Say you put down a QDS in combat, is it clear you spent your turn trapping?
And say you are invisible (level 2). Is it more hidden, or less hidden? Does it count as hostile for ending invisibility?
I appreciate all replies, but especially those with citations!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say you put down a QDS in combat, is it clear you spent your turn trapping?
I would rule that it is obvious that you are doing something there if you are being observed by an enemy while doing it. Just like if you draw a weapon or draw a bomb or begin activating a magic item - anyone watching you knows the general idea of what you are doing. They may not know what type of bomb it is, or what spell is going to be cast from the wand, but they can tell the difference between that and pulling out a healing kit or lockpicks.
And say you are invisible (level 2). Is it more hidden, or less hidden?
The snares themselves have to be detected and have a DC equal to the creator's crafting DC for that. That DC is assuming that the enemy did not watch you set up the snare. So that would apply if you were invisible or if you set it up while the enemies were not in the room.
Does it count as hostile for ending invisibility?
Probably. The rule for hostile actions lists any action that can cause harm, even if it is indirectly. Your invisible character only gets a pass if they were not aware before the action that what they were doing could cause harm to someone.
Setting a damaging snare is fairly obvious that the snare is going to cause harm.
-----
What you are probably looking for is Surprise Snare.
I'm looking to sneak up as close as possible to trap up the place.
And I was wondering if setting up the snare while invisibile makes it 0 information you did something there, as opposed to some information when you do it visibly.
It's definitely a bit of a bummer that it ends invisibility (I guess I was hoping that it was more like: fireball can cause immediate harm, even if you don't see anything in that space)
I could probably brew up a skill-based encounter to let you attempt what you are wanting to do using stealth checks and crafting checks. But there aren't any hard rules for allowing it. It just depends on if the GM wants to play along. (or in the case of PFS if they are allowed to do such things)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I won't make setting snares end invisibility. Because it doesn't have a target and may not even cause any harm to anyone. Hostile actions are unclear and breith is not the final judge on that :)
That is absolutely true.
I am basing my ruling on the wording that they use for the rule, rather than the examples.
A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly
That it is possible that it might not cause harm is not what I use to determine it. Because it is possible that throwing a fireball into a crowd could also not cause any harm ... if all of the people in that crowd are Rogues with Evasion and are 7 levels higher than the attacking character is.
So I rule that an action is hostile if it is possible to cause harm, not if it is possible that it doesn't cause harm.
But that isn't the only way to read it. And there is that last sentence too.
The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I set an alarm snare, so I can flee if something is coming up that ominous side corridor? Not hostile, I have no intent for it to harm anyone or expectation that it will do so.
I set a spike snare to stab someone that comes up the same corridor? The whole point is for someone to get stabbed. My intent is hostile.
It isn't hard if you just start from the concept that you can never get out of an action being hostile on a technicality, only by actually not expecting or intending harm.
There's no need for a universally defined boundary instead of a simple question you ask of each case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But might not harm doesn't matter, the question is "can it harm?", at least the way that hostile action is written.
A damaging snare can cause harm, that is in fact it's whole point. Doesn't matter if it never goes off, it can cause harm. Ergo, it's a hostile action. And hostile actions end invisibility.
In short, I wouldn't rely on invisibility to be able to set snares hoping an enemy will walk into them. Certainly not without talking to your GM about it and getting their feelings on it. Personally, I would have basically all snares (not alarm) break invisibility.
To me, the best way to use snares is when the enemy has no choice but to go through the squares. Or when you want to control terrain to an extent. Or you team up with someone who can force movement into the snares.
But yeah, generally speaking they're going to know you did something to that square. At best I might require a check to know that you were creating a snare, and possibly a craft check to specifically identify the snare (if they actually cared).
Yes, using snares is kind of hard.
But might not harm doesn't matter, the question is "can it harm?", at least the way that hostile action is written.
'Can it harm?' and 'does the character know that it can harm?'.
