"Offensive action?" you decide.

[pblackcrow]

Is casting the spell mute considered against a dragon boar an offensive action?

[Reagren Wright]

Do you mean is casting the mute spell against anyone (who isn't attacking you) an offensive action?

[pblackcrow]

Correct...well, it's actually pre-battle. And a character is invisible.

[pblackcrow]

I do it like if an action doesn't harm them, directly, it's not an offensive action.

[Reagren Wright]

Is a Sanctuary Spell in place?

[pblackcrow]

Nope.

[kiralon]

Yes, if the target had to save vs an unwanted effect it is offensive.

[pblackcrow]

Sorry, but I don't agree with you Kiralon. Offensive means basically to harm.

Would you agree that dropping a pellot of poison into the in the flaggon with the dragon is not considered a direct offensive action. They have to drink it? Therefore, it wouldn't make him visible. Correct? However, dropping a pellot of poison into the mouth of some one is.

Dropping a rock in a cannon isn't...Technically, the other guy has to "pull the trigger".

Setting a trap isn't. However, springing it on someone is, if it is done so manually.

So, how is it offensive if said action does not directly harmed someone?

[kiralon]

oh, dnd invisibilty, yes casting a spell on something is offensive, doing anything that causes another to make a save against their will is offensive, and if you have a harsh dm swearing at them can be classed as offensive, but if I have to make a roll to save vs something I don't want that is an attack on my being, that's why I get a save. If you has silence 15ft radius on a rock and left it near it, that isn't offensive as there is no save involved. The dm's main book has an expanded list of what you can and can't do.

However that limitation does not effect palladium invisibility unless house ruled.
nor does it affect improved invisibilty.


hint: as it sounds like a magic item doing it hide and cast the spell on the critter and reactivate the invis, sometimes works, but if it has a sense of smell and/or good hearing it can still figure out someone is nearby.

[pblackcrow]

Our GM isn't the problem...The problem is our new member is a know it all rules lawyer who upset our GM!

[Cinos]

Doing something against ones will is Offensive. Damage is not a requirement. If I handcuff a person to a door, it is still an aggressive act, even though I've done them no direct harm. Defining offensive acts as only damaging acts opens a huge door of shenanigans, such as invisible entangles, CoA's, Disharmonizes and all sorts of other stuff you should likely avoid.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Is casting the spell mute considered against a dragon boar an offensive action?

Yes, if the target of the spell is not a willing subject.

[Tor]

Doing something against ones will is Offensive.

So if I sneak into an ill person's room using Invisibility Superior and they are in a coma and I cast a healing spell on them, my invisibility is ruined?

Damage is not a requirement.

Maybe not, but attempting to inflict it should be.

If I handcuff a person to a door, it is still an aggressive act, even though I've done them no direct harm.

I don't agree, since this isn't always done with harm in mind.

Defining offensive acts as only damaging acts opens a huge door of shenanigans, such as invisible entangles, CoA's, Disharmonizes and all sorts of other stuff you should likely avoid.

Why should we avoid these? Sounds awesome.

[kiralon]

So if I sneak into an ill person's room using Invisibility Superior and they are in a coma and I cast a healing spell on them, my invisibility is ruined?

If he didn't want the healing spell yes, and how does the magic know the difference, by maaaagic


The offensive part is decided by the target, not the caster, otherwise the caster would say nothing was offensive.

[URLeader Hobbes]

Is casting the spell mute considered against a dragon boar an offensive action?

Absolutely. (I'm a Sith I deal in absolutes.)

Unless the dragon boar in question was either happy to be muted and asked for it than it's considered an offense. (In which case there would be no saving throw as he would allow it to happen.)

While no "Damage" is being done, the nature of the spell is that which not only requires a saving throw from the victim. In addition the spell tosser in question knows fully well that should it work than the victim can't cast spells nor call for help.

This will remove the invisibility as it's a magical attack.

Good rule of thumb for the GM is to indicate that if it causes any harm or disadvantage to the target than the creature is under an attack of some sort and this negates the invisibility.

