There does not seem to be a definition for "enemy" anywhere in PF rules, despite a multitude of occurrences in rule descriptions. Some might say that the answer is so obvious that it doesn't need explaining. At first glance I agree, however a situation came up during play that has led me to ask what defines an enemy?
Is a creature an enemy only in the mind of a PC?
Can a creature be an enemy of a PC, if the PC is unaware of the creature's presence?
I proffer this definition based on a boolean OR truth table.
If either the PC believes the creature is an enemy, or the creature believes the PC is an enemy, then the creature is an enemy. If both believe the creature is an enemy, then the creature is an enemy. If neither believe the creature is an enemy, then the creature is not an enemy.
What does this matter?
The word enemy is used to discriminate targets for spells. Since most spells that target enemies cause harm, you might still ask what does it matter, since you probably wouldn't want to cast it against a party member.
If an enemy is defined only as "what the PC believes", then any creature (within range) that a PC in unaware of cannot be an enemy for the purposes of a spell's targeting. This definition as been posed by reason that magic works based off of the caster's intent. If the caster is unaware of a creature, he cannot direct magical energies at it.
I believe this definition poses obvious problems. Extrapolated for fireballs: Fireballs target all creatures. By rationale of what defines an enemy (caster must be aware in order to direct magic against something), if the caster is unaware of a creature within range, then a fireball that targets all creatures would not be a valid target.
That doesn't seem right to me.
Furthermore, if that formula for determining what is an enemy were applied to melee combat, then AOO's would be defunct. All a fighter PC would have to do is: on his turn declare the orc to be an ally, in order to move past without provoking an AOO from the orc. Then once in the square he wants to be, the fighter PC then attacks the orc or another creature within reach. On the orc's turn, it could effectively do the same thing to the fighter PC.
It has been argued that you do not have to be an enemy to provoke AOO's. The rules are a little unclear in this regard. They start out using the generic term combatant with regards to threatened squares, but then use enemy when talking about provoking an AOO.
|
The word enemy is used to discriminate targets for spells. Since most spells that target enemies cause harm, you might still ask what does it matter, since you probably wouldn't want to cast it against a party member.
Can you clarify what spells use the word 'enemy' in the target entry? Most give either targets (creature/creatures/objects/you), areas (burst, cone, spread), or emanations, none of which are 'ally' or 'enemy' dependent.
Fireball is your example. You say it targets all creatures, but per an area spell it targets *everything* in the area, allies, enemies, dogs, boxes, pencils, etc. Nowhere in the mechanics of the spell does it need to be segregated to whether an enemy is present where the fireball goes off.
Haste, as another example, has targets of 1 creature per level, no two can be more than 30' apart. Guess what that means? You can target an enemy too. Same for Slow and allies.
As for AoO's, yes your buddy moving through your threatened square provokes from you, but AoO's aren't automatic, you have to choose to use them. Who's gonna choose to AoO an ally?
So I guess I'm not understanding what the problem is.
I don't have the rule books in front of me, so I refer to d20pfsrd.com. Maybe it is the formatting the site has chosen to display spell information, but I don't see a target entry for any spell, unlike range, area, duration, etc... You have to read through the description to find what is affected by the spell. It is not as clear cut as say 4e's power templates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One could also argue that only enemies provoke AOO's because they are already in opposition to you. In other words, there is no need for a shift in a creatures thinking. An AOO, in my opinion, represents a reflexive reaction to an opening/opportunity. I do not imagine that an ally would be looking for an opportunity to attack an ally. If that which constitutes an enemy or ally is so fluid, then what's the point of using the terms in rules description?
Here's an example of where it's relevant: If you summon a monster, it attacks your enemies to the best of its abilities. If you have no ability to communicate with your summoning, how does it judge who your enemies are? Does it know who you think your enemies are? Does it know who your actual enemies are, if someone is secretly hostile to you or stalking you invisibly and the summoning has noticed it but you haven't?
