| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was in PF1, but in PF2 knowingly unleashing a danger at an opponent is considered hostile.
It works for Summons and for eidolons.
So, the answer is yes. You and your eidolon are one after all.
Yes, if the summoner class could employ that sort of tactic, they would be the first example of a character that could do so in PF2, not the next in a long line.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Commanding an animal companion to attack should be considered hostile.
Sustaining a spell that does damage should be considered hostile.
Making a non-damaging Attack trait skill action like Grapple should be considered hostile.
Making a non-damaging non-Attack trait skill action like Feint should be considered hostile.
Having a familiar with Independent and Spellcasting use its one action to cast a one-action spell like Magic Missile should probably still be considered hostile for the familiar's master.
So I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be considered hostile for a Summoner if their Eidolon attacks. Ruling otherwise opens the door to a lot of other 'possibly non-hostile' hostile actions.
Case can be made that you don't command the Eidolon. In fact, this is a case where you made a hostile action through inaction. I can see someone objecting.
|
Your eidolon acts independently of you, but due to the connection to the summoner they share actions. This is explained in how actions are distributed when one of the parties is controlled, under the "Lost And Altered Actions" section. I personally would treat Eidolons as their own entity for the sake of hostile actions, since they technically make their own decisions in combat. They are just cooperative with the summoner due to the connection they share.
Case can be made that you don't command the Eidolon. In fact, this is a case where you made a hostile action through inaction. I can see someone objecting.
Does that ruling also hold for the Independent, Spellcasting familiar that makes its own decision and takes its own action to cast Magic Missile?
There are separate situations where your ally attacking has an effect. But an Eidolon is a separate entity.
I agree commanding an ally to attack is hostile, but an eidolon or independant companion or familiar can act without being commanded.
The whole hostile or not can get quite vague.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Case can be made that you don't command the Eidolon. In fact, this is a case where you made a hostile action through inaction. I can see someone objecting.Does that ruling also hold for the Independent, Spellcasting familiar that makes its own decision and takes its own action to cast Magic Missile?
Let's look at the rules: an Independent Familiar acts as you want unless the GM objects. So, it's clearly an ally NPC that the player controls for convenience. It shouldn't break Invisibility if it performs a hostile action.
For Summoner, it's a bit more complicated because of shared actions. For the Eidolon to make a hostile action, the Summoner needs to allow it, there's an actual action taken by the Summoner. So, if the Eidolon attacks, we can consider that the Summoner made a hostile action. On the other hand, if the Summoner attacks, the Eidolon hasn't had the choice and as such didn't perform a hostile action.
This is strict RAW but I could understand a GM ruling otherwise. I'm on the side of considering Heal and Inspire Courage as hostile actions as they indirectly harm enemies. The RAI is quite clear but I think a lot of players want to find an exploit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule hints for the summoner even clarify that the summoner is the one in control. The eidolon will not object to anything or do something against the summoners will unless for RP reasons.
A summoner can always hinder the eidolon attacking by just not giving it any actions. RAW an eidolon attacking is a willing hostile action of the summoner.
To me this is verging into the area of the Fourth Wall. Is it the Summoner or the Summoners player that is doing this? The answer depends on how you view your character.
Is it okay then if the eidolon does not attack your enemy, since the Summoner is not in control ?
Yes of course. The Eidolon is not the character, it's technically an NPC played by the player. The GM may decide that the Eidolon doesn't perform an action, for RP reasons. Even if I think this should be handled with the player consent.
|
|
The rule hints for the summoner even clarify that the summoner is the one in control. The eidolon will not object to anything or do something against the summoners will unless for RP reasons.
A summoner can always hinder the eidolon attacking by just not giving it any actions. RAW an eidolon attacking is a willing hostile action of the summoner.
