(Not) Applying Feats

[Kethrian]

Can you choose not to use the benefits a feat that you have provides?  Such as choosing to provoke an AoO when you already have Imp. Trip/Disarm, or casting a metamagic spell with the increased casting time, when you already have Rapid Metamagic?

[SolEiji]

Of course.
I don't have a rules quote, but I am certain on that one.  Maybe someone knows the page where it's quoted?

[Kethrian]

Nice!  Little follow-up, then.  Could you ignore some of a feat's benefits, yet use others?  I'm not looking for a way to bypass Mage Slayer's CL penalty, but in the instance of Imp. Trip, could you provoke the AoO, but still take the +4 on the roll and free attack if successful?

[SneeR]

The feat gives you a +4 bonus whether you want it or not. Everytime you trip, you use that bonus. There are no rules for using a lesser bonus than what you have available. However, you can provoke an AoO whenever you fee like by looking stupidly about.

[Kethrian]

So you're saying that a fighter couldn't pull his blow by not using his weapon specialization bonus to damage?  That doesn't make much sense.

[SneeR]

So you're saying that a fighter couldn't pull his blow by not using his weapon specialization bonus to damage?  That doesn't make much sense.

That is what I am saying only insofar as that is what is RAW. There are no rules for using lesser attack bonuses, only applying penalties like power attack, dealing nonlethal damage, etc.

[X-Codes]

So you're saying that a fighter couldn't pull his blow by not using his weapon specialization bonus to damage?  That doesn't make much sense.

That is what I am saying only insofar as that is what is RAW. There are no rules for using lesser attack bonuses, only applying penalties like power attack, dealing nonlethal damage, etc.

This.  A fighter pulling his blow is a fighter dealing non-lethal damage with his weapon, not foregoing Weapon Specialization.

That'd actually be kinda funny... say you have a hood with Weapon Specialization, and he pounces and full power attacks some guy he's supposed to be having a friendly spar with.  The guy goes "I thought you were supposed to hold back!" The hood responds "I didn't apply my Weapon Specialization bonus!"

[SneeR]

As far as I know, it is the same principle across the board: you can't do less than your best unless you hinder it within the rules. There are no RAW way to have a lower caster level for, say, fireball, to deal 5 d6 instead of 10d6. You can't say, "I want my scythe to instead deal 5 damage on that critical hit!" And you can't say, "I only want a +4 to hit instead of +12!"

[zaxter]

As far as I know, it is the same principle across the board: you can't do less than your best unless you hinder it within the rules. There are no RAW way to have a lower caster level for, say, fireball, to deal 5 d6 instead of 10d6. You can't say, "I want my scythe to instead deal 5 damage on that critical hit!" And you can't say, "I only want a +4 to hit instead of +12!"

Actually, there is.

CASTER LEVEL

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt) but also to your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).

(From this page)

[SneeR]

Oh, thank you! I had always wondered about that, but never saw any proof to the contrary in my many days of... not looking. 

[Kethrian]

Okay, so if casters can hold back, why can't fighters?  If a melee PC wanted to deliver a weak hit to an already injured enemy, say because he's trying to get them to surrender, he can only take the subdual option, even if the enemy was, say, immune to non-lethal?  He couldn't just drop his strength and feat bonuses, leaving the damage at just the weapon (plus enchantment)?

[RedWarlock]

Ah, but by that same text, you couldn't only do a fireball dealing 4d6, or 1d6. (It's just dumb luck that the number 5 was quoted.)

And that's specifically a rull making an exception. I'm only recalling off-hand, but I believe there's a specific rule saying you can choose to fail a save, for instance, taking a 1 as your die roll. (Mainly for the purpose of spells which have a save (harmless), and intentionally contracting lycanthropy..)
But still, it takes a rule to say so.

[Halinn]

Okay, so if casters can hold back, why can't fighters?  If a melee PC wanted to deliver a weak hit to an already injured enemy, say because he's trying to get them to surrender, he can only take the subdual option, even if the enemy was, say, immune to non-lethal?  He couldn't just drop his strength and feat bonuses, leaving the damage at just the weapon (plus enchantment)?

In my mind, strength to hit and damage is connected, so you hit because you can move your sword faster, and because you do, it hits hard as well. If you wanted to hold back on the damage, you would have to hold back on to-hit as well.