Does it only know someone is your enemy if they attack you?
no no I get what he is asking
another place this comes up is in the use of Combat Maneuvers, where the verbiage for individual ones often uses "foe" or "enemy" for the intended target of the maneuver
despite this, I have seen players use drag, reposition, etc with essentially automatic success to their allies and fellow party members at times, mainly to avoid AoO's
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this is what is known as "overthinking the situation."
I tend to refrain from using low-level summoning spells for this very reason. The spell says that the monster attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. Unless the PC can communicate the creature, you're pretty much relying on the creature's alignment and capacity to reason.
What's an enemy? Is the party actively trying to kill something? Or that somethings friends? Is that something actively trying to kill the group? That's an enemy. Pretty simple. When in doubt, ask the GM. The GM can inform you the goblin trying to stab you is in fact not your ally. :P
It is typically clear when you are in a fight who your enemies and allies are. The only cases where it is not clear would be when something is dominated (allegiance shifts momentarily) or a believed ally suddenly turns on the party (the cad!). Just leave it for the GM. Any reasonable GM will get these cases right 99% of the time.
Lack of perception does not negate area effect spells. If you cast an area effect spell and there is an enemy that is unobserved, it is still effected by the spell (prayer, for example). Regardless of rather the PC can see invisible allies, they get the luck bonus. Regardless of rather the PC can see invisible enemies, they take the unluck penalty (or whatever you want to call it).
I have been in games where a summoned creature looked at the summoner (who couldn't speak the language), asked what they should be doing, and upon getting a blank stare decided they were meant to do nothing. Some GMs are fun like that. :P
Here is the scenario that spawned this thread.
We entered a small room 20 x 40 (I think) with bookshelves and sarcophagi standing up against the wall. We all get in to the room, when a mummy appears about 30ft from me. We roll initiative and we all go before the two enemies. The other enemy is a mimic in sarcophagi form, waiting 15ft behind me. I don’t know it is there. On my turn, I cast blistering invective, which requires me to make an intimidation check against each enemy within a 30 ft radius. This encompasses both enemies. I truly didn’t know where the mimic was when I cast my spell. I thought the second monster was a golem that was down the hall. It was just dumb luck that the mimic was in range of my spell. Had I succeeded against the mummy it would have been demoralized and would have had to make a reflex save or suffer 1d10 fire damage. I thought that would be cool. When it finally came round to the mimic’s turn, I spoke up and stated that I should have gotten a roll against the mimic. The DM said that because I didn’t know it was there, I couldn’t consider it an enemy in order to target it. My initial arguments were based on the premise that an enemy is an enemy regardless of what I know or think. I.e. if it means to do me harm, then it is my enemy, even if I don’t know it is there.
I was fine with the ruling at the table, not wanting to disrupt the game, but I still wanted to address it out of game.
Lack of perception does not negate area effect spells. If you cast an area effect spell and there is an enemy that is unobserved, it is still effected by the spell (prayer, for example). Regardless of rather the PC can see invisible allies, they get the luck bonus. Regardless of rather the PC can see invisible enemies, they take the unluck penalty (or whatever you want to call it).
This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, but my DM seems to feel otherwise. I'm fine with house rules, but I want to ensure any rules are applied consistently across the board instead of tweaked for every situation that arises.
no no I get what he is asking
Another instance where this issue comes up is in 4e. I have seen a wizard in a group declare a slayer (built around melee basic attacks) in the group his enemy in order to cast hypnotism (at-will target: enemy) on the slayer, granting the slayer an extra melee basic attack each round.
The game uses the term "enemy" and "opponent" almost interchangeably (personally, I prefer "opponent," as it doesn't imply weird connotations of "we have to fight the city guards, so I guess they are our 'enemies' even though they're just regular people doing a job").
Another Turing test failed. :)
Lack of perception does not negate area effect spells. If you cast an area effect spell and there is an enemy that is unobserved, it is still effected by the spell (prayer, for example). Regardless of rather the PC can see invisible allies, they get the luck bonus. Regardless of rather the PC can see invisible enemies, they take the unluck penalty (or whatever you want to call it).This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, but my DM seems to feel otherwise. I'm fine with house rules, but I want to ensure any rules are applied consistently across the board instead of tweaked for every situation that arises.