The rule explains that you, the Player, can decide that, not the PC. The GM can always overrule you when it comes to companions, but the rule explains that the Eidolon is usually cooperative with the Summoner because of their bond. If the Summoner were to order their Angel Eidolon to kill innocent civilians for example, the Eidolon could easily refuse, as that is not something an Angel would do. The Eidolon wouldn't turn on the summoner, but they might lose them as a partner if they try stuff like that too much. It's even mentioned in the Eidolon Contact background that you can lose an Eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it okay then if the eidolon does not attack your enemy, since the Summoner is not in control ?Yes of course. The Eidolon is not the character, it's technically an NPC played by the player. The GM may decide that the Eidolon doesn't perform an action, for RP reasons. Even if I think this should be handled with the player consent.
The rule explains that you, the Player, can decide that, not the PC. The GM can always overrule you when it comes to companions, but the rule explains that the Eidolon is usually cooperative with the Summoner because of their bond. If the Summoner were to order their Angel Eidolon to kill innocent civilians for example, the Eidolon could easily refuse, as that is not something an Angel would do. The Eidolon wouldn't turn on the summoner, but they might lose them as a partner if they try stuff like that too much. It's even mentioned in the Eidolon Contact background that you can lose an Eidolon.
I agree. That tracks with the responses I've gotten in my "AC support benefit for eidolon?" thread.
If a summoner has an AC from the Beastmaster Archetype, the eidolon can't receive support benefit on its strikes from, say, a Bird AC.Because the eidolon isn't YOU.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, I would say no. Invisibility doesn't break on any hostile action. It is explained what is considered an attack and what breaks invisibility and commanding a summoned creature or eidolon to attack is not considered an attack in PF1. PF1 makes this clear that causing harm indirectly is not considered an attack.
But in PF2, I would say yes, you lose your invisibility. The eidolon does what you tell it, even if it is capable of acting independently. It attacks who you tell it to attack. You use Act Together to manage its actions. You decide everything it does. It would be a real stretch to allow you to to choose targets while claiming to the DM that it was just picking targets on its own. If it attacks someone you tell it to attack, you did a hostile action. You summon a creature to attack and you did a hostile action. You do an intimidate at someone, you did a hostile action.
I don't think PF2 invisibility can get around you causing your eidolon to attack or act in a hostile manner towards an enemy. That is clearly a hostile action, which breaks a 2nd level invisibility.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rule explains that you, the Player, can decide that, not the PC. The GM can always overrule you when it comes to companions, but the rule explains that the Eidolon is usually cooperative with the Summoner because of their bond. If the Summoner were to order their Angel Eidolon to kill innocent civilians for example, the Eidolon could easily refuse, as that is not something an Angel would do. The Eidolon wouldn't turn on the summoner, but they might lose them as a partner if they try stuff like that too much. It's even mentioned in the Eidolon Contact background that you can lose an Eidolon.The rule hints for the summoner even clarify that the summoner is the one in control. The eidolon will not object to anything or do something against the summoners will unless for RP reasons.
A summoner can always hinder the eidolon attacking by just not giving it any actions. RAW an eidolon attacking is a willing hostile action of the summoner.
Commanding the eidolon to kill innocents even if it doesn't is a hostile action and would break invisibility. Unless of course someone can find a PF2 definition of a hostile action that makes it so so such a command doesn't meet the criteria.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that the Eidolon is entirely capable of determining threats for itself. It does not need the PC to tell it what to do in order to act, it can do that perfectly fine on its own. It has it's own will and can refuse orders if against it's nature, and even leave if the Summoner pushes it too far.
Eidolons aren't mindless drones following your every command and by comparing them to ACs you're diminishing just how powerful of beings they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that the Eidolon is entirely capable of determining threats for itself. It does not need the PC to tell it what to do in order to act, it can do that perfectly fine on its own. It has it's own will and can refuse orders if against it's nature, and even leave if the Summoner pushes it too far.
Eidolons aren't mindless drones following your every command and by comparing them to ACs you're diminishing just how powerful of beings they are.
