|
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.
The rules define a hostile action is one which can harm or damage a creature directly or indirectly, mild paraphrasing.
So what kinds of actions could cause harm indirectly, in your opinion?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules define a hostile action is one which can harm or damage a creature directly or indirectly, mild paraphrasing.
So what kinds of actions could cause harm indirectly, in your opinion?
Good question! The closest I can think of is activating or deploying some kind of obstacle or hazard, like dropping a wall of stone to corral enemies. You're not directly harming those creatures, but you're still limiting their agency by hindering their movement.
I guess I have a pretty strict view on this.
I actually consider buffing or healing indirectly harming as well when done in combat.
I see it as two groups are fighting, healing or buffing one side is harmful to the other indirectly. healing is no different than giving someone runic weapon, or haste or summoning a creature. your contributing indirectly to the harm of the other side of that fight.
Think of it this way. Lets say you see two groups fighting eachother and you start healing people on one side of the fight. You think the other group is going to just ignore you? No they are going to consider those actions hostile against them. You are making the other side better able to stay alive and harm them.
I think it's also worth considering effects that care about who gets targeted with hostile actions. For instance, your fascinated condition ends "if a creature uses hostile actions against you or any of your allies." If the enemy is fascinated by me and I case heal on myself, I don't think that should end the enemy's fascination with me.
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.
But you're literally not harming them. You've made up a rule that doesn't exist about Escape causing harm, and are then using it to justify Escape being hostile.
Absolutely no harm is done to the creature being Escaped from.
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?
All of this is narrative and none of it is in the rules. No demonstrable harm is done by using the Escape action.
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's a weird situation because the second one is probably outside of the reach of the creature doing the grabbing and thus isn't a valid target to be grabbed. So can the second you be grabbed if you're not a valid target to be grabbed?
This implement tends to require some GM interpretation. If your GM rules the second one isn't Grabbed because it isn't a valid target for that, then you just take a step, the first one disappears, and you're good.
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.
Even if you assume the second one is also still grabbed... use it again to create a third one, pick the first one to disappear (since only two versions can exist). Now there's two of you, neither of which can legally be grabbed because the creature physically can't reach that far to hold you and the target it was legally grabbing no longer exists.
I think any attempt to set down a codified set of rigorous rules about whether or not something is hostile is going to fail (in at least some peoples opinion).
I very much fall into the category of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he said "I know it when I see it". And as a GM, I think that's a perfectly acceptable standard (and that's it's okay that it could vary group to group and GM to GM).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the line about "opening a door and accidentally freeing a horrible monster" shouldn't be used to imply that deliberately freeing a horrible monster does or does not count as a hostile action. I think the line is just there as a detailed example to contrast the one about fireballing a crowd of people.
I think it's best if we primarily consider whether the harm (direct or indirect) is being done to the targets of the action. Considering creatures beyond that is likely too broad.
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.
But you're literally not harming them. You've made up a rule that doesn't exist about Escape causing harm, and are then using it to justify Escape being hostile.
Absolutely no harm is done to the creature being Escaped from.
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?
All of this is narrative and none of it is in the rules. No demonstrable harm is done by using the Escape action.
I disagree. To attack someone is to harm them even if it does not damage. Escape stops the grapple they have on you and has the attack trait making it an attack. Pushing someone is harming them. Grabbing someone is harming them. Escape is fighting back against someone who grabbed you, of course its harming them back, even if it is deserved.
If grapple is considered harm then escape is harm too. they are essentially two sides of the same coin.
Wow, everything really does come back around to bodily autonomy and informed consent.
This thread has even run the idea evolution, and i'll try to codify the 3rd ???
actor's intent --> subject's consent --> ???
??? (actor's reasonably presumed subject consent)
To elaborate on that last stage:
"Doing harm, or not" can be construed as the actor's best guess as what the subject would truthfully think is harmful, if they had all the info of the actor.
Flipping harm around to invert things into "consent or not":
That's the step beyond the "normal informed consent" scenario, and it actually happens a lot IRL.
Any time a person is unable to make their own decisions, such as a medical emergency, it's up to someone else to try to make decisions on the incapacitated person's behalf.
This is done by imagining how that person would answer to such decisions /questions, as if they were conscious, and if the actor could mind-dump all their info to the subject.
If you've ever had to care for someone who was super drunk, or otherwise incapacitated, you've likely done this.
(--would they want-- me to remove their shoes/jacket when I dump them in their bed? Socks too?)
(though in RL medicine they play it waaay safe and almost never do a different / don't treat the patient because they think the person would say no. Gotta get that DNR in writing, etc)
.
My best condensed ~rule for this:
If you think any subjects of your act, knowing what you know, would truthfully consider the act harmful to them, then it is harmful. Otherwise, it is not harmful. A subject wishing for your act to fail is irrelevant. Examples like attempting to escape a grapple, even when that subject would very much want you to remain held, would honestly be answered as not harming the subject.
Wow, everything really does come back around to bodily autonomy and informed consent.
