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.
Is harm just any adverse effect? For instance, say a creature under invisibility casts slow on a pursuer to flee them. The caster has no intention to fight the pursuer.
Would a GM typically consider slowed to be harmful in and of itself, therefore making slow still a hostile action in this case?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an action causes you to rolls an attack against a target or makes the target roll a save, it's most certainly a hostile action. The same goes for any action that causes damage (even if it doesn't involve a check, like Force Barrage) or inflicts a negative condition on the target. So yes, I would absolutely consider casting slow a hostile action in this situation.
The line blurrs a bit for effects that do neither of those things. An effect that turns the ground beneath an enemy to difficult terrain but doesn't affect the enemy itself may or may not be considered hostile, for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expect table variation. It's even written in the paragraph.
I think the intention behind the rule is to avoid a character who's invisible to affect the fight. But if the character intent is not to kill the enemies but to do something very different (running away, disarming traps, whatever) then Invisibility should not wear off.
I personally use the intention behind the actions to consider it hostile. So difficult terrain to hinder an enemy during a fight => hostile. Difficult terrain to cover the PCs who are running away => non hostile.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intended and reasonably expected results matter. Grappling a bandit so your friend can stab them better is Hostile. Grappling a spellbound farmer to stop him from walking off a cliff isn't.
Everything is case by case.
Yeah, it's difficult to provide a simple ruling that covers all situations, and will vary by table.
For example, I would probably consider casting a spell that creates difficult terrain with the enemy in the effect to be hostile.
But if you're going down a hallway, and the enemy is 100ft behind you, and you cast the spell to slow them, but they aren't in the effect when it manifest, not hostile.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grappling a spellbound farmer to stop him from walking off a cliff isn't [hostile].
That's an interesting example, because I'm really not sure whether I'd call that hostile or not.
I guess it sort of depends what you mean by "spellbound." If the farmer is being magically influenced to want to walk off the cliff, I'd say grappling him is hostile. But if the farmer is being compelled to walk off the cliff but (even in his "spellbound" state) doesn't want to, I'd say grappling him is not hostile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grappling a spellbound farmer to stop him from walking off a cliff isn't [hostile].That's an interesting example, because I'm really not sure whether I'd call that hostile or not.
I guess it sort of depends what you mean by "spellbound." If the farmer is being magically influenced to want to walk off the cliff, I'd say grappling him is hostile. But if the farmer is being compelled to walk off the cliff but (even in his "spellbound" state) doesn't want to, I'd say grappling him is not hostile.
I don't consider it to be hostile in either scenario. Or in the related scenario that an ally failed a save against an illusion effect with the illusion being that the floor continues over the top of a large chasm that the ally is now going to confidently walk into.
Preventing harm and injury is not hostile. It doesn't matter if the person is enchanted to want to be harmed or not.
That is why healing is such a grey area. The act of healing by itself is doing the opposite of harming and injuring. But if the intent of the healing is so that the person healed can continue beating on someone, that may still be considered indirect harm. Which is then countered by saying that indirect harm does not fall into the rules for Hostile Action. And the discussion goes around in circles from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an interesting example, because I'm really not sure whether I'd call that hostile or not.
I guess it sort of depends what you mean by "spellbound." If the farmer is being magically influenced to want to walk off the cliff, I'd say grappling him is hostile. But if the farmer is being compelled to walk off the cliff but (even in his "spellbound" state) doesn't want to, I'd say grappling him is not hostile.
I prefer to focus on intent than on what you actually do.
For example, stealing is also in a grey area. If you steal the guards keys while Invisible, I definitely want Invisibility to stick. But if you steal someone during combat (it's possible thanks to feats), I don't want it to stick.
Overall, I want an Invisible character to be able to do whatever the story asks because it makes great stories. But I don't want an Invisibile character to do the same thing during combat. That's why I prefer to focus on intent, even if sometimes it may seem a bit weird, than to focus on the actual action as it may hinder creative moments.
This is a conversation that’s been helpful for recent games at higher levels. As PCs grow in power, invisibility becomes more common and consequently more edge cases pop up. I’ll have to try and remember some so I can return to this thread for your thoughts on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider anything with the attack trait as harmful.
Like with the farmer under some kind of spell, restricting the farmers freedom of movement is harmful even if the desired effect of saving his life is intended to be helpful.
I don't think of it in terms of opposites, in a way where trying to be helpful negates the part of the actions taken that are harmful.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to focus on intent than on what you actually do.
For example, stealing is also in a grey area. If you steal the guards keys while Invisible, I definitely want Invisibility to stick. But if you steal someone during combat (it's possible thanks to feats), I don't want it to stick.
The target would almost certainly consider "being robbed" a hostile act. If you don't believe me: try it on the PCs and see how they react.