According to the rules you control it. If it is attacking enemies of yours per your "request" if that is how you want to see it, that is a hostile action and your invisibility ends. There's no getting around the simple idea of a hostile action unless you can find a specific definition of a hostile action in PF2 that contradicts the simple definition. That definition may even exist given all the strange little rules all over the place in PF2.
Manifesting your eidolon with the intent to have it attack is a hostile action.
It attacking your enemies due to your request is a hostile action.
You could even argue it attacking on its own is a hostile action because you manifested it and did not stop it from attacking it even though you could stop it.
If you use Boost Eidolon to boost its damage, you did a hostile action.
It does not specify invisibility breaking because of an attack like PF1. It specifies that if you use a hostile action of any kind the 2nd level invisibility breaks.
You summoning an eidolon to do battle with enemies is a hostile action whether that eidolon is summoned when the battle starts or you bring it to the fight later.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So healing you allies so they can keep fighting is hostile? Casting Fly on someone so they can reach an enemy is hostile? Moving into a choke point so that an enemy can't just walk away would be hostile? At this rate, literally thinking bad thoughts about someone would be a hostile action then. You guys take this way too far.
In the end the rule is that the GM decides so this whole thread is useless.
OP, there's no solid rule about what a Hostile action is, only that "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." It's up to the GM to decide what that means.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would set a bad precedent if Eidelons could attack of their own volition. And if the attack's not of their volition, whose is it?
The Summoner's.
At the very least it's like opening the door for a beast to come out and attack. The attacking creature's presence (whether the beast or the Eidelon) is the fault of the invisible person taking/allowing the hostility. And I can't think of any instance where a Summoner can say "I had no idea! I had nothing to do with it." At the very least, the Summoner ceded actions over to the Eidelon, which IMO mirrors "opening the door".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So healing you allies so they can keep fighting is hostile? Casting Fly on someone so they can reach an enemy is hostile? Moving into a choke point so that an enemy can't just walk away would be hostile? At this rate, literally thinking bad thoughts about someone would be a hostile action then. You guys take this way too far.
In the end the rule is that the GM decides so this whole thread is useless.
OP, there's no solid rule about what a Hostile action is, only that "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." It's up to the GM to decide what that means.
You could go pretty wide with this definition.
In the interest of plain language, I would say healing does not directly or indirectly cause harm or damage. It heals an ally doing no damage, only restoring hit points. That ally may or may not cause harm that round, you don't know and neither do they.
Fly also does not do damage or harm directly or indirectly as the individual could use the fly spell to go save a child or move to a different location for that round.
But I think it is pretty clear that an eidolon that you summoned attacking another creature is doing damage or harm directly or indirectly due to your actions as you and the eidolon share all actions which you determine.
There's no getting around this claiming independence unless I hear otherwise from the designers. If your eidolon attacks, it breaks invisibility for you is how I would run it. The eidolon is your weapon doing harm due to your actions summoning it and controlling/requesting/commanding or however you want to see it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So healing you allies so they can keep fighting is hostile? Casting Fly on someone so they can reach an enemy is hostile? Moving into a choke point so that an enemy can't just walk away would be hostile? At this rate, literally thinking bad thoughts about someone would be a hostile action then. You guys take this way too far.
In the end the rule is that the GM decides so this whole thread is useless.
OP, there's no solid rule about what a Hostile action is, only that "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." It's up to the GM to decide what that means.
You could go pretty wide with this definition.
In the interest of plain language, I would say healing does not directly or indirectly cause harm or damage. It heals an ally doing no damage, only restoring hit points. That ally may or may not cause harm that round, you don't know and neither do they.
Fly also does not do damage or harm directly or indirectly as the individual could use the fly spell to go save a child or move to a different location for that round.
But I think it is pretty clear that an eidolon that you summoned attacking another creature is doing damage or harm directly or indirectly due to your actions as you and the eidolon share all actions which you determine.
There's no getting around this claiming independence unless I hear otherwise from the designers. If your eidolon attacks, it breaks invisibility for you is how I would run it. The eidolon is your weapon doing harm due to your actions summoning it and controlling/requesting/commanding or however you want to see it.
