.

The skill check isn't about picking a lock, it's about lying. Knowing about locks will help the lie, but it's still a bluff check.
Tedronai
09-08-07, 02:19 AM Bluff versus Sense Motive on all counts to prevent observers from detecting the ruse (you'll still fail the 'attempted' check or save regardless of the outcome of the bluff) with various modifiers and/or synergies based on what you're attempting.

1. +2 synergy on each side for 5 ranks in Open Lock, +2 for Bob for 5 ranks in Sleight of Hand (possibly +2 for BBEG for 5 ranks in spot)
2. add BAB to both the Bluff and Sense Motive, +5 on the Bluff for 5 ranks in perform (acting)
3. +2 synergy on each side for 5 base reflex
draco1119
09-08-07, 05:56 AM Why not use the rules for Perform (Weapon Drill) from CW in situation 2?
Eater_Of_Souls
09-08-07, 07:14 AM I would add that a natural '1' on a faked open lock actually opens the lock without meaning to. :P
That assuming you use natural '1' as a complite failure rule.
Mælstrøm
09-09-07, 09:56 AM It's more than just knowing how to do it though, it's being able to stop yourself from glancing nervously over your shoulder and overdramatizing the fact that you failed.

The skill check isn't about picking a lock, it's about lying. Knowing about locks will help the lie, but it's still a bluff check.Agreed, although I feel that a simple +2 synergy bonus is not enough to "buff" the bluff check. Is there a rule that allows for a +2 for every five ranks in a skill or something?
Nytmare
09-09-07, 09:28 PM I've seen that used as a houserule.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bozwevial 09-03-07, 11:27 AM	Can a character deliberately fail a check/save/attack roll? Example 1: Bob has been captured and is being forced to attempt to pick a lock for a BBEG. He doesn't want to help the guy, so he deliberately gets his pick caught in the lock. My guess would be that Bob can automatically fail the check, but that anyone watching with ranks in the skill is entitled to a Open Lock check opposed by a Bluff check from Bob to determine that Bob is in fact simply jiggling the pick around rather than trying to open the lock. Example 2: Bob and his fighter friend Joe are being forced to fight in an arena. The duo do not wish to harm each other, but are attempting to make their misses seem realistic to the onlookers. What mechanics would this entail? Someone with a high degree of fighting skill would be more likely than a wizard to determine that the combatants are not really fighting, it would seem. Perhaps: d20+BaB+Wis modifer against d20+BaB+Cha modifer, the former for the spectators and the latter for Bob and Joe, with a +2 bonus for our heroes since they are effectively aiding another. Example 3: The heroes are fighting a lich, but unbeknownst to them, he regenerates when exposed to fire, due to a spell he's concocted. Also, in the party, one of the cohorts is a lackey for the villain looking for an excuse not to fight so as not to blow his cover (and hopefully scoop up the phylactery if the lich fails). The heroes cast fireball at the lich, and the lich casts a web spell on the party, catching the lackey in the spell's area. Can the lich automatically fail the save? (It seems to me like it would be easy to just stand there and let it hit you.) Can the lackey get tangled in the web spell on purpose? Would this entail a Bluff check based not on Cha but on Dex?
Nephlite 09-03-07, 11:42 AM	Can a character deliberately fail a check/save/attack roll? Example 1: Bob has been captured and is being forced to attempt to pick a lock for a BBEG. He doesn't want to help the guy, so he deliberately gets his pick caught in the lock. My guess would be that Bob can automatically fail the check, but that anyone watching with ranks in the skill is entitled to a Open Lock check opposed by a Bluff check from Bob to determine that Bob is in fact simply jiggling the pick around rather than trying to open the lock. Spot check versus Bluff. Because you have to have a good eye to see he isn't doing it right, but he can try to fake it with Bluff. Example 2: Bob and his fighter friend Joe are being forced to fight in an arena. The duo do not wish to harm each other, but are attempting to make their misses seem realistic to the onlookers. What mechanics would this entail? Someone with a high degree of fighting skill would be more likely than a wizard to determine that the combatants are not really fighting, it would seem. Perhaps: d20+BaB+Wis modifer against d20+BaB+Cha modifer, the former for the spectators and the latter for Bob and Joe, with a +2 bonus for our heroes since they are effectively aiding another. Example 3: The heroes are fighting a lich, but unbeknownst to them, he regenerates when exposed to fire, due to a spell he's concocted. Also, in the party, one of the cohorts is a lackey for the villain looking for an excuse not to fight so as not to blow his cover (and hopefully scoop up the phylactery if the lich fails). The heroes cast fireball at the lich, and the lich casts a web spell on the party, catching the lackey in the spell's area. Can the lich automatically fail the save? (It seems to me like it would be easy to just stand there and let it hit you.) Can the lackey get tangled in the web spell on purpose? Would this entail a Bluff check based not on Cha but on Dex? You can auto fail save by choice.
