How in the world do I pull off a Vow of Non-violence/Peace PC?

[graeylin]

I was trying to build/play test a Vow of Non-Violence and Vow of Peace PC, and ran across a little problem.

Every sentient/living creature that I get within 20' of, I apparently attack.

How can I be a creature of ultimate good, kindness, do no harm/damage, when the first thing my aura of calm emotions does is threaten them with an attack?

Doesn't that alone break the calm emotions aura? Why would you have an ability that when used, causes itself to be useless (other than the core Monk class)?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

The BoED Vows have their flaws, but I believe that whomever told you that the Calm Emoions Aura is a violation is mistaken. They're also mistaken about Calm Emotions being an "attack" for the purposes of breaking itself. Some governments may clasify these efects as "attacks" from a legal standpoint, but that has no effect of game mechanics.

[graeylin]

From the SRD

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.


"All spells that opponents resist with savings throws."

The calm emotions aura is the calm emotions spell. It has a savings throw. Things within your radius are "affected as by the calm emotions spell".

Thus, it is, by the rules (the game mechanics), an attack.

[dextercorvia]

That is just for the purpose of adjudicating spells like Sanctuary and Invisibility. It has no bearing on your vows, which explicitly allow you to 'attack' with non-lethal damage or effects that incapacitate (like Sleep).

[Troacctid]

Read the vow again. There is nothing in there that says you can't make attacks. You can attack all you like. You just can't deal lethal damage to a living creature. Enchantment spells are totally fine. Nonlethal damage is perfectly acceptable. Heck, if they're a construct or undead, your vow doesn't even apply to them at all, and you can fire off scorching rays at them till the cows come home.

Anyway, Calm Emotions is only broken by aggressive actions that happen after it has taken effect. The saving throw happens way too early for the spell to sabotage itself. It's not a spell, either, it's a (Su) ability.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Does Charm Person give this bonus to save against itself?

Charm Person
Enchantment (Charm) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.

The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

[graeylin]

@Charm person spell:

RAW, yes, the Charm Person spell gives the bonus, since it is a spell that attacks (gives a save).

RAI, no way. But... DM is a stickler for RAW.



@ Vow: You are correct, there is nothing that says I can't attack. And I never stated that it caused me to lose my vow. It just makes life WITH the vow very difficult. Since the calming emotions aura is an attack, I lose the benefit of it immediately. It's a wasted ability, and worse, because I can't control it, it's an always on, present threat/attack to everything around me. Seems odd, don't you think, that a creature of peace and non-violence is sending out a constant aura of attack/threat/aggression? I can still take the vow and do the non lethal stuff, I just automatically threaten everyone around me. It's like using the world's angriest man as a negotiator.

Supernatural ability or not, the RAW state that it affects people "as" the calm emotions spell. Not "similar to" or "Like, except". The designers could have chosen tons of other words to use, they chose "As" the spell.

[dextercorvia]

Two things: First, if RAW pickiness is your problem, then Calm Emotions is not a spell that refers to attacks, but instead aggressive action, so your above quote about "attacks" does not apply. Calm Emotions calms people, that is pretty much the opposite of aggression.

Second, tou need to check your order of operations.

Is your aura working?
If yes then 1, else 0

1- Anyone entering the area makes a saving throw. Even if you rule this an aggressive action, they are not affected by a calm emotions spell until after this roll is made, so the ability does not negate itself at this step.
If they fail the saving throw then 2, else 0

2- They are affected as though by the calm emotions spell. They will be affected by this ability until they leave the area, are dealt damage, or an aggressive action is made against them. The aura does not allow a new saving throw until they leave and come back, hence it does not "attack" them again.

0 - They aren't affected by the aura.

[Troacctid]

Seems odd, don't you think, that a creature of peace and non-violence is sending out a constant aura of attack/threat/aggression? I can still take the vow and do the non lethal stuff, I just automatically threaten everyone around me. It's like using the world's angriest man as a negotiator.

Calm Emotions prevents people from fighting. If you are not interested in preventing people from fighting, perhaps a Vow of Peace is not for you?

[graeylin]

I am pretty sure the average definition of "aggressive action" would include "attacking someone".

However, your second comments are interesting... I can run that logic past, and see what happens. Live by the rules, die by the rules, so to speak....

(I can see a secondary problem, in that once I calm people through your logical steps, there's little I can DO with them, but... I'll work on that, I suppose. Very few spells don't have savings throws, so maybe diplomacy or something).

