If I were invisible (level 2), would Sustaining Calm Emotions continue to allow me to remain invisible?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the hostile actions rules are defined well enough to answer that for every table or even every scenario.
Paralyze doesn't cause damage, but 'harm' is on the list for a hostile action - as a separate entry from damage (so let's not get into a synonym argument again). And being paralyzed while in battle certainly sounds like something harmful.
There are also cases where Calm Emotions does actually cause damage too - such as when fighting a Vrock.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In practice the system leaves GM the work of deciding what a hostile action is or not.
The idea behind it is good because it is technically impossible to describe in the book when an action is hostile and when it is not that there are many exploitable meanders.
The problem is that the concept of hostile action is also something that varies from person to person, situation to situation. For example, making fear while invisible is usually considered a hostile action by most GMs because it directly harms a target. But calming emotions is no longer as so clear as hostile action, after all you can use so much to try to calm an opponent you don't really want to hurt, as it may also be using a tactical weapon to control an enemy while you or even your allies are attacking your opponents allies (and will still attack him after that). In practice the GM is unable to get such player's intentions.
Another dubbed interpretation is that even cure an ally can end up being interpreted as an indirect way of harming an opponent. For example, if you play a wild bear against your opponents, you are invisible and heal the bear to keep it alive while it faces your opponents for you would not be an indirect hostile action to harm your opponent? If so could it not be said that you heal your allies while they are clearly being hostile against your opponent as well?
Anyway, in cases of effects that end with hostile actions I suggest that talking to your GM, or if you are GM, with your players in order to get a result of how far you consider hostility or not to cancel the effects of these spells.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the form of the question is wrong. "Is action X considered Hostile?" is not how it works.
The question is "What is the intended and unexpected result of your action?" If the answer is harm being inflicted on someone, it's a Hostile Action.
Grapple is my favorite example. Grappling someone to make them easy to stab? Clearly hostile. Grappling a bewitched farmer to stop him from walking into a deadly trap? Not hostile.
Hammerjack, is there anything you don't know? I would pay money for you to be my GM. You have all the answers.
In practice the system leaves GM the work of deciding what a hostile action is or not.
The idea behind it is good because it is technically impossible to describe in the book when an action is hostile and when it is not that there are many exploitable meanders.
The problem is that the concept of hostile action is also something that varies from person to person, situation to situation. For example, making fear while invisible is usually considered a hostile action by most GMs because it directly harms a target. But calming emotions is no longer as so clear as hostile action, after all you can use so much to try to calm an opponent you don't really want to hurt, as it may also be using a tactical weapon to control an enemy while you or even your allies are attacking your opponents allies (and will still attack him after that). In practice the GM is unable to get such player's intentions.Another dubbed interpretation is that even cure an ally can end up being interpreted as an indirect way of harming an opponent. For example, if you play a wild bear against your opponents, you are invisible and heal the bear to keep it alive while it faces your opponents for you would not be an indirect hostile action to harm your opponent? If so could it not be said that you heal your allies while they are clearly being hostile against your opponent as well?
Anyway, in cases of effects that end with hostile actions I suggest that talking to your GM, or if you are GM, with your players in order to get a result of how far you consider hostility or not to cancel the effects of these spells.
Yes I understand the concerns but it is cowardice on Paizo's part. It would have been possible to write reasonable rules and live with the consequences. Invisibility is not an impossible condition to deal with.
Yes I understand the concerns but it is cowardice on Paizo's part. It would have been possible to write reasonable rules and live with the consequences. Invisibility is not an impossible condition to deal with.
It isn't Invisibility that can't be defined. It is "hostile action".
So go ahead and propose a definition that doesn't require GM adjudication.
Be sure to account for both of the spells Invisibility and Needle of Vengeance.
I agree in part with each of you. I don't think letting GM decide is as problematic as many argue. But I don't think this ideal situation because in the end this creates a kind of "legal insecurity" since different tables end up dealing with the same problem in different ways, not because they disagree with how designers decided to deal with the problem, but for lack of one North!
That's why I agree as a general gortle, but I wouldn't call cowardly Paizo, because this is a very valid solution to a problem that would eventually be controversial anyway. But I would prefer a controversial decision that was valid for everyone than a solution where each one decides in a different way that can undermine the balancing, build and gameplay of some players.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is mostly that with the assertion that a reasonable solution doesn't exist.