Mysteria 09-03-07, 11:46 AM	1-I'd say spot vs bluff and the onlooker has to have at least 1 rank in open lock himself. Reasoning: somebody who has no idea how a lock is opened himself wouldn't be able to determine if he's doing it right or not. (open lock is trained only) 2- No idea. 3 - From the SRD: Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality.
darkneolink 09-03-07, 07:04 PM	Cure light wounds ... Saving throw: Will half (harmless); see text spell resistance: Yes (harmless); see text Words so you can choose to fail your saving throw
Radijs 09-03-07, 07:14 PM	In situation 1 I would say that there's a sleight of hand check opposed by a spot check Situation 2: Bluff with the characters BAB added to the check. Situation 3: Toughie. Bluff check would be the closest thing probably.
Capt. Pixel 09-04-07, 04:34 PM	so you can choose to fail your saving throw You do every time a Cleric heals you :cool:
StevenO 09-04-07, 06:57 PM	Yes you can deliberately fail a die roll. 1 & 2. In cases were you want to appear like you are trying but aren't you would use opposed checks. The question is what is being opposed. The most basic answer is Bluff vs. Sense Motive but that probably isn't accurate enough. In the examples I'd allow half of the modifier to the skill you are bluffing to be used instead of your normal bluff modifier; if looking for something stronger add half the normal bluff plus half the skill or just use the full skill modifier. The idea is that if you know how to do something you also know the key to failure so you should be able to fake that better. So for these I'd use: 1: 1/2 Open Lock modifier + 1/2 Bluff vs Sense Motive (SM -2 if no OL ranks or +2 if 5 or more) 2: Sense Motive + 1/2 BAB vs Bluff + 1/2 BAB
Nytmare 09-05-07, 10:14 AM	My vote'd be a bluff check with a synergy bonus of +2 for 5 ranks of lock pickery vs a sense motive check with a +2 bonus granted to the motive senser if they had 5 ranks as well. As for the fight, it would depend on what you were describing. What I'd probably do is try to convince the people fighting that it would make more sense for them to really fight, but to try to hide the fact that they were dealing nonlethal damage. Fighting for real, but trying to pull your punches makes more sense to me. Faking a fight is something you normally need to choreograph and practice. So either: Bluff checks, with a +2 synergy for a BAB of 5, and a +2 if the other guy made his check in the previous round vs a Sense Motive check with a +2 synergy for a BAB of 5 - to hide the fact that you aren't really trying to kill each other. -or- Bluff checks, with a +2 synergy for 5 ranks of Perform, and a +2 if the other guy made his check in the previous round vs a Sense Motive check with a +2 synergy for a BAB of 5 - to hide the fact that you're dancing instead of fighting.
Mælstrøm 09-07-07, 03:20 PM	lock pick: he simply makes a normal open lock check but states that he wants to fail elegantly, then the bad guy makes a sense motive check against the open lock roll normally. The better someone is at picking locks, the better he can act as though he is doing the right thing without actually doing it. On part 2, I agree that the BAB should be added to the bluff check! The better someone is at fighting the better he can direct/pull his punches.
Nytmare 09-07-07, 03:55 PM	The better someone is at picking locks, the better he can act as though he is doing the right thing without actually doing it. It's more than just knowing how to do it though, it's being able to stop yourself from glancing nervously over your shoulder and overdramatizing the fact that you failed. The skill check isn't about picking a lock, it's about lying. Knowing about locks will help the lie, but it's still a bluff check.
Tedronai 09-08-07, 02:19 AM	Bluff versus Sense Motive on all counts to prevent observers from detecting the ruse (you'll still fail the 'attempted' check or save regardless of the outcome of the bluff) with various modifiers and/or synergies based on what you're attempting. 1. +2 synergy on each side for 5 ranks in Open Lock, +2 for Bob for 5 ranks in Sleight of Hand (possibly +2 for BBEG for 5 ranks in spot) 2. add BAB to both the Bluff and Sense Motive, +5 on the Bluff for 5 ranks in perform (acting) 3. +2 synergy on each side for 5 base reflex
draco1119 09-08-07, 05:56 AM	Why not use the rules for Perform (Weapon Drill) from CW in situation 2?
Eater_Of_Souls 09-08-07, 07:14 AM	I would add that a natural '1' on a faked open lock actually opens the lock without meaning to. :P That assuming you use natural '1' as a complite failure rule.
Mælstrøm 09-09-07, 09:56 AM	It's more than just knowing how to do it though, it's being able to stop yourself from glancing nervously over your shoulder and overdramatizing the fact that you failed. The skill check isn't about picking a lock, it's about lying. Knowing about locks will help the lie, but it's still a bluff check.Agreed, although I feel that a simple +2 synergy bonus is not enough to "buff" the bluff check. Is there a rule that allows for a +2 for every five ranks in a skill or something?
Nytmare 09-09-07, 09:28 PM	I've seen that used as a houserule.