This thread has even run the idea evolution, and i'll try to codify the 3rd ???
actor's intent --> subject's consent --> ?????? (actor's reasonably presumed subject consent)
To elaborate on that last stage:
"Doing harm, or not" can be construed as the actor's best guess as what the subject would truthfully think is harmful, if they had all the info of the actor.
Flipping harm around to invert things into "consent or not":
That's the step beyond the "normal informed consent" scenario, and it actually happens a lot IRL.Any time a person is unable to make their own decisions, such as a medical emergency, it's up to someone else to try to make decisions on the incapacitated person's behalf.
This is done by imagining how that person would answer to such decisions /questions, as if they were conscious, and if the actor could mind-dump all their info to the subject.
If you've ever had to care for someone who was super drunk, or otherwise incapacitated, you've likely done this.
(--would they want-- me to remove their shoes/jacket when I dump them in their bed? Socks too?)(though in RL medicine they play it waaay safe and almost never do a different / don't treat the patient because they think the person would say no. Gotta get that DNR in writing, etc)
.
My best condensed ~rule for this:
If you think any subjects of your act, knowing what you know, would truthfully consider the act harmful to them, then it is harmful. Otherwise, it is not harmful. A subject wishing for your act to fail is irrelevant. Examples like attempting to escape a grapple, even when that subject would very much want you to remain held, would honestly be answered as not harming the subject.
I don't define it that way. There are things that qualify just because of the nature of the action is directly harmful. The physical altercation alone I consider directly harmful. Breaking a grapple requires a physical attack using the escape action, which is an attack. it does not need to be viewed as harmful by the recipient or anyone else. It just needs to be a physical attack to be considered directly harmful.
Viewpoint is more relevant when considering things that are indirectly harmful. There is much more GM adjudication here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think any attempt to set down a codified set of rigorous rules about whether or not something is hostile is going to fail (in at least some peoples opinion).
I very much fall into the category of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he said "I know it when I see it". And as a GM, I think that's a perfectly acceptable standard (and that's it's okay that it could vary group to group and GM to GM).
Yeah, generally with rules if you tell people where the actual line is, some people are going to tap dance right on down that line never putting more than a toenail over it. It is much less annoying if you just let people know "there is a line" and basically what it means, and then just rule whether or not something is over it on a case-by-case basis.
It's not like "would it be harm, and thus break invisibly, if I tied this guy's shoe laces together while he's not paying attention" is the sort of question that you can't just ask and get an answer to pretty quickly.
Yeah, generally with rules if you tell people where the actual line is, some people are going to tap dance right on down that line never putting more than a toenail over it. It is much less annoying if you just let people know "there is a line" and basically what it means, and then just rule whether or not something is over it on a case-by-case basis.I think any attempt to set down a codified set of rigorous rules about whether or not something is hostile is going to fail (in at least some peoples opinion).
I very much fall into the category of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he said "I know it when I see it". And as a GM, I think that's a perfectly acceptable standard (and that's it's okay that it could vary group to group and GM to GM).
That is true. The way I deal with it is by telling the player this action would be hostile. The player can decide to renig and do something else if they want to.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine grabbing someone, restraining them with both arms, then repeatedly yelling "They're attacking me!" as the victim tries to escape.
A ridiculous example, to be sure, but I really find the notion that someone attempting to cease being Grabbed by someone else is harmful to the someone else to be equally ridiculous.
Imagine grabbing someone, restraining them with both arms, then repeatedly yelling "They're attacking me!" as the victim tries to escape.
A ridiculous example, to be sure, but I really find the notion that someone attempting to cease being Grabbed by someone else is harmful to the someone else to be equally ridiculous.
I am not conceptualizing harm in terms of whos in the right.
It is purely the physical aspect of breaking free that requires harm to make it happen, otherwise the creature is not letting go. The character is right to do harm to break free, but harm is still required.|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine grabbing someone, restraining them with both arms, then repeatedly yelling "They're attacking me!" as the victim tries to escape.
A ridiculous example, to be sure, but I really find the notion that someone attempting to cease being Grabbed by someone else is harmful to the someone else to be equally ridiculous.
I am not conceptualizing harm in terms of whos in the right.
It is purely the physical aspect of breaking free that requires harm to make it happen, otherwise the creature is not letting go. The character is right to do harm to break free, but harm is still required.
Your description is consistently one that implies a contest of force. What of the slippery character who does not "break free" but "slips out" or "wriggles free"?
IMO, things get even weirder when we consider Sanctuary.
- A foe successfully saves and then is able to grab the character with Sanctuary.
- The Grabbed character, naturally, attempts escape.
- Sanctuary ends since escape was attempted???
Imagine grabbing someone, restraining them with both arms, then repeatedly yelling "They're attacking me!" as the victim tries to escape.
A ridiculous example, to be sure, but I really find the notion that someone attempting to cease being Grabbed by someone else is harmful to the someone else to be equally ridiculous.
I am not conceptualizing harm in terms of whos in the right.