Hostile is important for very common iconic spells Charm, Sanctuary, Invisibility. In PF2 also for Calm Emotions and the Fascinated condition
The rules should have been clear and reasonable. Leaving so much to GM interpretation as to what indirect means is just wrong. I want to be able to talk about characters and builds online without being critcised for having a rules flaw in my character.
Example a cleric under sanctuary casting heal on one of his Fighters. It is very simple to argue that healing the Fighter will indirectly lead to harm to your enemies as that fighter is going to go and attack, but if he is still injured he might withdraw.
Many GMs are going to say that is too much, and is not reasonable. But the language leads you there.
The current most common interpretation of Fascination means it is mostly a useless condition and only of value ouside of combat. I think it is unreasonably bad. Yet also leaves Calm Emotions as one of the best takedowns in the game.
GMs can and do already say I want to do something different so GMs haven't lost any of their power or flexibility.
Paizo need to be clear and sensible, and draw reasonable lines. It is what we pay them for. It is literally their business. They have dropped the ball here. By not choosing to be precise or reasonable they have disappointed everyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the assertion. It was wise and bold of Paizo to explicitly empower GMs to make those calls. It makes it 100% clear to players that the GM has the right to make judgement calls, and that this is a cooperative game between GMs and players.
I actually found this to be an issue where players then feel entitled to certain rulings and feel put out when the GM rules differently. It is always best to have clear and precise rules as often as possible. To put it on the GM is more laziness than cooperation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've run into the exact opposite problem. Having something so tightly defined that players look for loopholes.
So they look for loop holes when something is 90% well defined but not when it is 60% well defined?
People always look for loopholes. That is just life. The GM will always have a bit of judgement to do but please can we be at 90% first?| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
at 90% it creates the expectation that the GM cannot rule against the exact wording in the rules. at 85% it creates the expectation that the GM will make a judgement call.
I have not seen this be an issue in second edition, but it was rampant in PF1 and dnd 3.x
"I didn't attack, my summoned monster did"
"I just pulled the lever, the Acid attacked them"
and other such nonsense that doesn't fly in Pf2.
Which is precisely why you need to be clear.
Is Sanctuary just protection so you can go wait in the corner and do nothing, or are there things you can do with it? What is the intention of the spell?Can I heal allies?
Can I stand at a choke point on the battle field and be a wall?
Can I cast detects and pass that information on?
All these can reasonably be considered indirectly hostile. OR do I have to be totally passive? Which encourages non participation and is a net negative to the game.
The rules should be clear. Is that really too much to ask?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
at 90% it creates the expectation that the GM cannot rule against the exact wording in the rules.
Not can't: All that means is that is they don't agree, they houserule it and f they intend to do so, that's something to bring up when you start the game. Right now, it's not brought up as there isn't a rule to talk about and as such, there is never really a meeting of the minds on how it works. That's just a recipe for an argument and/or hurt feelings as people will inevitably disagree on what is reasonable [especially when you do not have a set game/DM].
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player who goes out of his way to interpret rules or a lack of them to mean whatever break he wants. Whenever I may say that isn’t how it works, his response is that I am making a ruling that doesn’t fit what the book says, which leads to arguments and hurt feelings. This doesn’t happen with any ruleset that is clear and precise.
The more interpretation needed, the more likely our views will differ. I find this to be a flaw and not a merit.
You cannot enumerate an uncountably infinite set using a finite set. For example, you cannot list out all of the real numbers.
You can enumerate a countably infinite set using a finite set. For example, you can list out all of the integers using the standard 10 numerical digits. It will take an infinite amount of time, but it can be done.
So the question is: is the infinite scenarios that an infinite amount of players can come up with going to be a countably infinite set that could possibly be enumerated with a finite set of published rules about what is a hostile action or not, or is that going to be an uncountably infinite set?
If it is an uncountably infinite set, then I am fully justified in saying that it can be proven that no definition of hostile action is going to be complete.
If it is a countably infinite set, then Gortle is technically correct that a finite and complete definition of hostile action is possible, but it may take an infinite amount of time to enumerate it.
Since when is language restricted to describing a finite set? You yourself have just been talking about an infinite set in a bounded way.
It is a poor argument to say it is impossible. Specific simple rules can be made. You don't have to inumerate everything. You just have to be precise.