I also highly doubt the PCs did that with the guard's interests at heart, nor do they likely care about any consequences the guard suffers for losing those keys.
Overall, I want an Invisible character to be able to do whatever the story asks because it makes great stories. But I don't want an Invisibile character to do the same thing during combat. That's why I prefer to focus on intent, even if sometimes it may seem a bit weird, than to focus on the actual action as it may hinder creative moments.
Intent doesn't seem to apply that well here since you're applying a double standard to it: you want certain things to work outside combat but not work in combat despite being the same action with the same intent.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The target would almost certainly consider "being robbed" a hostile act. If you don't believe me: try it on the PCs and see how they react.
Thinking about the point you’re making, I'm wondering whether the intent of the acting character matters at all.
Putting aside dealing damage and imposing negative condition, both of which I’m satisfied are clear cut, maybe the perspective of the target should control. Basically, if the target doesn’t want whatever the acting characters is doing done to them, it’s a hostile action.
I’d probably limit this to direct actions that involve the target’s person. Stealing a key from a hook on the guard’s belt would count, stealing a key on a table next to the guard wouldn’t.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The target would almost certainly consider "being robbed" a hostile act. If you don't believe me: try it on the PCs and see how they react.Thinking about the point you’re making, I'm wondering whether the intent of the acting character matters at all.
Intent is definitely part of the rules that determine what is and isn't a Hostile Action.
From the example:
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.
Is opening a door a hostile action?
If you are doing it for the lols, no.
If you are doing it to let your ally into the room so that they can start beating on people, yes.
If you are doing it so that you can sneak away after a successful burglary of a room, no.
If you are opening the door thinking that you are just trying to escape, but accidentally release a ravening monster that comes into the room and starts wrecking things, still no. Because the intent to do harm wasn't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider anything with the attack trait as harmful.
Does that include Escape?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I interpret it as "harm is anything that target would object to if made momentarily omniscient so as to know what is being done to it."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The target would almost certainly consider "being robbed" a hostile act. If you don't believe me: try it on the PCs and see how they react.Thinking about the point you’re making, I'm wondering whether the intent of the acting character matters at all.
I feel like it is a factor, but not the only factor. I can cause harm without having hostile intent. I can do something someone else perceives as hostile without hostile intent. Their perception may be wrong, or I may simply be ignorant that what I'm doing is hostile.
Likewise, I can do something that isn't directly causing harm but is absolutely done with hostile intent: healing my party who are attacking. I'm not doing anything offensive, but my intent may very well absolutely be "win this combat", which is hostile to the people we're fighting.
Folks don't like grey areas in the rules like this, but I feel like there's no real way to codify this to cover every situation. At some point you get into cases that are subjective and you have to make a call with the understanding of how your table views such things.
If you're doing something to a target that they wouldn't want done to them, I generally view it as something that would break invisibility. So healing wouldn't qualify: that is only done to willing targets and is not causing harm to them, even though it can be done out of hostile intent toward the people you're fighting.
Likewise stealing from the guard's person would definitely qualify as causing harm. Ask anyone who has been mugged... like me. I definitely considered myself to have been harmed, even though I got away without physical injury.
Putting aside dealing damage and imposing negative condition, both of which I’m satisfied are clear cut, maybe the perspective of the target should control. Basically, if the target doesn’t want whatever the acting characters is doing done to them, it’s a hostile action.
That lines up reasonably well with real life: if it's nonconsensual, it's probably not for their benefit outside of edge cases like "they're dying and you use first aid". Generally speaking I find a good rule of them is to reverse it: if an NPC was doing the exact same action to a PC, would the player consider it to be causing harm/hostile? If so, the NPC probably feels the same way. This has the virtue of making it consistent on both sides of the table, especially if you know your group and where folks stand on it (or if the players have been doing things themselves).
I’d probably limit this to direct actions that involve the target’s person. Stealing a key from a hook on the guard’s belt would count, stealing a key on a table next to the guard wouldn’t.
I'd agree with those rulings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would consider casting slow on a target a harmful action.
I can't give a hard, fast guideline I follow for all hostile actions, but I do have a few guidelines for general use that in no way cover every possibility.
1. If it does damage, it's hostile even if the person is doing it to benefit a person.
2. If it is a harmful effect that reduces combat ability like a slow spell or a fear, it is harmful.
3. If it is does harm indirectly like a creature summoned by a caster, then it is harmful.
4. On the other hand I would not considering opening the door to let an ally in harmful to where it would drop the invisibility.
5. I would not consider healing an an ally harmful.
I take it a on a case by case basis. I don't consider intent to matter much. I adjudicate by effect and make a judgment call for strange cases.