There does need to be a judgement call on things. Errenor is right in that if analyzed to the nth degree, everything could be considered able to cause harm.
Stride is not generally considered a hostile action (even if Striding towards an enemy with intent to attack them when they get there). The Stride itself doesn't cause harm. But it could. If you happen to step on the pressure plate of a trap, you may end up causing harm to yourself or other people in the area. But if you didn't know the trap was there, then Stride is still not hostile.
Now, if you knew that the trap was there and deliberately stepped on the pressure plate, then the Stride (or at least the part of stepping on the pressure plate) would be considered hostile.
So yeah, there is also the requirement that the character has a reasonable expectation that the action that they are doing has a good possibility of harming others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creating your own new definition of Hostile Action will certainly change how cases are ruled.
And Sanctuary is an Abjuration spell and Needle of Vengeance is an Enchantment spell.
You can flavor why a hostile action interacts with these various spells to your liking, but for the rules - a hostile action triggers the listed impact on the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the spell Invisibility is an illusion spell. It breaks on a hostile action because it disrupts the illusion. In that context, it's pretty obvious that it must be an immediate hostile action like a strike, a spell, or some other attack or observable assault, not a nebulous, theoretical, or metaphysical threat. Not stealing a key because it could get a guard disciplined for neglecting their duty, not dropping a banana peel because it might cause someone to slip today, tomorrow, or next week, nor crafting a snare normally
The crafting of the snare wouldn't be invisible, and would probably make noise, so that might be cause to prompt the opposition that something is going on thereabouts. I might rule that Surprise Snare and the like would break Invisibility though, because there's an instant effect
The current definition of Hostile Action makes it pretty clear, that your above statement is not correct (at least in my opinion):
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.
Under your definition, readying an attack wouldn't break invisibility, but under the original definition of hostile action it seems pretty clear that:
1) Either directly or indirectly causes harm2) The creature taking action believes that it will cause harm
But I do agree with another poster that said, it does need some nuance and independent GM adjudication because you can't possibly make a rule that works perfectly for all situations.
But invisibility failing to hide you while planting a snare doesn't seem like a weird case to me. Just something to be aware of.
Why would readying an attack break invisibility? Ready isn't the hostile action. The attack is the hostile action, if and when it occurs
I would agree with that. Readying an action and not using it is not hostile since the readying itself is not capable of doing harm.
Much like Stride towards an enemy. It doesn't by itself cause harm.
A spell's tradition, school, and traits should definitely be considered when deciding how to rule its unique mechanics. That's why they're defined
That I don't agree with. Either sentence.
I don't see anything in the spell general rules, tradition, school, or traits that override anything in hostile action rules or indicate that different spells should be treated differently. In fact I use the combination of Invisibility ending from a hostile action and Needle of Vengeance triggering on a hostile action as my two benchmarks for whether an action is hostile or not. A ruling on a particular action should be consistent for both of those spells.
And there are plenty of reasons for tradition, school, and traits on spells other than interacting with hostile action rules.
Why would readying an attack break invisibility? Ready isn't the hostile action. The attack is the hostile action, if and when it occursI would agree with that. Readying an action and not using it is not hostile since the readying itself is not capable of doing harm.
Much like Stride towards an enemy. It doesn't by itself cause harm.
Unfortunately that's just an oddity of how the rules are written.
In actuality I agree that readying to attack shouldn't break it, but it meets the definition of a hostile action.
It can cause harm, and the person readying the attack knows it can cause harm, thus it's a hostile action. Now, at my table I wouldn't run it that way. And the act of striking will break invisibility itself, so there's no really a true problem.
But readying is simply a weird case because you're not actually doing anything until a response to a stimuli. And that's why I wouldn't actually run it by strict RAW.
But placing a snare, which was the original question very clearly meets all the requirements for a hostile action and that's really all we need to worry about for this thread.
