And it only applies to spells which refer to attacks in their spell description. Bastion of good is not a spell, so that definition is not relevant to this discussion.
So, we have attacks, as in the attack action, and the not relevant spell description definition. Which one should we apply?
|
Tarantula, I'm being completely honest when I state, what you're saying is complete nonsense.
The attack refers to hostile spells. You're claiming that since Bastion of Good isn't a spell it can't defend against spells. Where are you getting this?
Bastion of Good protects against attacks. The section quoted calls out what attacks are.
Where are you getting that since Bastion of Good isn't a spell it can't protect against spells????
The section quoted refers to spell descriptions that reference attacks. It is from the Magic chapter under Special spell effects. It has no relevance to bastion of good because bastion of good is not a spell.
The attacks bastion of good refers to are attack rolls made that do damage following the rules of attack under the combat chapter.
You are using a definition of attacks from spell descriptions. It is not relevant. Your insistence on applying a definition that is not relevant to the ability is bizarre.
What is an attack? It is a creature taking the attack action, making an attack roll, and if successful dealing damage.
Damage
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
From the combat chapter, if your attack is successful, you deal damage. This is the damage that is halved by Bastion of Good.
If an evil cleric channels negative energy, it deals damage, but it is not an attack.
The quote for "attacks" provided comes from the magic chapter, under the heading "Special spell effects" and refers only to spell descriptions which refer to attacking. BOG is not a spell, so this reference has no relevance to the ability.
That same section of text is also what says that bonuses of the same type don't stack. So using your logic, bonuses of the same type must be able to stack, if they aren't from spells.
Its covered under the Getting Started section.
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not "stack")—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
Additionally, the bonus section refers lower to Combining Magical Effects, which expands to Spells or Magical Effects. The section on attacks only refers to spells which reference attacks in their description.
The fact remains that if one of the points in that section can apply outside of just spells, then other points can too.
And the other point in that section are the rules for bringing back the dead. So, if you bring someone back from the dead using something other than a spell, I guess you think you can do it against that creature's will?
The section quoted refers to spell descriptions that reference attacks. It is from the Magic chapter under Special spell effects. It has no relevance to bastion of good because bastion of good is not a spell.
The attacks bastion of good refers to are attack rolls made that do damage following the rules of attack under the combat chapter.
That's not clear. The obvious counterargument is that a magic missile spell is an attack (under that definition) for purposes of an invisibility spell, but somehow NOT an attack for purposes of Bastion of Good? I would think that a single spell either would or would not be an attack, but not both (at potentially the same time).
In particular, if my paladin (who can somehow see invisible) targets Bastion of Good against an invisible wizard, does the wizard become visible when he casts magic missile at my friend? If so, we've established that the spell is an "attack" and my buddy should also take half damage.
The section quoted refers to spell descriptions that reference attacks. It is from the Magic chapter under Special spell effects. It has no relevance to bastion of good because bastion of good is not a spell.
The attacks bastion of good refers to are attack rolls made that do damage following the rules of attack under the combat chapter.
That's not clear. The obvious counterargument is that a magic missile spell is an attack (under that definition) for purposes of an invisibility spell, but somehow NOT an attack for purposes of Bastion of Good? I would think that a single spell either would or would not be an attack, but not both (at potentially the same time).
In particular, if my paladin (who can somehow see invisible) targets Bastion of Good against an invisible wizard, does the wizard become visible when he casts magic missile at my friend? If so, we've established that the spell is an "attack" and my buddy should also take half damage.
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. 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.
For the purposes of invisibility, targeting a foe with a spell is an attack. That is from invisibility specifically. As far as BOG, no, they cast a spell, not made an attack. So you don't reduce the damage from magic missile.
If the wizard instead summoned a monster, it would not break invisibility, and you would not half the damage because the summoned creature would be making the attack, not the target of BOG (the wizard).
The deal is attack has two meanings.
There's the definition in the magic section that in effect says, "if a spell references attack it means any action that will harm an enemy."
Then there's the combat section that says you can make 1 attack using the attack action or multiple attacks with the full attack action.
Tarantula is saying that since BOG isn't a spell it wouldn't be looking at the spells definition of what an attack is. So instead it looks at the combat section to see an attack is a weapon attack made with the attack action or full attack action.
So the invisible wizard makes an action that counts as an attack for invisibility, a spell using the attack definition for spells, but isn't an attack from the combat section so not seen as an attack for BOG.
I'd rule as well that MM bypasses the bastion.
The fact remains that if one of the points in that section can apply outside of just spells, then other points can too.
And the other point in that section are the rules for bringing back the dead. So, if you bring someone back from the dead using something other than a spell, I guess you think you can do it against that creature's will?