This is a conversation that’s been helpful for recent games at higher levels. As PCs grow in power, invisibility becomes more common and consequently more edge cases pop up. I’ll have to try and remember some so I can return to this thread for your thoughts on them.
At high levels it is often even less of a problem, because the heightened invisibility starts to appear, which does not suffer from hostility problems.
For me, the poorly explained points of the hostile action rule create a much more complicated situation for the sanctuary spell.
I consider anything with the attack trait as harmful.
Like with the farmer under some kind of spell, restricting the farmers freedom of movement is harmful even if the desired effect of saving his life is intended to be helpful.
I don't think of it in terms of opposites, in a way where trying to be helpful negates the part of the actions taken that are harmful.
The part about things with the attack trait (except Escape normally) is pretty clear. As are spells that cause damage or negative conditions.
Things get really complicated with indirect hostility, when you buff an ally so that they cause more damage, or give them an item or weapon with the intention of using it to attack someone or, in more dubious cases, even when you heal an ally who is fighting, so that they can continue fighting and defeat their enemy.
That's why it's easier to deal with the intention itself:
Player: I want to open that door.
GM: OK, what's your intention with that?
Player: To release the monster so it can attack my enemies.
GM (nice): If you do that, you'll break your invisibility/sanctuary.
GM (not so nice): You open the door and lose your invisibility for committing a hostile action.
OK this still cause some problems with players that will try to lie their intentions but in most cases as GM do you know what they are trying to do.
--
I personally prefer to ignore the indirect hostility rule. I think it overcomplicates the game and isn't interesting or fun.
Instead I make it my houserule that only direct hostility as your actions/activity directly cause some damage, negative condition or affliction do I break the spell.
I consider anything with the attack trait as harmful.Does that include Escape?
We discussed this in another thread.
And yes. For me it includes escape against another creature but not against an inanimate object like a net.
I consider anything with the attack trait as harmful.Does that include Escape?We discussed this in another thread.
And yes. For me it includes escape against another creature but not against an inanimate object like a net.
Depends if the net was thrown from an enemy to grabs you, you also are indirectly harming.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering Escape to be Hostile is deeply bizarre to me. There is no way that Escaping from a creature harms it, even indirectly, unless you're going to extremes like "it might starve if it doesn't eat me".
I can't see the sense in making that break Sanctuary.
Considering Escape to be Hostile is deeply bizarre to me. There is no way that Escaping from a creature harms it, even indirectly, unless you're going to extremes like "it might starve if it doesn't eat me".
I can't see the sense in making that break Sanctuary.
Harms its intention to kill you! kkkk
Indirect harm are super relative. Are you trying to escape from a prison and the guards are trying to prevent this trying to grab you and probably they will be punished or get some responsibility to fail to prevent prisoners from escape? So you are indirectly harming them.
Or most simply. Are the creature trying to grab you to them eating you for its survival? So escaping is harming its survival.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Escaping is a contest against another creature. Its harming you, you have to harm back to get out of it.
Actually considering intent is a bit off for me reading the hostile action entry.
Its not about intent, its about awareness of the harm an action would cause.
If the pc is aware the action would cause harm its hostile to do it anyway.
And there is no gaming this. As GM you tell the player the action is hostile do you want to do it anyway?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If for some reason you were invisible with a level 2 invis, I would not break it escaping. Escape having the attack trait is there strictly to make it not too good against grappling or grab. It is not a hostile action in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The target would almost certainly consider "being robbed" a hostile act.
It's not about the target. If I open a door and unvoluntarily release a monster some people will be harmed. But it's not about them, it's about me, and as such it doesn't break invisibility if I hadn't the intent to harm.
If I steal the guard's keys to release a prisoner I'm not doing anything to the guard from my point of view. The guard definitely doesn't want the prisoner to escape, but that's besides the point.
Considering that Invisibility drops anytime you do something someone would object to means it never sticks. Like you can't explore the dungeon while invisible as the guards would object to, you can't penetrate inside the shop and search it as the shopkeeper would object to.
I want to tell stories of an Invisible character doing things while Invisible and I don't want that the key being on a hook on the guard’s belt blocks the story while the key being on the table doesn't. Same intent, same effect.
Intent doesn't seem to apply that well here since you're applying a double standard to it: you want certain things to work outside combat but not work in combat despite being the same action with the same intent.
I think I haven't been clear: When speaking of the steal action in combat I'm not speaking of robbing the keys, but the weapon or whatever the guard holds so they can't fight properly and get ultimately subdued. The intent is to harm the guard.
The target would almost certainly consider "being robbed" a hostile act.It's not about the target. If I open a door and unvoluntarily release a monster some people will be harmed. But it's not about them, it's about me, and as such it doesn't break invisibility if I hadn't the intent to harm.
If I steal the guard's keys to release a prisoner I'm not doing anything to the guard from my point of view. The guard definitely doesn't want the prisoner to escape, but that's besides the point.
