|
Certain abilities, such as the Inquisitor's Judgement, require that the character be "in combat" in order to use them.
If an enemy is fleeing and the character pursues, is combat continuing?
If the character is withdrawing but still under attack, is combat continuing?
If combatants are temporarily separated for example by a Wall of Force?
Should such abilities be usable in friendly duels, where a character is not in mortal danger?
Could an Inquisitor in theory engage in a drawn-out fight with a clearly inferior foe in order to benefit from the Healing judgement over a long period of time?
If an Inquisitor is poisoned, is it legitimate for them to ask their buddy to hit them a few times while they shake off the poison so as to get the saving throw bonus from the Purity judgement?
Is the situtation different if the Inquisitor had Lent or Shared a Judgement and is trying to extend benefits to allies instead of themselves?
|
|
Bad intentions as defined by acting against the mandate of your religion?
Okay, how about this example. You are an Inquisitor who has been assigned as a bodyguard to a prominent member of your church who has received death threats. An assassin appears and shoots your charge with a poisoned crossbow bolt. Since combat has started, on your turn you invoke a Judgement of Purity and Lend Judgement to your charge to give them a saving throw bonus against the poison. The assassin spends his next turn withdrawing.
It is clearly good intentions as defined by religious mandate to keep the Judgement active, since this protects your church-mandated charge. But is it possible to do this - under what circumstances could the judgement continue?
1) Not at all, since you are no longer threatened by an enemy with a weapon.
2) If you pursue the assassin round-by-round, thus extending the encounter but leaving your charge unprotected.
3) If you can convince your charge or any onlookers to strike you with lethal damage.
4) As long as the protected person keeps making saving throws, since these occur on combat rounds (even if you are no longer threatened by an opponent).
5) As (4), but only if you also take round based actions to treat the poison (Heal checks, casting Lesser Restoration, casting Resistance).
If you are actively(right then and there) trying to bring harm to an opponent that should count.
Gathering information so you can harm someone later one does not count.
Certain abilities, such as the Inquisitor's Judgement, require that the character be "in combat" in order to use them.
This seems like a troublesome ability.
Really only the healing ability seems wonky.
Not RAW but here is my advice.
If a player wanst to benefit from the Healing ability outside of combat let them, but limit the number of rounds it works.
Such as 5 rounds.
Or 3 rounds plus one round for every Hit Die they possess beyond 3.
Letting them use their healing ability outside of combat isn't broken if it's limited in some reasonable way.
|
|
I know it's very situational and more RAI than RAW. Since there's no clear definition of "in combat" to my knowledge, in the end it's probably just up to the DM. But I was interested in what others thought about borderline cases like this. I have been in situations where as a defender/healer I would be willing to take 20-40 damage per round from Teammate A's friendly fire in order to give Teammate B a +6 saving throw bonus against the poison a dead/fleeing enemy used. I'm wondering if other players would consider that "cheating."
EDITS:
wraithstrike, that would prevent an Inquisitor from using Judgement in combination with the Total Defence action or defensive spellcasting, which strikes me as wrong.
Karlgamer, Healing outside combat is an extreme example of where this could go. I'm mostly interested in using the saving throw bonuses to clear up conditions that continue to demand saving throws for several rounds after an opponent has left combat, such as poison or the spell Suffocation.
there's no clear definition of "in combat" to my knowledge
If your name is written on the initiative chart your "in combat."
But what you need is participate in the combat to gain these bonuses.
What counts as Participation is more the question you want answered.
"Participate" is broad but it's very clear.
Running away? You are participating. If you successfully ran away you are not(being successful at running away is usually when your GM stops asking you what Your character is doing).
Behind a Wall of Force? You want to participate but you can't. Probably let them get one last round of healing(Not RAW). Then let it end unless they find a way through.
Sparing with a friend? RAW: This is combat. RAI: This is sparing.
Karlgamer, Healing outside combat is an extreme example of where this could go. I'm mostly interested in using the saving throw bonuses to clear up conditions that continue to demand saving throws for several rounds after an opponent has left combat, such as poison or the spell Suffocation.
No, Judgment doesn't help for that RAW.
Might not be a bad idea for a GM to extend you chances a little.
EDITS:wraithstrike, that would prevent an Inquisitor from using Judgement in combination with the Total Defence action or defensive spellcasting, which strikes me as wrong.
I don't know what you are referring to.
|
|
If your name is written on the initiative chart your "in combat."
Which could be taken to mean that you are indeed in combat as long as someone is under the effect of any condition that requires a save every round on their turn. Initiative turns are clearly occurring at this point, and the Inquisitor can participate by making Heal checks or spellcasting, which require standard actions on his/her turn.