@Troacctid: I have no idea what context to place your comments in... Yes, it prevents fighting, a good thing to my PC. Why do you think I am not interested in preventing fighting/violence? That's kind of my entire problem... I want to prevent it, but I walk around attacking everyone, nullifying my goals (unless the logic suggested above works) because of this ability.

[Doctor Awkward]

@ Vow: You are correct, there is nothing that says I can't attack. And I never stated that it caused me to lose my vow. It just makes life WITH the vow very difficult. Since the calming emotions aura is an attack, I lose the benefit of it immediately. It's a wasted ability, and worse, because I can't control it, it's an always on, present threat/attack to everything around me. Seems odd, don't you think, that a creature of peace and non-violence is sending out a constant aura of attack/threat/aggression? I can still take the vow and do the non lethal stuff, I just automatically threaten everyone around me. It's like using the world's angriest man as a negotiator.

This statement makes no sense. At all.

Go read the calm emotions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/calmEmotions.htm) spell again.

Vow of Peace is exactly a Permanent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm) calm emotions spell centered on you. Do you think that spell cancels itself upon use?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures.

Moving so that they're within your Calm Emotions aura is not an aggressive action or a damage dealing effect, so it does not break itself.

If you take the breaks-invisibility definition of 'attack' and apply it to every possible action in the game, then a character with a +11 BAB can use a full attack action to make three 'attacks' and use each of those to cast a separate spell. This is clearly not how the game works, so your definition of 'attack' is not applicable to all actions.

Let's look at the PHB glossary definition of 'attack':

attack: Any of numerous
actions intended to harm, disable,
or neutralize an opponent.
The outcome of an attack is
determined by an attack roll.

This has quite a few qualifiers:
"Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent." Your aura does not require an action, so it automatically doesn't qualify. It does not harm, disable, or neutralize anyone, it just stops combat. Plus it depends on your intent, but you have no choice in the matter because it's a passive effect. It's like accidentally looking at a Medusa and being affected by her gaze attack, if she had no intention of causing harm then it does not qualify as an attack, it's just a thing that happened.

"The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll." Your aura does not have an effect determined by an attack roll, so it is automatically not an attack.

The glossary definition is the general rule, it automatically applies in all situations except where a more specific rule takes precedent (specific > general), but those specific exceptions to the rule are only applicable to specific situations. You would only determine the effects of your aura based on Invisibility's definition of an attack if you were under the effects of an Invisibility spell, and you would only use that definition when determining whether you would become visible. In all other situations, you would use the glossary definition of 'attack' to determine whether or not that aura qualifies as one.

[graeylin]

This statement makes no sense. At all.

Go read the calm emotions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/calmEmotions.htm) spell again.

Vow of Peace is exactly a Permanent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm) calm emotions spell centered on you. Do you think that spell cancels itself upon use?

Yes, I did (until the logic of "order of actions" was suggested). The aura of calm acted exactly like the spell. The spell is void, if you attack anyone. Any spell with a save is considered an attack. Calm emotions has a save, thus, it is an attack.


Luckily, dextercorvia proposed the order of things logic, which seems to make sense.



My problem now is that I must rethink my class choice. I had intended to be a beguiler with the vows, but I don't see that working as well now, as before, since nearly every spell i can use breaks the calm emotions aura. It gives me a moment or two, perhaps, but... it still leaves me with a problem. If I have this aura around me, and I cast a Charm Person (for example) on a person, it breaks the calm emotions for all. Makes me a bit less effective, so.. maybe another class, if I can find one, that would work.

[graeylin]

I would say that this, from the SRD/Game rules, is a more specific rule, and thus, would trump the general definition.

From the SRD

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

Wouldn't it?

[Afgncaap5]

It almost looks like this is a case of a player's mechanical actions being understood by the in-game character. In-universe, the character would not consider it an attack and would not consider it a violation of a vow. That sort of crisis of conscience only exists in situations where characters tend to be aware of things like Feats and Class levels and other game terms in the same way that we are aware of them.

My recommendation is to not let your character know the mechanics that allows an aura to be considered to be an 'attack.' RAI, it's not an attack in this case.

If this is a case of a DM telling you that by RAW you can't use this, ask the DM to homebrew something that is identical except for the fact that it works by RAW (such as by adding a line to the effect of 'This ability is an exception to the standard in-game definition of what constitutes an attack.')