I think something people need to keep in mind, is that things are different from PF1 and 3.5. It use to be you could summon a monster, or cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs and stay invisible (all explicit examples in PF1 invisibility that you could get away with), and now you can't do those things.
People need to rethink how invisibility is going to work for them.
|
Hostile for all intents and purposes HAS TO include the intent of the action being taken as well as the precise and approximate effect that it actually has, otherwise the distinction is effectively meaningless and can/will be metagamed/munchkin'd.
There aren't that many things in the system that I think really benefit from caveats pointing to GM discretion but I must say that the meaning of Hostile for the purpose of Invisibility is one of the most important ones as there is no way they could have clearly defined Hostile well enough to make sense for every situation and encounter without printing a novella on that spell alone.
In this case, I'd have to rule on if it dropped Invis based on the type of Snare being used as well as the intent of what the PC/Player had in mind when going to set it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the meaning of Hostile for the purpose of Invisibility is one of the most important ones as there is no way they could have clearly defined Hostile well enough to make sense for every situation and encounter without printing a novella on that spell alone.
I disagree a couple of paragraphs could have done the job once. Rather than leaving it as a nightmare for the GM to interpret each time. The definition is too vague to be of much use.
each time would probably mean something like 1 or 2 times on the road from lvl 1 to lvl 20.
For low level invisibility, perhaps. Because it gets supplanted with the higher level version that doesn't react to hostile actions.
But a character that uses Sanctuary or Needle of Vengeance is going to do so often and for all of those levels.
If a Jungle Drake grabs a party ally on one round, the party's Witch casts Needle of Vengeance between the ally and the Drake, then for the Drake's next turn it uses Speed Surge three times to move a total of 6x its speed - do those three actions trigger Needle of Vengeance?
Sure, once the ruling has been made in this case, it can be used for similar effects where an enemy is forcibly moving a creature around. But similar doesn't always mean the same. And sometimes similar actions will have different rulings.
Is Shove a hostile action?
How about if you deliberately shove someone into a hazardous terrain location where they take damage?
How about if you deliberately shove someone into a location where they are in the AoE Line area of the spell that you know that your ally is going to cast immediately after you are done with your turn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the new definition of hostile action.
According to it, opening a door to intentionally let a monster onto your enemy is hostile. But the act of opening the door doesn't cause harm, it merely allows something else to.
By the same logic, striding towards an enemy to hit them in melee should also be considered hostile, because it's a non-harmful action that is meant to allow a harmful one to happen. And it starts making little sense to me, since one could move without the intention to strike, and then change idea later (or vice versa).
And what about buffing a fellow PC, or even healing them from 0 HP so that they can resume fighting? Those would be other cases of hostile actions, since their indirect but intentional consequences are to cause harm to the enemy.
I'll have to remember to be clear with my players: only direct and harmful actions (including debuffs and things like shove) will be considered hostile.
Luckily, the people I play with won't bring out arguments like "releasing the bow string is indirect because it's the arrow that hurts the enemy" outside of some joke.
Traps are as hostile as unsheathing your blade: you are only setting up something that will possibly harm others. I don't get how for you this is different than casting, say, Magic Weapon on an ally's sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And needle of vengeance every time an enemy attack.
I can't find this difficult either, as monsters have only attacks.
Though I have the feel paizo meant "strike" rather than attack ( being a lvl 1 spell and lvl 1 cantrip), or else they would clash with any aoe attack making both spells unintended.
The RAI sentence of Needle of Vengeance says 'attack'. The RAW text says 'hostile action'.
There are more than a few monsters that have spells, AoE effects, and other non-Attack action attacks. For example, that Jungle Drake mentioned earlier has Spit Venom - which is not a Strike and instead has an AoE and a Reflex save. Do you really think that those are not intended to be considered hostile actions?
According to it, opening a door to intentionally let a monster onto your enemy is hostile. But the act of opening the door doesn't cause harm, it merely allows something else to.