Points in that section, which don't limit themselves to just spells, do apply to things that aren't spells.
The attacks: section that has been quoted does limit itself to spell descriptions.
Not sure on bringing back someone from the dead without using a spell. If it is an ability that functions as a spell, then the spell rules would apply. Can you provide an example?
|
|
*nods*
The thing is though, the FAQ brought up is about weapons and damage, not attacks. So the argument they're pushing doesn't even stand on that merit.
In that FAQ as well, and clarified by Mark Seifter, magic missile would not get smite damage because it has no attack roll, not because it isn't an attack.
"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite."
On the subject of smite evil; If all attack rolls and all damage rolls were meant, then it should apply to magic missile because while magic missile doesn't have an attack roll, it does have a damage roll. Smite evil doesn't say anything about an attack roll. To be clear, I do not apply smite damage to magic missile.
I apply the same logic to attacks that BOG would protect from. Did they make an attack roll? If not, then it isn't "an attack" as far as BOG is concerned.
It is an attack for Bastion of Good.
Just because Smite Evil doesn't work for it doesn't mean it's not an attack.
What rule states that it is an attack for BOG? As I've said multiple times, the "attacks" section of Special Spell Effects does not apply here.
|
|
What rule states that it is an attack for BOG? As I've said multiple times, the "attacks" section of Special Spell Effects does not apply here.It is an attack for Bastion of Good.
Just because Smite Evil doesn't work for it doesn't mean it's not an attack.
Im getting real tired of that absolute nonsense you keep parroting under the assumption that it in some way makes sense.
The FAQ says Smite Evil does not work on Magic Missile, at no point does it say it is not an attack.
It's an attack. It's hostile. It does damage. It's an attack. Where have you read anything that said it is not an attack?
*nods*
The thing is though, the FAQ brought up is about weapons and damage, not attacks.
It's about weapons?
In general, special abilities that require attack rolls...
...special abilities that deal damage on a successful attack roll...
...almost never work with special abilities...
Certain special abilities...
Now the FAQ does use the word weapons within it, but it is explaining how special abilities work with various feats and class abilities and only talks about weapons as a comparison for those various special abilities.
In that FAQ as well, and clarified by Mark Seifter, magic missile would not get smite damage because it has no attack roll, not because it isn't an attack.
Right. Which is exactly why BOG may not necessarily apply to things that do not have attack rolls. Magic missile clearly has damage rolls when using it. Smite Evil clearly says to add additional damage to all damage rolls. Yet clearly the FAQ makes a distinction that attacks that do not make attack rolls do not get bonus damage either. So the question remains. Does BOG fall into the attack roll required version of attack or not?
What rule states that it is an attack for BOG? As I've said multiple times, the "attacks" section of Special Spell Effects does not apply here.It is an attack for Bastion of Good.
Just because Smite Evil doesn't work for it doesn't mean it's not an attack.
Im getting real tired of that absolute nonsense you keep parroting under the assumption that it in some way makes sense.
The FAQ says Smite Evil does not work on Magic Missile, at no point does it say it is not an attack.
It's an attack. It's hostile. It does damage. It's an attack. Where have you read anything that said it is not an attack?
Magic missile is the result of casting a spell. The spell causes damage to the target. Is it a hostile action? Yes. Was an attack roll made that upon success caused damage? No.
Its not an attack because attacks are made with the standard Attack action or full-round full-attack action. It is the result of a successful spell being cast.
Summon monster causes a monster to appear. The monster can then attack and deal damage to the paladin's allies. Do you think this damage should be halved because it is the result of a spell cast by the the Evil wizard targeted by BOG?
Its not an attack because attacks are made with the standard Attack action or full-round full-attack action. It is the result of a successful spell being cast.Good job. AoOs are not attacks. Cleave is not an attack. Spell Combat is not an attack. Iaijutsu Strike is not an attack. Charge is not an attack. Shall I go on?
Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and most characters can only make one per round.
AOO by name and definition are attacks.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach.
Cleave explicitly states you can make a single attack, with an additional attack if it hits.
As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).
Spell combat explicitly allows you to make attacks with it.
After the sword saint has challenged a foe but before he has attacked the target of his challenge, he may choose to use his iaijutsu strike as a full-round action, making an attack roll with his weapon as normal.
Iajutsu strike states it makes an attack roll as normal, and therefore is an attack.
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
Charge explicitly allows a melee attack after moving. Charging itself is not an attack.
That said, I'll correct my previous sentence. The most common type of attack is that made with a standard Attack action or full-round full-attack action. Other actions which are attacks explicitly state that they are.
Magic missile is a spell. Upon casting the spell, you must designate the target(s) of the spell. The listed effect happens to the target(s). In this case, they take damage. That does not make magic missile "an attack."