Considering that Invisibility drops anytime you do something someone would object to means it never sticks. Like you can't explore the dungeon while invisible as the guards would object to, you can't penetrate inside the shop and search it as the shopkeeper would object to.
I want to tell stories of an Invisible character doing things while Invisible and I don't want that the key being on a hook on the guard’s belt blocks the story while the key being on the table doesn't. Same intent, same effect.
Intent doesn't seem to apply that well here since you're applying a double standard to it: you want certain things to work outside combat but not work in combat despite being the same action with the same intent.I think I haven't been clear: When speaking of the steal action in combat I'm not speaking of robbing the keys, but the weapon or whatever the guard holds so they can't fight properly and get ultimately subdued. The intent is to harm the guard.
I agree with this given stealing their weapon is in fact possible and can be surprisingly easy with Pickpocket. That feat is crazier than I expected.
|
|
If I open a door and unvoluntarily release a monster some people will be harmed. But it's not about them, it's about me, and as such it doesn't break invisibility if I hadn't the intent to harm.
Recognizing that this isn’t in line with the admittedly vague official rules, unless we’re talking about opening a trapdoor that someone is standing on, my instinct is that I’d not have opening a door break invisibility.
If I steal the guard's keys to release a prisoner I'm not doing anything to the guard from my point of view. The guard definitely doesn't want the prisoner to escape, but that's besides the point.
Even if we focus entirely on your point of view, I don’t buy that you don’t realize that you’re acting specifically to thwart the guard’s purpose. Though, as I said upthread, if you steal the keys from the guard by picking them up off a table next to him, as opposed to from his person, that’s a sufficient remove that I’d say Invisibility wouldn’t be broken.
Considering that Invisibility drops anytime you do something someone would object to means it never sticks.
That’s why I’d take into account to what extent you’re acting on someone’s person, and largely rule that if you’re not, you wouldn’t break invisibility. That’s not going to answer the question every time, but I think it would work most of the time.
Like you can't explore the dungeon while invisible as the guards would object to, you can't penetrate inside the shop and search it as the shopkeeper would object to.
I doubt anyone would argue that either of those would break invisibility.
Though with a strict focus on whether the action is “about” someone else, there’s an argument to be made that almost any time sneaking its “about” the people whose detection you are attempting to avoid.
I want to tell stories of an Invisible character doing things while Invisible and I don't want that the key being on a hook on the guard’s belt blocks the story while the key being on the table doesn't. Same intent, same effect.
That’s not an unreasonable position, though as the GM, you get to decide where the key is, so you get the best of both worlds. If you want Invisibility to definitely work, key’s not on the guard’s person. If you want to present an obstacle to invisibility, the key is on the guard’s person.
I don’t see how this get in the way of storytelling, unless the very specific story you want to tell is “Thief lifts a key off a guard’s body while maintaining invisibility.” But if you want to tell that very specific story, there’s enough room for that interpretation of the rules within the necessarily vague language that the most anyone can really say is “that’s not how I’d run it,” rather than “you’re wrong.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Is opening a door a hostile action?
If you are doing it for the lols, no.
If you are doing it to let your ally into the room so that they can start beating on people, yes.
If you are doing it so that you can sneak away after a successful burglary of a room, no.
If you are opening the door thinking that you are just trying to escape, but accidentally release a ravening monster that comes into the room and starts wrecking things, still no. Because the intent to do harm wasn't there.
My rule is: does the action you're performing right now cause any direct harm to, or impact in any way, the thing you're doing it to? Yes, the intent behind opening a door might be malicious, but other than regular wear and tear on the door, nobody gets hurt by that action. Stealing keys, a potion, or a coin purse? Not harmed in the sense of HP loss, but it's definitely a negative effect. Same as an Intimidate or casting a Slow spell: a direct debuff and status effect onto the opponent is most definitely a hostile effect.
Opening a door breaking Invisibility is ridiculous, under any circumstance. Yes, rules are muddy in some cases, but it's clear-cut here: opening a door is not harmful to the door. If I'm under Invisibility and accidentally step on an ant, that's not harmful. Yes, I just killed a (regular-sized) ant, but that's practically unavoidable. If any action that might eventually lead to harm would break invisibility, then invisibility would pretty much be broken immediately. Casting Bless on my party to boost their chances of hitting you? Yep. Walking towards someone with the intent to harm them? Yep. Unsheathing my sword? Yep. Stand completely still while invisible, so someone accidentally bumps into me? Yep.
In fact, pretty much anything could be considered "hostile" that way. Casting Heal or Oaken Might on someone to survive more blows would be considered hostile. If all of that is considered "hostile," which actions are you still allowed to perform then? a simple Calm spell would be about as effective as a Paralyze spell, which is one rank higher (the only difference being that the target can still move with Calm).