Sorry but I am firmly against this. But I can't make that case on a pure rules basis. Don't click the button.
Sometimes spells 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, casting
fireball into a crowd would be a hostile action, but opening
a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster wouldn’t
be. The GM is the final arbitrator of what is a hostile action.
Why? because you have already missed the point. Its about actions not words.
The Eidolon is the one doing the hostile action. The Eidolon breaks whatever protection the Eidolon might have had can can be attacked in return.
The Summoner has done nothing directly. They can still be under a separate Sancutary or Invisibility.
It doesn't make a huge deal of difference as the Summoners hit points are on the line anyway with the Eidolon. So this is not a balance problem that the GM needs to interfere in.
Having the distinction between the two entities is important. I'm not seeing any rules reason to break that.
Secondly you have to be reasonable about it and draw sensible lines. These game elements have to work.
Yes technically words and thoughts like mentally or verbally commanding some one to attack is hostile. And technically they are actions. But that is a bridge too far and makes invisibility unplayable.
I mean scouting invisibly then calling out the location of a guard is hostile towards that guard by any reasonable measure. You know the rest of the party is going to attack them. Thats the thing almost anything can be hostile if you extend your thinking. The santuaried cleric healing a hurt barbarian is arguable hostile to the people on the other end of the barbarian's axe.
So I don't consider commands and verbal free actions to be hostile actions, but note that a lot of the spells that care about such things have extra wording eg Charm cares about threats etc.
Draw sensible lines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So healing you allies so they can keep fighting is hostile? Casting Fly on someone so they can reach an enemy is hostile? Moving into a choke point so that an enemy can't just walk away would be hostile? At this rate, literally thinking bad thoughts about someone would be a hostile action then. You guys take this way too far.
In the end the rule is that the GM decides so this whole thread is useless.
OP, there's no solid rule about what a Hostile action is, only that "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." It's up to the GM to decide what that means.
You could go pretty wide with this definition.
In the interest of plain language, I would say healing does not directly or indirectly cause harm or damage. It heals an ally doing no damage, only restoring hit points. That ally may or may not cause harm that round, you don't know and neither do they.
Fly also does not do damage or harm directly or indirectly as the individual could use the fly spell to go save a child or move to a different location for that round.
But I think it is pretty clear that an eidolon that you summoned attacking another creature is doing damage or harm directly or indirectly due to your actions as you and the eidolon share all actions which you determine.
There's no getting around this claiming independence unless I hear otherwise from the designers. If your eidolon attacks, it breaks invisibility for you is how I would run it. The eidolon is your weapon doing harm due to your actions summoning it and controlling/requesting/commanding or however you want to see it.
Sorry but I am firmly against this. But I can't make that case on a pure rules basis. Don't click the button.
** spoiler omitted **...
Scouting does not cause harm or damage directly or indirectly by use of the action. But having an eidolon or summoned creature attack does. Hostile actions are defined in PF2. Harm or damage is clear.
It's not about sensible lines. It's about applying the rule.
I myself do not find it sensible to allow a summoner to cast a 10 minute invisibility that breaks on hostile actions while sending his eidolon to attack and boosting its damage. I think that is a very clear exploitation of both RAI and RAW. I will not be allowing it.
You are by all means allowed to do as you want in your campaigns. I think the rule is very clear. The eidolon is causing harm and damage with its actions. You can argue whether this is direct (your command) or indirect (you summoned it). Boosting its damage is even less vague as you have taken an action to directly boost its damage when attacking.
It's not an unclear ruling given the hostile action description.
Just as in PF1 it was very clear this was allowed not only with the eidolon, but summoned creatures as well. If you weren't the one doing the attacking, you could usually stay invisible. But PF2 invisibility has much less latitude.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think that both of those are valid approaches to take. And in fact, I am suggesting a third rather than refuting either of them.
Consider the intent and purpose of the spell.
