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.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 the way they wrote it before was a lot better, but I imagine they wanted to prevent summon spells and other tricks players came up with to do damage and avoid breaking invisibility. So now it is a real ambiguous rule that is going to lead to immense table variation and debate.
| 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.
This is a perfect exhibit for why this kind of thing can't be codified. If it is, someone will try and twist the words in ridiculous ways. If the caster doesn't know everything in the area is immune to fire, then they're very much attempting to cause harm because that's the only purpose of hitting someone with Fireball. The fact that they failed is irrelevant.
Also, Fireball definitely "can harm or damage another creature".
By this logic if I Strike someone and fail to get through resistance that I didn't know they had, "stabbing someone in the back" isn't a hostile action. Or hell, what if i just miss? Strike isn't a hostile action if you roll a nat 1?
It's completely absurd and any GM worth their salt is going to shut down this attempt at rules lawyering real hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's less that this kind of thing can't be codified, and more that regardless of how clear and well-codified something is, someone will always try to make an argument out of it. Some actions are very obviously hostile, and pretending that they're not isn't exploiting ambiguity in the rules, it's just casuistry.
I think it's less that this kind of thing can't be codified, and more that regardless of how clear and well-codified something is, someone will always try to make an argument out of it. Some actions are very obviously hostile, and pretending that they're not isn't exploiting ambiguity in the rules, it's just casuistry.
Yes my last contribution was not a position I hold - I was merely trying to make a point.
I would agree with you except you said the rules were clear and well-codified. They just are not. Specifically in this case.
Damage is clear but Harm is not well defined. Then the rules allow for indirect harm!?!.
That is horrendously open.
The line for Harm is always "whatever the GM doesn't want you to be able to get away with while invisible in a given situation". Grabbing someone's butt doesn't do damage or impose conditions, but if the GM thinks you're crossing a line then it's harm.
Yes my last contribution was not a position I hold - I was merely trying to make a point.
I would agree with you except you said the rules were clear and well-codified. They just are not. Specifically in this case.
Damage is clear but Harm is not well defined. Then the rules allow for indirect harm!?!.
That is horrendously open.
Don't worry at all, and that's ambiguity on my part too: my post wasn't directed towards you or anyone here in particular, especially because I think it's reasonable to play devil's advocate in an online discussion purely to see how a definition can fall apart or leave certain edge cases open.
I also agree with you 100%: the definition for a hostile action is not written as clearly or as concisely as it should be, and I personally think the whole bit about causing indirect harm in particular leaves the door wide open to ambiguous interpretation. My point in that respect is less that the definition is airtight and that everything about hostile actions is perfectly clear-cut, and more that even the most clear-cut definitions will inevitably find at least one person arguing them still, whether by rules lawyering at the table or just for the sake of debating in conversation. There's certainly a lot of ambiguity around what constitutes indirect harm and what actions induce that, but something as basic as Striking someone with a damaging weapon is about as unambiguously hostile as it comes, for instance.