It is purely the physical aspect of breaking free that requires harm to make it happen, otherwise the creature is not letting go. The character is right to do harm to break free, but harm is still required.Your description is consistently one that implies a contest of force. What of the slippery character who does not "break free" but "slips out" or "wriggles free"?
IMO, things get even weirder when we consider Sanctuary.
- A foe successfully saves and then is able to grab the character with Sanctuary.
- The Grabbed character, naturally, attempts escape.
- Sanctuary ends since escape was attempted???
I considered that too. It has two things going against it.
First is the attack trait is not removed for acrobatics being used instead of the unarmed attack bonus.Second is it would be giving special treatment to one form of escape over the other two even though its the same action with the same traits.
Yeah it would seem succeeding at the two checks needed to grapple a character protected with sanctuary foils sanctuary pretty good against that one foe. I think that is fair.
I would not get hung up on the attack trait meaning the act is harmful. It can be there for mechanical reasons. And I do concur that it is "wrong" to label escape as a harmful act. That would get a lot of pushback if a table ruled that way, and imo for good reason.
It's not the need for physical contact, nor prying oneself free that makes an act harmful, imo at least.
Back to the attack trait:
If I shoot an ally with a Life Shot, that healing shot is the opposite of harm.
(Same applies to that horrible feat no one should take, Healing Bomb)
I would not get hung up on the attack trait meaning the act is harmful. It can be there for mechanical reasons. And I do concur that it is "wrong" to label escape as a harmful act. That would get a lot of pushback if a table ruled that way, and imo for good reason.
It's not the need for physical contact, nor prying oneself free that makes an act harmful, imo at least.
Back to the attack trait:
If I shoot an ally with a Life Shot, that healing shot is the opposite of harm.(Same applies to that horrible feat no one should take, Healing Bomb)
Lol I've never liked the idea of healing bullets.
But if I am being consistent with my earlier statements I treat healing as hostile too when its contributing to one side of combat because the pc is aware doing so is indirect harm of enabling an ally that will stay up and further cause harm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol I've never liked the idea of healing bullets.
But if I am being consistent with my earlier statements I treat healing as hostile too when its contributing to one side of combat because the pc is aware doing so is indirect harm of enabling an ally that will stay up and further cause harm.
Then you have created a scenario where everything is harm, because the PCs want to defeat the foes. Can't even poof invisible and self buff.
Justifying with "indirect harm" should be enough of a flag for you to reconsider that as being classified as harm, lol.
|
|
Imagine grabbing someone, restraining them with both arms, then repeatedly yelling "They're attacking me!" as the victim tries to escape.
A ridiculous example, to be sure, but I really find the notion that someone attempting to cease being Grabbed by someone else is harmful to the someone else to be equally ridiculous.
I am not conceptualizing harm in terms of whos in the right.
It is purely the physical aspect of breaking free that requires harm to make it happen, otherwise the creature is not letting go. The character is right to do harm to break free, but harm is still required.Your description is consistently one that implies a contest of force. What of the slippery character who does not "break free" but "slips out" or "wriggles free"?
IMO, things get even weirder when we consider Sanctuary.
- A foe successfully saves and then is able to grab the character with Sanctuary.
- The Grabbed character, naturally, attempts escape.
- Sanctuary ends since escape was attempted???I considered that too. It has two things going against it.
First is the attack trait is not removed for acrobatics being used instead of the unarmed attack bonus.
Second is it would be giving special treatment to one form of escape over the other two even though its the same action with the same traits.Yeah it would seem succeeding at the two checks needed to grapple a character protected with sanctuary foils sanctuary pretty good against that one foe. I think that is fair.
Of course it doesn't remove the attack trait, that'd be super imbalanced. Imo there's a reason that rolls with the attack trait of even Attack Rolls are not specifically called out as Hostile, even if they usually are.
Even with Athletics it strength-based unarmed attack escapes, you aren't attacking the other creature. It's not like in a film where the character is punching someone in the face or stomach to get them to let go. Breaking free of a grip probably won't feel good, but harmful? Nah.
Also, you have to succeed at two checks normally just to strike a character with Sanctuary. The aggressive character shouldn't be getting doubly rewarded for functionally the same rolls (Will Save + Attack (strike) vs Will Save + Attack(Athletics)) with a victim who further endangers themselves for daring to try to escape.
Removing the effect of Sanctuary is the effect of critically saving the Will Save. Getting it essentially for free because you chose to succeed at a grapple instead of an attack isn't good tactics, it's poor rules adjudication.
Lol I've never liked the idea of healing bullets.
But if I am being consistent with my earlier statements I treat healing as hostile too when its contributing to one side of combat because the pc is aware doing so is indirect harm of enabling an ally that will stay up and further cause harm.
Then you have created a scenario where everything is harm, because the PCs want to defeat the foes. Can't even poof invisible and self buff.
Justifying with "indirect harm" should be enough of a flag for you to reconsider that as being classified as harm, lol.
Your right. I painted myself into a logical corner there.
Your right. I painted myself into a logical corner there.
And that's exactly why I'm a "I know it when I see it" guy.
