TOPIC: Question about Horn of Blasting

changed offensive action to:

• Attempting to cause damage, whether or not the attempt is successful
• Using an effect that requires a magic/spell resistance check
• Using an effect that requires a saving throw

Would a wizard using Boost count as an offensive action? My gut says no, because it is effectively a buff, but it came to me while I was reading and thought it was worth the question.

Druegar wrote: changed offensive action to:

• Attempting to cause damage, whether or not the attempt is successful
• Using an effect that requires a magic/spell resistance check
• Using an effect that requires a saving throw

Things that potentially slip through the cracks of the above, but that I'd argue are probably offensive

• Rogue Flanking
• Dwarf Taunting without retribution damage equipped

NightGod wrote: Would a wizard using Boost count as an offensive action? My gut says no, because it is effectively a buff, but it came to me while I was reading and thought it was worth the question.

A good question. I would argue it is more like a buff, like Bull's Strength. However, I could see the position that is is an offensive action, since it is boosting an offensive attack. This would need a ruling.

Fiddy wrote:

Druegar wrote: changed offensive action to:

• Attempting to cause damage, whether or not the attempt is successful
• Using an effect that requires a magic/spell resistance check
• Using an effect that requires a saving throw

Things that potentially slip through the cracks of the above, but that I'd argue are probably offensive

• Rogue Flanking
• Dwarf Taunting without retribution damage equipped

Listed under the Cloak of Blending:

Regarding Taunt: Taunt requires the monster to see and hear the character doing the taunting. Using taunt while under the influence of Cloak of Blending’s concealment power would be ineffective and a waste of that ability (its use will be marked off the class card). Nevertheless, taunt is not an offensive action (see below) so it doesn’t break the concealment this cloak provides.

The description states it is not an offensive action.

NightGod wrote: Would a wizard using Boost count as an offensive action?

Good question. Boost is for sure in a gray area, but yes, it's an offensive action. The TDb now explicitly states that.
I can sympathize with the "it's a buff" school of thought, but boost has no other purpose than to cause damage. Here's how I see it: My buddy is trying to drive his sword into the tough hide of a monster. I stand behind my buddy and help to push on the sword. I am clearly taking an offensive action against that monster, even though one might argue my buddy is the one doing the stabbing.

Fiddy wrote: Things that potentially slip through the cracks of the above, but that I'd argue are probably offensive

• Rogue Flanking

Offensive
This too is in a gray area. In trying to make a ruling on this, we go back to what flanking is in D&D. (I know, TD is not D&D) In D&D, flanking requires (at least) two people to stand on opposite sides of a monster. This lowers the monster's AC because it has to divide its attention between opposing sides of its body. In TD, even though flanking does not directly cause damage, it has no other purpose than to cause damage by making a monster easier to hit. Ergo, offensive action.
The next version of the PHB to be released will explicitly state that flanking is offensive.

Druegar wrote:

NightGod wrote: Would a wizard using Boost count as an offensive action?

Good question. Boost is for sure in a gray area, but yes, it's an offensive action. The TDb now explicitly states that.
I can sympathize with the "it's a buff" school of thought, but boost has no other purpose than to cause damage. Here's how I see it: My buddy is trying to drive his sword into the tough hide of a monster. I stand behind my buddy and help to push on the sword. I am clearly taking an offensive action against that monster, even though one might argue my buddy is the one doing the stabbing.

Fiddy wrote: Things that potentially slip through the cracks of the above, but that I'd argue are probably offensive

• Rogue Flanking

Offensive
This too is in a gray area. In trying to make a ruling on this, we go back to what flanking is in D&D. (I know, TD is not D&D) In D&D, flanking requires (at least) two people to stand on opposite sides of a monster. This lowers the monster's AC because it has to divide its attention between opposing sides of its body. In TD, even though flanking does not directly cause damage, it has no other purpose than to cause damage by making a monster easier to hit. Ergo, offensive action.
The next version of the PHB to be released will explicitly state that flanking is offensive.

Thanks for the clarifications!

Druegar wrote: I can sympathize with the "it's a buff" school of thought, but boost has no other purpose than to cause damage. Here's how I see it: My buddy is trying to drive his sword into the tough hide of a monster. I stand behind my buddy and help to push on the sword. I am clearly taking an offensive action against that monster, even though one might argue my buddy is the one doing the stabbing.

Would that same argument mean bull's strength is an offensive action? It serves no other purpose in TD that to do damage. We haven't ran into a puzzle that required more strength that I recall. You cannot use bull's strength to equip tokens that might otherwise not be able to equip per the PHb. "Such prerequisites must be met by equipping permanent items, not via potions or other temporary buffs."