Good luck to the rules lawyer to explain how stripping any target/victim of the ability to communicate and/or cast spells is somehow beneficial.

[Reagren Wright]

Is casting the spell mute considered against a dragon boar an offensive action?

Yes, if the target of the spell is not a willing subject.

Agreed. I suppose one should consider it a natural defensive reaction (the saving throw) unless you willing choose to have
a spell effect you. Now a better question would be if the person had sixth sense would casting the spell be considered "life
threatening?"

[flatline]

If you're going to use spells with subjective rules like this, you should resign yourself to living with GM fiat.

Actually, you should do this anyways. GM fiat, with a good GM, makes the game much faster and less crunchy. Everybody wins!

--flatline

[Library Ogre]

I would define Mute, a spell designed to remove a capability from the target, as an offensive action.

Which is why I always use Chameleon in conjunction with Invisibility. Stop. Cast Mute. Rely on Chameleon until you can cast Invisibility again.

[drewkitty ~..~]

So if I sneak into an ill person's room using Invisibility Superior and they are in a coma and I cast a healing spell on them, my invisibility is ruined?

If he didn't want the healing spell yes, and how does the magic know the difference, by maaaagic


The offensive part is decided by the target, not the caster, otherwise the caster would say nothing was offensive.

healing spells are not attacks.

Except maybe if the target is some sort of undead/neg chi being that is damaged by healing spells

[zyanitevp]

Doing something against ones will is Offensive. Damage is not a requirement. If I handcuff a person to a door, it is still an aggressive act, even though I've done them no direct harm. Defining offensive acts as only damaging acts opens a huge door of shenanigans, such as invisible entangles, CoA's, Disharmonizes and all sorts of other stuff you should likely avoid.

Agree. Cinos beat me too the point.

If a Saving throw has to be rolled by the victim, then that is one which should constitute an offensive action.

Agreed completely.

[Library Ogre]

Doing something against ones will is Offensive. Damage is not a requirement. If I handcuff a person to a door, it is still an aggressive act, even though I've done them no direct harm. Defining offensive acts as only damaging acts opens a huge door of shenanigans, such as invisible entangles, CoA's, Disharmonizes and all sorts of other stuff you should likely avoid.

Agree. Cinos beat me too the point.

If a Saving throw has to be rolled by the victim, then that is one which should constitute an offensive action.

I think "attack or defense (or save) roll" is a good rule of thumb. I might not include handcuffing a person to a door, but I can also see that being handled through a pick pockets skill check (to slip the cuffs on them and the door without their notice).

[kiralon]

So if I sneak into an ill person's room using Invisibility Superior and they are in a coma and I cast a healing spell on them, my invisibility is ruined?

If he didn't want the healing spell yes, and how does the magic know the difference, by maaaagic


The offensive part is decided by the target, not the caster, otherwise the caster would say nothing was offensive.

healing spells are not attacks.

Except maybe if the target is some sort of undead/neg chi being that is damaged by healing spells

If the effect it detrimental to the target in any way its offensive.

[pblackcrow]

Alright, where does it say this in the books? And also you are saying that if a saving throw is required...Which is stupid! Considering fire ball, energy bolt, etc doesn't require a saving throw; they require a dodge. I have been playing Palladium games since I can't remember at the moment and I have not played it or GMed it that away. Odd. But okay. Show me where it says it.

Sorry, I truly am. It is just that our GM is very up set about by the new guy telling him how his game should be played.

[kiralon]

Is this Palladium, pathfinder or dnd

[Cinos]

It is just that our GM is very up set about by the new guy telling him how his game should be played.

There is nothing anyone on a forum for any game that can do anything meaningful about this specific problem. This is something that GM, player and their group of players need to hash out for themselves. Palladium, perhaps more than most systems, gives a complete free hand to the GM to run the game however they see fit. In public D&D groups, of course, playing by the word of the rules has a much greater say in how things are handled, as there's things like GM certification and because you're rarely playing ultra consistently with the same players or GM, there's a greater need for clear, by the books sort of game play.