Behind a Wall of Force? You want to participate but you can't. Probably let them get one last round of healing(Not RAW). Then let it end unless they find a way through.
There are plenty of buff spells you could cast on yourself behind the wall, thus still acting on your turn in a way that affects the combat once you rejoin it. You could also continue to attack the wall, which is meaningful if you can deal significant spell damage or bypass Hardness.
Sparing with a friend? RAW: This is combat. RAI: This is sparing.
All right, so where do we draw the line between a real fight and friendly sparring? Lethal damage? Lethal intent? When some meaningful goal depends on the outcome of the duel?
wraithstrike, that would prevent an Inquisitor from using Judgement in combination with the Total Defence action or defensive spellcasting, which strikes me as wrong.I don't know what you are referring to.
If you are actively(right then and there) trying to bring harm to an opponent that should count.
If you are faced with an opponent you cannot personally damage, and choose instead to cast defensive spells on your allies, you are no longer directly trying to bring harm to your opponent. Should you lose access to Judgement?
If your ally has been Dominated and is attacking you, and you choose to use Total Defence rather than hurt that ally in any way, should you lose your Judgement?
That is what it would mean to tie "in combat" purely to intent to do harm. Or did you mean that "at minimum, if you are trying to hurt something, you are in combat, but it is also possible to be in combat without trying to hurt something?"
If you are faced with an opponent you cannot personally damage, and choose instead to cast defensive spells on your allies, you are no longer directly trying to bring harm to your opponent. Should you lose access to Judgement?If your ally has been Dominated and is attacking you, and you choose to use Total Defence rather than hurt that ally in any way, should you lose your Judgement?
That is what it would mean to tie "in combat" purely to intent to do harm. Or did you mean that "at minimum, if you are trying to hurt something, you are in combat, but it is also possible to be in combat without trying to hurt something?"
I was not saying that was the case. In that instance you are still trying to get to him, you just can't do so. As an example if someone takes off flying, but you have no ranged weapons you are still in combat with them, even if you can't reach them.
If someone is trying to kill you I would also call that combat.
Basically if someone in the immediate area is trying to harm someone else in the immediate area that is combat. Just to be clear someone going invisible so they can't be found would not stop combat.
I can't think of a good way to word it, so I am trying to make the intent clear without someone trying to argue semantics.
Which could be taken to mean that you are indeed in combat as long as someone is under the effect of any condition that requires a save every round on their turn. Initiative turns are clearly occurring at this point, and the Inquisitor can participate by making Heal checks or spellcasting, which require standard actions on his/her turn.
When combatants are dead combat ends. If your GM wants to give you your boost for longer then that is there prerogative. I would consider this myself but it isn't RAW.
There are plenty of buff spells you could cast on yourself behind the wall, thus still acting on your turn in a way that affects the combat once you rejoin it. You could also continue to attack the wall, which is meaningful if you can deal significant spell damage or bypass Hardness.
Being behind a wall of force(unable to get to enemies to threaten them with damage.) is clearly not Participate in combat.
The spells you cast before combat are also not participating in combat.
All right, so where do we draw the line between a real fight and friendly sparring? Lethal damage? Lethal intent? When some meaningful goal depends on the outcome of the duel?
Personally, You should never be actively trying to deal damage to a member of your party(any kind of damage). If two players want to spar there is no need to make checks of any sort. They can if they want but none of it should effect game play what so ever(No damage/ no healing)
You also Don't get Exp for sparing. There is a good line. Am I getting EXP for this?
Another good idea to think about when evaluating "Participation" in combat.
Do you have line of effect to your opponents?
Can you easily achieve line of effect with an action or as part of an action? What would that entail?
Do I feel like participating in combat?
Does my opponent have line of effect to me?
Can they easily achiever line of effect by using an action or as part of an action? What would that entail?
Do they feel like participating in combat?
|
|
I'm not trying to get legalistic or abuse anything. I just think it's stupid that if someone hits me with a poisoned weapon, it could be smarter to use an untrained grapple or total defence rather than a normal attack, because if the opponent falls unconscious my Purity Judgement falls off.
I also think it would be an interesting character moment for an Inquisitor to tell a bystander to pick up a weapon and hit him, because "while I bleed, the power of my god flows through me and shields this innocent."
Also, wraithstrike says you should keep Judgements if you are unable to reach your opponent with an attack (when they are flying and you don't have ranged attacks), while Karlgamer says you should lose/suppress Judgements in a similar position (when you are behind a Wall of Force). I think that indicates this isn't just a common-sense issue (though it probably comes down to DM rule rather than RAW).
Personally, You should never be actively trying to deal damage to a member of your party(any kind of damage). If two players want to spar there is no need to make checks of any sort. They can if they want but none of it should effect game play what so ever(No damage/ no healing)
The party sorcerer lit me on fire once.