I have just been enumerating examples because it makes it easier to see specific holes.
Since when is language restricted to describing a finite set?
Go reread my post again. I think you missed something. Something about the difference between a Countable set and an Uncountable or non-enumerable set.
I didn't say that language is restricted to finite sets.
You can enumerate a countably infinite set using language constructs. Though normally that is done in a formal language such as math or C++. Not English.
Because trying to do it in English is a bit of a problem. Both to write and to read.
Yes I understand the concerns but it is cowardice on Paizo's part.
So I don't really think it is cowardice that causes people to not want to wait until the rules are fully specified before being released.
Is it possible to provide a definition of 'hostile action' that is more specified than what we currently have? Sure.
But there is a tradeoff for that. A couple actually.
One is the time it takes to create those rules. And check them for accuracy and consistency.
Another is that every time a rule is specified it prevents things other than that rule from being played. At least not without houserules. There are edge cases that may not be accounted for correctly, but people will read through the rules and follow them even if they don't make as much sense - simply because the rules are clear on the matter.
For example, the example that was given earlier of Grappling someone to prevent them from walking somewhere dangerous. Most definitions of 'hostile action' that I have come up with would still rule that to be hostile. Even though I don't personally think that it should be.
Since when is language restricted to describing a finite set?Go reread my post again. I think you missed something. Something about the difference between a Countable set and an Uncountable or non-enumerable set.
No thanks it is not the point. Which was your analogy is just not close enough to be useful. Ordinary language can be precise and complete when talking about open ended problems. It just takes care.
Yes I understand the concerns but it is cowardice on Paizo's part.So I don't really think it is cowardice that causes people to not want to wait until the rules are fully specified before being released.
In this case "Cowardice" means they backed out because they decided to be vague rather than offend some poeple by being clear and alienating one group or another. As opposed to "Lazy" because it is hard to get these things right. I supposed I'm being unfair as I don't really know. But I do expect clear rules, and I do reject the too hard assertion. It is possible.
The rule is
Sometimes spell effects prevent a target from using hostile actions, or the spell ends if a creature uses any hostile actions. A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For instance, lobbing a fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be. The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action.
When I get some time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, they should have considered indirect hostile actions to not be hostile actions as long as a creature you don't control need to act in a certain way for the action to become hostile.
Considering that opening a door to release a monster can be hostile means that buffing, healing, etc... can be hostile. And that's without the whole "is unaware could cause harm" clause which leads to even more headaches.
I've seen people argue that you don't control a summoned creature unless you happen to share a language and decide to give it commands during the Sustain a Spell action. Otherwise the creature acts of its own volition.
So that argument along with this argument
In my opinion, they should have considered indirect hostile actions to not be hostile actions as long as a creature you don't control need to act in a certain way for the action to become hostile.
would mean that casting and sustaining a summoning spell would not be considered a hostile action. The summoned Hippo that you conjured up just decided to go and attack those people all on its own and without your knowledge or consent. It just happened to not notice and attack you because you were invisible at the time.
I've seen people argue that you don't control a summoned creature unless you happen to share a language and decide to give it commands during the Sustain a Spell action. Otherwise the creature acts of its own volition.
So that argument along with this argument
In my opinion, they should have considered indirect hostile actions to not be hostile actions as long as a creature you don't control need to act in a certain way for the action to become hostile.would mean that casting and sustaining a summoning spell would not be considered a hostile action. The summoned Hippo that you conjured up just decided to go and attack those people all on its own and without your knowledge or consent. It just happened to not notice and attack you because you were invisible at the time.
Not quite as its general default is to attack: Summoned [Core Rulebook pg. 637], "It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands."
So it will "generally attacks your enemies" and if you can communicate, i's DM fiat if it does anything else. It's a safe assumption that if you summon something, it'll attack things that are hostile to you.
The rule is
A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For instance, lobbing a fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be. The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action.
How about.
There is a spectrum of attitude conditions in the game: Friendly, Helpful, Indifferent, Unfriendly, and Hostile. Distinguishing Hostile from merely Unfriendly is difficult.
A hostile action is one that can damage, impose a condition, or provide a penalty to any game defined characteristic, on another creature.
However there are some exceptions. Distractions such as the Fascination condition or Create a Diversion check, and Diplomacy actions that don't get directly cause a Hostile result, don't count as hostile actions. A purely beneficial condition like Quickened is not hostile.
