At its root, Bon Mot is a hostile action (enough to lose Invisibility over) since you're applying a penalty to the opponent. Whether the opponent sees it as hostile is another matter, and likely the basis for the bonus. Note that the rules don't stipulate that and Bon Mot being hostile is enough for the bonus.
And while "bon mot" only means witty remark, it's not just that in this context, otherwise it'd effect the crowd, right? It's aimed at a specific target, who has to give a rejoinder to clear the condition. To me it sounds like you zinged them really good, which while not violent or threatening, is the action of an enemy, somebody hostile.
Essentially the caster's just insulted the target strongly enough to disorient them and then wants to charm them, make them friendlier. That should be harder IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what RAW would be, but I'd allow it in my games, at least - it seems like such a logical combo, honestly.
I tend to read "hostile action" as "action that would tend to cause someone to respond violently". Bon Mot you could easily get away with in a social situation without the target feeling "attacked", so I wouldn't typically rule it as a hostile action.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe Bon Mot plus Daze would be nice combo...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, Bon Mot isn't physical hostility.
Yet if applying penalties isn't hostile, that opens up a can of worms re: many spells. Heck, even Grapple, Disarm, etc. don't harm or damage.
Setting a target up for an aggressive spell seems like indirect harm, even if hit points are not involved. It's similar to tripping an enemy so you or an ally can smack them.
----
Stepping back a bit, you could have a PC ally (that the target doesn't know is your ally!) perform the Bon Mot and you're golden.
Well, unless initiative interferes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used this combo just last night, and would totally allow it in my games without penalty.
Sticks and stones can break bones, but words will never hurt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unrelated question: How do you pronounce Bon Mot in english?
A la French? Or bonn mott?
Ok, funny. It's nearly close to French.
In french, here is bon (sound doesn't exist in english). And mot is said like mo.
As a side note, meaning is close but not exact. Faire un bon mot means saying something witty. It's not necessarily an attack and if it's one it's more an intelligent and nice one that something hurtful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, funny. It's nearly close to French.
It's borrowed directly from french so it uses the same pronunciation and meaning (a witticism), just like hors d'oeuvres, raison d'être, and joie de vivre.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, funny. It's nearly close to French.
In french, here is bon (sound doesn't exist in english). And mot is said like mo.
As a side note, meaning is close but not exact. Faire un bon mot means saying something witty. It's not necessarily an attack and if it's one it's more an intelligent and nice one that something hurtful.
Have you seen the Ridicule movie?
Bon Mot sure can kill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it might be a bit harsh to try to define the rules for hostile action on hard set parameters of "gives a penalty" or else wouldn't moving into flanking be a hostile action?
I think there are some cases where Bon Mot would qualify as hostile, and some where it wouldn't, that is really up to the player to sell to the GM with their witty retort. If it comes across as a threat as opposed to an embarrassment then it probably should make the target harder to charm.
On the flip side, bon mot to charm is crossing over into some creepy emotional abuse territory that could be traumatic for some players and be one of those situations where you thought you were being funny and playing a game and now you have a friend that feels incredibly uncomfortable around you. These aren't necessarily the kinds of traumas that people feel real comfortable talking about casually when people get together to play a game, so it is a good idea to be cautious both as a player and a GM about creating a standard operating procedure out of an action series that is essentially gaslighting (breaking someone's confidence down until they question their own reality and start trusting you over their better judgement).
Again, I think there are situations where the combo won't read to anyone in the room that way, and the real offender in the combo is the charm spell and what it is being used for, which is where players and GMs really should want to be careful, but it is probably good to be aware that this appearingly mechanical hack could hurt someone without you realizing it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it... why is everyone acting like hostility means "physically threaten to deal damage?" It is in no way defined as this anywhere in the rules so you should instead really on the generally accepted meaning and definition of the word in plain English (or whatever other languages your rules are printed in).
That's a huge stretch, IMO, to limit the term hostility in this way since the term itself is FAR more encompassing than just literally attacking or attempting to physically harm someone. Giving somebody a mean look is hostility, raising your voice is hostility, and insulting them on a level that shakes them to the very core of their being absolutely is hostile.
Non-bo for my table, you're taking that penalty if you tried this just like if you tried to Bon Mot while invisible, you'd better bet you're no longer going to be transparent.
I don't get it... why is everyone acting like hostility means "physically threaten to deal damage?" It is in no way defined as this anywhere in the rules so you should instead really on the generally accepted meaning and definition of the word in plain English (or whatever other languages your rules are printed in).
That's a huge stretch, IMO, to limit the term hostility in this way since the term itself is FAR more encompassing than just literally attacking or attempting to physically harm someone. Giving somebody a mean look is hostility, raising your voice is hostility, and insulting them on a level that shakes them to the very core of their being absolutely is hostile.