The more rigorous you try to define something the more likely you are to run into a scenario where you don't like the outcome.
If this game doesn't want invisible summoners why allow invisible buffers or healers. Same for sanctuary for that matter.
Correct me if my assumption about summoning is off.
|
|
If this game doesn't want invisible summoners why allow invisible buffers or healers. Same for sanctuary for that matter.
Correct me if my assumption about summoning is off.
To my knowledge, summoning is not clearly defined a being harmful. But given that the language in modern summon spells is "You summon a creature that has the XXXXX trait and whose level is YYYYY to fight for you."
I think good arguments can be made either way.If the creature is a wolf that immediately bites an enemy, then that wolf did direct harm. And since the wolf is your summoned creature, I'd argue the caster caused indirect harm.
If the creature is a celestial and only heals or buffs allies, perhaps Summon Celestial is not doing direct harm to your opponents, and therefore the caster, imo, did not cause direct or indirect harm.
Arguably the caster in the second example caused indirect-indirect harm. But imo harm twice-removed from the source shouldn't count as the source inflicting harm.
On the flip side "fight for you" is arguable for hostility. It's not my personal take, but I think it's a valid one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. To attack someone is to harm them even if it does not damage. Escape stops the grapple they have on you and has the attack trait making it an attack. Pushing someone is harming them. Grabbing someone is harming them. Escape is fighting back against someone who grabbed you, of course its harming them back, even if it is deserved.
If grapple is considered harm then escape is harm too. they are essentially two sides of the same coin.
"You're holding me down, and I get away from you. I've harmed you."
That's your argument, right now. You are literally arguing that someone restraining someone against their will is harmed by that person getting away, even in the total absence of actual injury or measurable harm. So, not simply letting you do whatever you want without my consent is "harmful".
That's... something.
I disagree. To attack someone is to harm them even if it does not damage. Escape stops the grapple they have on you and has the attack trait making it an attack. Pushing someone is harming them. Grabbing someone is harming them. Escape is fighting back against someone who grabbed you, of course its harming them back, even if it is deserved.
If grapple is considered harm then escape is harm too. they are essentially two sides of the same coin.
"You're holding me down, and I get away from you. I've harmed you."
That's your argument, right now. You are literally arguing that someone restraining someone against their will is harmed by that person getting away, even in the total absence of actual injury or measurable harm. So, not simply letting you do whatever you want without my consent is "harmful".
That's... something.
How is the pc getting away if its not using some kind of force back to the attacker?
In fact the force has to be enough to free the pc of the force being applied to the pc. That's inherent in the check you roll.The nuance being argued is that oh its not force when using acrobatics to slink out. But since its still an attack and one that has to defeat the enemy athletics DC. The pc is defeating the creatures strength and skill at holding them down with an attack. its not benign or passive.
Problem with that statement about measurable injury or harm is that its going back to the damage argument. Harm is listed in the definition for hostile actions as separate from damage. Either damage which is measurable in numbers or harm which might not be measurable but can be determined by the kind of action taken. Fighting someone off you is harm even if its justified and warranted even if its not leaving any damage.
Escape isn't just not leaving damage on the grappler. It's not leaving anything.
You attempt to escape from being grabbed, immobilized, or restrained. Choose one creature, object, spell effect, hazard, or other impediment imposing any of those conditions on you. Attempt a check using your unarmed attack modifier against the DC of the effect. This is typically the Athletics DC of a creature grabbing you, the Thievery DC of a creature who tied you up, the spell DC for a spell effect, or the listed Escape DC of an object, hazard, or other impediment. You can attempt an Acrobatics or Athletics check instead of using your attack modifier if you choose (but this action still has the attack trait).
Critical Success You get free and remove the grabbed, immobilized, and restrained conditions imposed by your chosen target. You can then Stride up to 5 feet.
Success You get free and remove the grabbed, immobilized, and restrained conditions imposed by your chosen target.
Critical Failure You don't get free, and you can't attempt to Escape again until your next turn.
You are indeed targeting the grappler with an action that has the attack trait, but all of the action's mechanical impact is on you, not the grappler. It removes your grabbed/immobilized/restrained conditions that were imposed by the target.
Escape isn't just not leaving damage on the grappler. It's not leaving anything.
You are indeed targeting the grappler with an action that has the attack trait, but all of the action's mechanical impact is on you, not the grappler. It removes your grabbed/immobilized/restrained conditions that were imposed by the target.You attempt to escape from being grabbed, immobilized, or restrained. Choose one creature, object, spell effect, hazard, or other impediment imposing any of those conditions on you. Attempt a check using your unarmed attack modifier against the DC of the effect. This is typically the Athletics DC of a creature grabbing you, the Thievery DC of a creature who tied you up, the spell DC for a spell effect, or the listed Escape DC of an object, hazard, or other impediment. You can attempt an Acrobatics or Athletics check instead of using your attack modifier if you choose (but this action still has the attack trait).
Critical Success You get free and remove the grabbed, immobilized, and restrained conditions imposed by your chosen target. You can then Stride up to 5 feet.