[Troacctid]

@Troacctid: I have no idea what context to place your comments in... Yes, it prevents fighting, a good thing to my PC. Why do you think I am not interested in preventing fighting/violence? That's kind of my entire problem... I want to prevent it, but I walk around attacking everyone, nullifying my goals (unless the logic suggested above works) because of this ability.

Well it's just that you've been referring to calming people down and preventing them from fighting as an aggressive action, like it's something a Vow of Peace character would be opposed to, or like it's somehow dissonant with the concept. Like, you mentioned threatening everyone who comes within 20 feet of you. But a Vow of Peace character wouldn't see it that way.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about breaking the calming effect. It won't even work a lot of the time, and if it does work, there's a decent chance it makes your other spells unnecessary.

[graeylin]

Well it's just that you've been referring to calming people down and preventing them from fighting as an aggressive action, like it's something a Vow of Peace character would be opposed to, or like it's somehow dissonant with the concept. Like, you mentioned threatening everyone who comes within 20 feet of you. But a Vow of Peace character wouldn't see it that way.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about breaking the calming effect. It won't even work a lot of the time, and if it does work, there's a decent chance it makes your other spells unnecessary.

Ah... i see. Yeah, the "threatening everyone" was because the calm emotions thing is an attack/threat (which the logic answer worked out to not be such a problem).

Now, I just need to figure out what class I can use with the vows (if any) to be effective, and what I can do with someone once I have them calmed. Seems I might be good at calming everyone, but I can't do anything with them after that.

[Demidos]

Knight 4/Crusader 16 with a whip (deals nonlethal) to get long reach....

Knight with test of mettle, which forces opponents to prioritize you. Terrain around you in large AOE is difficult terrain, so its difficult to attack....

Excuse me, i have to go check on the feasibility of this build for myself :smallbiggrin:

[Doctor Awkward]

Knight 4/Crusader 16 with a whip (deals nonlethal) to get long reach....

Knight with test of mettle, which forces opponents to prioritize you. Terrain around you in large AOE is difficult terrain, so its difficult to attack....

Excuse me, i have to go check on the feasibility of this build for myself :smallbiggrin:

You don't threaten the area a whip can attack in. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#whip)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I would say that this, from the SRD/Game rules, is a more specific rule, and thus, would trump the general definition.

From the SRD

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.

Wouldn't it?

Again it's completely irrelevant given the wording of Calm Emotions:
"Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures."

Charm Person makes friends with the target, it's not aggressive and it doesn't deal damage. It's completely irrelevant whether casting that spell on a creature would be considered an attack by the general rules for spells.

Furthermore, let's take a look at exactly what this ability is and does:


You are constantly surrounded by a calming aura to a
radius of 20 feet. Creatures within the aura must make a successful
Will save (DC 10 + one-half your character level + your
Cha modifier) or be affected as by the calm emotions spell. Creatures
who leave the aura and reenter it receive new saving
throws. A creature that makes a successful saving throw and
remains in the aura is unaffected until it leaves the aura and
reenters. The aura is a mind-affecting, supernatural compulsion.

"The aura is a mind-affecting, supernatural compulsion." It's not a spell, it's a supernatural effect, so the specific rules regarding spells do not apply, and you default to the general rule on attacks. This is not a spell, even if its effect duplicates the effect of a spell.

"A creature that makes a successful saving throw and remains in the aura is unaffected until it leaves the aura and reenters." This differs significantly from the Calm Emotions spell. Calm Emotions is a spread, which means all targets are determined at the time it's cast, and those are the only targets affected for its duration. The Vow of Peace effect is more like an emanation, it affects all creatures that enter or re-enter. Since a creature is affected at the time it enters the effect, versus when the calm emotions spell is cast, each creature is affected individually as though by a separate calm emotions spell, as though a new instance of the spell triggers once a creature enters the radius of the effect. Thus an aggressive action or damage dealt to one of them only breaks the effect on that one creature.

[graeylin]

Charm person is a spell with a save. By the rules, that means it is an attack. regardless of what it does, per the Rules, any spell with a save is considered to be an attack. And, I have yet to hear someone come up with a defense that attacking someone is not aggressive (except for real world politics).


All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.

So, casting charm person on someone will nullify my calm emotions aura.

And, now that you mention it, I am not so sure it wouldn't nullify it for everyone.

I agree, the aura is NOT a spell. However, the aura is "AS the calm emotions spell". And the calm emotions spell states that "Any aggressive action against or damage dealt to a calmed creature immediately breaks the spell on all calmed creatures."

