| 3 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.
My rule of thumb is that if an independent person making their own decisions has to do something to actually cause harm, your action did not cause them harm. So ordering a mind controlled enemy or a minion to attack is harm, buffing an ally who you're quite certain is going to attack but you aren't forcing to attack is not harm.
I super disagree with SuperBidi that casting magic weapon or inspire courage are hostile actions that would pop invisibility.My rule of thumb is that if an independent person making their own decisions has to do something to actually cause harm, your action did not cause them harm. So ordering a mind controlled enemy or a minion to attack is harm, buffing an ally who you're quite certain is going to attack but you aren't forcing to attack is not harm.
Unfortunately, it's not the rule, as this sentence says: "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 word accidentally is not accidental. If you open a door and free a horrible monster on purpose it's a hostile action. If you help someone making a hostile action then you are performing a hostile action. You can't Aid on someone's Strike without becoming visible.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about Haste? Haste gives an extra action to Stride or Strike. Does that break Invisibility? If so, when?
Wizard Casts Haste.
Fighter's turn: Strike, Strike, Strike, Stride. Did he use his extra action to Strike or Stride? Does Invisibility drop as soon as the spell is cast? or only once the Fighter Strikes. What if the Fighter merely Strides 4 times? Is that hostile? Does he have to stride toward an opponent? What if he strides away from one opponent, but up to another? What if he is just slightly closer to another? Maybe the fighter wouldn't have taken the third strike? Can you say? Do we have to consider the play style of the specific player? "Well he rarely (but not never) takes that third attack."
Now if you draw the line at buffs, you never have to ask any of these questions. Buffs are a no, debuffs are a yes.
What about Haste? Haste gives an extra action to Stride or Strike. Does that break Invisibility? If so, when?
Wizard Casts Haste.
Fighter's turn: Strike, Strike, Strike, Stride. Did he use his extra action to Strike or Stride? Does Invisibility drop as soon as the spell is cast? or only once the Fighter Strikes. What if the Fighter merely Strides 4 times? Is that hostile? Does he have to stride toward an opponent? What if he strides away from one opponent, but up to another? What if he is just slightly closer to another? Maybe the fighter wouldn't have taken the third strike? Can you say? Do we have to consider the play style of the specific player? "Well he rarely (but not never) takes that third attack."Now if you draw the line at buffs, you never have to ask any of these questions. Buffs are a no, debuffs are a yes.
IF your table ruling is to count buffs as a hostile action (not a universal interpretation), then Invisibility would break when you cast Haste with harmful intent, not during the fighter's turn. It's your hostile action that matters, not the result that comes of it, that you may or may not predict.
| 2 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.My rule of thumb is that if an independent person making their own decisions has to do something to actually cause harm, your action did not cause them harm. So ordering a mind controlled enemy or a minion to attack is harm, buffing an ally who you're quite certain is going to attack but you aren't forcing to attack is not harm.Unfortunately, it's not the rule, as this sentence says: "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 word accidentally is not accidental. If you open a door and free a horrible monster on purpose it's a hostile action. If you help someone making a hostile action then you are performing a hostile action. You can't Aid on someone's Strike without becoming visible.
You can't let yourself be bound by the illogical foolishness of the writers when they're leaning out over their skates. If I deliberately free a "horrible monster" and my invisibility breaks, but he doesn't attack, at what point does my invisibility come back? Or is it the case that if I buff a friend who I think is going to attack I break invisibility, regardless of what he does, but if I'm moronically pacifistic and optimistic and think my barbarian friend isn't really going to use his axe anymore in combat I can cast Heroism on him in combat because I think he's just going to do a Performance check and I can't be responsible if he lets me down?
You can't let yourself be bound by the illogical foolishness of the writers when they're leaning out over their skates. If I deliberately free a "horrible monster" and my invisibility breaks, but he doesn't attack, at what point does my invisibility come back? Or is it the case that if I buff a friend who I think is going to attack I break invisibility, regardless of what he does, but if I'm moronically pacifistic and optimistic and think my barbarian friend isn't really going to use his axe anymore in combat I can cast Heroism on him in combat because I think he's just going to do a Performance check and I can't be responsible if he lets me down?
Well, from the rules, it looks like the intent is what makes you break Invisibility.
Anyway, it's the only reason you can justify the fact that you break Invisibility when commanding your Animal Companion to attack. An Animal Companion is not braindead, it's a creature who voluntarily obeys your orders.
