| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm going to rule that direct attacks/hostile actions pop invisibility in my games, regardless of what the rules say. It's a much clearer line than "indirect hostile actions" and isn't as likely to provoke arguments.
In Canadian law, when it comes to intent, the phrasing is that a person knew or OUGHT to have known what consequences their actions would bring.
I think this sentiment works very well with how you should think of it in game. If you cast magic weapon on your ally's sword who is currently using that sword to attack an enemy, that's a directly hostile action.
Likewise, if you are inspiring courage on your ally beating up someone, that's hostile. You're directly improving their morale and helping them beat the person up.
This has real world precedence as well. If you're cheering someone on while they assault somebody, you can be charged as a party to the offense.
In Canada at least. But I think it makes perfect sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue comes with their example. Opening a door can be a hostile action. If opening a door is a hostile action, then everything can be a hostile action.
For Invisibility, I would be ok with forbidding it during combat (as it has out of combat utility). But for Sanctuary, it looks strange to me, as it only has combat utility.
At the end of this discussion, I'm quite puzzled.
Maybe is because english is not my main language, but I don´t see debuffs as harm or hostile by default.But what about being under Sanctuary and debuff an enemy...Negative conditions are harm, no question about it. Debuffs are hostile actions.
Tripping, grappling, sickening, frightening, blinding.
These are debuffs. They are hostile actions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.That's false.
They clearly do not mean "can harm or damage another creature" in the sense of hypothetical possibility - they mean now. As such cssting heal is only hostile if the creatures you target with it (or that are in the area if using the 3-action casting) would take damage.
The sidebar on page 444 is meant to help us all understand stuff like this. To paraphrase: read rules with the goal of making them actually functional and balanced - not with a goal of bending them out of shape to get some benefit or prove that they don't function.
Bolded mine.
Note that I completely agree with you on what really should be considered a hostile action.
But it is not what is written in the text quoted above. And as soon as we mention "what is meant" , we are in RAI territory.
The RAW definition of a hostile action is far from clear enough to get everyone on the same page.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue comes with their example. Opening a door can be a hostile action. If opening a door is a hostile action, then everything can be a hostile action.
And there's the rub.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is obvious to me that intention matters a lot. But when I cast Inspire Courage, I intend to strengthen my allies, not to harm my enemies. Subtle distinction, I guess, but there nonetheless.
When I open a door I intend to add an ally to the fight, not harm my enemies. Subtle distinction, I guess, but there nonetheless.
|
|
It is obvious to me that intention matters a lot. But when I cast Inspire Courage, I intend to strengthen my allies, not to harm my enemies. Subtle distinction, I guess, but there nonetheless.When I open a door I intend to add an ally to the fight, not harm my enemies. Subtle distinction, I guess, but there nonetheless.
I think that depends on what you expect to come from the door. If it is a monster hell-bent on destruction who will immediately focus on destroying your enemies, then you are directly intending to harm your enemies.
If it is merely reinforcements who are actualy free to choose not to harm your enemies, then it is not hostile in my book.
I think that example is just horrible to begin with. Doesnt really make anything clearer; quite the opposite.
It is obvious to me that intention matters a lot. But when I cast Inspire Courage, I intend to strengthen my allies, not to harm my enemies. Subtle distinction, I guess, but there nonetheless.When I open a door I intend to add an ally to the fight, not harm my enemies. Subtle distinction, I guess, but there nonetheless.I think that depends on what you expect to come from the door. If it is a monster hell-bent on destruction who will immediately focus on destroying your enemies, then you are directly intending to harm your enemies.
If it is merely reinforcements who are actualy free to choose not to harm your enemies, then it is not hostile in my book.
That's ridiculous, you gave twice the same examples. Even worse, the monster has great chances to attack you as you are close to the door, which would be the less hostile thing that could come out of your door opening, when the reinforcement will always attack the enemies, being a clear hostile action by the book.
"This is no hostile action, I'm striking with an intelligent sword, it has the free will to refuse!"
I think that depends on what you expect to come from the door. If it is a monster hell-bent on destruction who will immediately focus on destroying your enemies, then you are directly intending to harm your enemies.
If it is merely reinforcements who are actualy free to choose not to harm your enemies, then it is not hostile in my book.
I think that depends on what you expect to come from magically enhancing your ally. If it is a bonus that causes additional damage to your enemies, then you are directly intending to harm your enemies.
If it is merely a boost to those who are actually free to choose not to harm your enemies, then it is not hostile in my book.
I think that example is just horrible to begin with. Doesnt really make anything clearer; quite the opposite.
I'm a member of PETA [People Expatriating Terrible Abominations]! Freeing the creature is the only righteous action as holding it against it's will is wrong! Every creature can become a contributing member of society but you have to give it chance first! What could be hostile with letting it be free to escape? ;)
I think that depends on what you expect to come from magically enhancing your ally. If it is a bonus that causes additional damage to your enemies, then you are directly intending to harm your enemies.
What if it does both? Say a spell has offensive and defensive elements like Fire Shield or Reflective Scales.
Can the weapon strike by itself if you dont swing it?
An intelligent item has it's own actions and can activate it's own abilities so it's possible it can attack on it's own. A Dancing weapon can indeed strike by itself if you don't swing with it.