In PF1, was always considered summoning non-harmful. You don't roll an attack roll, you don't force any saves, and so on. Yes, the thing you summoned is definitely harmful, but that's indirectly. I've seen several written encounters hinge upon the fact (and specifically spell out) that buffing allies or summoning does not break the spell. That seems clear enough to me. In fact, a Lilend Azata was most often summoned for their bardic performance or healing abilities, despite being decent with a longsword as well. Would Invisibility pop when using it to intend harm, but not when used as an additional healbot?
Grabbing someone to prevent them from falling into a pit, while noble and the intent behind it is definitely non-harmful: giving someone the Grabbed consition is harmful, easy as that. Transforming the ground to mud to cause difficult terrain is not doing anything harmful to anyone. Yes, it's annoying, but no one is directly harmed by it. Summoning a creature into being does not directly impact anyone, so that wouldn't be considered a hostile action.
The target would almost certainly consider "being robbed" a hostile act.It's not about the target. If I open a door and unvoluntarily release a monster some people will be harmed. But it's not about them, it's about me, and as such it doesn't break invisibility if I hadn't the intent to harm.
If I steal the guard's keys to release a prisoner I'm not doing anything to the guard from my point of view. The guard definitely doesn't want the prisoner to escape, but that's besides the point.
As a real life victim of robbery, I disagree pretty strongly. I don't really care what the intent of the person robbing me was: I was harmed by being robbed.
Depriving someone of something to get it yourself is causing harm to the person being robbed. It may not be a LOT of harm, but it's still harm. And the idea that the intent of the perpetrator matters more than how the victim feels about it is... something.
As a trans person, lots of people want to "help" me in ways that would cause massive harm. Their intent is utterly irrelevant to the outcome. Frankly, the fact that some of them think this is actually helping makes it even worse.
Considering that Invisibility drops anytime you do something someone would object to means it never sticks. Like you can't explore the dungeon while invisible as the guards would object to, you can't penetrate inside the shop and search it as the shopkeeper would object to.
You're not harming the guards by sneaking past them. You're not really interacting with them at all. That changes as soon as you violate bodily autonomy.
I want to tell stories of an Invisible character doing things while Invisible and I don't want that the key being on a hook on the guard’s belt blocks the story while the key being on the table doesn't. Same intent, same effect.
I mean, you do you. But again: how would the players feel if you reversed this? Have them try to buy something only to discover that an invisible NPC took all their gold and that didn't break invisibility because it wasn't hostile. It's exactly the same action and the same motivation.
I've met few players that would react to that by going "that's fine".
I think I haven't been clear: When speaking of the steal action in combat I'm not speaking of robbing the keys, but the weapon or whatever the guard holds so they can't fight properly and get ultimately subdued. The intent is to harm the guard.
No, I get it. My problem is that you're differentiating between "robbing the guard in an okay way" and "robbing the guard in a not okay way". I'm telling you as a victim of robbery that there is no non-hostile way to rob me.
Even if we focus entirely on your point of view, I don’t buy that you don’t realize that you’re acting specifically to thwart the guard’s purpose. Though, as I said upthread, if you steal the keys from the guard by picking them up off a table next to him, as opposed to from his person, that’s a sufficient remove that I’d say Invisibility wouldn’t be broken.
As I said, I focus on intent. Stealing the key from the guard or taking it on the table is exactly the same from an intent point of view. Actually, if this was the guard's weapon and your goal would be to deprive them of their weapon before the fight starts, I'd certainly consider that it breaks Invisibility in both cases as it's an indirect way to harm someone (similar to the door example, but in that case you'd know you're doing it to harm).
That’s not an unreasonable position, though as the GM, you get to decide where the key is, so you get the best of both worlds.
I have some leeway as a GM but sometimes things are harder to modify. For example, if I described how the guard has the key on them all the time before the PCs come with the Invisibility plan I won't be able to suddenly put the keys on the table without breaking verrissimilitude.
As a real life victim of robbery, I disagree pretty strongly. I don't really care what the intent of the person robbing me was: I was harmed by being robbed.
I feel we should avoid discussing this as I don't want to hurt your feelings. Maybe we should find another example that doesn't relate to a real life situation one of us experienced.
As a trans person, lots of people want to "help" me in ways that would cause massive harm. Their intent is utterly irrelevant to the outcome. Frankly, the fact that some of them think this is actually helping makes it even worse.
Ravingdork raised a similar argument: What if my character doesn't realize they're harming people even when they obviously do so?
I agree there should be a limit, that some actions should be considered hostile whatever the person who commits them thinks.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork raised a similar argument: What if my character doesn't realize they're harming people even when they obviously do so?