The game I am currently playing in has on several occasions used and rolled through nonlethal duels - duels using nonlethal damage, combat maneuvers, or ending at first blood. It's usually PC vs Friendly NPC, someone who wants to see what you're made of and might help you more readily if you impress them. Often the duels run on a normal combat initiative but sometimes it's a quick and dirty opposed attack roll or combat maneuver check. My ability to use Judgements during these duels is relevant to the game I am playing in.
You also Don't get Exp for sparing. There is a good line. Am I getting EXP for this?
Good rule, but not useful in games where XP is awarded per objective reached or per session rather than per combat.
Until the GM's says combat is over I consider combat to be ongoing. If combat is ongoing then you are still in combat, even if you are not making attacks. Being in combat and actually making attacks are not synonymous to me. As an example if I decide to use a buff spell to set up my next attack instead of actually attacking I am still in combat.
I'm not trying to get legalistic or abuse anything. I just think it's stupid that if someone hits me with a poisoned weapon, it could be smarter to use an untrained grapple or total defence rather than a normal attack, because if the opponent falls unconscious my Purity Judgement falls off.
Well, I'm not here to tell you that the rules don't do some stupid things sometimes. Honestly, I don't like the ability at all.
In my humble opinion it should work outside/inside of combat a set number of rounds a day the same as some other ability.
I also think it would be an interesting character moment for an Inquisitor to tell a bystander to pick up a weapon and hit him, because "while I bleed, the power of my god flows through me and shields this innocent."
While I like the flavor, this seems like abuse. It is definately not RAW.
I might allow Judgement to be used outside of combat but I would have to have a set small number of "rounds."
Also, wraithstrike says you should keep Judgements if you are unable to reach your opponent with an attack (when they are flying and you don't have ranged attacks), while Karlgamer says you should lose/suppress Judgements in a similar position (when you are behind a Wall of Force). I think that indicates this isn't just a common-sense issue (though it probably comes down to DM rule rather than RAW).
What we are talking about here shouldn't happen often enough to worry about.
They main reason why the rules are worded like they are is to stop the obvious abuses. Such as removing yourself from combat to heal up.
Whenever the GM says combat is over, it's over and so is Judgment.
|
|
I figured it would eventually come down to a DM call, just wondering if there were any clear opinions on how a DM would make that call.
I agree that using the Healing Judgement to get extensive Fast Healing out of combat is abusive, though I should point out that a 12th level Druid gets unlimited out of combat healing so long as they are able to spend a use of Wild Shape to turn into a Tendriculos and gain Regeneration 5.
I agree it would work better in some ways if it was based on number of rounds of use like Rage, rather than combats per day. Most of the benefits besides Healing are only useful in combat anyway, but it would be nice to use with the Purity Judgement. I wouldn't mind a feat that let me keep using a Purity Judgement to save against any condition applied during combat until that condition is overcome.
I figured it would eventually come down to a DM call, just wondering if there were any clear opinions on how a DM would make that call.
As a DM I would consider ongoing effects to keep the party in combat for as long as they last, unless the party chooses otherwise. Poison, in particular. Combat rounds would continue until all the saves were made, I only handwave them away because there's usually not much else going on, but in the case of Judgments I'd consider the group 'in combat' for as long as the poison continued to harm the victim.
I'd immediately quash any attempts to game 'friendly fire' to prolong the 'in combat' action for out-of-combat healing, though.
I've never played an inquisitor, but I don't much like that ability. There are many instances where 'participating in combat' ends well before the situational danger does.
Looks like a fun class otherwise, though.
RAW:
Combat is cyclical; everybody acts in turn in a regular cycle of rounds. Combat follows this sequence:
1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.
2. Determine which characters are aware of their opponents. These characters can act during a surprise round. If all the characters are aware of their opponents, proceed with normal rounds. See the surprise section for more information.
3. After the surprise round (if any), all combatants are ready to begin the first normal round of combat.
4. Combatants act in initiative order (highest to lowest).
5. When everyone has had a turn, the next round begins with the combatant with the highest initiative, and steps 3 and 4 repeat until combat ends.
Strictly-worded, in any situation where you and your party, and any allies/enemies in the area, are rolling initiative to determine order of action, that period of time is 'combat', and anyone in the initiative order is 'in combat'.
Is this realistic? Not necessarily, because there are situations where a DM might run a non-'violent engagement' scene by initiative rules - say, if you were rolling out some sort of sports competition.
But this is how Pathfinder defines 'combat', and by extension how 'in combat' would have be defined by the rules.
As to when combat ends? It seems not clearly defined, but on a second read, it is: Combat ends when you are no longer taking your actions based on initiative order.