What is the intent of the Invisibility spell? With the restriction on taking hostile actions, the purpose seems to be either avoiding combat or escaping combat. You can't cast the lower level Invisibility spell and then continue combat. Finding strange rules loopholes that circumvent this restriction seems to be power gaming at best and likely is just outright munchkinry.
So using Invisibility for scouting out the locations of an enemy seems like a legitimate use. Either trying to avoid those sentry obstacles, or set up ambushes is fine with me. Likewise, healing an ally while under the protection of Sanctuary seems right and proper. That is basically the intent of the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scouting does not cause harm or damage directly or indirectly by use of the action.
Yes of course. If you scout the enemy position before attacking them you are definitely following a hostile course of action.
It's about applying the rule.
Everyone in this discussion wants to apply the rule. Clearly, healing a downed Barbarian when you know it will resume attacking is in the same ballpark than opening a door to release an angry creature. From a strict application of the rule, the only thing you can do are purely defensive actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scouting does not cause harm or damage directly or indirectly by use of the action.Yes of course. If you scout the enemy position before attacking them you are definitely following a hostile course of action.
It's about applying the rule.Everyone in this discussion wants to apply the rule. Clearly, healing a downed Barbarian when you know it will resume attacking is in the same ballpark than opening a door to release an angry creature. From a strict application of the rule, the only thing you can do are purely defensive actions.
Not true. Scouting is an exploration activity and isn't considered a hostile action because actions don't get used in exploration mode.
The term hostile action has a specific meaning when using actions within the rule set.
But as far as I read it a hostile action requires the following:
1. You must be in encounter mode using actions.
2. A hostile action directly (casting an attack spell, intimidating, using a weapon on a target) or indirectly (summoning a creature and ordering it to attack, ordering an eidolon to attack, casting a wall of fire that does damage) causes damage or harm.
If you are aware the action you are taking will cause harm directly or indirectly due to that action, then the spell breaks when the action causes harm or damage.
It states GMs are able to determine that at their table.
It would be interesting to read how PFS runs hostile actions with eidolons and invisibility. I'll leave it there as that is how I see it and will play it until I see a ruling that contradicts how I view it.
If invisibility is broken on the Summoner because the eidolon's actions are actually the Summoners actions, then just Invis the Eidolon because they are never taking a hostile action themselves. Seems like a logical extrapolation of the arguments for losing invis so far.
For those who state that opening a door to intentionally release a monster is considered a hostile action, I like to point out that is not actually RAW, rather it is inferred from that unintentionally releasing is RAW non-hostile.
I do not dispute the premise that releasing a monster intentionally, whether mundanely or magically with the intent to do harm is hostile, the creatures actions are the creatures action, s, but there is a difference between Rukes as Written' and there being no actual writing which says that 'intentionally releasing a monster to do harm is hostile'.
The class description makes it clear the eidolon is its own creature; that you Share MAP and Action Enconomy is different from the creatures actual actions: the Summoner would not trigger opportunity attacks if the Eidolon triggered it despite the shared actions for ex. If you specifically instruct the Eidolon to take action, that breaks the Summoners invis, but if the eidolon indepently selects? Then no.
That said, you might be invisible, but you also have a big glowy sigil that points out wherever you are, obviating much of the benefits of invisibility anyway, regardless of how this is ruled.
And how would you determine if the summoner commanded it? Let the DM pick the targets? Let the DM run the eidolon? How do you go about that within the rules text?
This is not about flavor roleplay text. Within the rules text the eidolon and summoner share actions. When the eidolon acts the summoner is acting and vice versa. Act Together is a tandem action.
You could let the GM run the eidolon and I could see a GM allowing the claim of independence in regard to hostile actions. I would allow that if I chose the targets and played the eidolon as an independent entity acting in accordance with its intelligence and motives.
If a player wants to go that far to be able to use a 2nd level invisibility, I'd probably let them have at it and play their eidolon according to the personality given. Not sure the player would like that, but that's what it would take for me to go that far.
