| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
In a recent game, an imp pushed a stone gargoyle off a building onto the party dwarf's head.
I ruled at the time it did NOT end the imp's invisibility, because he did not attack the dwarf, merely pushed a statue off a roof--much like cutting the rope on a bridge.
Sadly, the ruling was not very popular with my players, who refuted it and even promised to make me regret the ruling.
The very next game, a flying invisible sorcerer PC dropped a folding boat (ship form) onto a far superior gnoll sorcerer, crippling him under its sheer weight and size (dealing 4d6 damage and making him helpless).
From what I can find of the falling object rules, a person dropping something on someone else needs to make a ranged touch attack, with range increment of 20 feet. This is different from v3.0 and/or v3.5 if I recall, so I've decided to revisit my ruling and ask more knowledgeable ruleslawyers in the online community whether or not dropping an object on someone would end invisibility in Pathfinder.
It goes one of two ways:
If they get the save throw to avoid a falling object (DC 15) then it doesn't break it because all you did was drop an object.
If you take the time to aim and make an attack roll then you have specifically targeted someone with an attack -- which ends the invisibility spell.
Please note you can be invisible and not using the invisibility spell -- in which case unless your means of invisibility specifically states that it works like the spell or that it ends if you take offensive action it will not end just from attacking.
Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Such attacks generally have a range increment of 20 feet. If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object. Falling objects that are part of a trap use the trap rules instead of these general guidelines.
Please also note the following:
Objects made of lighter materials might deal as little as half the listed damage, subject to GM discretion. For example, a Huge boulder that hits a character deals 6d6 points of damage, whereas a Huge wooden wagon might deal only 3d6 damage. In addition, If an object falls more than 150 feet, it deals double the listed damage. Note that a falling object takes the same amount of damage as it deals.
It goes one of two ways:
If they get the save throw to avoid a falling object (DC 15) then it doesn't break it because all you did was drop an object.
If you take the time to aim and make an attack roll then you have specifically targeted someone with an attack -- which ends the invisibility spell.
I didn't think you could make a choice. If you drop it you HAVE to make an attack roll. If it wasn't dropped by a character, like a boulder falling off a cliff in an avalanche, then the person under it got a save. The difference is in whether or not there was a creature to act upon the fallen object.
Please note you can be invisible and not using the invisibility spell -- in which case unless your means of invisibility specifically states that it works like the spell or that it ends if you take offensive action it will not end just from attacking.
I didn't think it worth differentiating for the purposes of this thread.
Please also note the following:
Objects made of lighter materials might deal as little as half the listed damage, subject to GM discretion. For example, a Huge boulder that hits a character deals 6d6 points of damage, whereas a Huge wooden wagon might deal only 3d6 damage. In addition, If an object falls more than 150 feet, it deals double the listed damage. Note that a falling object takes the same amount of damage as it deals.
I'm well aware. I treated the ship as being gargantuan, and also not dense (like the wagon in the example). It was dropped from 60 feet. Therefore, it did 4d6 damage upon impact.
If you make an attack through your own action then you break invisibility. If the Imp dropped something on someone and made an attack roll then he broke invisibility -- he is specifically intending harm on the target and is trying to actively deal that harm to it.
I could see a case where someone drops something off a cliff (say a chamber pot) without knowing someone was below and possibly not breaking invisibility.
In a recent game, an imp pushed a stone gargoyle off a building onto the party dwarf's head.
I ruled at the time it did NOT end the imp's invisibility, because he did not attack the dwarf, merely pushed a statue off a roof--much like cutting the rope on a bridge.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.
(emphasis mine)
but also considering...
Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Such attacks generally have a range increment of 20 feet. If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object. Falling objects that are part of a trap use the trap rules instead of these general guidelines.
(emphasis mine)
In this case, it seems clear to me that dropping an item on an opponent is indeed an attack, consequently ending the invisibility spell. Thinking about it, it is about as indirect as an arrow from a bow or a bolt from a crossbow etc.
'findel
In a recent game, an imp pushed a stone gargoyle off a building onto the party dwarf's head.
I ruled at the time it did NOT end the imp's invisibility, because he did not attack the dwarf, merely pushed a statue off a roof--much like cutting the rope on a bridge.
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth.(emphasis mine)
but also considering...
Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Such attacks generally have a range increment of 20 feet. If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object. Falling objects that are part of a trap use the trap rules instead of these general guidelines.(emphasis mine)
In this case, it seems clear to me that dropping an item on an opponent is indeed an attack, consequently ending the invisibility spell. Thinking about it, it is about as indirect as an arrow from a bow or a bolt from a crossbow etc.
'findel
I was thinking along similar lines, but didn't come to the same conclusion. I'm pretty certain that in other versions of the game, this DIDN'T end invisibility. I'm partially looking to see if this was a deliberate change of wording on the part of Paizo's game designers and that it is indeed supposed to end invisibility.
I think intent is the key here.
If you are dropping a heavy item on someone with intent to do harm it is definitely an attack.
PRD:The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature.
I think this game needs to define the word attack.
I was thinking along similar lines, but didn't come to the same conclusion. I'm pretty certain that in other versions of the game, this DIDN'T end invisibility. I'm partially looking to see if this was a deliberate change of wording on the part of Paizo's game designers and that it is indeed supposed to end invisibility.
All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to Channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.
Summoning Allies isn't an attack because you could have the allies do non aggressive things like healing.
It's pretty clearly an offensive combat action as such it breaks invisibility.
|
I was thinking along similar lines, but didn't come to the same conclusion. I'm pretty certain that in other versions of the game, this DIDN'T end invisibility. I'm partially looking to see if this was a deliberate change of wording on the part of Paizo's game designers and that it is indeed supposed to end invisibility.
Nope, it broke invisibility just like it does now. Anything you rolled an attack roll for counted as an attack under 3.5, as were effects that target an opponent that weren't beneficial.
Whether or not you are attacking someone is in alot of ways a perception issue.
If an invisible imp is desecrating a temple by running around shoving the statues off the ledge and it happens that occasionally someone nearby has to duck or dodge.. I don't think he'd lose the spell effect. The same is if he was tossing a gold coin into the air and slipped and it fell down and bonked someone on the head.
On the other hand, if the invisible person is doing something with the intent to cause them harm (as judged by the DM, not necessarily the player), then I think the spell is broken.
The spell doesn't say this, but I think its a fair reading of the rules.
-S
Summoning Allies isn't an attack because you could have the allies do non aggressive things like healing.It's pretty clearly an offensive combat action as such it breaks invisibility.
On the other hand, setting of a trap that attacks opponents and cutting ropes so they fall to their death are clearly offensive, and can clearly be used in a combat situation; yet these are stated as examples of what does NOT break invisibility.
Also note that "actions directed at unattended objects" does NOT break invisibility, which distinguishes pushing a stone block down from a ledge from shooting with a bow; a stone block is considered unattended while the arrow is not.
I could see the ruling go both ways.
And the definition of trap is kind of loose. Think of a cave-in trap triggered by pushing a small stone away; this clearly does not break invisibility according to the example, yet it fills exactly the same purpose and is basically the same thing.
On the other hand, if the invisible person is doing something with the intent to cause them harm (as judged by the DM, not necessarily the player), then I think the spell is broken.
This is in clear contradiction to the RAW, which states that cutting down a bridge to cause the enemies to fall to a gruesome and splattery death does NOT break it, neither does summoning a tyrannosauros to cause a gruesome and even more splattery death.
I don't think intent should normally be a part of the equation of any spell unless specifically noted otherwise. In some cases I can see it for divine spells where the god may refuse the spell if used in a way that the god doesn't want it to, but really, for a spell like invisibility, I think action is king, not intent.
From what I can find of the falling object rules, a person dropping something on someone else needs to make a ranged touch attack, with range increment of 20 feet. This is different from v3.0 and/or v3.5 if I recall, so I've decided to revisit my ruling and ask more knowledgeable ruleslawyers in the online community whether or not dropping an object on someone would end invisibility in Pathfinder.
Cutting a rope is cutting a rope. The rope is the object being directly damaged. As a CONSEQUENCE of cutting that rope people will fall, and them impact with the ground. People have no inherent right of way to be on the rope. the thing you touch doesn't touch someone else.
Pushing a statue off into space would be fine, but since you're pushing an object into an occupied square to deal damage its no different than putting a sword into them or throwing a vial of acid on them. A creature does have an inherent right of way to the space they're occupying. The imp even requires an attack roll to hit the dwarf/his square, so its an attack.