You see, this is why I said 99%. You're always going to have that 1% running around somewhere.
I would consider you reread the rules on area of effect spells. No where in there does it say anything about unobserved creatures (or enemies or allies for that matter) being unaffected just b/c you don't know they are there. Discuss it w/ the GM and see what he thinks. You may just have to live w/ it though, if so, stealth/stay invisible as much as possible to prevent similar spells from effecting you and go about your game. :)
For each question, why or why not? It seems clear to me one must have a definition of enemy to answer these questions. What is the definition you use?
It seems clear to me one must have a GM to answer these questions. She alone knows when the BBEG is in the area, as it it unbeknownst to you.
In more than two decades of gaming I have never once experienced an issue with the wording of "enemy". If I somehow did, I trust my GM would make the right call.
Putting this up top of this post... "Magic is Magical" -- assume you essentially add a touch of divination into your spell. There's no reason it shouldn't impact "correctly" on anyone with Hostile intent or against whom you have Hostile intent, or even that would have Hostile intent against you if it was aware you existed (e.g. a goblin of on the other side of a wall that has no idea you are there, and that you have no idea that it is there, but happens to be in range of your spell), or that you would have Hostile intent against if you were aware of them (BBEG that doesn't even know the party is after him yet, but happens to be in range), and ignore anyone lacking it, and I'd probably say RAI is close to this.
However, personally, I'd probably rule as follows since I liek to differentiate between Caster types where possible: "All Enemies in Area" - for Arcane Magic, this is like a version of Selective Spell. Pick one: You either designate targets to be hit (and everything else, including enemies of which you are unaware, are not affected) or you you designate safe spots (allies and known neutral parties like civilians, generally) and all other targets (including both enemies and allies of which you are unaware) are affected. For Divine Magic, since it is coming from a specific Deific Source, it "just knows" who to hit -- all appropriate targets (going on the "either side considers the other guy to be an enemy") are hit by it.
For the specific case noted: if you didn't know to insult the mimic, why would it be insulted and therefore intimidated? You presumably said a lot of nasty things about the Mummy and his Mummy (har har) -- but left out all the nasty things about the shape shifter. I'd agree with the DM ruling in this case, specifically because it is a language-dependent effect that would require you to act directly against that target.
Similarly, for the Fool's Forbiddance I'd say you explicitly have to choose who it impacts. I'm good with either of the Arcane Magic methods above (explicitly included in or explicitly excluded from effects), but once you pick a way to go with it, be consistent. "Enemy" is just shorthand for "specified targets in range", or "all targets in range excluding those specified."
Here's how I see the distinction, as enemy can be a purely one-sided affair.
Put the same idea into a social setting. You start a new job, and before long you end up dating someone. You don't realize they are the ex-fiance' of another worker in the office. To the other worker, whose ex you have stolen, you are THIER enemy even though you have no ill will toward them or even know the person. To you, they are nothing. If you decided to send a nasty e-mail to all your enemies, they would not be in the send line, you are only looking to be cruel to those YOU consider an enemy.
Magic is an unintelligible cosmic power. It is manipulated by casters. Arcane casters twist this cosmic force to produce effects they have managed to create. Divine casters are granted access to use certain amounts of a deity's power to produce certain accepted effects. Regardless, the method in which the caster uses it, is wholly on the caster. A deity grants a cleric spells, does that mean the cleric can't decide to spiritual weapon an innocent commoner, because the deity directs the magic. No, the deity is made aware AFTER the caster has manipulated the energies, possibly choosing to deny their cleric that power in the future. It's like the gods give the casters a pass into a special club where they can use any of perks for their level of memebership. Abuse those perks, lose the pass.
Since the caster is the manipulator/controller of the spell/effect going off, the aspect of enemy is from the perspective of the caster themselves. Even the gods don't control who it affects, just whether their cleric's still have access to it after the fact. If a caster enters a room, and only knows that the obvious mummy is their enemy, why would they consider the bookshelf, door, stool, and Oh the other sarcophagus, an enemy?