You can't let yourself be bound by the illogical foolishness of the writers when they're leaning out over their skates. If I deliberately free a "horrible monster" and my invisibility breaks, but he doesn't attack, at what point does my invisibility come back? Or is it the case that if I buff a friend who I think is going to attack I break invisibility, regardless of what he does, but if I'm moronically pacifistic and optimistic and think my barbarian friend isn't really going to use his axe anymore in combat I can cast Heroism on him in combat because I think he's just going to do a Performance check and I can't be responsible if he lets me down?Well, from the rules, it looks like the intent is what makes you break Invisibility.
Anyway, it's the only reason you can justify the fact that you break Invisibility when commanding your Animal Companion to attack. An Animal Companion is not braindead, it's a creature who voluntarily obeys your orders.
It voluntarily permanently surrendered any future ability to disobey your orders unless controlled by outside magic. So it is effectively braindead when you command it.
An Animal Companion is not braindead, it's a creature who voluntarily obeys your orders.
But your animal companion is not a creature. It's a game piece. And by using the action to command them to attack, you are moving the game piece in a way that causes harm to another creature.
Buffing the party does not involve moving a game piece to harm another creature.
It voluntarily permanently surrendered any future ability to disobey your orders unless controlled by outside magic. So it is effectively braindead when you command it.
It doesn't surrender anything. You make that up to justify your point of view. Animal Companions have all their mind.
|
i can't see "buffing" as causing either direct or indirect harm.
i can see "debuffing" causing indirect harm
i can see commanding something to go strike somethng else as indirect harm
i dont see commanding something to do a double stride as either direct or indirect harm
Buffs - I would give most buffs a pass, that is UNLESS it's being applied to an ally who is actively engaged in combat which I would personally consider hostile toward your opponent. Healing, Haste, or really any mechanical benefit granted to them whatsoever (such as Aid Another checks) could be grounds for losing invisibility.
Debuffs - Nods head
Commands - Agreed 100% with you on this, it is situational depending on your command. For example, telling your Minion to retreat shouldn't end invisibility but telling it to move into a flanking position should.
At the end of the day, it's always come down to a judgment call by the GM though which, I think, is working as intended.
We should also not forget that hostility, like harassment, is defined not by the person taking any such action but those who are impacted by or who witness it. The only thing you REALLY need for a given course of action to be considered hostile is for it to be acting in opposition to another creature. Giving your friend a mean or menacing look probably wouldn't be considered hostile but if you did that with a police officer or anyone in a position of authority over you on the other hand... you might very well be in for a long day-week-month-lifetime due to the consequences you provoked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, it's not the rule, as this sentence says: "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 word accidentally is not accidental. If you open a door and free a horrible monster on purpose it's a hostile action. If you help someone making a hostile action then you are performing a hostile action. You can't Aid on someone's Strike without becoming visible.
That line is so fuzzy, it's not even recognizable as a line. Rulings would be highly inconsistent, at best, and unenforceable at worst.
A rule needs to be clear to be an effective rule. That is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I mean: even Heal is very much on the fence here: If there are undead in the area of effect, casting heal is harmful, but what if you didn't know the attackers that took out two of your allies and are barely hurt are undead?
Unfortunately, it's not the rule, as this sentence says: "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 word accidentally is not accidental. If you open a door and free a horrible monster on purpose it's a hostile action. If you help someone making a hostile action then you are performing a hostile action. You can't Aid on someone's Strike without becoming visible.
That line is so fuzzy, it's not even recognizable as a line. Rulings would be highly inconsistent, at best, and unenforceable at worst.
A rule needs to be clear to be an effective rule. That is not.
In my opinion, the reason why people are annoyed by this rule is that in the past you could use Invisibility during combat and still participate. Hence this discussion: People are searching for what they can do during a combat without taking hostile actions. It's ridiculous. Maybe the whole point of this rule is: You can't stay invisible during a combat if you participate, period. Combats are based on hostility. So all of your combat actions (unless they are aimed at stopping or escaping the fight) will directly or indirectly harm someone.
Easy to apply, and you don't have to wonder if healing the Fighter is an indirect hostile action.