.
Pushing a statue off into space would be fine, but since you're pushing an object into an occupied square to deal damage its no different than putting a sword into them or throwing a vial of acid on them. A creature does have an inherent right of way to the space they're occupying. The imp even requires an attack roll to hit the dwarf/his square, so its an attack.
Technically, since it's a different height, it's more similiar to airborne combat in that squares shouldn't really be counted but rather cubes. And the statue would be pushed into another cube where the victim isn't; gravity solves the rest.
On the other hand, if the invisible person is doing something with the intent to cause them harm (as judged by the DM, not necessarily the player), then I think the spell is broken.
The spell explicitly disagrees with you.
.
Pushing a statue off into space would be fine, but since you're pushing an object into an occupied square to deal damage its no different than putting a sword into them or throwing a vial of acid on them. A creature does have an inherent right of way to the space they're occupying. The imp even requires an attack roll to hit the dwarf/his square, so its an attack.
Technically, since it's a different height, it's more similiar to airborne combat in that squares shouldn't really be counted but rather cubes. And the statue would be pushed into another cube where the victim isn't; gravity solves the rest.
You're not only pushing the gargoyle off into space, since you're making an attack roll you're making an effort to guide the gargoyle so that if falls off into his square if not his head. That's no different than throwing a rock or a dagger at someone. You can't stay invisible while shooting a bow into the 5 feet in front of you... when there's a person 10 feet beyond that that just happens to get in the way.
Intent, though implied by the rules, suggests some sort of cosmic third-party "invisibility police" running about and breaking invisibility based on what you meant.
Much safer to simply say that if there is an attack role, a saving throw, or any sort of damage involved, it is an "attack."
Intent, though implied by the rules, suggests some sort of cosmic third-party "invisibility police" running about and breaking invisibility based on what you meant.
Much safer to simply say that if there is an attack role, a saving throw, or any sort of damage involved, it is an "attack."
Again, the spell explicitly disagrees with you.
Again, the spell explicitly disagrees with you.
It may well...but then I humbly suggest that the implications of the spell description haven't been very well thought out. :)
This reminds me very much of the "what is an ally" debate in that a careful consideration of all of the implications of a particular position can be rather illuminating.
Much safer to simply say that if there is an attack role, a saving throw, or any sort of damage involved, it is an "attack."
I don't think those are good qualifiers. After all, activating a trap can involve attack rolls, damage rolls, and/or saving throws whereas cutting a rope bridge would clearly need an attack roll and a a damage roll to work.
Much safer to simply say that if there is an attack role, a saving throw, or any sort of damage involved, it is an "attack."
I don't think those are good qualifiers. After all, activating a trap can involve attack rolls, damage rolls, and/or saving throws whereas cutting a rope bridge would clearly need an attack roll and a a damage roll to work.
Fair enough. I still believe "intent" is a terrible qualifier, because:
(1) it is subjective; and(2) verisimilitude implies an in-world judge of said intent.
Of course, we can just handwave the verisimilitude part, but that doesn't seem consistent with the pseudo-simulation of the rest of the Pathfinder ruleset. Ironically, the "gamist" 4th edition suggests a simulationist solution to the problem of access to attacking while invisible -- make the 2nd level version of invisibility a standard action to maintain for the subject. Say the magic requires great concentration to maintain. But that's a bit off-topic...
Of course, we can just handwave the verisimilitude part, but that doesn't seem consistent with the pseudo-simulation of the rest of the Pathfinder ruleset. Ironically, the "gamist" 4th edition suggests a simulationist solution to the problem of access to attacking while invisible -- make the 2nd level version of invisibility a standard action to maintain for the subject. Say the magic requires great concentration to maintain. But that's a bit off-topic...
On the contrary, I think it is very much ON topic.
We reached a point where we know the intention of the spell, we know of the ruling but its application does not make much sense and therefore get easily misinterpreted.
- Pushing a statue to fall on enemy = end of spell.
- Pushing the same statue in the same way just to make a distraction = ongoing spell.
Same action, different intention, different outcome.
While I understand *why* it happens this way, I don't understand *how* the magic works that way. Before I get flamed, I know that we don't need to *explain* magic, but there are point where "because its magic" is an incredibly unhelpful and unsatisfying answer...