Because somehow magic, with a mind of its own, divines that the stool and bookshelf don't mean the caster harm, but the sarcophagus does? Suddenly, magic decides that the furniture behind you is also your enemy, by reading its mind and determining its intentions.
Magic doesn't kill people, casters kill people. First, they have to decide who they are trying to kill. Enemy is based on the perspective of the caster.
What about a dominated ally? They intend the caster harm, are they suddenly an enemy, and the caster can not choose to exclude them from their spell effects? What if the caster gets dominated, he can't cast spells on his allies, because he lacks the ability to change perspective on who is or isn't his enemy/ally? What about the doppleganger, all you need to pierce that disguise is an enemy only spell. If it gets hurt by the spell, then it obviously means you harm. There's means to block/avoid the detect alignment spells, but not the all enemies spells?
Yes, I am the GM of the scenario in question about the mimic.
The game uses the term "enemy" and "opponent" almost interchangeably (personally, I prefer "opponent," as it doesn't imply weird connotations of "we have to fight the city guards, so I guess they are our 'enemies' even though they're just regular people doing a job").Thanks, Sean! A follow-up question, if you have time: Does a creature need to be aware (e.g., sight, touch, blindsense) of a creature for it to be classified as an opponent? Or can creatures you do not know exist be opponoents for the purposes of spells that target enemies?
What spells say "Target: 1 enemy"?
Since they are not in the target line, then that only avoids the rule of line of sight/line of effect type situations. Since enemy/ally has not actually been given a hard term, whose interpretation is it that decides they are an enemy/ally? Magic makes the decision for you, or the caster gets to decide?
Creatures: A spell with this kind of area affects creatures directly (like a targeted spell), but it affects all creatures in an area of some kind rather than individual creatures you select. The area might be a spherical burst, a cone-shaped burst, or some other shape.
Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. Creatures in the spell's area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the creatures affected.
Emphasis mine. Since enemy/ally do not have a type in the form of official game terms, yet are used to determine a spell's effects, they need to be defined by some criteria. If they do not meet the criteria of enemy, they are not affected. Therefore, what is the criteria of being an enemy?
Is it anything that wants/intends to harm the caster? In that case what about mindless things (undead, constructs, or oozes) that don't want or intend anything? Does that mean a caster cannot avoid hitting a dominated teammate with an 'all enemies' effect?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you consider someone an ally, they are an ally. If you consider them an enemy, they are an enemy. It's based on your perception of the other creatures.
Thank you, that is what I've been saying, and has been my interpretation of the terms.
Not to SKR, specifically, but to the thread in general. Since it is based on your perception of the other creatures, then is it safe to say that being completely unaware of another creature's existence prevents you from having an opinion of them? How can they be YOUR enemy if you don't even know they exist? You can be THEIR enemy, if they are aware of you, but until their presence is known you cannot distinguish them as being one or the other.
So, what are innocent bystanders? What about the orphan hiding in the nearby rain barrel, as you fight in the city streets? Are they all known allies? What if one of them is the person hiring the people fighting you, but is mingling amongst the innocent citizens? Is there a neither ally or enemy status? If not, then the distinction of anything not my ally is my enemy could cause a lot of collateral damage.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to draw clear distinctions so in the future my players are satisfied by the interpretations.
I would think in this case your GM ruled properly, OP. you would have to be aware of the creature to make the intimidate check to de Italian it. If you had somehow dropped a fireball centered on your location, it would have hit the mimic, though.
B/c it's totally impossible for a sneaking rogue to see a big terrifying creature (that's unaware of the rogue) and for that creature to do something terrifying (eg, area effect intimidate check meant for others) and for the rogue to see it and say "AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!" and run away, preferably quietly. That's silly. Being intimidated is based on the one being intimidating being aware, not the one doing the intimidating being aware.