Despite my opinion on the matter, any GM can come to the conclusion that an Unwanted healing spell, or Blind are not offensive actions (It can open up abuses that will need to be dealt with down the line, but this depends on the group as a whole). It's still that GM's call. If that player does not like the call, that's fine they can deal with it or find another GM, turns out, most GMs are in pretty short supply.

Furthermore, if you're looking for a quote out of a rule book in Palladium in general, you're barking up the wrong tree. Palladium is just short of the direct embodiment spirit of 'wing it' style of RPG, to the point that the -writer- is noted for his flagrant disregards for the rules he himself has made during con games.

Now, I'll still keep saying that any spell which would cause any sort of opposed roll or Check, a Saving throw, a Dodge / Strike check even like a battle of wills (though that's -very- situation), anything I'd classify as an Evoke or Afflict spell would break Invisibility straight up. There's some murk in it. Illusions for example, they can cause indirect harm. There's some oddities, would World Bizarre? Would you allow players to just Invisibility into an enemy encampment and just spam Curse of the World Bizarre on everyone all the time? Or Luck Curse? How about Mind Bond? Possession? None of these things cause direct harm, but could easily destroy a group of soldiers without ever putting oneself in direct harms way and thus can break the game. I had a player who would often do such things, even though I ruled that such spells would break his invisibility, forcing him to carefully select the right times to strike, plot out an extraction, and things could still easily go wrong and thus it was a risky move, rather than some assured get in get out low risk endeavor.

However, your current problem is NOT related to your question as revealed by that quoted bit, but a problem between that GM and that Player (or perhaps their group). The game rules won't have anything do with that, because the game rules are as mutable as they get.

[Nightmask]

Sorry, but I don't agree with you Kiralon. Offensive means basically to harm.

Would you agree that dropping a pellot of poison into the in the flaggon with the dragon is not considered a direct offensive action. They have to drink it? Therefore, it wouldn't make him visible. Correct? However, dropping a pellot of poison into the mouth of some one is.

Dropping a rock in a cannon isn't...Technically, the other guy has to "pull the trigger".

Setting a trap isn't. However, springing it on someone is, if it is done so manually.

So, how is it offensive if said action does not directly harmed someone?

That's not what offensive means, and muting something is certainly acting in an offensive manner towards something. It's certainly not a defensive action and it's not a neutral action since it's impeding the target in some fashion and is intended to impede/restrict them in some fashion making it an offensive action. The problem with all your examples is that you're ignoring the key element of them, namely that the latter actions one is the directing element of what's happening to impede the target which is what is happening when the mute spell is cast. It's an offensive action just as if you were tossing a blanket or net over someone even though the blanket/net did no harm it was still an attack meant to impede the target.

[flatline]

When I'm the GM, I use intent to determine if a particular act is offensive or not.

For instance, creating a force field near someone to protect them from falling debris or shrapnel is not offensive, but if the intent is for them to crash into the force field or be trapped by it, then the act is offensive.

--flatline

[pblackcrow]

Is this Palladium, pathfinder or dnd

In Palladium.

[pblackcrow]

Flatline...So, casting muting the loud voiced, talkative, and half drunk barbarian and the egocentric noble who sneezes when near reptiles, and you're all trying to sneak passed a dragon that your familiar spied earlier, is considered fine (NO PROBLEM) because you're intent is to protecting him, yourself, and the group from harm. Yet your character very much enjoy the silence from the two and have wanted to do that for several weeks now, so you lie about the long the duration and say that the spells negation factor is difficult to do.

[Library Ogre]

Alright, where does it say this in the books? And also you are saying that if a saving throw is required...Which is stupid! Considering fire ball, energy bolt, etc doesn't require a saving throw; they require a dodge. I have been playing Palladium games since I can't remember at the moment and I have not played it or GMed it that away. Odd. But okay. Show me where it says it.

Sorry, I truly am. It is just that our GM is very up set about by the new guy telling him how his game should be played.

Which is why my rule of thumb is "If it requires an attack roll, a defense roll, or a saving throw, it's an offensive action." I doubt this is spelled out anywhere in a book; Palladium doesn't tend to spell these things out.

