The enemy wizard casts a Flaming Sphere at our fighter from a distance of 20 feet, the spell is resolved as usual (the fighter rolls Reflex, gets success and takes no damage this time). During the fighter's turn he decides to stay where he is in the same space as the Flaming Sphere. The evil wizard sustains the Flaming Sphere (causing the fighter to make a new Reflex save, he rolls and gets success and takes no damage) and then the enemy wizard casts Invisibility spell on herself. (Core Rulebook Pf2, 347)
In the fighter's turn he stays in the same space as the Flaming Sphere. Finally, the enemy wizard's turn starts and she sustains the Flaming Sphere once more (the fighter rolls Reflex, gets success and takes no damage this time) then she strides twice to escape the fight.
Question, ¿does the sustaining of the Flaming Sphere is considered a "hostile action" thus ending the wizard's Invisibility?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it's technically up to the GM, I personally don't see this particular example as ambiguous. It's absolutely hostile to take an action with the potential for that action to harm an enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would definitely have it break invisibility at my table, but I imagine there would be some variance here. My reasoning being that the wizard is actively performing an action that will cause harm to an enemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If sustaining a flaming sphere is a hostile action that would break invisibility, then would sustaining a summoned creature that attacks also break invisibility? The conjurer who summons from invisibility is a long standing tactic. What about using an action to order an animal companion or familiar to attack? Or inspire courage? In this case I feel we must think about all sustained actions that could be considered hostile.
If sustaining a flaming sphere is a hostile action that would break invisibility, then would sustaining a summoned creature that attacks also break invisibility? The conjurer who summons from invisibility is a long standing tactic. What about using an action to order an animal companion or familiar to attack? In this case I feel we must think about all sustained actions that could be considered hostile.
Every example here is an action the hypothetical caster is taking he knows will cause harm, and would break Invis.
Heightened Invis is really, really good. There's no pressing need for base Invis to allow this in order to protect those strategies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.
Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions.
But then that counteracts the previous argument about summons/companions. The act of sustaining a summon/commanding a creature has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action.
Another creature has to take actions for any harm to result. You didn't take those actions.
Especially if it's a summon you can't communicate with, and therefore cannot command. You have no control over what it chooses to do after you take the passive action of sustaining its existence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions.But then that counteracts the previous argument about summons/companions. The act of sustaining a summon/commanding a creature has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action.
Another creature has to take actions for any harm to result. You didn't take those actions.
Especially if it's a summon you can't communicate with, and therefore cannot command. You have no control over what it chooses to do after you take the passive action of sustaining its existence.
Summons don't take hostile actions unless you spend the sustain action and make them do so? Certainly, the caster has knowledge of how their minion will act when commanded - unlike ally with free will.
The controller is making a decision and taking an action that leads directly to harm because of it.
That is not true with inspire courage.
The conjurer who summons from invisibility is a long standing tactic.You are probably thinking of PF1, it worked differently in that edition.
This was one of my first realizations in early PF2, that plenty of scenarios used this tactic. So people adapting PF1 instances into PF2 have to upgrade the Invisibility (among other changes in tactics).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You are probably thinking of PF1, it worked differently in that edition."
(Grognard moment) Thinking back a lot longer than that ;)
I think the concept of "harm" is the problem here. Is doing non lethal "harm"? If I command a summoned creature to do a trip action is it "harm"? If I make my allies better at harming you is it "harm"? If I cast a sustained area effect spell that an enemy walks into on his turn have I done "harm" on his turn? I see this as widely open to interpretation, and I think it deserves clarification or there will be significant table variation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions.
Inspire Courage only goal is to cause harm. Inspire Courage being an offensive buff, it is obvious that you do it with the intent of harming (or helping harming). In my opinion, it is a hostile action.
On the other hand, Inspire Defense would not break invisibility, as its goal is to protect and won't increase the harm your companions do, but decrease the harm they take.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions.Inspire Courage only goal is to cause harm. Inspire Courage being an offensive buff, it is obvious that you do it with the intent of harming (or helping harming). In my opinion, it is a hostile action.
On the other hand, Inspire Defense would not break invisibility, as its goal is to protect and won't increase the harm your companions do, but decrease the harm they take.
Note that Inspire Courage does actually provide a defensive buff against Fear as well. So its goal is not just to harm.
Note that Inspire Courage does actually provide a defensive buff against Fear as well. So its goal is not just to harm.Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions.Inspire Courage only goal is to cause harm. Inspire Courage being an offensive buff, it is obvious that you do it with the intent of harming (or helping harming). In my opinion, it is a hostile action.
On the other hand, Inspire Defense would not break invisibility, as its goal is to protect and won't increase the harm your companions do, but decrease the harm they take.
