I'd rule the same as you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules of the spell (to me) make it pretty clear it's only talking about moving squares. If you were 30ft away and it had a melee attack that had a 30ft range I'd say it's fair game for the creature to smack you with it, as the spell only affects (square) movement. It doesn't prevent the creature from attacking you in any capacity, the wording is pretty specifically about movement.
Now, as a GM I would probably warn you (if you had seen the long reach melee attack) that repulsion isn't going to work well because the creature can still currently reach you.
Of course, that can be solved by simply moving away after casting so it's not as though all is lost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For something that would (possibly) prevent the creature from attacking (the target of the spell) see the sanctuary spell.
It's a first level spell compared to repulsion, and allows a save each turn, and only affects one individual (ally or self) but clearly is very different from repulsion.
So I think the ruling made by you and your GM is not consistent with the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have followed RAW on this one. The spell is quite clear about what it does and this isn't a "special case" where you use a spell in an unspecified but interesting situation, like a Cone of Cold to freeze a pond. In my opinion, Repulsion is clearly only preventing movement.
Also, remember that repulsing attacks is strongly improving the spell. Currently, you can't approach a creature with Repulsion without taking the risk of retaliation. If you now repulse attacks, you can safely position yourself next to a creature, even beat it with a stick, without suffering from potential retaliations. That's a big improvement, it's very close to a save or suck spell without Incapacitation tag, which is something that doesn't exist in PF2.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
SuperBidi makes a good point.
Looking at the 30' extremes might make it seem Repulsion should work, but to the creature, you're just within arm's length. This exact argument would work to keep the Monk at bay at 5' and maybe even weapon-wielders as they're obviously thrusting their hands forward while striking.
And that'd be grossly overpowering.
Not only would you have an impenetrable force shield vs. melee, but it'd be one-way and you could strike enemies in return. So a big no.
---
Though now I'm wondering if that wouldn't be a powerful combo w/ a Reach weapon despite having to choose of whether you have poor spell DC or poor attack rolls. Or maybe just tell allies to swap over. Of course at these levels so many creatures have Reach or ranged attacks or Dimension Door that'd be an iffy tactic ultimately, albeit still strong for control.
SuperBidi makes a good point.
Looking at the 30' extremes might make it seem Repulsion should work, but to the creature, you're just within arm's length. This exact argument would work to keep the Monk at bay at 5' and maybe even weapon-wielders as they're obviously thrusting their hands forward while striking.
And that'd be grossly overpowering.
Not only would you have an impenetrable force shield vs. melee, but it'd be one-way and you could strike enemies in return. So a big no.---
Though now I'm wondering if that wouldn't be a powerful combo w/ a Reach weapon despite having to choose of whether you have poor spell DC or poor attack rolls. Or maybe just tell allies to swap over. Of course at these levels so many creatures have Reach or ranged attacks or Dimension Door that'd be an iffy tactic ultimately, albeit still strong for control.
I'm going to defend the original posters judgement here. It is not unreasonable or too powerful. That is exactly what the Repulsion spell does: total protection from melee, but not ranged. A 30ft reach is an extreme scenario and not available to 99.9% of monsters or characters. Yes large enough reach does defeat Repulsion. But it is not unreasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SuperBidi makes a good point.
Looking at the 30' extremes might make it seem Repulsion should work, but to the creature, you're just within arm's length. This exact argument would work to keep the Monk at bay at 5' and maybe even weapon-wielders as they're obviously thrusting their hands forward while striking.
And that'd be grossly overpowering.
Not only would you have an impenetrable force shield vs. melee, but it'd be one-way and you could strike enemies in return. So a big no.---
Though now I'm wondering if that wouldn't be a powerful combo w/ a Reach weapon despite having to choose of whether you have poor spell DC or poor attack rolls. Or maybe just tell allies to swap over. Of course at these levels so many creatures have Reach or ranged attacks or Dimension Door that'd be an iffy tactic ultimately, albeit still strong for control.I'm going to defend the original posters judgement here. It is not unreasonable or too powerful. That is exactly what the Repulsion spell does: total protection from melee, but not ranged. A 30ft reach is an extreme scenario and not available to 99.9% of monsters or characters. Yes large enough reach does defeat Repulsion. But it is not unreasonable.
Since you're saying large enough reach does defeat Repulsion you are NOT defending the OP's judgment. You're agreeing with us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first instinct was to side with the OP. But after reading SuperBidi and Castilliano, I see that point. Why would it keep a creature from reaching into your square from 30 feet, but not from 5 feet? A creature in melee at 5 feet would be "approaching" you with limbs or weapons the same way a creature from 30 feet would. Basically would be giving you melee invulnerability in that case.