Success You get free and remove the grabbed, immobilized, and restrained conditions imposed by your chosen target.
Critical Failure You don't get free, and you can't attempt to Escape again until your next turn.
But thats my point isnt it?
Its not only about anything left behind (though in the case of damage it can be), its about the harmful nature of attacking. Its harmful to use force on anyone, you have to use force to attack someone, escape is an attack action. I did point out a pc even has to roll to see if they overcome the force being applied by the creature to keep hold of the pc. A pc unable to overcome the creature holding them doesnt go free.How do you get around having to make an attack with a roll to overcome the creatures athletics dc?
I'm stuck on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is the pc getting away if its not using some kind of force back to the attacker?
In fact the force has to be enough to free the pc of the force being applied to the pc. That's inherent in the check you roll.
The nuance being argued is that oh its not force when using acrobatics to slink out. But since its still an attack and one that has to defeat the enemy athletics DC. The pc is defeating the creatures strength and skill at holding them down with an attack. its not benign or passive.
It's probably worth noting that we're actually talking about "hostile action" here, not "using any kind of resistance whatsoever." "Hostile action" is the actual standard on Invisibility that kicked this whole thing off.
Me escaping from you is not a hostile action, unless your definition of hostility is "you're allowed to do whatever you want to me and I'm not allowed to avoid it." Which is, frankly, gross.
But even if we take this to your own level: there are lots of ways to break a hold without causing any harm. And if your standard has now shifted all the way to "if you do anything to resist whatsoever then you're causing harm and have hostile intent", then there's simply no point in continuing this discussion because you've set an impossible (and pretty awful if applied to real life) standard and created a rule that doesn't exist to try and justify it.
Any discussion on that is a waste of everyone's time because you've thrown out the parts of the rules that don't suit what you want to say and replaced them with new ones.
Problem with that statement about measurable injury or harm is that its going back to the damage argument. Harm is listed in the definition for hostile actions as separate from damage. Either damage which is measurable in numbers or harm which might not be measurable but can be determined by the kind of action taken. Fighting someone off you is harm even if its justified and warranted even if its not leaving any damage.
If I haven't harmed you and I'm not attacking you, I haven't done anything hostile. So yeah, harm is relevant here because without it there's no justification whatsoever for escaping being considered a hostile action. All I've done is stopped you from holding me. You have no demonstrable harm done out of this, and I'm not attempting to attack you.
If there's no measurable harm, then you can't say harm is being done because you're just inventing something that doesn't exist. That's not how rules work, even ones that require GM interpretation like this.
And as already explained, the Attack trait doesn't mean its hostile. Using Healing Bomb has the Attack trait because you're Striking with a bomb. But that's obviously not a hostile action on an ally, right? All the Attack trait is doing in this case is making MAP apply.
I'm honestly not too keen on how pf2 draws their line, and I'm mindfully keeping that same line in the "Hostile Actions" blurb as best I can.
I'll try to refine my above attempt here a bit:
If you think any subjects of your act, knowing what you know, would truthfully consider the act to be harmful to them, then it is a harmful act. Otherwise, it is not harmful.
A subject wishing for your act to fail is irrelevant. Examples like your attempt to escape a grapple, even when that subject would very much want you to remain held, would honestly be answered as not harming the subject.
Preparing to inflict harm is itself not a harmful act. Any discrete act which itself cannot cause harm is not harmful. Reloading a crossbow, even with the intent to shoot later, is not harmful. The final activity required to trigger a trap mechanism to send a boulder toward someone is harmful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as already explained, the Attack trait doesn't mean its hostile. Using Healing Bomb has the Attack trait because you're Striking with a bomb. But that's obviously not a hostile action on an ally, right? All the Attack trait is doing in this case is making MAP apply.
Providing this from earlier.
I guess I have a pretty strict view on this.
I actually consider buffing or healing indirectly harming as well when done in combat.
I see it as two groups are fighting, healing or buffing one side is harmful to the other indirectly. healing is no different than giving someone runic weapon, or haste or summoning a creature. your contributing indirectly to the harm of the other side of that fight.Think of it this way. Lets say you see two groups fighting eachother and you start healing people on one side of the fight. You think the other group is going to just ignore you? No they are going to consider those actions hostile against them. You are making the other side better able to stay alive and harm them.
Me escaping from you is not a hostile action, unless your definition of hostility is "you're allowed to do whatever you want to me and I'm not allowed to avoid it." Which is, frankly, gross.
I'm only going to address this statement right here.
I didn't appreciate this insinuation. It suggests I do not think defending oneself is allowed. Or that I think its ok to do do any of these things to others. I don't and thats not right to be suggestive that I do.I don't think a pc in this game stays invisible if they use the escape action, I don't think they stay under the effect of sanctuary if they use an escape action. They still get to roll for escape and thats not in question so theres no reason to suggest I don't think a pc can defend themselves.