This whole eidolon not using hostile actions to at least indirectly harm or damage doesn't fit the hostile action definition well. If the summoner is casting boost eidolon under a 2nd level invisibility and choosing targets according to his perception of tactical combat, then while sharing all actions, MAP, and a reaction, I'd say that is pretty clearly the summoner engaging in hostile actions.
I can't think of a better way to keep players away from the summoner class than what some of you are proposing.
The whole hostile or not can get quite vague.
I agree. It was quite clear in 1e, but for whatever reason, 2e really muddied the waters on this one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of a better way to keep players away from the summoner class than what some of you are proposing.I agree. It was quite clear in 1e, but for whatever reason, 2e really muddied the waters on this one.
The whole hostile or not can get quite vague.
It's not that unclear, though.
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.
In essence, once you decide to command a Summons or Eidolon to attack (which is indirectly being harmful to a creature), your Invisibility goes away. Similarly, if you unshackle a known beast to unleash it upon others, the spell ends.
It's a somewhat lame rule (since it really hinders using indirect tactics on enemies or even PCs from a GM perspective), and a bit of a nerf for summoning spellcasters, but the RAW is clear, and even if there are gray areas, GM has final say on what is or isn't allowed with the above intent to consider.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to rephrase then, Darksol the Painbringer:
In 1e, there wasn't much table variation. Everyone was more or less on the same page. Now, in 2e with their new definition of "hostile action," table variation is all over the place and nobody knows what to expect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree the rules currently creates a far large interpretation of what's a hostile action. Especially indirect long time actions.
Is an invisible character planting a Spike Snare considered a hostile action?
Put a trap that causes damage can be considered a hostile action because it intentionally causes damage and you can even put it in or out of encounter mode.
I agree with SuperBidi here. Following the RAW strictly the only thing you can do are purely move and defensive actions. Even infiltrate in a place to put a poison in the food of a noble could be considered as hostile action and breaks an assassin invisibility. Curiously if instead an invisible character accidentally drop a bomb or activate a trap that damage someone this is not considered a hostile action by raw.
This rule has clear intention to prevent exploits that's happen in old versions but instead creates many confused interpretations that's valid in raw.
For balance questions I don't see a big problem in a summoner commands the eidolon to attack and keep his invisibility (of course if the summoner could ever become invisible while eidolon is manifested because whe already have the other question that's if it even possible become invisible once it can easily counted as a "disguise attempt" for summoner sigil purposes). Once the eidolon still keeps on sight and shares de the summoner HP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the sake of shared understanding, I'm going to flat out ignore the idea of indirect hostilities in my games.
I can better handle the occasional player exploit better than I can having to make case by case rulings every time someone cast invisibility or sanctuary and risking the potentialire of players who disagree. Who needs that kind of disruption in their games?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree the rules currently creates a far large interpretation of what's a hostile action. Especially indirect long time actions.
Is an invisible character planting a Spike Snare considered a hostile action?
Put a trap that causes damage can be considered a hostile action because it intentionally causes damage and you can even put it in or out of encounter mode.
I agree with SuperBidi here. Following the RAW strictly the only thing you can do are purely move and defensive actions. Even infiltrate in a place to put a poison in the food of a noble could be considered as hostile action and breaks an assassin invisibility. Curiously if instead an invisible character accidentally drop a bomb or activate a trap that damage someone this is not considered a hostile action by raw.
This rule has clear intention to prevent exploits that's happen in old versions but instead creates many confused interpretations that's valid in raw.
For balance questions I don't see a big problem in a summoner commands the eidolon to attack and keep his invisibility (of course if the summoner could ever become invisible while eidolon is manifested because whe already have the other question that's if it even possible become invisible once it can easily counted as a "disguise attempt" for summoner sigil purposes). Once the eidolon still keeps on sight and shares de the summoner HP.
Yes, a character planting a snare with the intent to harm another creature is a hostile action. It doesn't matter if it's doing it only to protect itself, the fact that it will cause harm to the creature (which is the whole point of the snare) counts, especially if we take the concept of "Them or Me" in regards to combat and survival. Hostility is required, therefore it triggers and breaks Invisibility.