'findel
|
While intent is subjective it can be adjudicated objectively:
Did the imp intend that a large gargoyle would hurt people? Yes it did. Then it ends the spell.
Did the imp intend to throw its banana peel over the rail? Yes it did. Did it intend for that banana peel to hit someone in the face for a point of damage? No? Then the imp is still invisible.
edit: ninj'd by 'findel
Did the imp intend that a large gargoyle would hurt people? Yes it did. Then it ends the spell.
Once more, with feeling:
That is explicitly against the wording of the spell.
An invisibility'd creature can intend and even do harm on other creatures. Intent is not the question. Directness is the question. Invisibility breaks if the invisible creature directly harms another. It does not break if the invisible creature causes another creature to be harmed via indirect means, even if it intends that creature to come to harm by its actions.
And for the record, I'd say that actively pushing a statue over a ledge is direct enough to break the spell. Pushing a button that caused the ledge the statue is on to tilt and cause it to fall would be indirect and would not break the spell.
It may well...but then I humbly suggest that the implications of the spell description haven't been very well thought out. :)
Yeah, that's why I haven't waded into this debate -- because I don't think the spell makes much sense in the first place.
|
|
Did the imp intend that a large gargoyle would hurt people? Yes it did. Then it ends the spell.Once more, with feeling:
That is explicitly against the wording of the spell.
An invisibility'd creature can intend and even do harm on other creatures. Intent is not the question. Directness is the question. Invisibility breaks if the invisible creature directly harms another. It does not break if the invisible creature causes another creature to be harmed via indirect means, even if it intends that creature to come to harm by its actions.
Then lets talk meat of RAW:
Wording of Invisibility says area spells are considered conditions for ending the spell but otherwise notes that only direct attacks qualify.
So then we are are in agreement that RAW I can lob grenades or other forms of indirect attacks all day into a group and maintain invisibility but if I cast Sleep I'll appear as I used "any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
Am I right?
Edit: I was snarky, cleaned up because my bad day isn't a Paizo forum issue.
Intent implies whether there is direct or indirect consequence to an action.
A few clarifications:
- I do not feel intent is a good qualifier either.
- The imp in question DID know there was a dwarf paladin beneath him and WAS intending the dwarf harm when he deliberately pushed the gargoyle off the rooftop.
- So far no one has convinced me that this is any different from cutting a rope on a bridge or pushing a button that activates a trap.
|
|
It may well...but then I humbly suggest that the implications of the spell description haven't been very well thought out. :)Yeah, that's why I haven't waded into this debate -- because I don't think the spell makes much sense in the first place.
Yes I had never realized to be honest.
Hell the wording of the spell opens up the whole can of worms again that since the rules say one thing is an attack versus an attack action a rules lawyering type could claim to do any kind of combat maneuver because they aren't listed under the "attacks" heading and the spell does not say "attack actions".
- So far no one has convinced me that this is any different from cutting a rope on a bridge or pushing a button that activates a trap.
Probably because no one can. They're all cause and effect reactions only some have more "steps" between imp does "A" and "B" gets hurt.
'findel
A few clarifications:
- I do not feel intent is a good qualifier either.
- The imp in question DID know there was a dwarf paladin beneath him and WAS intending the dwarf harm when he deliberately pushed the gargoyle off the rooftop.
- So far no one has convinced me that this is any different from cutting a rope on a bridge or pushing a button that activates a trap.
1 is an attack roll against the dwarf or the dwarfs square. The other is an attack roll against an unattended object.
You can't shoot an arrow just over someone's head and then say "Whoops, gravity brought it down to his temple"
I'd also wonder how an imp was moving a gargoyle. Those things are kind of built into the building and heavy besides.
|
An invisible creature cuts a rope, as a side effect characters on the rope fall. The rope is the target of his action. (spell not broken)
An invisible creature blindly pushes a statue off a ledge. If the statue falls in the right square a creature in that square has to save. The statue is the target of his action. (spell not broken)
An invisible creature picks up and drops or pushes a statue directly on a character. The character is target of his action. (spell broken)
Seems pretty cut and dry.