[X-Codes]

Okay, so if casters can hold back, why can't fighters?  If a melee PC wanted to deliver a weak hit to an already injured enemy, say because he's trying to get them to surrender, he can only take the subdual option, even if the enemy was, say, immune to non-lethal?  He couldn't just drop his strength and feat bonuses, leaving the damage at just the weapon (plus enchantment)?

If they want to force surrender, they should use the Intimidate skill.  If that's not violent enough for you, there's the Intimidating Strike feat in the PHB II, which is basically you intentionally and obviously holding back on a melee strike, demonstrating to your enemy that they should be afraid.

[Kethrian]

In my mind, strength to hit and damage is connected, so you hit because you can move your sword faster, and because you do, it hits hard as well. If you wanted to hold back on the damage, you would have to hold back on to-hit as well.

Even then, apparently you have to apply your full strength to every attack, because the rules don't say you can do otherwise.

Ah, but by that same text, you couldn't only do a fireball dealing 4d6, or 1d6. (It's just dumb luck that the number 5 was quoted.)

Yes, but you can choose to cast a lower level spell than fireball, too.  If you want, you could just do 1d4+1 with a magic missile.  Unless you're a warmage, because apparently then you have to always add your int to the damage.

And there's apparently no way to not use a feat's passive bonuses, other than not doing something the feat applies to.

[Kethrian]

Okay, so if casters can hold back, why can't fighters?  If a melee PC wanted to deliver a weak hit to an already injured enemy, say because he's trying to get them to surrender, he can only take the subdual option, even if the enemy was, say, immune to non-lethal?  He couldn't just drop his strength and feat bonuses, leaving the damage at just the weapon (plus enchantment)?

If they want to force surrender, they should use the Intimidate skill.  If that's not violent enough for you, there's the Intimidating Strike feat in the PHB II, which is basically you intentionally and obviously holding back on a melee strike, demonstrating to your enemy that they should be afraid.

I was just making an example that showcases the absurdity of it.  Besides, many fighters dump their cha and don't put ranks in intimidate, so they don't really have that option, especially considering how rare an incident like this would be.

[NunoM]

This sort of thing came up in my game group when the melee guys stated "they wanted to let off some steam and spar" while waiting in town...

It was (house)ruled that they would use every attack bonus they had, but either hold back on lethal damage or take the non-lethal damage penalties.

The lethal damage, however, had a few common-sensed rules: everything "under control" of the character could be held back (ex.: damage from high STR, Wpn Specialization, Pwr Attack), but everything else would apply (ex.: normal wpn damage, Wpn enhancement bonus).

I hope this helps...

EDIT: correction, "Pwr attack" was considered a "reckless attack" so it was deemed "uncontrolable". Any attack using it would have the damage applied normally.

[darqueseid]

That's funny, because I always viewed power attack as a MORE controlled version of attacking rather than less.  What I mean is, the feat is simulating that the fighter can hit with more power by sacrificing his accuracy, something that only a skilled fighter would be able to do.   
In essence a newbie fighter can do nothing but try his best to hit the target, whereas a power attacker is a skilled enough fighter to know when/how to make a powerful attack that may not be as accurate. 
That doesn't mean that the attack from a power attack is a wild swing, it may just be a swing with more build up like a haymaker.

As far as the OP is concerned, isn't there a -2 penalty for using a weapon in your off hand?  Like if your a right-hander wielding your weapon with your left?  I can't find the specific rule in the SRD, but it would seem like that would be a way to apply a small penalty for a meleer.  2h weapon and ambidextrous folks are SOL of course.

Plus you get to say "I am not left handed!"

[Kethrian]

I think it's a -4 for off-hand.

Oh, and I AM left-handed, so that line won't work for me!

[NunoM]

... What I mean is, the feat is simulating that the fighter can hit with more power by sacrificing his accuracy, ...

This (the underlined stuff) is exactly the reason why it was considered an "uncontroled" attack. The fighter just swings his weapon with extra might and hopes to hit. Less accuracy = less control of the swing.
But as i said, this was houseruled. I don't think there's a rule on this.

.. and to help the discussion, these are the penalties for TWF (from "Table 8–10: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties" in the PHB):
Normal penalties: Primary –6, Off-hand –10
Off-hand weapon is light: Primary –4, Off-hand –8
Two-Weapon Fighting feat: Primary –4, Off-hand –4
Off-hand weapon is light and Two-Weapon Fighting feat: Primary -2, Off-hand -2