That would mean a super dumb or ignorant person (very low WIS, maybeceven Feebleminded) would never break Invisibility. Someone with the intelligence of baby pressing the self-destruct button should definitely be considered hostile, even if they don't know what the shiny red light does.
Okay, extreme example, but still. Ignorance can only go so far as an excuse. A young child swinging scissors around might do so out of ignorance, but would definitely be considered dangerous. If you hurt something, it's hostile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Casting slow on a creature to hinder their pursuit I think is fairly clearly harmful. It doesn't matter that you're not intending to inflict lasting harm on the creature, casting spells that mess with others, even those that don't directly deal damage, is a hostile thing to do. Similarly, a creature lacking the awareness to realize their actions are harmful when it is otherwise obvious that they are inflicting harm is still performing a hostile action by my books -- perhaps not the baby pressing the self-destruct button, given that pressing a button by itself is not inherently hostile, but definitely the baby swinging around a pair of sharp scissors.
I'd also say that while perhaps we can derive ambiguity from the letter of the rule, I'd say the spirit is a fair bit clearer: if your actions are overtly antagonistic to someone else and try to hurt or hinder them, then they're hostile. For this reason, I wouldn't say that Escape is an inherently hostile action even if it has the attack trait -- you're not trying to hurt anyone unless you're biting them or the like -- but I do think this means that in most (but not all) other situations where someone is rolling an attack or a skill check against you, or forcing you to make a save, they're performing a hostile action.
Escaping is a contest against another creature. Its harming you, you have to harm back to get out of it.
Escape is an opposed check. But that doesn't make it hostile.
Even the narrative description doesn't have to involve harming or injuring the enemy holding you in place.
Defending against Agonizing Despair or the crit success effect of Scare to Death is a contest against another creature - one resolved by you rolling a check against the creature's appropriate DC stat. That doesn't mean that defending against those effects is a hostile action.
|
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.My rule is: does the action you're performing right now cause any direct harm to, or impact in any way, the thing you're doing it to? Yes, the intent behind opening a door might be malicious, but other than regular wear and tear on the door, nobody gets hurt by that action. Stealing keys, a potion, or a coin purse? Not harmed in the sense of HP loss, but it's definitely a negative effect. Same as an Intimidate or casting a Slow spell: a direct debuff and status effect onto the opponent is most definitely a hostile effect.
Opening a door breaking Invisibility is ridiculous, under any circumstance. Yes, rules are muddy in some cases, but it's clear-cut here: opening a door is not harmful to the door...
In the examples given in the book opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster would not be Hostile. But the implication is that opening a door and deliberately freeing a horrible monster (which would presumably start attacking nearby creatures) would be. That seems to be what the writers intended. I probably wouldn't run it that way, myself (for PCs or NPCs), but that's the way it reads.
Fwiw, I'd probably let both groups try to lift items off of each other without breaking Invisibility, too.
But opening a door is never harmful? What if the door is lead-lined and on the other side is a massive amount of radiation? Opening that door is going to cause massive harm to anyone in the adjoining room. And if the door-opening character knows about the radiation, I think they should 100% drop Invisibility for doing so.
[I think my personality adjudication is more direct than the rules prescribe. Releasing a creature is less directly harmful than releasing a hazard, to me. (I think it's because a creature has its own agency to cause harm, whereas a hazard can primarily only be endured. Even in the case where the creature in question is mindless. This might not be something I can fully justify, but I'm fine living with that incongruity)]
<in the above, "directly" is in reference to the invisible perpetrator, not the victim, who is harmed pretty directly in all examples>
Escaping is a contest against another creature. Its harming you, you have to harm back to get out of it.Escape is an opposed check. But that doesn't make it hostile.
Even the narrative description doesn't have to involve harming or injuring the enemy holding you in place.
Defending against Agonizing Despair or the crit success effect of Scare to Death is a contest against another creature - one resolved by you rolling a check against the creature's appropriate DC stat. That doesn't mean that defending against those effects is a hostile action.
The attack trait does though.
The standard way to escape is an unarmed attack. You fight your way out of it. You can use athletics or use acrobatics but neither lose the attack trait and nothing in the description for those methods of escaping describes them as not attacks. We have to insert our own meanings to things like using acrobatics to assume its being done in a non-hostile way. Also there is a balance issue with treating acrobatics as special even though all three methods still have the attack trait.I actually might not understand your argument with the two fear abilities.
Agonizing despair goes against the will of the victim and would be hostile to cast it. The player targeted is passively rolling will, they are not using an action with the attack trait against another creature to free themselves of it. If they did have to use an action to free themselves of the effect and it had attack trait it might be hostile as Ive ruled things so far.
My argument before was that it is the player physically contesting the creature to escape (a contest, meaning contesting the creature), But I can see how I phrased it to also mean opposed check. I just meant physically opposing the creature to escape.