Yeah, I mean: even Heal is very much on the fence here: If there are undead in the area of effect, casting heal is harmful, but what if you didn't know the attackers that took out two of your allies and are barely hurt are undead?That's literally covered by the example of not knowing that opening the door would cause harm, so heal isn't on the fence - it's definitely not breaking your invisibility, except if it definitely is because you know you're going to harm undead by casting it.
Right, sorry. I didn't type out my complete question:
So, what if the player or character doesn't know but suspects the attackers to be undead? Does the invisibility now end depending on whether the attackers actually are undead or not?
Or does it end anyway because the cleric intends to harm but doesn't actually harm the suspected (but not actually) undead attackers?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gosh, it really is tricky. But let's take a stab at narrowing down hostility.
1) Direct harm certainly breaks invisibility. Even if you didn't mean to hurt anyone with your area Heal, if you did, then it breaks invisibility.
2) I would consider inflicting conditions on someone to usually be hostile, especially in a combat like context where they'll be followed up on. But I can imagine a more Scooby-Doo like scenario where you're just trying to pretend to be a ghost and scare people off nonviolently and then I might allow it. So debuffing in combat is generally hostile.
3) Coming to the indirect harm - cutting the rope bridge is definitely hostile.
4) Indirect harm by enabling - we have a rule saying that accidental enabling isn't hostile, like opening the door for the horrible monster you didn't know about. I guess casting Haste on a party member that you thought was just going to Stride towards the exit four times is also okay, but if he then has a change of heart and attacks, you're not responsible.
5) Commanding minions, and things like opening the kennel with the trained attack dogs - I'd say enabling these is probably hostile. Key for me is that the critters aren't really making any decision; you're making a decision by commanding them or opening the cage.
6) Buffing allies, enabling allies - is opening the door so the fighter can walk in hostile? It could indirectly result in harm. (Yes, I just called your party member a horrible monster.) I don't think I'd count it as a hostile act though - while you're buffing the other character, the other character still gets to choose whether to actually take any hostile actions.
7) Far-fetched long-range indirect effects - if I use Invisibility to escape the fight now, I could come back tomorrow with better spells prepared. Is that indirectly causing harm? I think that's stretching the text way, way beyond the intent.
Unfortunately, it's not the rule, as this sentence says: "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 word accidentally is not accidental. If you open a door and free a horrible monster on purpose it's a hostile action. If you help someone making a hostile action then you are performing a hostile action. You can't Aid on someone's Strike without becoming visible.
That line is so fuzzy, it's not even recognizable as a line. Rulings would be highly inconsistent, at best, and unenforceable at worst.
A rule needs to be clear to be an effective rule. That is not.
In my opinion, the reason why people are annoyed by this rule is that in the past you could use Invisibility during combat and still participate. Hence this discussion: People are searching for what they can do during a combat without taking hostile actions. It's ridiculous. Maybe the whole point of this rule is: You can't stay invisible during a combat if you participate, period. Combats are based on hostility. So all of your combat actions (unless they are aimed at stopping or escaping the fight) will directly or indirectly harm someone.
Easy to apply, and you don't have to wonder if healing the Fighter is an indirect hostile action.
But wouldn't not getting in combat cause harm to indirectly come to someone else since your not an availble target? So by staying invisible someone else got hurt and therefore your (in)actions caused indirect harm.
And now we're getting into the realm of "why Asimov's three laws are not a solution to real AI safety."
See also: Do we fall into an “artificial intelligence” trope or is it reality?
If that were the intent then it could have been much more clearly articulated. It would be a huge departure from how Invisibility has always worked.
"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."
When you think about it, it's extremely clear. The problem is that people want to play around the rule. Like: "I'm buffing my teammate with Inspire Courage which gives bonuses to damage and attack but it won't indirectly harm someone". You don't need a convoluted application of the rules to see that Inspire Courage aims at harming people indirectly. That's the whole point of this spell.
I agree with SuperBidi.
But I will point out that "I am not aware that those enemies are undead and I use 3-action Heal on my allies" still falls into a weird spot. Those enemies DO take damage, directly, even if you were unaware.
And that should probably break invis.
Same could be true for other AOE effects that don't normally trigger a harmful effect. E.g. a specific creature type that suffers damage when it witnesses an enemy receive a buff (for sake of argument, just some effect that does not normally break invis). The player expects their buff to not break invis, they do it, the enemy takes damage, and then...
Either invis fails (direct harm clause -> unexpected behavior)
or it doesn't ("hey I can just keep doing this forever!" -> exploit)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with SuperBidi.