If you use it just for this buff, it would not be an offensive action. It's a question of intention. But I hardly doubt people use Inspire Courage just for the small bonus to saves against fear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you use it just for this buff, it would not be an offensive action. It's a question of intention. But I hardly doubt people use Inspire Courage just for the small bonus to saves against fear.Note that Inspire Courage does actually provide a defensive buff against Fear as well. So its goal is not just to harm.Plz note i am currently undecided on this myself, just trying to consider all the ramifications. Like with Inspire Courage. Is giving an attack bonus indirectly causing harm? It seems like it should be, as it ups the chance harm will be caused.Inspire Courage has no potential to cause any harm as a result of that action. Other actions must be taken, by other characters, for any harm to result. And you didn't take those actions.Inspire Courage only goal is to cause harm. Inspire Courage being an offensive buff, it is obvious that you do it with the intent of harming (or helping harming). In my opinion, it is a hostile action.
On the other hand, Inspire Defense would not break invisibility, as its goal is to protect and won't increase the harm your companions do, but decrease the harm they take.
Okay, but you also aren't causing a negative consequence to an enemy, either directly or indirectly. You're making a negative consequence more likely but only affecting allies. If you command a minion, you are responsible for the action that causes negative consequence. You have given the minion actions with which it will only try to harm (generally speaking, but there are exceptions here that I don't think would break invis either like directly ordering it to run away).
Unless you are dominating your own party, Inspire Courage is non-hostile in that manner. If it provided your party with a reaction that caused an attack, it would break it because you have caused negative consequence.
In general, strengthening your allies (haste, inspire courage, etc.) do not cause negative consequence to an enemy. Only positives for your party that may be later applied in a harmful way.
Okay, but you also aren't causing a negative consequence to an enemy, either directly or indirectly. You're making a negative consequence more likely but only affecting allies. If you command a minion, you are responsible for the action that causes negative consequence. You have given the minion actions with which it will only try to harm (generally speaking, but there are exceptions here that I don't think would break invis either like directly ordering it to run away).
Unless you are dominating your own party, Inspire Courage is non-hostile in that manner. If it provided your party with a reaction that caused an attack, it would break it because you have caused negative consequence.
In general, strengthening your allies (haste, inspire courage, etc.) do not cause negative consequence to an enemy. Only positives for your party that may be later applied in a harmful way.
Hostile action: "Sometimes spell effects prevent a target from using hostile actions, or the spell ends if a creature uses any hostile actions. A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For instance, lobbing a fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be. The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action."
In the sentence "opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be", the important word is: accidentally. If opening a door was never a hostile action, there would not be this accidentally word. As such, opening a door for an ally to charge an enemy is a hostile action. Anything that helps someone hurt someone else is a hostile action. So I think Inspire Courage is clearly meant to be hostile in that regard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I follow your argument, so here's my take:
I can think of a way that opening a door is a hostile action: if the door is triggering a trap or hazard, and the one opening it knows that.
The problem with "hostile" and spells seems to come from the fact that, Ingame, in Golarion, the spell somehow knows what is a hostile action, and what is not. Which comes down to the caster's (or affected creature's) intend.
If you want to harm someone, it counts as hostile, so much is clear. If you didn't know that by doing something, others come to harm, it would not count as hostile.
And if you want to help your allies, that probably also isn't really hostile.
Going by that, I'd say sustaining a summon is likely a hostile action, helping your allies fight better probably isn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you can retain invisibility if you aren't aware of the harm you're causing? Interesting...
Thank you all for your response!
Inspire Courage is only a harmful action if casting Heroism is.
So you can retain invisibility if you aren't aware of the harm you're causing? Interesting...
I love that video. I wore the pyro goggles in-game for the rest of the time I played it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you can retain invisibility if you aren't aware of the harm you're causing? Interesting...
Hire someone to cast an appropriate Fabricated Truth on you, never break invisibility again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you can retain invisibility if you aren't aware of the harm you're causing? Interesting...Hire someone to cast an appropriate Fabricated Truth on you, never break invisibility again.
If you have access to Fabricated Truth though, you likely have access to Dissappearance
Inspire Courage is only a harmful action if casting Heroism is.Or casting/sustaining bless
You mean expanding bless? It isn't a sustained spell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, Inspire Defense would not break invisibility, as its goal is to protect and won't increase the harm your companions do, but decrease the harm they take.
But by reducing the harm they take, you're reducing the chance that they go down in combat and therefore increase the amount of total harm they can potentially cause.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can make a lot of decisions about what is a Hostile SCT By That logic. You could also say that healing an ally is a hostile act, because it enables them to keep fighting, thereby indirectly inflicting harm. There is no hard definition drawing a sharp, unambiguous categorization of every potential Hostile Action.