Shane
An invisible creature cuts a rope, as a side effect characters on the rope fall. The rope is the target of his action. (spell not broken)
An invisible creature blindly pushes a statue off a ledge. If the statue falls in the right square a creature in that square has to save. The statue is the target of his action. (spell not broken)
An invisible creature picks up and drops or pushes a statue directly on a character. The character is target of his action. (spell broken)
Seems pretty cut and dry.
Shane
An invisible creature picks up a knife and throws it. The knife was the target of his action. Someone happens to be in the way...
What if that someone was also invisible? Does that change your answer?
An invisible creature cuts a rope, as a side effect characters on the rope fall. The rope is the target of his action. (spell not broken)
An invisible creature blindly pushes a statue off a ledge. If the statue falls in the right square a creature in that square has to save. The statue is the target of his action. (spell not broken)
An invisible creature picks up and drops or pushes a statue directly on a character. The character is target of his action. (spell broken)
Seems pretty cut and dry.
Shane
This is how I treat it as well. The imp did not pick up the statue and drop it, he pushed it off a ledge.
(In the end I did have him make an attack roll, as per the falling object rules. I wasn't at all comfortable with the decision though. Using the attack roll rather than the save just didn't strike me as a direct attack to begin with. In the future, I think I'm going to rule differently and make it a save unless, as Shane says, they are picking it up and dropping it on a target rather than pushing it over a ledge or some such.)
You can't shoot an arrow just over someone's head and then say "Whoops, gravity brought it down to his temple"
Why can't you? Aim for the square/cube/whatever you want to call it right above him at the highest range you can shoot. If you hit the cube, the arrow should be falling and he has to make a saving throw against the falling object. I'd call an arrow from a medium-sized bow a tiny or diminutive object, though, so there's no damage from it by RAW.
You can very much do it, it just won't do any good unless you have a really big bow. Or you're a stone giant flinging stones.
Which gave me an awesome idea. The rite of passage for the wizards of the Mel'bara tribe is focusing your magical energy to hit a certain rock on the other side of the mountain (via throwing hitting the cube above the mountain on the other side due to a true strike spell).
If a character really WANTED to shoot arrows right up into the air and hit someone with for example total cover, I could see houseruling that small/tiny/dim objects cause 1d6/1d4/1d3 damage, but that's house ruling.
My question is: do you really make an attack roll for pushing something off a shelf? Gravity is doing all the work. Personally, I would make the PC give me a Reflex save before I would consider his AC. Makes much more sense.
In the same way that one could cut the ropes on a bridge (allowing those on it to fall to their doom, or feather fall harmlessly), I would rule that this little bit of mischief does NOT break invisibility. In fact, I would say this is far less harmful. The invisible creature is not forcing the "barrier" of his invisibility by directly harming anything. The spell does not recognize his intent, only his actions. He is not casting offensive spells, swinging a melee weapon, firing a ranged weapon, or any other such action. He's just pushing a big, carved rock.
The difference, I would think, lies in how the object is "dropped." If it's being HELD and is released, sure. Ranged touch attack. If it's being pushed (like say, a boulder from a cliffside, where three orcs lay waiting to spring this trap) then make it a reflex save. You would give your players a reflex save to hold on to the bridge that was being cut away, wouldn't you?
TL;DR... This is really not such a difficult thing to understand. I think some people disagree just to play the Devil's Advocate. Adversity is nice, but in this instance, it's silly. The rules are clear enough IMO.
EDIT: Would those of you who argue differently consider this...? What if the PCs on the rope bridge in the spell's example are not only intended to die from the fall, but also deal their falling damage to a caravan in the ravine below? Is it then considered an attack that breaks invisibility? RAW says no.
My question is: do you really make an attack roll for pushing something off a shelf? Gravity is doing all the work. Personally, I would make the PC give me a Reflex save before I would consider his AC. Makes much more sense.
In the same way that one could cut the ropes on a bridge (allowing those on it to fall to their doom, or feather fall harmlessly), I would rule that this little bit of mischief does NOT break invisibility. In fact, I would say this is far less harmful. The invisible creature is not forcing the "barrier" of his invisibility by directly harming anything. The spell does not recognize his intent, only his actions. He is not casting offensive spells, swinging a melee weapon, firing a ranged weapon, or any other such action. He's just pushing a big, carved rock.