But I will point out that "I am not aware that those enemies are undead and I use 3-action Heal on my allies" still falls into a weird spot. Those enemies DO take damage, directly, even if you were unaware.And that should probably break invis.
Same could be true for other AOE effects that don't normally trigger a harmful effect. E.g. a specific creature type that suffers damage when it witnesses an enemy receive a buff (for sake of argument, just some effect that does not normally break invis). The player expects their buff to not break invis, they do it, the enemy takes damage, and then...
Either invis fails (direct harm clause -> unexpected behavior)
or it doesn't ("hey I can just keep doing this forever!" -> exploit)
Your conclusion there is not quite right.
The enemy takes damage. Invisibility doesn't break. If the player then says "Hey, I can keep doing this forever!" and attempts to exploit, invisibility DOES break the next time, because they now know that they'll be doing damage, and so the same action is now hostile, when it wasn't before.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gentlemen, gentlemen, there is a solution here you're not seeing.
Just don't use Invisibility in combat. If something is so heavily dependent on GM fiat that you will more often than not feel you have no agency on your character's actions, then don't use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't overthink this when it comes to my games. I use hostile's primary meaning (according to Webster: "of or relating to an enemy".)
By that measure attempting to inflict negative conditions and damage (things done to enemies) is hostile. Positive conditions and healing (things done to allies) are not.
I take indirect as 'controlled by you, but not from you.' If you have total control over something that would inflict a negative condition or damage to an enemy, it breaks your invisibility. This includes items (Horn of the Ram), deliberating setting off traps, or commanding a minion. It doesn't include actions that might influence uncontrolled behavior. A totally hostile monster behind a door might count as a trap for these purposes, but that is the only case with leeway.
So Inspire Courage? Positive effect, therefore it wouldn't break invisibility, but it probably would make you hidden rather than undetected to those within earshot.
Using Illusory Creature to try to scare an opponent into a trap? Okay, so long as you aren't making a Demoralize, Shove, or Strike via the creature. If a creature not controlled by you decides on its own to flee a dragon, that is far enough removed from you.
Casting a Wall of Fire to try and scare them? Hostile. Wall of Fire deals damage. Wall of Ice can also deal damage, so it is out.
Casting a Wall of Stone to try to make them go a different direction? Okay. Difficult terrain isn't an effect on the creature, and that is the only thing the spell does that could be interpreted as inflicting a negative condition (destroyed wall segments are difficult terrain).
So you can use Summons and Animal Companion as you don't have total control over them. You can also cut the ropes of the bridge as long as someone else is also doing it (you don't have total control). You can't strike a rope to cut it with your sword because Strike is a hostile action even if it's not done on a creature (same example than your Wall of Fire which is a hostile action whatever your intent).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If something is so heavily dependent on GM fiat that you will more often than not feel you have no agency on your character's actions, then don't use it.
Feeling like you have no agency when rules involve the GM making a judgement call is a long, long way from a universal assumption.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If something is so heavily dependent on GM fiat that you will more often than not feel you have no agency on your character's actions, then don't use it.Feeling like you have no agency when rules involve the GM making a judgement call is a long, long way from a universal assumption.
And in fact that's not what I've written.
|
|
And in fact that's not what I've written.If something is so heavily dependent on GM fiat that you will more often than not feel you have no agency on your character's actions, then don't use it.Feeling like you have no agency when rules involve the GM making a judgement call is a long, long way from a universal assumption.
Do you mind clarifying what you were trying to say if that's the case?
I too got the same impression that HammerJack did based on what you wrote and am having a hard time parsing your message is it wasn't meant to convey: "Don't use features/rules/spells that require GM fiat that the player cannot control."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with SuperBidi.
But I will point out that "I am not aware that those enemies are undead and I use 3-action Heal on my allies" still falls into a weird spot. Those enemies DO take damage, directly, even if you were unaware.And that should probably break invis.
Same could be true for other AOE effects that don't normally trigger a harmful effect. E.g. a specific creature type that suffers damage when it witnesses an enemy receive a buff (for sake of argument, just some effect that does not normally break invis). The player expects their buff to not break invis, they do it, the enemy takes damage, and then...