Commanding a hostile action is a hostile action. Directly assisting or enabling a hostile action say by releasing a hostile creature is hostile.
Buffing is not hostile. Preparatory actions like drawing a sword, or making a Stealth check, or summoning an Eidolon are not hostile, though they may not be viewed as friendly either.
Partially blocking or restricting enemy movement is only unfriendly, providing they still have a reasonable movement option. Generating difficult terrain is unfriendly, hazardous terrain is hostile.
As always the GM is encouraged to make adjustments for specific situations as to what constitutes a hostile action. In particular it may be possible to persaude a charmed ally that an action is not hostile.
I know this is a bit long but it is a general rule. It can be a bit longer. What do people thing?
So it will "generally attacks your enemies" and if you can communicate, i's DM fiat if it does anything else. It's a safe assumption that if you summon something, it'll attack things that are hostile to you.
Agreed. So something in the summoning process must indicate your allies and enemies to the summoned creature. If that doesn't happen and it is not obvious I presume the summoned creature waits for instructions.
|
I have a player who goes out of his way to interpret rules or a lack of them to mean whatever break he wants. Whenever I may say that isn’t how it works, his response is that I am making a ruling that doesn’t fit what the book says, which leads to arguments and hurt feelings. This doesn’t happen with any ruleset that is clear and precise.
I think his complaint of "that isn't what the book says" is precisely what Paizo tried to avoid by letting the book say "the GM decides this".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I open a door while invisible, and release a terrible monster that I didn't know was there upon my enemies. Is that a hostile action?
The current rules are actually clear on that. It is not hostile unless you knew the monster was there. My rules don't quite. I will edit that.
How can any rule possibly cover scenarios such as this that we probably couldn't get 10 people to agree about?
We don't have to agree if the rules are clear. All we need are clear rules about PF2 definition of hostile. Then we can use their definition. If I then want to play something different, it is fine I just say that I'm playing something different. Everyone is happy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a player who goes out of his way to interpret rules or a lack of them to mean whatever break he wants. Whenever I may say that isn’t how it works, his response is that I am making a ruling that doesn’t fit what the book says, which leads to arguments and hurt feelings. This doesn’t happen with any ruleset that is clear and precise.I think his complaint of "that isn't what the book says" is precisely what Paizo tried to avoid by letting the book say "the GM decides this".
Which is great if that didn’t result in players thinking the GM is making arbitrary rulings. The more text that exists to support one ruling over another the better.
|
Yes, the form of the question is wrong. "Is action X considered Hostile?" is not how it works.
The question is "What is the intended and unexpected result of your action?" If the answer is harm being inflicted on someone, it's a Hostile Action.
Grapple is my favorite example. Grappling someone to make them easy to stab? Clearly hostile. Grappling a bewitched farmer to stop him from walking into a deadly trap? Not hostile.
The questions is whether you did harm and whether it was intended. Pathfinder unambiguously defines a hostile action in the rules.
"A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For instance, lobbing a fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be. The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action."Pathfinder doesn't define "harm" so it takes the definition from the dictionary, which is "physical injury."
In which case a grapple is not "harm" directly or indirectly. As written, you can grapple someone without breaking invisibility.
Same with Calm Emotions, unless you knowingly cast it on a vrock.
if you are in combat and use calm emotion, or any other ability or spell, on yourself, your allies or one of the enemies to get tactical advantage or just have one of them out of combat, even if temporarily, that is clearly an hostile action. you are not damaging that creature directly, but you are lowering the enemies power to allow your party to win the combat, that is hostile, since is part of a tactic to get the upper end.No, castling Calm Emotions is not a hostile action, let alone "clearly". Giving someone "tactical advantage" does not constitute a "hostile action" as defined by PF2. Under that interpretation there would no useful or beneficial spell you could cast in combat without...
Harm does not necessarily mean physical injury though. It is up to the GM to decide what constitutes a hostile action, and thus what harm means here.
I agree that it could be stated with more clear examples as guidelines, even if Paizo cannot cover every situation GMs will meet.
In my games, casting Calm Emotion in a fight is debuffing your opponents, and thus hostile.
Whereas using Inspire Courage is buffing your side and thus not hostile.