I mean, really? Are we going to say that a wizard w/ Greater Invisibility cast on him is immune to area effects directed at enemies now? Really?
It's not about being undetected (just unseen), it is not the area spell. Area spells affect everything that meets the correct criteria (as I quoted from the PRD above). But if you do not know an enemy exists (not just undetected, actually unaware of its very existence) how is it YOUR enemy?
Intimidation is charisma-based because it is an appropriate verbal tirade directed at a target. Threatening a mummy, means nothing to the mimic who can see you have ignored it thus far.
EDIT: like dazzling display, someone who sees the threat is directed at specific individuals, has no reason to fear if they are not included in the threats. If you dazzling display in a city market, directed at 2 thugs, do you roll intimidate check for every single person in the market just because they witnessed it? Or is part of the display directed toward the 2 individuals that separate them from the bystanders? How do the innocents know it's not directed at them, unless there is some way to make clear who it is intended for?
|
I guess in case of Dazzling Display, all foes are the ones who plan to attack the displayer.
Hidden Enemy: " For the love of Norgorber ! That Half-orc barbarian is a tough one. If i leave my cover he will surelly smash me into bits ! I would sneak attack him, but it don't appear a very good idea now."
What's an enemy? Is the party actively trying to kill something? Or that somethings friends? Is that something actively trying to kill the group? That's an enemy.
To use your standards of what an enemy is, in the mimic situation, it was not an enemy.
Is the party actively trying to kill something?
No, they didn't even know it was there.
Or that somethings friends?
No, it was not allied with the mummy, just using it as a distraction.
Is that something actively trying to kill the group?
No, it was not trying to kill the group, it was waiting until the right time to act. It had not actively threatened or attacked the group.
Hidden Enemy: " For the love of Norgorber ! That Half-orc barbarian is a tough one. If i leave my cover he will surelly smash me into bits ! I would sneak attack him, but it don't appear a very good idea now."
It could also just as likely be:
"For the love of Norgorber! That Half-orc barbarian is a tough one. Since he doesn't even realize I'm here I can sneak attack him while he fights the others. It's best that I do it right after my allies have worn him down."
That wasn't so hard, was it?
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Correct, and...
when the player "feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against" a creature, then it is the player's enemy.
When the creature in question "feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against" the player, then the player is the creature in question's enemy
Enemy/ally are ownership terms, they are an opinion held by the aggressor. You must meet the definition towards the other for them to be YOUR enemy.
EDIT: modified for clarity
If you are absolutely devoid of an opinion about a creature, then they cannot be YOUR enemy, as you have no knowledge of them whatsoever.
They can hate you all they want, and you are THEIR enemy, and you (the player) can continue to remain oblivious to the fact. It only affects how they perceive you, not how you perceive them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another way to do it would be to look at the Diplomacy skill. There, there are five "categories" for how a character feels towards another: Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, and Helpful.
One could say "Ok, well, Hostile and Unfriendly are the most likely that are going to attack me, so we well classify them as 'enemies,' while Friendly and Helpful would be the most likely to help me, so we will call them 'allies.'"
Let's look at the spells Bane and Bless.
Bane harms enemies, so it would work against characters who are Hostile and Unfriendly.
Bless helps allies, so it would work on characters who are Friendly and Helpful.
Alternatively, we could say that the spells effect it based on how the caster feels. Thus, someone could be trying to be Helpful, but the cleric is having a bad day and sees them as Unfriendly. Bane would then work against them and bless would not help.
I'd propose that these spells have no effect on those who are indifferent.
Here is the scenario that spawned this thread.
On my turn, I cast blistering invective, which requires me to make an intimidation check against each enemy within a 30 ft radius. This encompasses both enemies. I truly didn’t know where the mimic was when I cast my spell. I thought the second monster was a golem that was down the hall. It was just dumb luck that the mimic was in range of my spell. Had I succeeded against the mummy it would have been demoralized and would have had to make a reflex save or suffer 1d10 fire damage.
Off topic some, but aren't mummies (and most undead via their undead traits), immune from being intimidated/demoralized?