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.
All that I have really done is argue that white is black, and black is white. The rules here are useless.
You say they're useless, but I don't agree.
If you take extreme positions of what is a hostile action than sure, you can make it so that anything counts as a hostile action and breaks invisibility. Does that break the game? No, at worst it would mean invisibility the spell doesn't exist in practical terms. Hardly the end of the world.
Now, not taken to extremes, each GM can find the line for what they think is reasonably allowed.
And it really all hinges on what "can cause damage (even indirectly" would mean.
I think most people have a fair idea of what "cause harm" means, but I understand why Paizo didn't want to enumerate the rules for this. Because frankly it would be too complex to ever write a satisfying set of rules to cover all instances.
For example:
Striking at someone should definitely be hostile.
Summoning monster is intended to be hostile.
Cutting the ropes to a rope bridge while someone is on it, hostile.
Walking toward an enemy...not necessarily hostile. And even if you intend to stab them, probably shouldn't break invisibility.
Walking toward a pressure plate that will set off a trap...I probably wont have the act of walking break invisibility here, but the act of stepping on the pressure plate will break invisibility, probably right before you step on it.
But those are just my interpretations. And those are relatively simple examples. Now imagine all the crazy scenarios people will try to come up with the try to break logical consistency if you try to make more nuanced rules.
It's best to be vague and let GMs walk back the things that break invisibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM discretion already exists. The option to houserule, the need for occasional adjudication and the importance of GM to player communication have already been established. There is no benefit in having a particularly nuanced rules interaction get handwaved behind another redundant "you figure it out" moment. Unless you are genuinely concerned someone forgot they could houserule it, which admittedly does happen, it is not helpful to keep telling us something the book has made perfectly clear. Why would I even buy the book if it was only going to tell me to write my own rules? The fabulous artwork I suppose, but you hardly need me to poke holes in my own argument.
Most of the time I have a pretty good idea about how to resolve a situation and move the story forward. But I really do want to know the opinions of the Paizo developers. This is in fact why I buy their books. If a player joins my table and has P2e experience, I would really prefer if my interpretation of the game closely matched their previous experience. This consistency forms the shared language that we use. The hard questions, these ambiguous situations that surround the problematic powers (Invisibility is certainly not an easy topic) are the exact times I would like more guidance, not less.
If we consider the rulebook as a set of possible solutions to our problems then it feels like a shortcoming when it leaves so much as an exercise to the reader.