Just as you say, an assassin attempting to poison someone would break the Invisibility as well, after the poison is administered, based on the other rules of when Invisibility ends. The rule is all about intent; if you intend to harm somebody or something, no matter the reason, the spell breaks.
In your accident scenario, you can't accidentally drop bombs (and have them explode) outside of houserules (such as fumble cards), and even if you took the Release action, it doesn't break the bomb by RAW, in the same way that potions and elixirs don't break when dropped. The "accidentally trigger a trap" would fall under the same clause as the "accidentally release a monster" example they list in the book.
It's really not that complicated. You just don't like the rule. Which is fine. But that doesn't make it a bad or non-functioning rule.
The question isn't really don't like the rule and is more about the sensation that we brought from the old versions. In D&D and PF1 we have a more freely usage of invisibility spell, once that only restriction is not attack/cast. But when we check this here anything that could be considered intended hostile even can break the invisibility even the mostly indirect ones. Completely depending from interpretation of GM and even the player (who can try to exploit the interpration if was purpours or noot) and may even starts a big discussion in middle of game play if "the invisible player with evasion that pass through and trigger a fireball trap that he has detected and avoided before was intended or not".
I personally don't like when the game gives a rule so vage to dubious interpretations. This can easily creates necessary discussion during gameplay because the GM is doubting if the player made the char activate a trap, open a door with a monster that will attack the foes was a intentional move or not.
PF2 sometimes creates problems like this, some balanced focused solution to avoid exploits that sometimes creates a rules discussion with during gameplay (this happen to me sometimes) about what interpretation is valid because the lack of some more cleear and objetive rule.
"Complicated" isn't the right word. "Fuzzy" maybe; as in where to draw the line isn't distinct and clear, but broad and fuzzy.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to rephrase then, Darksol the Painbringer:
In 1e, there wasn't much table variation. Everyone was more or less on the same page. Now, in 2e with their new definition of "hostile action," table variation is all over the place and nobody knows what to expect.
It was done on purpose to prevent the Invisible summoning character shenanigans, among others, that the PF1 RAW allowed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was done on purpose to prevent the Invisible summoning character shenanigans, among others, that the PF1 RAW allowed.Allow me to rephrase then, Darksol the Painbringer:
In 1e, there wasn't much table variation. Everyone was more or less on the same page. Now, in 2e with their new definition of "hostile action," table variation is all over the place and nobody knows what to expect.
An unnecessary step too far if you ask me. Especially considering both invisibility AND summoning aren't what they once were.
Balancing is one thing. Balancing to the point that it causes disruption and nobody knows how the game is supposed to be played is quite another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But can I go invisible and cast Illusory Object to my heart's content?
Different answers from different GMs.
Fuzzy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But can I go invisible and cast Illusory Object to my heart's content?Can it be used to harm people ?
Illusory Object of a bridge crossing an actual dangerous pit.
The spell doesn't actually specify if creatures can climb on the illusion and have it support their weight. I suspect not considering that it is a special ability of Wall of Stone that it can be used to build bridges. Allowing that on a 1st level spell seems too powerful.
|
|
If you knowingly cast it this way to trick people into trying to cross and fall, that is hostile.
I think that is why they left it fuzzy. The GM has the far better understanding of the situation to assess what is hostile and what is not.
And hostile action from the eidolon ends invisibility for both in my game.
Yup, which is why I suggest using the three-fold test. RAW of Hostile Actions, RAI of Hostile Actions, and intended use of the spell or action the character is using.
Because it is a binary decision (is hostile, or is not hostile) and there are three checks, at least two of the checks will agree with each other.
Taking the Independent familiar casting a spell as an example:
RAW of Hostile Actions says 'not hostile'
RAI of Hostile Actions says 'is hostile'
Intended use of character's action says 'is hostile'
So I rule it as a hostile action.