Either invis fails (direct harm clause -> unexpected behavior)
or it doesn't ("hey I can just keep doing this forever!" -> exploit)
Which now of course leads to invisible enemies in range of said abilities causing you to lose invisibility over harm you couldn't ever possibly of intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you mind clarifying what you were trying to say if that's the case?
I too got the same impression that HammerJack did based on what you wrote and am having a hard time parsing your message is it wasn't meant to convey: "Don't use features/rules/spells that require GM fiat that the player cannot control."
It's an IF THEN statement. IF you worry about GM fiat, THEN don't use it in a way that tempts fate: say if you play with different DM [say PFS], you might want to expect table variance on it and plan according. If you don't worry about GM fiat, then the post doesn't apply to you. Simple.
|
|
And in fact that's not what I've written.If something is so heavily dependent on GM fiat that you will more often than not feel you have no agency on your character's actions, then don't use it.Feeling like you have no agency when rules involve the GM making a judgement call is a long, long way from a universal assumption.Do you mind clarifying what you were trying to say if that's the case?
I too got the same impression that HammerJack did based on what you wrote and am having a hard time parsing your message is it wasn't meant to convey: "Don't use features/rules/spells that require GM fiat that the player cannot control."
1) I didn't make any assumption (what would an universal assumption mean, I don't know), I made a suggestion.
2) My suggestion was based on an if statement. If statements define two forks:
Fork 1: if you feel represented by that statement, then feel free to follow my suggestion (or not, it's fine either way).
Fork 2: otherwise, my suggestion clearly doesn't apply to you, and I'm not here to convince you to change your mind on anything.
EDIT: Wow, @graystone, that's uncanny :D
To be honest, I think it was odd to throw those out because I though they were obviously covered with my examples.
Considering that you haven't understood my examples...
Anyway. If it's fine for you, it's fine for you.
Striking a rope, however, is not inherently hostile. Because it is not "of or related to an enemy", at least not unless your character for some reason thinks rope is the enemy. It would be just fine to cut a rope to drop a bridge and delay enemies from reaching your party. But if you cut the rope with enemies on it, your actions are immediately going to result in enemies taking fall damage and that's hostile.
But no setting the bridge up to fail later of course. So no invisible sabotage of things either break them outright or leave them alone.
But also what if in cutting the empty bridge your character knows the enemy now has to take a route sure to injury at least one of them? Can I now invisibly cut the rope? What about if I know I'm stranding someone in a area likely to cause them to suffer a detriment like kicking a ladder back into a tomb that i know the enemy is in and is full of awakening undead?
I know is less interesting than invisibility, but the same applies to Sanctuary.
Sanctuary applies when someone "attacks."
Invisibility breaks when you make a "hostile action."
Both of those have different definitions in the rules, so it's not really the same.
Oh, yeah, whoops. You're right.
|
|
If that were the intent then it could have been much more clearly articulated. It would be a huge departure from how Invisibility has always worked."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."
When you think about it, it's extremely clear. The problem is that people want to play around the rule. Like: "I'm buffing my teammate with Inspire Courage which gives bonuses to damage and attack but it won't indirectly harm someone". You don't need a convoluted application of the rules to see that Inspire Courage aims at harming people indirectly. That's the whole point of this spell.
It is indeed extremely clear and puts as hostile things that do not feel like it. For example casting a Heal, even only to heal your friends, will always be hostile since casting Heal can harm another creature and anyone casting it is well aware of this. Note that the definition does not need for a creature to actually be harmed.
Because of this and because it is so far from the PF1 version, there can be HUGE table variation about this, as shown by this thread. There goes my PFS concept of a dedicated buffer using all the protective spells that go away when you act hostile.
The mere fact that such a concept becomes not viable in PFS strikes me as a good hint that RAI is closer to PF1. Alas, RAW goes another way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The action of making someone stronger is not causing either harm or indirect harm. It may help them, but at that point it's *their* actions that cause the harm, nopt yours.
While true, the definition of hostile action includes a mention of accidentally freeing a monster as an action that doesn't count as hostile.
The use of 'accidental' suggests that knowingly releasing a horrible monster would be hostile.
Honestly though, I'm not sure it'd be that bad, thematically, if healing your allies was considered potentially hostile too.
Maybe it'd be okay to just firmly cement un-heightened invisibility as a non-combat spell, rather than this back and forth weaseling over definitions and arguing over degrees of separation we've been doing, trying to find the best way to fight without fighting to preserve that hidden condition.