Of course attacking back is hostile. And I do think its right to be hostile back when grabbed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if the action doesn't do damage or a negative condition instantly when it is resolved then it doesn't break invisibility.
Magic doesn't care if having your money stolen makes it so you can't pay rent and you get thrown out and starve. Magic doesn't care if you twist to get away from someone grabbing you.
Keep it simple, otherwise the butterfly effect and morality make it so invisibility can't ever work.
I think if the action doesn't do damage or a negative condition instantly when it is resolved then it doesn't break invisibility.
Magic doesn't care if having your money stolen makes it so you can't pay rent and you get thrown out and starve. Magic doesn't care if you twist to get away from someone grabbing you.Keep it simple, otherwise the butterfly effect and morality make it so invisibility can't ever work.
Yup, if I was writing this fresh, I'd specify "bodily" harm would be a key requirement. So things like opening doors or activating traps would always be non-breaking.
Imo the rules are too scared of invisible PCs, even when the default is that hearing is an imprecise sense, so all hostiles will know the square that anything significant happens in. It's wild that the book feels the need for intentionally opening a door to (hopefully) harm a foe is considered an invisibility-breaking hostile act.
.
As is mentioned with the book's door opening example, it being "accidental" actually factors into to consideration of it being harmful or not. Woof, that... creates a lot of questions.
The core issue at hand with the RaW here is that it's super video-game arbitrary to have some acts break invisibility based on the presence or absence of targets. It is rather nonsense that opening a door is sometimes hostile and sometimes not. But, there's just no way for "harmful acts" to be the key difference and to avoid this "mechanistically arbitrary" problem.
My above attempt at a re-write keeps the RaW's consideration of intent, but I'd definitely *not* include that can of worms were I writing from scratch.
For those seeking a houserule, I'd recommend chopping out the issue of consent/intent completely.
Using consent/intent is actually the only way to make a single rule work in all cases, and I'm guessing that's why they went with that approach.
But if you accept there is always going to be some video-gamey BS underneath, it can be waaaay easier/simpler to handle if you scrap the intent angle, and keep it limited to bodily harm.
Quick example:
If the subject of your act could receive bodily harm as a direct result, then it is considered a harmful act. This need not be in the form of life-threatening damage to Hit Points, as acts that attempt to impose a negative condition, like Grapple, are also directly harmful.
Preparing to inflict harm is itself not a harmful act. Any discrete act which itself cannot cause harm is not harmful. Reloading a crossbow is not a harmful act, but shooting it is.
GM evaluation may be required, and some rulings will be arbitrary and contextual, so beware being too mechanistically consistent. Throwing a rock at a creature is plainly a harmful act. Throwing an object to create a diversion is plainly not harmful, and it is fine to have both rulings coexist, despite the opposite outcomes sharing the same core mechanism.
Instead of prioritizing mechanistic consistency, attempt to enable the ability of the players to know without question if an act will be harmful or not.
Magic doesn't care if having your money stolen makes it so you can't pay rent and you get thrown out and starve. Magic doesn't care if you twist to get away from someone grabbing you.
The rule for Invisibility breaking when you do harm is 100% gamist, not narrativist or simulationist. It's entirely about "what you should let invisible players get away with, and what you shouldn't (without higher level magic.)"
Magic also doesn't have to be 100% constant because it is, after all, Magic. Invisibility can hold one time when you try a steal check and while it fails another time when you make an incredibly similar steal check for no better reason than "the GM really doesn't want you to do that just then."
Like "Harm" can mean different things in different contexts and "Magic" can tell the difference.
I'm personally not the biggest fan of the exact same action in the same general context being ruled two different ways, because the less consistent the rules are, the less able I'd feel to interact properly with the game. Pathfinder 2e isn't really a "Mother May I" system by nature, and while the definition of what's hostile or harmful can get tricky sometimes (that's why ethics are a whole field of IRL philosophy), I do believe that with sufficient drilling down into detail, we can get consistent definitions of what's harmful on a case-by-case basis.
I think in this particular case, there are some exceptions that are tripping us up: Striking with a healing bomb is a good example, because Striking is normally always a hostile action, except in this particular case where you're using the action to deliver a beneficial effect. From this, we can probably extrapolate that using an action normally explicitly designed for hostility to instead do something directly beneficial, like apply healing, wouldn't be hostile. On the flipside to that, however, I'd still rule that Striking your allies to prevent them from getting popped by a gliminal's overhealing would be a hostile action, because dealing damage is directly harmful, even if it is indirectly beneficial in that context.
In this same respect, I think that while the attack trait typically describes hostile things you're doing to enemies, I think the Escape action is an exception, in that it serves purely to describe in mechanical terms the penalty you'd get to your attempts to Escape if you attacked your opponent already (or already tried to Escape beforehand). Although escaping is antagonistic to someone, it is only antagonistic to that person trying to harm you, in the same way that blocking an attack or dodging out of the way of an explosion would be antagonistic, but not directly harmful. Thus, I think trying to Escape should probably not be ruled as a hostile action any more than making a save or using Shield Block, despite it having the attack trait.
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.
