TOPIC: Question about Horn of Blasting

Does Horn of Blasting count as an offensive action? I don't believe it meets any of the four criteria listed here: tokendb.com/token/cloak-of-blending/

*An offensive action is defined as doing at least one of the following:

Attacking
Casting a damage-inflicting spell or scroll
Casting a spell or scroll that requires a magic/spell resistance check
Casting a spell or scroll that requires a saving throw

If it doesn't count as one, could a party fully equipped with horns just use them constantly to kill a monster and not be attacked?

Would this only work on a monster that cannot hear a player to target them?

"Some creatures are capable of locating prey via non-visual means, including scent or sound. This cloak does not provide protection against non-visual detection."

It seems pretty clear to me that using the horn constitutes an attack.

My assumption is that a party all equipped with this cloak would have a random person targeted. Due to the following Note.

"Note: If the wearer is the last living party member in the room, the monster will discover and may target the character."

This note implies that the monster can find a person in a room if there are no other targets. It would likely just target the first person it sees(or bumps into) which would be someone random. I am still interested in the ruling being an aggressive action because 9 cloaked and 1 uncloaked is still an option.

I will wait until you get an official ruling, but If I was the DM in a run where this occurred I would put a little more flare around how the monster discovered the random individual. Then the party would have a choice to either remove their cloaks to draw attention away from said individual, or leave the random party member to be attacked.

I am not sure it does. It also doesn't suffer from the 50% miss chance for non-incorporeal creatures. I'd think a monster could attack in the direction of the sound, but it couldn't target a player specifically if all 10 used a horn. You might even argue it would suffer a chance to miss as well. I am sure the Horn could be added as an "offensive" action, but I do not believe it counts as one of the 4 things listed.

Greg (Fortunes) wrote: My assumption is that a party all equipped with this cloak would have a random person targeted. Due to the following Note.

"Note: If the wearer is the last living party member in the room, the monster will discover and may target the character."

This note implies that the monster can find a person in a room if there are no other targets. It would likely just target the first person it sees(or bumps into) which would be someone random. I am still interested in the ruling being an aggressive action because 9 cloaked and 1 uncloaked is still an option.

I will wait until you get an official ruling, but If I was the DM in a run where this occurred I would put a little more flare around how the monster discovered the random individual. Then the party would have a choice to either remove their cloaks to draw attention away from said individual, or leave the random party member to be attacked.

Yup, you could leave the Paladin with high AC as the only uncloaked party member. With one party member sliding, combat should last a lot more rounds. This isn't a really a viable method for beating a high difficulty dungeon, but could be fun.

balthasar wrote: Does Horn of Blasting count as an offensive action? I don't believe it meets any of the four criteria listed here: tokendb.com/token/cloak-of-blending/

*An offensive action is defined as doing at least one of the following:

Attacking
Casting a damage-inflicting spell or scroll
Casting a spell or scroll that requires a magic/spell resistance check
Casting a spell or scroll that requires a saving throw

If it doesn't count as one, could a party fully equipped with horns just use them constantly to kill a monster and not be attacked?

It is an attack. If for no other of the reasons, the "Bypasses Incorporeal 50% Miss Chance" applies only to attacks.

From the DMG: "• Incorporeal: attacks (physical & magical) have a
50% miss chance—even if it was a natural 20."

That was something I thought that might apply. If so, maybe the description of the Horn needs to be updated in the toknendb?

Whether it is an attack or not it is definitely an offensive action.

Now may it needs to be updated to say something like damage-inflicting token. Because FoP:Reaver and Horror I think would also apply. They are not attacks but seem to be offensive actions.

Just my 2 cents.

An offensive action is now defined as doing at least one of the following:

• Attacking, whether or not the attack actually caused damage
• Using damage-inflicting magic, whether or not the magic actually caused damage
• Using an effect that requires a magic/spell resistance check
• Using an effect that requires a saving throw

Druegar wrote: An offensive action is now defined as doing at least one of the following:

• Attacking, whether or not the attack actually caused damage
• Using damage-inflicting magic, whether or not the magic actually caused damage
• Using an effect that requires a magic/spell resistance check
• Using an effect that requires a saving throw

I am slightly confused by damage-inflicting magic line. It seems FoP: Reaver and Horror invoke some time of magic to cause damage to a target, however does defining them as damage inflicting magic now make them possible susceptible to Magic Resistance? Were they always?

jedibcg wrote: I am slightly confused by damage-inflicting magic line. It seems FoP: Reaver and Horror invoke some time of magic to cause damage to a target, however does defining them as damage inflicting magic now make them possible susceptible to Magic Resistance? Were they always?

1) I don't understand how closing a eyeroll-inducing loophole on the definition of hostile actions has any bearing on whether or not FoP: Horror/Reaver are subject to Magic Resistance.

2) FoP: Horror/Reaver have always said, "There is no saving throw to mitigate the damage, but if the target has resistance/immunity to Darkrift, that resistance/immunity would apply." so why would Magic Resistance not apply?

Is there an official ruling regarding FoP: Horror/Reaver's resistability that I have overlooked? (serious question)