Sustaining hostile spells and Invisibility


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why wouldn't it?


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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

p. 305 of the CRB:

"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."

I don't think this could be clearer. Sustaining a Flaming Sphere is a hostile act and would end invisibility.


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.


7 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.


Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.

I would rule no, because the harm to the other creature only ensues if the buffed character does something hostile. So the chain of causation is broken. (To use an example even further up the chain, it wouldn't be a hostile action to scout with invisibility, even if you're doing it to attack more effectively later.) But I could see a reasonable argument going the other way based on the "indirectly" language.

On the other hand, a reaction that granted a bonus to an ally's attack roll would be a hostile action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"can harm or damage another creature" and "ups the chance harm will be caused" are clearly not the same thing, even when accounting for that hostile actions can be indirect.

An indirectly harmful hostile action would be something like the earlier example of commanding a summon to attack, or an action like "I'm gonna trigger a rockslide" - where what you do is the cause rather than just a factor.

Having used a buff doesn't make you the cause of anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
The conjurer who summons from invisibility is a long standing tactic.

You are probably thinking of PF1, it worked differently in that edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.
Aratorin wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.
mrspaghetti said wrote:
"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.
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
mrspaghetti said wrote:
"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.

There will always be those who try to twist obvious intent. I think it would be safe to say that anything with the Attack trait performed by the invisible creature would constitute a hostile action, but there would be many other acts without that trait which would also qualify as hostile. I think there are legitimate gray areas, but the scenario depicted by the OP is not one of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.
SuperBidi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.


Alyran wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.

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.
SuperBidi wrote:
Alyran wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Bongo BigBounce wrote:
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.
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.

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.


Alyran wrote:

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.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


Ravingdork wrote:
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.
Ravingdork wrote:
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.
Xenocrat wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Inspire Courage is only a harmful action if casting Heroism is.

Or casting/sustaining bless


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Kennethray wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
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.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:


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.


Squiggit wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:


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.

Pretty sure you're just being difficult now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:

A lot of those things that you could declare to be indirectly hostile would be bad calls.

Use judgement.

That's correct. I think the simplest way of looking at it is to add a third category to the mix that illustrates where a line can be drawn:

Direct harm: the immediate result of your action is harmful (i.e. Strike or an attack/debuff spell) = hostile action.

Indirect harm: the point of your action is to cause harm, but the action itself doesn't directly cause that harm (i.e. commanding an animal companion to attack, pushing over a lit brazier on someone) = hostile action.

And then the new one; Tangential harm: neither the direct result, nor the general point of your action is harm, but the action results in increased degree or chance of harm should other parties also act in particular ways.

And that's not a hostile action.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

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.

Liberty's Edge

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.
Kulgore wrote:
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?

Spoiler:
Is it a hostile action to hand an item to an ally?

Spoiler:
Is it a hostile action to strike a match and light a candle an ally is holding?

Spoiler:
Is it a hostile action to strike a match and light a candle that your ally is holding and they hand it to another ally?

Spoiler:
Is it a hostile action to light a match if the second ally intends to set off dynamite with the candle?

If your answer to the first question is no, then it follows that it remains no, even as you contemplate the rest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kulgore wrote:

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."

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. You're taking the word "indirectly" to an unreasonable extreme, in my opinion.

Edit: I think the mention of "indirectly" in the rules is to close a PF1 loophole that was mentioned right on the Invisibility spell for that edition. It gave an example of cutting the ropes supporting a bridge while your enemies were on it not breaking Invisibility. In this edition, that is "hostile". Healing your fighter is not, nor is casting Magic Weapon or Mage Armor or Inspire Courage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kulgore wrote:
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.

There's literal reading, and there's overly-literal reading.

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.

It is clear, to most folks at least, that in this context "indirect harm" isn't referring to this circumspect maybe eventually or tangentially your action will contribute to the harm of something, but is referring to actions taken which the purpose of and intent behind is to do harm but are not doing so directly

Such as triggering a rockslide to crush someone (indirect) rather than throwing a rock at them (direct).

Paizo definitely wasn't trying to trigger a philosophical analysis about severely indirect harm like some woman never being able to be invisible because every moment that she doesn't turn her son in for being a mass murderer is doing harm to whoever his next victim ends up being or the like.


Draco18s wrote:
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.


mrspaghetti wrote:
Kulgore wrote:

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 . . .

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.

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.


thenobledrake wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Negative conditions are harm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kulgore wrote:
mrspaghetti wrote:
Kulgore wrote:

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 . . .

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.

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.

Can you give some examples of actions you believe an invisible PC could take during a hostile encounter, which would not break invisibility? If your interpretation were the one intended by devs, then it would be nearly worthless for all but recon* until it could be heightened.

*And even that is arguable, since the typical purpose of recon is eventual hostile action.


mrspaghetti wrote:
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.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I super disagree with SuperBidi that casting magic weapon or inspire courage are hostile actions that would pop invisibility.

1 to 50 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Sustaining hostile spells and Invisibility All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.