YMMV obviously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2, conditions are just as harmful as damage. Blistering Invective doesn't deal damage - it applies a condition. Feint and Demoralize are certainly detrimental to a character's ability to fight and I consider them to be hostile actions.
So I don't see why Calm Emotions wouldn't be hostile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are casting Calm Emotions in order to talk to someone, why are you doing it while invisible?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's definition is "It's up to the GM" so I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make. Everyone will have a different definition, and that's fine. Threads like this are pointless in the end, unless you as a GM are just trying to get other's opinions on what should and shouldn't be considered hostile.
Organized Play has a whole section on Table Variation, and this falls under that. Some GMs will consider some actions to be hostile, and others won't, and that's totally cool under the Organized Play rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to go with a strict dictionary definition of a game rule is going to be even more ambiguous than not.
Harm can mean more than just physical damage.
Physical or other injury or damage
to hurt someone or damage something
damage done to something
to damage something or make something worse
Most definitions reference physical damage, but not all of them are exclusively physical. Especially when getting into synonyms such as detriment or impair.
|
|
noun: harm
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
"I didn't mean to cause him any harm"
material damage.
"it's unlikely to do much harm to the engine"
actual or potential ill effects or danger.
"I can't see any harm in it"
verb
verb: harm; 3rd person present: harms; past tense: harmed; past participle: harmed; gerund or present participle: harming
physically injure.
"the villains didn't harm him"
damage the health of.
"smoking when pregnant can harm your baby"
have an adverse effect on.
"this could harm his World Cup prospects"
|
|
I personally would have Calm Emotions break invis. One thing I won't have break invis is healing allies.
Many will say "Well you're healing an ally and you know they will go and attack the enemy." Which very well may be true, but your ally is completely autonomous, so their actions should not affect your "intent". The intent with healing is to keep your allies alive. If they then go and do something harmful to another, that's their prerogative, not yours. You can't relate a PC to a wild animal who's instincts tell it to attack because it has gone into fight or flight, and flight is impossible.
That's how I see most in combat assistance. Buffing an ally to hit better (Heroism/Haste/Inspire Courage) may be hostile, but keeping them alive (Heal/Soothe), redirecting damage (Shield Other/Protector's Sacrifice), or increasing their defenses (Inspire Defense/Protective Ward) isn't in my book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The questions is whether you did harm and whether it was intended. Pathfinder unambiguously defines a hostile action in the rules.
No it doesn't.
It fails in two counts.1) Harm is not well defined term. It means different things to different people. Quoting a dictionary definition doesn't not help, as there are multiple definitions. But also because language changes. It is how people use a term that counts not what an old dictionary says.
2) Indirect is a hopelessly Infinite open ended abyss. How many levels of indirect cause are we going to allow here??.
|
|
On the contrary, harm is listed desperately from causing damage,indicating that they are in fact two different things:
A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly,
Or can be used conjunctively, eg. sandals or flips-flip flops, aid or assistance, hell or high water, William or Bob, etc.
How do we determine what definition of harm? One way is context. Instead of saying "harmful" or "detrimental" or "opposing" or "ill effect" or "danger." It says harm or damage. Both of which connote injury. But it can be pointed out that if harm is meant to be of the physical variety, then one might argue mental damage is not harm. So Damage is closes up any gaps with something reducing your hit points without actually physically affecting you.
Another aspect of context is the fact that Paizo actually defined "hostile action." This is only necessary if they meant to narrow its scope, which seems to be contrary to how several of you are trying to interpret it. Its is clear that by both defining "hostile action" and limiting it to harm or damage, they do not intend for anything that someone might think is hostile to qualify, it's explicitly limited to "harm or damage."
A third way to interpret the rule is by exploring the outcome of different definitions. If we take the approach many of you are advocating, then Invisibility is pointless unless you intend to stand still or run away. If the GMs is allowed to take any definition that suits them, then saying something bad about an NPC is technically a harm to that NPC and would break your Invisibility. Moving to block an exit with the intention of taking an AoO attack would indirectly harm an NPC's chances of escaping and should break Invisibility.
So part of rules interpretation is reading the rules in a way that actionable and allows for a consistent outcome. Interpreting harm and damage to be of the physical/hp variety provides for far more consistent...
Saying we must all stick to RAW and then expanding on your own very personal RAI does not feel consistent.