Buffing a hostile action?

[T'Holoth Shadowborn]

If two characters are in a verbal disagreement/argument etc.. and one begins casting defensive and offensive spell buffs mid convo can one consider that a prelude to CvC and attack if it is in charter to do so?

[Zombie]

I would.

Imagine in real life you are having a heated discussion with someone, and they start strapping on riot gear. Would you let them finish?

By casting their defensive spells they are preparing for combat. It dosnt take a great leap to assume they are prepareing for combat with the character they are argueing with.

[Daecon]

While I'm not in any way responsible for the rules here, I would personally say: not exactly.

I only consider the actual first physical attack/spell to truly be a hostile action. They may just be using it as a method of intimidation, trying to evoke a reaction

If someone draws a weapon and casts greater magic weapon on it, I would certainly (IC) be very concerned as to their intentions. But again, it may not necessarily mean they are going to attack you - it's only an assumption.

My IC reaction would be to use my own buffs, and continue to wait and see what they do. I'm definitely interested to hear the thoughts of others, and the Team's view, about this one

[LadyPhoenix77]

Daecon and Zombie both have it right really.

It does still require setting to hostile before attacking. Also take into consideration that some spells/effects do have adverse effects to hostiles, such as prayer(prayer may affect any non-partied creatures) and battletide.

While the casting of the buffing spells can not be considered an actual attack, as both Daecon and Zombie said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. It may just be an intimidation factor, it may be a provoking action, to try and force the other into make the first actual attack.

So as you said Tholoth, if it is IC for your character to take offense and attack, then do so, just make sure you take all the proper CvC precautions, such as setting hostile etc.

[solitude_peace]

Daecon and Zombie both have it right really.

It does still require setting to hostile before attacking. Also take into consideration that some spells/effects do have adverse effects to hostiles, such as prayer(prayer may affect any non-partied creatures) and battletide.

While the casting of the buffing spells can not be considered an actual attack, as both Daecon and Zombie said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out. It may just be an intimidation factor, it may be a provoking action, to try and force the other into make the first actual attack.

So as you said Tholoth, if it is IC for your character to take offense and attack, then do so, just make sure you take all the proper CvC precautions, such as setting hostile etc.

Depending on the PC, I would expect to get my mage-butt kicked if my reaction to a heated argument was to begin my combat buffing. Results might vary, though. Some folks might put some distance between themselves and a buffing mage, while others would try to get in a couple Sneaks... I guess it depends on how you play that PC.

Anyone that would attack a mage in mid-buff could be justified, in my opinion.

[silverdragonams]

So, if I'm in an argument with someone and they start buffing,should I set to hostile before dispelling/disjunctioning them? Even if I don't intend to attack in any other way (using it as a way of saying "I'm not intimidated" for example)?

[Jenai]

Recently I had a little expierience with this. It could have gone to cvc but it didnt. . It was a fun expierience for me. Jenai and a drow talking not a very friendly conversation. Drow begins to buff himself. Jenai simply drws her swords and waits, warning him that if he did cause trouble he would be stopped. Drow casts one more spell... Darkness and flees. It was great. . The rp was great. And I liked that we didnt go to battle.

[BPanther]

as far i did use common sense, talking threats and after first buff your free to turn dislike and swing your weapon.

Drow's wont flee, they just delay the battle for more favorable time.
Or maybe they have more important matters elsewhere

[Zombie]

I dont see any need to set someone to hostile before buffing. My understanding is that setting to hostile is what you do before an actual attack.

I wouldnt be upset if someone buffed THEN set me to hostile and blew me up.

[corwink]

I see casting buffs as a prelude to attacking. Usually what I do though is start casting my own buffs. However if i'm up against someone my character knows is powerful, *cough* Vilmi *cough* then he may just attack to prevent them from getting off all their buffs and him not standing a chance. Depends on the situation and the opposing character. If I think there is a chance to settle it with words then buffing is all I would do.

silverdragonams wrote:
So, if I'm in an argument with someone and they start buffing,should I set to hostile before dispelling/disjunctioning them? Even if I don't intend to attack in any other way (using it as a way of saying "I'm not intimidated" for example)?