One point of formal logic to consider.
This is from the examples given for hostile actions. The example is that opening a door that you didn't know had a monster behind it is not a hostile action.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that opening a door that you know does have a monster behind it is a hostile action.
Similar logic flaw: "If it is raining, then the ground is wet." is not equivalent to "If it is not raining, then the ground is not wet." The ground could be wet for other reasons.
You are absolutely correct with the logic there, but since 'accidentally' is explicitly written in the rules, I think we can assume that doing it intentionally would be hostile. Why add that word if that wasn't so?
I agree that as written, hostile action implies intentionally opening a door with a monster behind it that will attack someone qualifies. It may be that is not intended to be the case, but when the words are read it's a very reasonable conclusion IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my point was merely that paizo worded the cantrip and lvl 1 spell improperly. Switching to strikes instead of hostile actions / attacks solves everything.
That's my point. They didn't. Using Strike in Needle of Vengeance doesn't solve everything. In fact it would ruin the spell.
If my Witch uses Needle of Vengeance on a Jungle Drake, it shouldn't be able to just continue fighting using Spit Venom with no risk of triggering the Needle of Vengeance damage. That would be a huge nerf to Needle.
Regarding Grab or Shove, people still seem to be (wrongly) trying to say the given action is always hostile or not.
If I grapple Bandit Bob to make him easier to stab, it's hostile. If I grapple Alice The Hypnotized Bookseller to stop her from walking off a cliff, it isn't.
The Attack trait doesn't matter here. The intended and reasonably expected result of the action does.
Regarding Grab or Shove, people still seem to be (wrongly) trying to say the given action is always hostile or not.
If I grapple Bandit Bob to make him easier to stab, it's hostile. If I grapple Alice The Hypnotized Bookseller to stop her from walking off a cliff, it isn't.
The Attack trait doesn't matter here. The intended and reasonably expected result of the action does.
True. I wouldn't mind the Attack trait when the action is clearly non-hostile.
So my point was merely that paizo worded the cantrip and lvl 1 spell improperly. Switching to strikes instead of hostile actions / attacks solves everything.That's my point. They didn't. Using Strike in Needle of Vengeance doesn't solve everything. In fact it would ruin the spell.
If my Witch uses Needle of Vengeance on a Jungle Drake, it shouldn't be able to just continue fighting using Spit Venom with no risk of triggering the Needle of Vengeance damage. That would be a huge nerf to Needle.
Huge nerf?
Preventing a creature that might be a boss from using strikes ( melee or ranged) and just rely on a 2 action ability with 1d6 round recharge would nerf a lvl 1 cantrip?
It's godlike ( assuming having a DM that refuses to use strikes because of a little damage).
*slow clap*
Congratulations on arguing against the example instead of the actual logic.
Now try that counterargument when fighting a Swarm instead of the Jungle Drake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. I wouldn't mind the Attack trait when the action is clearly non-hostile.Regarding Grab or Shove, people still seem to be (wrongly) trying to say the given action is always hostile or not.
If I grapple Bandit Bob to make him easier to stab, it's hostile. If I grapple Alice The Hypnotized Bookseller to stop her from walking off a cliff, it isn't.
The Attack trait doesn't matter here. The intended and reasonably expected result of the action does.
Like Escape?
Can we get back to the original topic?
Is everyone in agreement that snares that cause damage are going to count as a hostile action and break invisibility (unless it's the higher level version that doesn't care).
It's hard to think of a good example of a case where they wouldn't.
(But I won't state that a case is impossible, since that isn't how this works).
Can we get back to the original topic?
Is everyone in agreement that snares that cause damage are going to count as a hostile action and break invisibility (unless it's the higher level version that doesn't care).
I seriously doubt that we are all in agreement on that. I agree with it. But that is just me.
You're probably right, so let me rephrase the question (to everyone):
Does everyone agree that setting up a (damaging) snare meets the following criteria:
1) Can cause harm (either directly or indirectly)?