But escaping is breaking the hold on an enemy that is holding you down. It is using physical force against an enemy. There are reasonable ways to consider escape hostile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only way to avoid that is if you completely redefine harmful acts from scratch and try to create some mechanistically consistent ruleset.
And you really can't.
My earlier "throw a rock" example is good enough to repeat.
If you throw a rock at a foe, yeah, that'll break stealth. But the very stealthy act of "create a diversion" is most perfectly cliched by throwing something noisy, like a bottle, over to another location so that a foe checks it out.
.
When an action as universal as throwing something creates the paradox, I don't think it *can* be made mechanistically consistent (without giving the PCs a very blank check).
But escaping is breaking the hold on an enemy that is holding you down. It is using physical force against an enemy. There are reasonable ways to consider escape hostile.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.
No, there aren't. You're not doing anything to the enemy. You're getting yourself free of their grasp.
"Hostile" implies intent, and there is no hostile intent here. This isn't actually about them at all: its about the person being held not wanting to be held and getting out of that.
There's no harm done to them, since that's a mechanical absolute in this case that we can readily prove.
So there's no hostile intent and there's no harm done. The only justification here is a made up "well you must be doing something to get away so it's hostile" that has no basis in the rules.
And it's still gross to say "me not wanting to be held by you and getting away means I'm hostile." I don't know if people can't hear what they sound like or if they've just never been in this situation in real life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When an action as universal as throwing something creates the paradox, I don't think it *can* be made mechanistically consistent (without giving the PCs a very blank check).
No, it can't. And that's probably good. This is a "I know it when I see it" type of thing. Trying to codify that is doomed to create loopholes and problematic outcomes.
It's better not to, since a table will figure out together what that means if it actually comes up, which a lot of these scenarios just never actually will in practice.
The only way to avoid that is if you completely redefine harmful acts from scratch and try to create some mechanistically consistent ruleset.
And you really can't.
My earlier "throw a rock" example is good enough to repeat.
If you throw a rock at a foe, yeah, that'll break stealth. But the very stealthy act of "create a diversion" is most perfectly cliched by throwing something noisy, like a bottle, over to another location so that a foe checks it out.
.
When an action as universal as throwing something creates the paradox, I don't think it *can* be made mechanistically consistent (without giving the PCs a very blank check).
But you've just shown that what you have is not one action, it's two, each specifically defined already. "Throw a rock" isn't an action unless you're a specific monster, but Strike and Create a Diversion are, and those can individually be evaluated as harmful or not. The flavor may be somewhat similar, but ultimately you're doing two completely different actions, and that's what matters here.
But you've just shown that what you have is not one action, it's two, each specifically defined already. "Throw a rock" isn't an action unless you're a specific monster, but Strike and Create a Diversion are, and those can individually be evaluated as harmful or not. The flavor may be somewhat similar, but ultimately you're doing two completely different actions, and that's what matters here.
The point is that the mechanistic action behind them is the exact same. Throwing a thing is the mechanism in both scenarios.
It's the intent behind throwing the thing that creates two different outcomes.
.
You could create and load a "bottle thrower" device to have the exact same power behind each bottle throw. If you aim at a wall for a distraction, that doesn't break stealth. If you aim at a gaurd's head for a knockout, it's a hostile act that breaks stealth.
We already have a scenario where the target and intent magically alter the nature of the identical act the outcome results from.
.
This "unsolvable contextual ambiguity" is all the more apparent if you factor whiffing the shot into the equation.
If you aimed for the guard's helmet, but hit the wall behind him, what happens?
If you aimed for the wall behind him, but accidentally KOed the guy, what happens?
The point is that the mechanistic action behind them is the exact same. Throwing a thing is the mechanism in both scenarios.
But it's not, is the point I'm making. In mechanical terms, you described two different actions, each of which can be evaluated as hostile or not. Pathfinder 2e is not a totally freeform roleplay system where throwing a rock has to be adjudicated each time based on intent, because if you're throwing a rock to hit someone, you're Striking them, and if you're throwing a rock to distract someone, you're Creating a Diversion. It doesn't matter if you're throwing a rock, swinging a hammer, or shooting a burst of fire magic to do this; in all cases the game processes what you're doing as one of these actions or others and the evaluation works from there. You can't throw a rock in such a way that it distracts an enemy and hits them unless you have some sort of feat for that which I'm not aware of; you can only do one or the other. Thus, from this, I think it can be safely said that in the near-totality of cases, Striking someone is a hostile action, whether it's with a rock, a sword, or a cupcake, whereas Creating a Diversion is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But escaping is breaking the hold on an enemy that is holding you down. It is using physical force against an enemy. There are reasonable ways to consider escape hostile.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.
As far as I'm concerned escape is defense against a hostile action. Whether you plan to use a hostile action once you escape or run away makes it a non-hostile action as it does no harm and merely counters a harmful action carried about against you, then after you escape you can decide if you take a hostile action like attacking the grabber or non-hostile action like fleeing or healing yourself.