Again not attempt to argue just attempting to understand. I would not have thought Bull's Strength to be an Offensive Action.

jedibcg wrote: Would that same argument mean bull's strength is an offensive action? It serves no other purpose in TD that to do damage.
Again not attempt to argue just attempting to understand. I would not have thought Bull's Strength to be an Offensive Action.

Good question, no argument inferred.
To be sure, in TD Bull's Strength's primary use is to cause more damage, but that's not the only thing it can do. There could be a room in the future that requires a combined Strength of 35 to move a block, but only two people can fit in the space. BS could be used to meet that quota.
One might also say that buffing someone with BS is an ongoing, passive effect (on the part of the buffer) whereas boost is a single-use, direct-action effect.

Druegar wrote:

jedibcg wrote: Would that same argument mean bull's strength is an offensive action? It serves no other purpose in TD that to do damage.
Again not attempt to argue just attempting to understand. I would not have thought Bull's Strength to be an Offensive Action.

Good question, no argument inferred.
To be sure, in TD Bull's Strength's primary use is to cause more damage, but that's not the only thing it can do. There could be a room in the future that requires a combined Strength of 35 to move a block, but only two people can fit in the space. BS could be used to meet that quota.
One might also say that buffing someone with BS is an ongoing, passive effect (on the part of the buffer) whereas boost is a single-use, direct-action effect.

I get where you are going on these. I would completely agree that any affect that causes damage counts as offensive. Flank makes sense to count as offensive since you have to make yourself known as a possible attacker for flank to work (though, Rogue can't use the Cloak - other items could create a similar effect.) I'd even go further and have scrolls or wands that incapacitate enemies or make them easier to hit or reduce their saves would count as offensive.

That's where I'd draw the line, however.

The original purpose of the Cloak of Blending was to allow characters in support roles that aren't directly harming or attacking an opponent do so more safely. Prior rulings had included Bardsong as being excluded - one would think, logically, similar effects like strength buffs and similar would be similarly excluded.
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=589&id=239468&start=36#243012

I do disagree that buffs to allies count as offensive actions. That same logic would mean bardsong is now an offensive action despite original design purpose. Granting a +2/+2 or +4/+4 definitely means more damage but it means the cloak of blending can no longer be used for what it was designed to do. This same ruling would mean both bless and prayer are offensive now. Drinking strength based potions would count as offensive actions as well. Restoring power for rage is functionally the same as increasing strength via a spell or potion (though - less effectively since it would be damage only.)

[edited to clarify I agree with Druegar here…]

Thank you.

Fred

Fred K wrote:

Druegar wrote:

jedibcg wrote: Would that same argument mean bull's strength is an offensive action? It serves no other purpose in TD that to do damage.
Again not attempt to argue just attempting to understand. I would not have thought Bull's Strength to be an Offensive Action.

Good question, no argument inferred.
To be sure, in TD Bull's Strength's primary use is to cause more damage, but that's not the only thing it can do. There could be a room in the future that requires a combined Strength of 35 to move a block, but only two people can fit in the space. BS could be used to meet that quota.
One might also say that buffing someone with BS is an ongoing, passive effect (on the part of the buffer) whereas boost is a single-use, direct-action effect.

I get where you are going on these. I would completely agree that any affect that causes damage counts as offensive. Flank makes sense to count as offensive since you have to make yourself known as a possible attacker for flank to work (though, Rogue can't use the Cloak - other items could create a similar effect.) I'd even go further and have scrolls or wands that incapacitate enemies or make them easier to hit or reduce their saves would count as offensive.

That's where I'd draw the line, however.

The original purpose of the Cloak of Blending was to allow characters in support roles that aren't directly harming or attacking an opponent do so more safely. Prior rulings had included Bardsong as being excluded - one would think, logically, similar effects like strength buffs and similar would be similarly excluded.
truedungeon.com/forum?view=topic&catid=589&id=239468&start=36#243012

I do disagree that buffs to allies count as offensive actions. That same logic would mean bardsong is now an offensive action despite original design purpose. Granting a +2/+2 or +4/+4 definitely means more damage but it means the cloak of blending can no longer be used for what it was designed to do. This same ruling would mean both bless and prayer are offensive now. Drinking strength based potions would count as offensive actions as well. Restoring power for rage is functionally the same as increasing strength via a spell or potion (though - less effectively since it would be damage only.)

Please reconsider how "offensive" or "hostile" is being classified in this context based on the original design idea.

Thank you.

Fred

Druegar was arguing that buffs would not be offensive.

Now bardsong I think would count as non-offensive, but I could see the argument that singing and playing an instrument would kind of give away the bard's position!

As a practicing bard, I feel compelled to state that some instances of Bardsong definitely have the capability to be offensive. 😉