2) The person setting up the snare knows/believes that it can cause harm (regardless of whether it actually does)?
Assuming the answer to both is yes, then would you agree that it would constitute a hostile action as defined in the rules?
Please do not argue about the definition of hostile actions and whether it should be changed. It was changed (presumably intentionally) from the PF1 version and made less powerful.
Is Escape a hostile action? It has an attack trait. This is a real pain point, we can deal with traps somehow. But making casting Sanctuary on your grabbed half-dead companion almost useless is sad.Is Shove a hostile action?
And having an enemy Witch cast Needle of Vengeance on your grabbed self and your opponent who is grabbing you seems extremely overpowered.
But hostile action is not defined in terms of the Attack trait.
Is Shove a hostile action?
Is Escape a hostile action? It has an attack trait. This is a real pain point, we can deal with traps somehow. But making casting Sanctuary on your grabbed half-dead companion almost useless is sad.
Assuming the answer to both is yes, then would you agree that it would constitute a hostile action as defined in the rules?Yes, yes :-\ As written, it's so, actually. What a bore.
Going on to using low-level invis only as a scouting and recovery/escaping tool.
There's a bright side though: at least this version doesn't prevent from casting spells in general.
Personally I like the change that things that aren't directly harmful can now break invisibility. In the hands of players, invisibility was a spell that could be very disruptive.
You're probably right, so let me rephrase the question (to everyone):
Does everyone agree that setting up a (damaging) snare meets the following criteria:
1) Can cause harm (either directly or indirectly)?
2) The person setting up the snare knows/believes that it can cause harm (regardless of whether it actually does)?Assuming the answer to both is yes, then would you agree that it would constitute a hostile action as defined in the rules?
Yes.
But I would agree that taking a step forward in an adventure also meets the definition of hostile.You are fairly certain that proceding with the adventure is going to cause combat and harm some creatures. Indirectly for sure. But I can't argue with it.
The definition of hostile is terrible, and not well thought through.
Yes, when taken to extremes it could be interpreted that way, such that lower level Invisibility is useless.
Although I would counter argue that the point of (low level) invisibility would be to avoid fighting so the person stepping forward has no reasonable reason to believe that stepping forward while invisible would result in a fight.
But yes, there is ultimately some GM adjudication needed as you can get to pretty extreme results without it.
That said, I want to state I don't think the example of setting snares is in anyway an extreme example of "hostile action". The only thing about it is that it's an action that will indirectly harm someone. So while under PF1 you could get away with it, it's pretty clear to me that snares are only one step away from causing harm and meet the intention of PF2's hostile action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, when taken to extremes it could be interpreted that way, such that lower level Invisibility is useless.
Although I would counter argue that the point of (low level) invisibility would be to avoid fighting so the person stepping forward has no reasonable reason to believe that stepping forward while invisible would result in a fight.
But yes, there is ultimately some GM adjudication needed as you can get to pretty extreme results without it.
Yes but I don't see any guidance - just directly or indirectly. If you heal you fighter friedn he is going to go back into combat and hurt the enemy. Indirectly is just too open. Where is the reasonable spot to draw the line
That said, I want to state I don't think the example of setting snares is in anyway an extreme example of "hostile action". The only thing about it is that it's an action that will indirectly harm someone. So while under PF1 you could get away with it, it's pretty clear to me that snares are only one step away from causing harm and meet the intention of PF2's hostile action.
I can reasonably argue that setting snares is a defensive action, as they only trigger if an opponent comes to attack me. Why should that be hostile?
Things that cause damage aren't defensive. So that argument doesn't hold water for me.
You example about the fighter is another case where I would consider it an extreme example but valid under RAW. I prefer the rules as written, and the GM can walk back what isn't allowed. This allows the GM to say, "oh yeah, you can do that", rather than having to tell the player something they assumed would work doesn't.