[kiralon]

Well if its invisibilty: simple it doesn't matter, you can engage in combat and still stay invisible, if its invisibilty: superior casting mute on something would break it, and if its a ring or a potion the dm just has to decide which invisibility it is, but ive always played it as lesser.

[pblackcrow]

We all know this. And it was Superior. He didn't want it to smell him.

[zyanitevp]

Alright, where does it say this in the books? And also you are saying that if a saving throw is required...Which is stupid! Considering fire ball, energy bolt, etc doesn't require a saving throw; they require a dodge. I have been playing Palladium games since I can't remember at the moment and I have not played it or GMed it that away. Odd. But okay. Show me where it says it.

Sorry, I truly am. It is just that our GM is very up set about by the new guy telling him how his game should be played.

The game should be played how the GM and the players, as a whole group, think it should be played- whether it is in a book or not.

[kiralon]

The game should be played how the GM and the players, as a whole group, think it should be played- whether it is in a book or not.

+1, as the book says if your not having fun something is wrong, the game is about fun, not rules, the rules are there to guide the fun, but it's also a large uncertain world, not everything is going to work the way it does in the book.

[Tor]

The offensive part is decided by the target, not the caster, otherwise the caster would say nothing was offensive.

The nature of what offensive means may also be decided by a third option, an impartial idea of what the term means.

For example, to mean things that are intended to damage or compromise, which healing wouldn't be.

This does lead to some sticky situations. Like Adhesion Carpet being offensive if you want to hold someone in place to shoot them, but not being offensive if they're going to jump off a ledge and you stop them.

you are saying that if a saving throw is required...Which is stupid!

Stupid's harsh... I think the meaning is clearly 'damage or savings throw'.

I oppose savings throw on the basis that even desired spells can require them, like if you wanted a chi mage to do the Remove Heart ritual on you.

Trying to remember if there were some others.

[Cinos]

This does lead to some sticky situations. Like Adhesion Carpet being offensive if you want to hold someone in place to shoot them, but not being offensive if they're going to jump off a ledge and you stop them.

Actually kiralon's 'offensive part is decided by the target, not the caster' comment covers this. Unless the person being caught from the fall wants to be falling (suicidal / escaping), it would be offensive. Any time the character / player would choose to void or force the save, you've also answered 'is this spell offensive at this time' based on that question alone.

[eliakon]

In my game, the way that this works is that if either the caster or the target is unwilling, or feels threatened or harmed, or IS harmed. Its offensive. There are lots and lots of puppies frozen mid yip in my sanctuary spells, healing CS soldiers with spells breaks invisibility...but your perfectly fine to sacrifice a human to your god...as long as the person wants to be sacrificed.....

[flatline]

In my game, the way that this works is that if either the caster or the target is unwilling, or feels threatened or harmed, or IS harmed. Its offensive. There are lots and lots of puppies frozen mid yip in my sanctuary spells, healing CS soldiers with spells breaks invisibility...but your perfectly fine to sacrifice a human to your god...as long as the person wants to be sacrificed.....

In my game, I've mostly done away with subjective tests like that. Invisibility:Superior has been house ruled to be just like Invisibility:Simple except that it applies to the entire EM spectrum (IR, UV, etc). And it has no constraints against being used offensively. In practice, this both strengthens and weakens the spell, depending on what you want to do with it.

--flatline

[eliakon]

In my game, the way that this works is that if either the caster or the target is unwilling, or feels threatened or harmed, or IS harmed. Its offensive. There are lots and lots of puppies frozen mid yip in my sanctuary spells, healing CS soldiers with spells breaks invisibility...but your perfectly fine to sacrifice a human to your god...as long as the person wants to be sacrificed.....

In my game, I've mostly done away with subjective tests like that. Invisibility:Superior has been house ruled to be just like Invisibility:Simple except that it applies to the entire EM spectrum (IR, UV, etc). And it has no constraints against being used offensively. In practice, this both strengthens and weakens the spell, depending on what you want to do with it.