Non-bo for my table, you're taking that penalty if you tried this just like if you tried to Bon Mot while invisible, you'd better bet you're no longer going to be transparent.
By this definition, wouldn't moving into position with the intention of potentially attacking be considered a hostile action as well? By that definition, almost everything that a character might consider doing before casting charm would probably constitute a hostile action as the goal is to then manipulate and control the character against their will. Maybe if you are going to read the rules so closely to what constitutes hostility you might want to make it clear to your players that spells like charm and invisibility have very limited utility in your campaign.
Which, again, is a fine position to take, but one that will probably not read as obvious to a lot of people at your table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that Charm and Invisibility are written in that way so as to communicate that they are supposed to be limited in that fashion.
I just don't see either of these things as being there to help setup offensive abilities... like.. at all. I view them as existing to facilitate non-combat strategies and actions.
Bon Mot, in particular, is especially egregious because it is one of the best debuffs a PC can use in the game, full stop, and it's not even tied to a limited resource and can be spammed on this same opponent over and over again fishing for a Crit Success. Being able to Bon Mot while invisible and then use Charm on a creature for example is just... heinously good, and that's not even touching on the dozens of other Spells and effects that target a Will save.
I don't really have any RAW to lean on here though because they left "Hostile Action" totally undefined but I personally just don't see any justification for treating it as being so limited as some people are implying it is. Some might say that my perspective is overly limiting to creativity and I suppose there is a fair argument to be made for that but from my angle, I have this instinct that if it were intended to be so narrowly defined (physically threaten to deal damage or harm) it would have been codified instead of being left to use the plain meaning of the word "hostile" itself.
Especially with spells like Charm (which will be wrestling narrative control away from a free thinking NPC), I think it is pretty important that a GM run them as they feel comfortable and if a player has a problem with that, then they should avoid those abilities in that GM's game.
I just also think that if you start to realize your interpretation of spells and abilities is pretty different from those expressed by others, then it is important to let your players know within a time frame that they can avoid being in a situation where they were sure an ability would work one way that won't be possible in your game. Illusions can fall into this category as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it... why is everyone acting like hostility means "physically threaten to deal damage?" It is in no way defined as this anywhere in the rules so you should instead really on the generally accepted meaning and definition of the word in plain English (or whatever other languages your rules are printed in).
Because English is a vague language. It always has context.
The term 'hostile action' in the game has a very broad definition.
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.
There is no mention of intensity of the hostility. Am I just vagely upset because you took the last beer, am I concerned about you because you are waiting at the side of this road at night.
You can come up with a definition of hostile that includes just about everything. Some examples:
Is walking behind someone hostile? Yes most real world people will interpret as that. That could indirectly harm someone by providing a flanking bonus.
Is hiding in the shadows hostile? If you have a knife in hand?
Is drawing a sword hostile?
Is summoning a creature (that is commanded not to attack) hostile?
Is casting Sanctuary a hostile act - because you are not trusting the other guy - that like putting on a suit of armour, that means you are getting ready to be hostile, that could lead to damage, that's hostile. Clearly this is daft.
Is casting wall of stone in the middle of the room hostile?
The rules for hostile action need a bit more cleaning up. The examples they list are the extreme, we need some more typical examples.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree that some possible hostile actions are tricky because they're more about enhancing yourself or changing the environment. But in the case of Bon Mot you're affecting someone else, giving them a substantial debuff; I'd say that crosses over into "harm".
|
|
The rules for hostile action need a bit more cleaning up. The examples they list are the extreme, we need some more typical examples.
Yeah, that what the main driving point I was getting at in that "hostile" interpretation is going to very much have table variation because it's left undefined which I think is very much undesirable given that I'm confident that the whole "uses a hostile Action..." mechanic is one that is likely to see use in future releases as well.
At my table, I'd personally run it as the following for your examples (as written at least).
Walking up behind - Non-hostile
Hiding in shadows (even with a knife) - Non-hostile
Drawing a sword - Non-hostile (Unless you're aiming to apply Flanking)
Sanctuary - Non-hostile (I view this as a buff)
Summoning of all kinds, Creatures, Walls, Objects, Companions, etc- Hostile (No matter what full stop)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would summoning always be hostile? What if I am summoning a creature deliberately to have a creature present who might facilitate conversation with another creature, or cast a healing or other beneficial spell on an NPC?
|
|
It's always hostile because it always adds another opponent or significant obstacle to the battlefield that takes up space and/or presents itself as a clear and present threat to the enemy even if you don't actively use it to threaten or attack the enemy.
Again, that's just my view of things so I won't asset that I'm objectively correct in any way, shape, or form but that's how I view it.