I think it would be a mistake not to consider other abilities that use the "attack" language. The reason there is less confusion about when sneak attack applies is because the developers told us what "attack" means in the sneak attack context.
We shouldn't be ignoring that insight when gauging other abilities, because the developers probably won't clarify every single ability that uses "attack" in its description in their FAQ.
I also don't think the fact that bastion calls out "any" attack really settles the matter, as we are trying to find the right definition for "attack". All actions that fall under that definition would be affected. The "any" might indicate that a broad definition of attack is intended, but it might as well clarify that there is no limit of how many attacks deal reduced damage.
Fortunately it seems that Paizo did overall a pretty good job defining to which actions certain feats apply (e.g. all melee attacks and ranged attacks), so I'm not completely aversed to the interpretation that the language might be deliberate to include any offensive action. I don't quite agree that everything that deals damage is an attack however. Casting an Incendiary Cloud for example is not considered an attack if you cast it in some empty area, even if someone stumbles into it later.
In the end I don't think you could fault a GM for using either the "attack action only" interpretation, the "any offensive action" interpretation or anything between the two. You should probably bring up the issue before the first session to make sure everyone knows what to expect.
The spell creates a damage dealing cloud. If you place it in a way someone is already in it thats certainly considered an attack as defined for invisibility, but I'm pretty sure getting damaged by the cloud is not an attack. Otherwise you couldn't ever use invisibility after having used damage dealing area effects with a duration.
If you cast the cloud in a way no creature is in the initial area it would not be considered an attack at any point I guess.
|
|
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. 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. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
The casting of incendiary cloud would break invisibility, regardless of whether someone was damaged by it.
|
|
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. 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. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.The casting of incendiary cloud would break invisibility, regardless of whether someone was damaged by it.
Hmm, actually, after giving it some more thought and reading over the invisibility spell I will retract this statement. Casting incendiary cloud when there is no one in it would not break invisibility even if a creature later stepped into it on its own (though they would still be taking damage from the targeted creature so Bastion of Good would still apply). Moving the cloud afterwards would break invisibility though if it damaged someone in the move.
The relevant aspect remains that even if we consider casting the cloud in an empty space an attack (I don't, but thats probably another discussion), its certainly not an attack targeting the paladins allies.
If we interpret any damage the cloud will deal during its duration as attacks, then a later casted invisibility becomes a liability. That doesn't seem right.
EDIT to adress new post:
The thing is that bastion of good protects against attacks, not just any damage.
|
|
The relevant aspect remains that even if we consider casting the cloud in an empty space an attack (I don't, but thats probably another discussion), its certainly not an attack targeting the paladins allies.
If we interpret any damage the cloud will deal during its duration as attacks, then a later casted invisibility becomes a liability. That doesn't seem right.
EDIT to adress new post:
The thing is that bastion of good protects against attacks, not just any damage.
It protects against attacks from a target that cause damage. It would protect against incendiary cloud if the target of Bastion of Good was the one that cast it.
What I'm not sure about is how you come to that conclusion. It isn't even the wizards turn when someone runs into his cloud, so how could he be considered "making" an attack, as the bastion of good would require him to do?
This is a thread about defining "attack", just stating it is one doesn't really help. Why do you think it is an attack when the party deliberately entered the effect?
Could someone hit by confusion run into the opposing casters grease spell (given he rolls to act normally once), just to make sure now all his attacks are focussed on that guy because he was "attacked" by him?
I'm not convinced someone could be performing an attack while doing nothing at all. Making an attack should indicate some active behavior, every other interpretation causes a lot of other issues.
|
|
This is a thread about defining "attack", just stating it is one doesn't really help. Why do you think it is an attack when the party deliberately entered the effect?
Could someone hit by confusion run into the opposing casters grease spell (given he rolls to act normally once), just to make sure now all his attacks are focussed on that guy because he was "attacked" by him?
I'm not convinced someone could be performing an attack while doing nothing at all. Making an attack should indicate some active behavior, every other interpretation causes a lot of other issues.
It is when it does damage. Does it do damage? Yes? Then it is an attack.
If someone held out their sword and was the target of the Bastion of Good and your ally willingly impaled themselves on said sword then it would go off.
No, if it's already been cast and is just sitting there. If it's cast on or under them while they're confused then yes that would work.
If you cast incendiary cloud on someone while invisible it would break your invisibility and trigger Bastion of Good.
IF you cast incendiary cloud and someone later runs into it it would not break your invisibility but it would trigger Bastion of Good.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. 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. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
This is the most generous application of the term "attack" in this whole thread and even that wouldn't support your interpretation, which is probably the reason it is hard to comprehend. I'm especially curious where that distinction between damaging and non-damaging attacks comes from. An attack is an attack, it doesn't matter if it deals damage. The grease still hampers you and forces a save, so either it is an attack just like incendiary cloud or both are not.