The difference, I would think, lies in how the object is "dropped." If it's being HELD and is released, sure. Ranged touch attack. If it's being pushed (like say, a boulder from a cliffside, where three orcs lay waiting to spring this trap) then make it a reflex save. You would give your players a reflex save to hold on to the bridge that was being cut away, wouldn't you?
TL;DR... This is really not such a difficult thing to understand. I think some people disagree just to play the Devil's Advocate. Adversity is nice, but in this instance, it's silly. The rules are clear enough IMO.
EDIT: Would those of you who argue differently consider this...? What if the PCs on the rope bridge in the spell's example are not only intended to die from the fall, but also deal their falling damage to a caravan in the ravine below? Is it then considered an attack that breaks invisibility? RAW says no.
It seems you and I think alike.
To me this is a moot point, The imp has Invisibility as a self-only at will power, it was on a ledge on top of a building above the characters, which provided full cover, and the characters would have had to make a perception test to see and possibly hear the statue being pushed, or they would have been flat footed against the falling object, either way, the imp would be invisible at will regardless. Move + standard action. (unless you rule the re-invis to be a standard action, then it just moves back on the ledge out of sight and re-invises at the beginning of next round.)
In addition if my players promised to make me regret the ruling, they would regret that threat...as things would get a lot more vicious on my end.
My question is: do you really make an attack roll for pushing something off a shelf?
If I were trying to time it just right to hit someone, yes. In that case, there's a certain amount of accuracy involved on the pusher's side.
This is really not such a difficult thing to understand. I think some people disagree just to play the Devil's Advocate. Adversity is nice, but in this instance, it's silly. The rules are clear enough IMO.
And my response would be that it's clear to you only because you haven't truly thought it through. YMMV.
An invisible creature cuts a rope, as a side effect characters on the rope fall. The rope is the target of his action. (spell not broken)
An invisible creature blindly pushes a statue off a ledge. If the statue falls in the right square a creature in that square has to save. The statue is the target of his action. (spell not broken)
An invisible creature picks up and drops or pushes a statue directly on a character. The character is target of his action. (spell broken)
Works for me!And here's the difference. If you push an item off a shelf, you dont really control where it goes. If the target doesnt walk under the item, he can't be hit. WHen you pick it up and throw it, you can target them.
Timing is not aiming. Choosing where the attack goes, not when, it aiming.
|
My question is: do you really make an attack roll for pushing something off a shelf?If I were trying to time it just right to hit someone, yes. In that case, there's a certain amount of accuracy involved on the pusher's side.
If I were aiming it at all yes. even to throw something so that it hits a 5 foot block of floor is a attack roll, and you're not even trying to hit someone.... So personally, I would rule that if the imp took the concentration to aim the statue so that it landed on someone, then it is an attack with the aiming being premeditation causing it. If the imp merly pushed it off to distract, and it happened to land on a person, they would have a reflex save, and it would not be an attack.
This is really not such a difficult thing to understand. I think some people disagree just to play the Devil's Advocate. Adversity is nice, but in this instance, it's silly. The rules are clear enough IMO.And my response would be that it's clear to you only because you haven't truly thought it through. YMMV.
I can't speak for Foghammer, but I've certainly put a lot of thought into it. Just because your interpretation might be different doesn't necessarily mean we have somehow put less thought to it than you and others have.
I can't speak for Foghammer, but I've certainly put a lot of thought into it. Just because your interpretation might be different doesn't necessarily mean we have somehow put less thought to it than you and others have.This is really not such a difficult thing to understand. I think some people disagree just to play the Devil's Advocate. Adversity is nice, but in this instance, it's silly. The rules are clear enough IMO.And my response would be that it's clear to you only because you haven't truly thought it through. YMMV.
I was responding to accusations of playing devil's advocate -- which I am not -- especially because it carries the implication that the only reason to disagree is to be deliberately contrary!
As for thinking things through, foghammer gives this example: "He is not casting offensive spells, swinging a melee weapon, firing a ranged weapon, or any other such action. He's just pushing a big, carved rock." So "pushing a big, carved rock" isn't an attack. What, then, does a trebuchet do? Is it the use of a tool that makes the difference? If so, would using a stick as a lever to send the rock over the side change things? If not, why not?
No offense, but its difficult to reconcile asserting that these distinctions are easy to draw with even a rudimentary understanding of classic mechanics (which, as a business major, is all I possess).