I LOVE that approach I can totally see Sara doing that

[Lord Droke]

Just wanted to add, it should depend on the amount of spells cast. If I cast bull strength and true seeing on myself while arguing with someone. I am not exactly preparing for battle, a moot point, but a point non the less.
It's just one of those decisions you make based on the RP of the moment. An RP judgment call if you will.
Same goes for dispelling the buffing char, a dispell I consider an attack spell unless specifically rp'd not to be. IE: The spell can be used to aid as well.

However, I think you should set to hostile before using it on a buffing char that is a potential adversary(some spells I dont think you can dispell with out being hostile), even if it's just to set to dislike, throw the spell then set back to neutral.

Also remember, casting times and concentration checks can be a casters biggest weakness...that and duration....so yes if in the example given Corwin attacks Vil while she is casting mad buffs, I expect it and it's the risk I take by casting them so close to him.

[LadyPhoenix77]

Okay, I'll try to address everything else that has been asked or said.

solitude_peace: That may be the case in some instances, a mage buffing, generally can have a mage in a weak position, as a number of them are not melee types. But remember there are other casters, multi-classed mages who excel in melee, clerics, or several other posiblities. But I do get what you are saying, a number of casters would be at a weakened position.

silverdragonams: Yes, I would recommend it, provided it wasn't a dispell that was asked for(i.e."Hey Sara, could you dispell this invisiblity from me?"). While any of the dispells don't take hostile setting into account(i.e works better/worse, changes DC's etc), some people do consider it an attack, in certain situations, which I would imagine the discussion we are having, falls into the category of certain situations. Myself, as well as several others I know, if someone were to cast a dispell on us, and we had not asked for it to be casted on us, it would be considered an attack, heated arguement or not. Some of my characters may have more tolerance for it than others, but frankly, if I cast stuff on myself, then someone casts dispell, either for the heck of it, to show they aren't intimidated, or whatever, I'm not happy, I cast them for a reason, and the dispell is an attack by removing them.

Lord Droke: I do have to agree with what you say as well. Some spells like bulls and True Seeing, especially with your character, are almost always casted, and when one fades you recast as do a number of others in similar positions, but you also have to take into account, not everyone is a mage/cleric etc, so to a "dumb fighter" as we might put it, they may not know the difference between say "Light" and "Finger of Death" both are just words being uttered and fingers being waved, and unless the opposing person passes their spellcraft check, then the likelyhood that they know the difference is little to none. I know my barbarian wouldn't have a clue, and if she had another confrontation with Vilmi and Vilmi casted one of those spells, my barb may very well knock Vilmi on her butt. Like you said, it's all about how it falls into the players RP.

All in all, I recommend Rule #0, otherwise known as common sense, sure, there may be situations arise, that we may not have thought of or discussed, just try to do what would be the best. Hostile setting in some situations may or may not be necessary, and it's one of those things that we try to let players judgement do it's thing. There are some things where hostile setting is required, and not using it can get you in trouble, but a heated arguement, if you have a feeling that the actions taken during the arguement may result in CvC happening, then, take the precautions of getting hostile set. Setting hostile doesn't mean you are going to, but can save headaches if CvC does happen. Basically I think everyone that has spoke up here really has the right idea, and have handled situations like this in acceptable ways.

On the same note, I don't want to see people metagaming the hostile setting, as well as take into consideration some adverse effects of setting hostile. Summoned creatures, familiars and companions will generally attack someone that is hostile to you, I know this situation has come up before so keep that in mind. And don't be buffing up just because someone logs into the server and sets hostile, or even logs in and doesn't set hostile, those server messages are OOC, and buffing up because of those is metagaming, and I have seen it happen a number of times before. Not saying that it has happened recently, or here, just that it has happened.