So, I attack someone in the 20' radius with the charm person spell, then it is broken for everyone?

[True believer]

Maximize bluff .... use feats , items , virgin sacrifices , anything you can to get extra skill points on your Bluff !!! Then spam it all day long and introduce yourself to everyone as Jesus Christ :P

[dextercorvia]

The rule you keep citing about spells with saves being attacks is only for the purpose of adjudicating spells whose descriptions refer to "attacking". Neither Vow of Peace's Su Aura, nor the Calm Emotions spell is a spell whose description refers to attacking. Therefore, Calm Emotions does not treat spells requiring a save as an attack.

[graeylin]

The rule you keep citing about spells with saves being attacks is only for the purpose of adjudicating spells whose descriptions refer to "attacking". Neither Vow of Peace's Su Aura, nor the Calm Emotions spell is a spell whose description refers to attacking. Therefore, Calm Emotions does not treat spells requiring a save as an attack.

I don't see where you draw this conclusion from. Where do you get that this definition of "attacks" is only for spells that refer to attacking within themselves?

I can read the first line, but that is simply a descriptor line.. some spells refer to attacking. All the rest of the sentences stand alone and apart from that line... they must, because the next sentence doesn't even refer to spells (all offensive combat actions), the next is about turning/rebuking (not a spell). Then, it does refer to spells again, but it explicitly states that "ALL spells..." are considered attacks. The first sentence is really there as an intro, a lead in, for people coming to it from things like the invisibility spell (which is broken if you attack). This helps define "what an attack" is. it is: All offensive combat actions, it is turning/rebuking undead, and it is all spells that give a savings throw.

this is a list of three things that are attacks (and one thing that isn't).


From the SRD

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.


Or, are you saying that the first sentence it entirely prohibitive of ANY other use of this definition, ie, it should say "For purposes of spell descriptions that refer to attacking, and ONLY THOSE SPELLS, there are three things that are considered attacks".

because that could open a nice can of worms too...

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It only matters when the word attack is mentioned in the spell's text. For example, Invisibility is broken when the affected creature attacks. Sanctuary protects the target from attacks, but is broken if the target attacks anyone. Calm Emotions doesn't use the word attack at all in the entirety of its text, so that definition doesn't apply in this case.

[goto124]

Keep it up, guys. If Calm Emotions aura is a spell, therefore it's a spell with a save, thus it's an attack, how is VoP even usable? Can you even turn off the aura?

What happens when a creature makes its save- does it automatically attack you? If that's the case, VoP actually leads to a lot of violence, since you're starting battles with a... Calm Emotions aura? Is this how your DM rules it?

Does your DM really consider 'AS a spell' to mean 'IS a spell'?

[dextercorvia]

I don't see where you draw this conclusion from. Where do you get that this definition of "attacks" is only for spells that refer to attacking within themselves?

I can read the first line, but that is simply a descriptor line.. some spells refer to attacking. All the rest of the sentences stand alone and apart from that line... they must, because the next sentence doesn't even refer to spells (all offensive combat actions), the next is about turning/rebuking (not a spell). Then, it does refer to spells again, but it explicitly states that "ALL spells..." are considered attacks. The first sentence is really there as an intro, a lead in, for people coming to it from things like the invisibility spell (which is broken if you attack). This helps define "what an attack" is. it is: All offensive combat actions, it is turning/rebuking undead, and it is all spells that give a savings throw.

this is a list of three things that are attacks (and one thing that isn't).



Or, are you saying that the first sentence it entirely prohibitive of ANY other use of this definition, ie, it should say "For purposes of spell descriptions that refer to attacking, and ONLY THOSE SPELLS, there are three things that are considered attacks".

because that could open a nice can of worms too...

I'm getting that because the quote you are pulling is from the Special Spell Effects section under the Casting Spells heading. There are other places that refer to attacks by other definitions, so it is clear that this is describing the circumstances that a spell with said description treats as attacking, and no further. You are taking a conditional definition and trying to apply it unconditionally.

Furthermore, Calm Emotions does not refer to attacking, it refers to aggressive actions. You have cited no RAW that all of the things listed in your section are Aggressive Actions. So, even if your definition of attack is universally correct (and it most certainly isn't) you have yet to prove your point that said "attacks" are aggressive actions.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Keep it up, guys. If Calm Emotions aura is a spell, therefore it's a spell with a save, thus it's an attack, how is VoP even usable? Can you even turn off the aura?