A lot of those things that you could declare to be indirectly hostile would be bad calls.
Use judgement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the point of your action is that bad stuff (including damage) happens to another creature, it's a hostile action.
The quote from the CRB is not unclear on this matter - it even says "whether directly or indirectly" (emphasis mine)
So yes, you having your summoned creature or commanded animal (companion or otherwise) attacking absolutely, clear as day, breaks your invisibility because it's a hostile action.
The full quote is "A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly. . . "
100% of all actions that a character takes "can" harm another character "indirectly".
When the party's fighter is unconscious during a fight, going over and healing him means he can get back and up and start swinging his sword again. So absolutely healing the fighter will cause indirect harm to the enemies. As written, this would make healing spells hostile actions, as would virtually 100% of the things that characters do, all of which "can" cause "indirect" harm to others.
So a literally reading of the rule is not helpful unless you want to rule that invisibility is broken the second the wizard does anything.
I think putting the emphasis on "indirectly" is putting the emphasis in the wrong place.
As a GM, I'd put the emphasis on "hostile" and ask whether using this outside of combat would be perceived as a "hostile" action by NPCs that witness the action.
So healing, casting a flight spell, talking to your friends, etc would not be considered "hostile". Nobody who say you do those things, outside of combat, would automatically assume you had hostile intentions.
On the other hand, anybody who witness you tell your summoned creature to attack somebody, would very clearly consider that to have been a hostile action. If somebody saw your use telekenisis to start a land slide over somebody's head they'd consider that hostile. And to the original post, concentrating to maintain a spell that is currently attempting to burn somebody to a crisp would most certainly be considered a hostile thing to do by anyone who saw you do it.
|
If you have hostile intent but cannot act on it, this would not break Invisibility. If you Inspire Courage but none of your allies attack, it should not break it either. In fact you could Inspire Courage preventively before a fight actually starts and it would not break Invisibility. Same for casting Magic Weapon.
Would people attack you for casting those spells but not attacking?
Casting a spell that has only one possible use, and that single use is to facilitate the harming of other people, would most certainly be viewed as a hostile action by me.
Casting inspire courage or magic weapon is like lighting the fuse on a stick of dynamite, turning on your gattling gun so it starts spinning, or loading your buddy's bazooka and then tapping him on the head and saying "your loaded, fire when ready."
It is a clear indication that you are planning on doing harm.
If somebody came into my house, lit a stick of dynamite, and set it down on my kitchen counter I would consider that a very hostile thing to do.
I wouldn't say "well, it's not hostile yet. It's only hostile if the dynamite goes off."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say "well, it's not hostile yet. It's only hostile if the dynamite goes off."
Is it a hostile action to light a match?
If your answer to the first question is no, then it follows that it remains no, even as you contemplate the rest.
If your answer to the first question is no, then it follows that it remains no, even as you contemplate the rest.
No, that doesn't follow at all.
Then casting Mage Armor would have to be "hostile" too, as would many, many others that are, well... not. Do you consider people who study martial arts to be hostile? After all, by your logic, there's only one reason to do that.Casting a spell that has only one possible use, and that single use is to facilitate the harming of other people, would most certainly be viewed as a hostile action by me.
Casting inspire courage or magic weapon . . .
No.
People who study martial arts also learn how to duck and block. And their ducking knowledge will last a lifetime. Mage armour protects against harm, and has many uses other than getting into a fight. Plus it lasts for 24 hours.
Casting magic weapon has one use, and one use only: hurting another person within the next 60 seconds.
You're basically saying a smith crafting a pair of shears is taking a hostile action because 12 years later some one might just pick up these old shears and stab someone with them - that's not at all what a literal reading of "indirect" means.
Actually, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
I'm saying that crafting sheers is NOT a hostile action, in spite of the fact that it could indirectly result in harm at a future time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about Intimidation, Demoralize and Frightening? Would a Bard that tries to Demoralize someone while invisible, pretending to be a ghost, break Invisibility, even though the Frightened condition is temporary and does not cause any actual harm? How about the same Bard casting Dirge of Doom?
Can you give some examples of actions you believe an invisible PC could take during a hostile encounter, which would not break invisibility?
That's easy to answer: Any action you would take outside a hostile encounter.
Outside a hostile encounter, you will heal the Fighter, you will cast Mage Armor or Inspire Defense if you need to protect yourself, you will forge weapons or scout ahead. But you would never cast Magic Weapon or Inspire Courage without a hostile creature (or a potential hostile creature). Because these are hostile actions.| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I super disagree with SuperBidi that casting magic weapon or inspire courage are hostile actions that would pop invisibility.