The attack trait does though.
The Attack trait is a mechanical consideration for MAP and I don't think it means anything in this context. Fireball doesn't have it and launching one of those is very clearly a lowercase-A attack.
Focusing on that also leads to goofy outcomes. Escaping a grab via the Escape action is hostile, but Escaping a grab via a Thaumaturge Mirror teleport is not? It's the same thing: you're escaping the grab and you're not using any offense to do it.
The idea that one of these is hostile and the other isn't is exceptionally arbitrary.
The standard way to escape is an unarmed attack. You fight your way out of it. You can use athletics or use acrobatics but neither lose the attack trait and nothing in the description for those methods of escaping describes them as not attacks. We have to insert our own meanings to things like using acrobatics to assume its being done in a non-hostile way. Also there is a balance issue with treating acrobatics as special even though all three methods still have the attack trait.
You're fighting your way out of it, but escaping causes no harm to the creature holding you. The intent of someone using Escape is usually "bad things will happen to me if I remain grabbed/restrained and I don't want that."
Taking a defensive action for self-preservation that causes no harm is not hostile. The extreme example is an Astradaemon: If you know about Devour Soul, Escaping is literally about saving your soul. There's nothing inherently hostile about wanting to not have your soul devoured and getting out of that situation in a way that causes no harm to the Astradaemon.
I did say earlier I don't consider intent at all, awareness not intent is what is written in the hostile entry. I will tell a player if their pc is aware too, no surprises, no gaming it.
I think there is a bit of wire crossing between justifiably causing harm because your making them stop grabbing you and going after someone to harm them as the aggressor. You are still harming your opponent by justifiably preserving your self, its just justified. Invisibility doesn't ask us the value judgement of the action, just is it a hostile one or not.
Even when your using self defense you have to physically make the other stop doing what they are doing to you. Can be justified but its still you pushing back, bending wrists, kicking, manipulating bodyparts, or however you want to explain with a acrobatics/athletics/unarmed attack bent it to make them stop.
I would be curious if there are other examples of actions with the attack trait that are not hostile?
The attack trait does though.The Attack trait is a mechanical consideration for MAP and I don't think it means anything in this context. Fireball doesn't have it and launching one of those is very clearly a lowercase-A attack.
Focusing on that also leads to goofy outcomes. Escaping a grab via the Escape action is hostile, but Escaping a grab via a Thaumaturge Mirror teleport is not? It's the same thing: you're escaping the grab and you're not using any offense to do it.
The idea that one of these is hostile and the other isn't is exceptionally arbitrary.
About the Thaum mirror ability.
I'm not read up on that class at all so I would need to look at the ability to really say if I thought it was hostile.a cursory read looks like a strange interaction, you would now have two versions of you both grabbed, immobile, offguard and that would last no matter which version of you is the real you until the grabbed condition would normally go away on the creatures next turn or you use an action to escape right?
It seems you can choose to be the version that you created up to 15 ft away from you when at the start of your next turn but you dont end the grabbed condition because the other creature never moved and you didn't escape.
I did say earlier I don't consider intent at all, awareness not intent is what is written in the hostile entry.
I'm a bit lost on your use of the word definitions here.
Awareness: I am X% certain that there is or is not an allied combatant behind this door.
Intent: I am opening this door hoping that my ally is on the other side of it and can help me in this battle.
The example in Hostile actions is basing the distinction on Intent. Whether opening the door is a hostile action or not is not dependent on whether the ally is actually there or not.
The example lists the awareness as being 0% aware that there is a creature on the other side of the door. And the intent is that the character is opening the door with some other non-hostile intent.
An example where the character has an awareness of 5% chance that their ally is on the other side of the door and is opening the door on the slim hope that the ally is there, but is fully intending to open the door for their ally to come help fight - that is a Hostile Action even with little or no awareness.
its still you pushing back, bending wrists, kicking, manipulating bodyparts, or however you want to explain with a acrobatics/athletics/unarmed attack bent it to make them stop.
None of that is causing harm or damage.
Describing an Escape attempt as being 'kicking and hyperextending joints' still doesn't cause HP loss of the creature being escaped from. It doesn't impede their ability to do anything else either.
If it isn't causing damage, and it isn't causing harm, then it isn't Hostile according to the designation of the rules.
Yes, there do exist actions that can be used in combat, and even contribute to the success of combat, that are not categorized as Hostile by the game rules.
I would be curious if there are other examples of actions with the attack trait that are not hostile?
I'm not aware of any others. Other than specific uses of actions such as the Grapple example upthread regarding stopping someone from harming themselves.
I am aware of plenty of hostile actions that don't have the Attack trait though.