What happens when a creature makes its save- does it automatically attack you? If that's the case, VoP actually leads to a lot of violence, since you're starting battles with a... Calm Emotions aura? Is this how your DM rules it?

Does your DM really consider 'AS a spell' to mean 'IS a spell'?

Yeah I've gotta say it's one of the dumbest interpretations of Calm Emotions Aura I've seen so far. It's basically saying as weak as the Vows are in reality that they're aren't even functional from creation itself. I see no problem from reading them as the aura isn't treated as an attack so none of this is applicable in the first place... I'm just waiting for Necroticplague or someone along his lines of RAW expertise sees this.. When they do at least it should be interesting.

[dextercorvia]

Personally, the real issue I have with the Calm Emotions aura is that it most likely nerfs your party, and not your opponents at the beginning of combat. After that, there are aggressive actions flying everywhere, and it doesn't matter much. As such, I would let a player ignore it entirely if they wanted to use Vow of Peace.

[graeylin]

Does your DM really consider 'AS a spell' to mean 'IS a spell'?

No, just that it works exactly the same, in all respects, as a spell.

Simple example: If a legal ruling stated that a person of 17 were to be treated "as an adult", then in all legal respects, that 17 year old (while still 17), would be an adult, and have all the same rights and responsibilities as an adult. They could vote, they could be drafted, they could buy some prohibited-to-minors products, they could enter into legal contracts, because adults can.

They do not become a year older, but they are treated in all ways exactly the same as if they had.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

No, just that it works exactly the same, in all respects, as a spell.

No, it doesn't. It works exactly the same, in all respects, as a supernatural ability, because that's what it is. It doesn't provoke an AoO like a spell, it doesn't require verbal/somatic/material components like a spell, it can't be counterspelled, it ignores SR, etc. The only part that functions like a spell is that the effect on creatures who fail their saves is identical to what the spell's description says, none of the other game mechanics that apply to spells will ever apply to this.

[graeylin]

I agree, in the case of Calm Emotions, with what you are saying, Bi F... within that limited area where the text states it is "as the spell calm emotions", it is the same as the spell.

I was answering the more generic question posed: Does the gm consider "as a spell" to be "is a spell"....

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I agree, in the case of Calm Emotions, with what you are saying, Bi F... within that limited area where the text states it is "as the spell calm emotions", it is the same as the spell.

I was answering the more generic question posed: Does the gm consider "as a spell" to be "is a spell"....

The effect of the ability is as the effect of the spell, but that does not make it governed by the general rules of all spells, because the ability is not a spell, it's supernatural.

[Theomniadept]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but IIRC the best way to determine how this works was to equate it to a magic item - since none exists, the idea is "How would a continuous item of Calm Emotions work?"

So basically, if someone beats the Will save within your 20 ft aura, your Calm Emotions is broken, at least until you move over 20 ft away from anyone who has taken a hostile action while in the aura.

[goto124]

Yeah I've gotta say it's one of the dumbest interpretations of Calm Emotions Aura I've seen so far. It's basically saying as weak as the Vows are in reality that they're aren't even functional from creation itself. I see no problem from reading them as the aura isn't treated as an attack so none of this is applicable in the first place... I'm just waiting for Necroticplague or someone along his lines of RAW expertise sees this.. When they do at least it should be interesting.

+1

I still have no idea what happens when a creature makes its save against the aura, by the way.

[Malak'ai]

+1

I still have no idea what happens when a creature makes its save against the aura, by the way.

The creature can do what ever it wants to. It's not affected so there are no restrictions.
The way I see it, this also means the character can attack the creature, or do anything else, and not break the affect on anyone/thing else that did fail the save.

[graeylin]

Thanks everyone for their help, logic, and opinions! It's made it much clearer.


Now, I just have to go find ways (spells) that won't break my calm emotions aura, and still help the team!

[Theomniadept]

The creature can do what ever it wants to. It's not affected so there are no restrictions.
The way I see it, this also means the character can attack the creature, or do anything else, and not break the affect on anyone/thing else that did fail the save.

Read the spell, it breaks the enchantment on -any- creature affected by Calm Emotions.

[Malak'ai]

Read the spell, it breaks the enchantment on -any- creature affected by Calm Emotions.

Read what I was replying to. The creature made it's save. It's not affected by the aura, thus you are not attacking a "Calmed creature" so therefore it wouldn't have any repocussions on anything else that failed the save and is affected by the aura.