I do think the definition of harm in this case ought to be something along the lines of "dealing damage or limiting a creature's agency". Damaging someone is obviously harmful, but then so is trying to Grapple them, inflict forced movement, imprison them, or inflict a detrimental condition on them, even temporarily. This is something that I think can generally be seen from the action itself, such that an action can generally be seen as hostile or not by default, with certain exceptions arising in specific contexts (for instance, Striking with a healing bomb).
I also think this should also sit in sharp contrast to the large range of effects you will typically use in combat, and that will typically set an someone else back on their plans, but that aren't hostile to that creature. If someone's trying to kill an ally and you heal that ally, I don't think that's hostile, even if it will frustrate the person trying to kill your ally. If someone's grabbed you and you try to Escape, that's not hostile either, even if your successful escape will go against that creature's objectives. In fact, even giving someone a buff like Heroism so that they can become better at harming enemies I'd say isn't a hostile action in and of itself, even if it is a facilitator to other hostile actions.
I'd say the major grey area would be spells, many of which can be freeform enough to achieve different effects in certain contexts. Using a wall of stone to create a bridge is likely not a hostile action, but using that wall of stone to wall off or trap an enemy in combat probably is. That I think is when you'd need a bit of GM adjudication, though I still think "does this damage a creature or limit their agency?" is still a good standard to follow in all cases.
But it's not, is the point I'm making. In mechanical terms, you described two different actions, [...]
That was the whole point of me asking "what if you miss?" but you completely ignored that section.
To actually force you to grok this, there's Cast a Spell, which is one specific activity, the same specific activity.
How you do handle the notion that depending on what spell you cast, and the intent of the spell, you can have many different outcomes here?
We can even bring it back to throwing stuff thanks to Subtle + Telekinetic Projectile. Same exact activity, but only differentiated by target/intent.
As a side note...
Whether something is a hostile action does indeed depend on whether the user is aware it can cause harm. But funny enough, it also depends on whether the action is actually capable of causing damage or harm to another creature.
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.
So casting fireball into a crowd with the intent to kill everyone in the crowd is actually not a hostile action if everyone in the crowd happens to be immune to fire and the caster just didn't know. And even if the caster were also in that crowd but not immune to fire, it would still not be a hostile action, because there are no other creatures in the area that are capable of being harmed by the fireball.
That was the whole point of me asking "what if you miss?" but you completely ignored that section.
Who cares if you miss? I'm not proposing a consequence-based approach, you are, and what I'm telling you is that you don't need to care about intent or consequences to categorize actions as hostile or not. Just because your arrow misses your target doesn't mean you didn't attempt to hurt or kill them. In mechanical terms, your action was still a Strike, and that is enough to categorize it as hostile.
To actually force you to grok this, there's Cast a Spell, which is one specific activity, the same specific activity.
How you do handle the notion that depending on what spell you cast, and the intent of the spell, you can have many different outcomes here?
You mean, this point I made already?
I'd say the major grey area would be spells, many of which can be freeform enough to achieve different effects in certain contexts. Using a wall of stone to create a bridge is likely not a hostile action, but using that wall of stone to wall off or trap an enemy in combat probably is. That I think is when you'd need a bit of GM adjudication, though I still think "does this damage a creature or limit their agency?" is still a good standard to follow in all cases.
A subtle TKP I don't think is terribly ambiguous, given that you're still making an attack and it targets a creature, but there are for sure some spells that are more context-dependent, like wall of stone. Even so, I do not think a consequence-based approach is really what's going to help here, and I don't even think intent matters either. It's what you're specifically doing with the spell itself in mechanistic terms, something a game system like Pathfinder generally makes easy to evaluate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note...
Whether something is a hostile action does indeed depend on whether the user is aware it can cause harm. But funny enough, it also depends on whether the action is actually capable of causing damage or harm to another creature.
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.So casting fireball into a crowd with the intent to kill everyone in the crowd is actually not a hostile action if everyone in the crowd happens to be immune to fire and the caster just didn't know. And even if the caster were also in that crowd but not immune to fire, it would still not be a hostile action, because there are no other creatures in the area that are capable of being harmed by the fireball.
I would never run it this way and that is a very loose reading of that rule.
I would never run it this way and that is a very loose reading of that rule.As a side note...
Whether something is a hostile action does indeed depend on whether the user is aware it can cause harm. But funny enough, it also depends on whether the action is actually capable of causing damage or harm to another creature.
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.So casting fireball into a crowd with the intent to kill everyone in the crowd is actually not a hostile action if everyone in the crowd happens to be immune to fire and the caster just didn't know. And even if the caster were also in that crowd but not immune to fire, it would still not be a hostile action, because there are no other creatures in the area that are capable of being harmed by the fireball.
I think restricting it to "another" creature might be to prevent players from having easier access to hostile actions. Like, if you could punch yourself in the face and have it count as a hostile action, it would be very easy to remove fascinated from yourself and all your allies. But since that doesn't count, you might have to Stride to an ally and punch them instead. Or draw a bow. Or already have a ranged attack available.