The Attack trait is badly named because of this very confusion with implying that all actions with the Attack trait are Hostile Actions.
I did say earlier I don't consider intent at all, awareness not intent is what is written in the hostile entry.I'm a bit lost on your use of the word definitions here.
Awareness: I am X% certain that there is or is not an allied combatant behind this door.
Intent: I am opening this door hoping that my ally is on the other side of it and can help me in this battle.
The example in Hostile actions is basing the distinction on Intent. Whether opening the door is a hostile action or not is not dependent on whether the ally is actually there or not.
The example lists the awareness as being 0% aware that there is a creature on the other side of the door. And the intent is that the character is opening the door with some other non-hostile intent.
An example where the character has an awareness of 5% chance that their ally is on the other side of the door and is opening the door on the slim hope that the ally is there, but is fully intending to open the door for their ally to come help fight - that is a Hostile Action even with little or no awareness.
I will tell the player if they are about to do something the pc is aware is harmful so there is no % involved. And when they are unaware I dont tell them anything and it wont count against them.
Intent to me means the player decides if the act was hostile. it feels like it leads to players being incentivized to construing their declared intent to try to get away with hostile acts.
You see the example of the horrible monster as one describing intent. I don't agree. I see it being about awareness that what you are about to do will cause harm. Intent is not mentioned anywhere in the example but awareness is.
Intending to loose a horrible creature only to find nothing on the otherside of the door is not a hostile act for me. Door opening itself is not a hostile act. its the combination of being aware of the consequences of the action and the actual consequences of the action.
And as GM I will let players know when they are aware, there is no gotcha involved. If they intended to loose the monster and were wrong about it being there they get the benefit of being wrong and staying invisible.
its still you pushing back, bending wrists, kicking, manipulating bodyparts, or however you want to explain with a acrobatics/athletics/unarmed attack bent it to make them stop.None of that is causing harm or damage.
Describing an Escape attempt as being 'kicking and hyperextending joints' still doesn't cause HP loss of the creature being escaped from. It doesn't impede their ability to do anything else either.
If it isn't causing damage, and it isn't causing harm, then it isn't Hostile according to the designation of the rules.
Yes, there do exist actions that can be used in combat, and even contribute to the success of combat, that are not categorized as Hostile by the game rules.
Again I disagree. Harm or damage can make something hostile. Damage is not required to make an action harmful either.
I would be curious if there are other examples of actions with the attack trait that are not hostile?I'm not aware of any others. Other than specific uses of actions such as the Grapple example upthread regarding stopping someone from harming themselves.
I am aware of plenty of hostile actions that don't have the Attack trait though.
The Attack trait is badly named because of this very confusion with implying that all actions with the Attack trait are Hostile Actions.
I don't think the attack trait is necessary for something to be hostile or harmful, but when it is present I do believe that action is harmful as it is an attack (even if not an attack roll). So i view escape as an action that attacks an opponent to get free.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with letting it depend on intent is that it allows for variation within the same action. If I'm summoning to use their Heal spells is clearly not hostile, but summoning for damage is, it feels weird to give different results to the same action. Or what if, after two rounds of healing, there is nothing left to heal, and you then use it to fight? That wasn't the original intent, but hey, it's here now, might as well use it.
Or if I'm invisible and blocking a door or passageway. I'm not actively harming anyone by not letting them past, but I'm definitely impeding them. Is "being in the way" a good enough qualifier for a hostile action?
If a rule requires this much interpretation and double-think, I prefer to view it as simple as possible until given evidence otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree, I wouldn't rely too hard on intent, and in that respect I think the rules text may be a bit unhelpful. I wouldn't rule that opening a door is a hostile action, for example, even if the person knows there's a violent monster on the other end. The intent is harmful; the mechanical action of opening a door is not. Similarly, I'd rule that Shoving someone is a hostile action, regardless of whether it's done in jest, to push an ally out of harm's way, or to push an enemy off a cliff. I'm personally in favor of consistency here, and while using natural language for rules can sometimes give a greater degree of freedom, in this case I think it creates a degree of ambiguity to what could otherwise be a fairly straightforward definition of acting against someone.
I do agree, I wouldn't rely too hard on intent, and in that respect I think the rules text may be a bit unhelpful. I wouldn't rule that opening a door is a hostile action, for example, even if the person knows there's a violent monster on the other end. The intent is harmful; the mechanical action of opening a door is not. Similarly, I'd rule that Shoving someone is a hostile action, regardless of whether it's done in jest, to push an ally out of harm's way, or to push an enemy off a cliff. I'm personally in favor of consistency here, and while using natural language for rules can sometimes give a greater degree of freedom, in this case I think it creates a degree of ambiguity to what could otherwise be a fairly straightforward definition of acting against someone.
I would do the same for any pushing like you said.