To me both are not attacks unless targeted at someone because I read the quote to describe actions that count as attacks and bastion mentions "making" attacks. This indicates that an attack must always be an action. It would be fine to disagree and give arguments why you think there is a better interpretation, but you completely lost me the moment you claimed I am attacked by someone if I throw myself at his sword. Its not just that there is nothing in the rules to back that up, it also defies any logic and makes several spells next to useless, as they break the moment you "attack".
I guess its a good moment to agree to disagree. I'm out of the discussion unless new arguments are brought up.
|
|
Sorry if my sword comment was unclear, I meant it would be an attack for the purposes of Bastion of Good. Are they attacking you in a real word legal sense? No. But for game mechanics they are attacking you since they are wielding the weapon.
*shrugs*
An attack is any hostile action, Bastion of Good works off any hostile action that causes HP damage. It's pretty straightforward.
|
|
I'm especially curious where that distinction between damaging and non-damaging attacks comes from. An attack is an attack, it doesn't matter if it deals damage. The grease still hampers you and forces a save, so either it is an attack just like incendiary cloud or both are not.
Simple, are you directly casting those spells on someone? Then they are an attack.
Did you cast them and no one was there? Then they are not an attack.
Did you cast them and someone later moved through them? Yes and no. They would not be an attack for breaking invisibility because it was not hostile at the time of casting but they would be for activating Bastion of Good since it is still a hostile action that originated from you.
If it does damage it's an attack.
This thread is about defining what is an attack. What is your rules backup for this definition of attack?
If you cast incendiary cloud on someone while invisible it would break your invisibility and trigger Bastion of Good.
IF you cast incendiary cloud and someone later runs into it it would not break your invisibility but it would trigger Bastion of Good.
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Well because now you yourself have two different attack definitions.
You say that casting incendiary cloud and someone later runs into it it would not break your invisibility. Which is okay, you're saying it's not an attack at that point so invisibility doesn't break.
But then you say, "IF you cast incendiary cloud and someone later runs into it, it would trigger Bastion of Good." Which could also be okay, because you're saying that ANY damage is an attack, regardless of who's doing it and when.
But you can't have both of these simultaneously. Why is it an attack of BoG but now not an attack for invisibility?
This is no different from our view that something can break invisibility but not be an attack for BoG, you're saying that something won't break invisibility but STILL be an attack for BoG.
I feel you've sufficiently proven that you have no rule basis or foundation you're working off of, but are replaying based on your feelings of how you'd rule such situations.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well because now you yourself have two different attack definitions.
Good. You SHOULD have multiple definitions.
The definition of attack for Bastion of Good is different than the definition of attack for Invisibility, both are different than the definition of attack for Vital Stike, and so on.
This should be obvious. The word does NOT always mean: 'to threaten with immediate capture'.
But you can't have both of these simultaneously.
You can, and indeed MUST if you want to have any hope of engaging in human communication.
|
|
Well because now you yourself have two different attack definitions.Good. You SHOULD have multiple definitions.
The definition of attack for Bastion of Good is different than the definition of attack for Invisibility, both are different than the definition of attack for Vital Stike, and so on.
This should be obvious. The word does NOT always mean: 'to threaten with immediate capture'.
But you can't have both of these simultaneously.You can, and indeed MUST if you want to have any hope of engaging in human communication.
^ THIS.
|
|
I think it's pretty absurd to argue that it's a good thing that people can't figure out how an ability works because a game term has multiple contradictory definitions.
Good. You SHOULD have multiple definitions.
They're not contradictory, they each spell out what all they affect in each thing, whether Bastion of Good or Invisibility.
You can, and indeed MUST if you want to have any hope of engaging in human communication.
Here is the problem. Without the rules telling us which definition to use (and they don't, I've yet to see anyone provide a sample from the rules that clarifies this, instead the argument has just been repeating the same thing over and over as if that somehow makes a given view right), then any call to use a specific definition is completely arbitrary and biased by that persons own personal reading of the rules. This doesn't mean those with any given view are necessarily wrong, but an insistence that they are right has zero credibility.
EDIT: Rules have been provided for different definitions of what an attack is, just none have been provided to show why one or the other should specifically be used regarding BOG.
And to go completely on a tangent
'to threaten with immediate capture'
I'm not sure attack really ever means threatening with immediate capture. Attack is something to 'cause harm, or damage'. Capture or threaten isn't really a part of what it means to attack someone/something. Okay, capture could potentially be incorporated into something an attack is in very specific contexts, but threaten never. If you are attacking, the point of threatening has passed.