--flatline

I guess that's one solution, though its pretty rough on people that can't see invisible. And it still begs the question for spells like Sanctuary, or Sanctum (PF version), or....

[Tor]

Actually kiralon's 'offensive part is decided by the target, not the caster' comment covers this. Unless the person being caught from the fall wants to be falling (suicidal / escaping), it would be offensive.

If you're defining 'offensive' as 'not wanted' then it would be offensive if they were suicide and non-offensive if your friend slipped and you were Spider-manning them.

Any time the character / player would choose to void or force the save, you've also answered 'is this spell offensive at this time' based on that question alone.

I think we're confusing the concept of non-consented and/or unwanted (2 different concepts) and offensive.

If inner want is what defines this, then I could cast invisibility superior and go shoot Karl Prosek in the head without bringing it down if he was feeling suicidal.

I think offensive may have an impartial kind of definition that is independent of the intent of either the caster or the target.

I mean, if I was fighting a skelebot, it wouldn't even have a will of its own, so blowing it's head off would not violate consent or negate the spell, by this logic.

[kiralon]

Actually kiralon's 'offensive part is decided by the target, not the caster' comment covers this. Unless the person being caught from the fall wants to be falling (suicidal / escaping), it would be offensive.

If you're defining 'offensive' as 'not wanted' then it would be offensive if they were suicide and non-offensive if your friend slipped and you were Spider-manning them.

Any time the character / player would choose to void or force the save, you've also answered 'is this spell offensive at this time' based on that question alone.

I think we're confusing the concept of non-consented and/or unwanted (2 different concepts) and offensive.

If inner want is what defines this, then I could cast invisibility superior and go shoot Karl Prosek in the head without bringing it down if he was feeling suicidal.

I think offensive may have an impartial kind of definition that is independent of the intent of either the caster or the target.

I mean, if I was fighting a skelebot, it wouldn't even have a will of its own, so blowing it's head off would not violate consent or negate the spell, by this logic.

OFFENSIVE
adjective
1 Causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed: ‘the allegations made are deeply offensive to us 'offensive language’
1.1(Of a sight or smell) disgusting; repulsive: ‘an offensive odour’

2 [attributive] Actively aggressive; attacking: ‘offensive operations against the insurgents’
2.1(Of a weapon) meant for use in attack: ‘he is also accused of possessing an offensive weapon’
2.2 chiefly North American Relating to the team in possession of the ball or puck in a game: ‘Shell was an outstanding offensive tackle during his 15 years with the Raiders’

noun
1 An attacking military campaign: ‘an impending military offensive against the guerrillas’
1.1An organized and forceful campaign to achieve something, typically a political or social end: ‘the need to launch an offensive against crime’

If it can fight back and you do something that would make it fight you, your invis breaks. You can however force a door open as doors cant fight back.

[Tor]

I interpret it as number 2, meaning 'attacking'.

If merely annoying or upsetting someone broke invisibility then farting could cancel it...

Or say you were using it to sneak out of a restaurant to avoid paying the bill, how annoying!

[Thinyser]

So according to the book the Invisibility superior spell is broken "if the character makes a hostile move, or engages in combat/attacks". While certainly not combat it might be considered a magical attack since it is directed at a target and requires a saving throw to avoid, and most people would consider targeting a spell with the intent to reduce an opponent's effectiveness in an impending combat hostile.

Say you are a saboteur and took out a radar installation without harming anyone directly, just before a planned bombing run. Its most certainly a "hostile move". I think the same applies when "muting" an enemy (spell caster or not since even a grunt can yell for help or call in reinforcements via radio) before engaging them in combat.

Use mute as a joke/prank so your buddy cannot hit on the barmaid. Not hostile, just funny.

[Tor]

Best thing would be to trick an invisible guy into doing acts he thinks are just jokes when they're actually threatening.

Like "ha, that mage sucks at karaoke, you should cast this mute talisman on him!" *hands over*

The person not knowing that you're trying to remove their defense so you can shoot them without them deflecting or armoring up.