I know this may seem an easy question, but I began to think about it when I saw a thread about keeping a rage going for barbarians. If you are in a battle, and let's just say you cast a spell that "targets a hostile creature", then it seems pretty obvious that the intent is to target an enemy, right? But it doesn't say, enemy, it says hostile, so wouldn't that also include your allies? According to Merriam-Webster, there are 4 definitions related to this form of hostile:
of or relating to an enemy
marked by malevolence: having or showing unfriendly feelings
openly opposed or resisting
having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature
In a battle, most of these would include both yourself and your enemies (probably). I have 2 examples, the first is Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, which attacks a creature "hostile to you". That definitely relates to an enemy, the target is most likely showing unfriendly feelings (as it IS fighting you), it is also likely resisting or opposed to you, but it may not be intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive, but it could be. So I'll give it a 3.5/4 majority as to if the target is hostile, meaning the hound is made to be defensive. You can't make it attack a stranger, even if you are evil, as the stranger is not an enemy, not being unfriendly, not resisting, and not being offensive. You can't even make it attack a person surrendering to you.
My other example is a barbarian raging. Your rage ends if you don't take damage or attack a hostile creature. But it just says "hostile" there. Not "hostile to you". So, are your allies hostile? Can you attack them to keep your rage going? Well, they are an enemy, to your enemy, and they are unfriendly... to your enemy. They are VERY opposed and resistant, as you are fighting. And you are raging, so you are definitely intimidating, highly antagonistic, and offensive. All to your opponent. So that's 4/4, your allies are hostile in a battle, so you can attack them to keep your rage going. Right?
If your allies are more likely to be hostile than your enemies are, then if we cast that spell that "targets a hostile creature", then can we target our allies? I know this can simply be resolved with the DM saying "no targeting your allies unless they want it", but it is still there. Maybe the Barbarian is just a slip-up, but is it? I don't think it was intended for you to be able to attack your allies, but if you're in a rage, aren't you blinded by fury? In your rage, couldn't you attack your allies, as Heracles did with his family back in the Greek myths? And Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound is very specific, saying "a creature hostile to you" is pretty obvious but can be only used for defensive purposes, it can't really be an offensive weapon. If you're in a dueling tournament, is your opponent "hostile"? So what do y'all think? What makes a "hostile" creature?
I know this may seem an easy question, but I began to think about it when I saw a thread about keeping a rage going for barbarians. If you are in a battle, and let's just say you cast a spell that "targets a hostile creature", then it seems pretty obvious that the intent is to target an enemy, right? But it doesn't say, enemy, it says hostile, so wouldn't that also include your allies? According to Merriam-Webster, there are 4 definitions related to this form of hostile:
of or relating to an enemy
marked by malevolence: having or showing unfriendly feelings
openly opposed or resisting
having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature
In a battle, most of these would include both yourself and your enemies (probably). I have 2 examples, the first is Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, which attacks a creature "hostile to you". That definitely relates to an enemy, the target is most likely showing unfriendly feelings (as it IS fighting you), it is also likely resisting or opposed to you, but it may not be intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive, but it could be. So I'll give it a 3.5/4 majority as to if the target is hostile, meaning the hound is made to be defensive. You can't make it attack a stranger, even if you are evil, as the stranger is not an enemy, not being unfriendly, not resisting, and not being offensive. You can't even make it attack a person surrendering to you.
My other example is a barbarian raging. Your rage ends if you don't take damage or attack a hostile creature. But it just says "hostile" there. Not "hostile to you". So, are your allies hostile? Can you attack them to keep your rage going? Well, they are an enemy, to your enemy, and they are unfriendly... to your enemy. They are VERY opposed and resistant, as you are fighting. And you are raging, so you are definitely intimidating, highly antagonistic, and offensive. All to your opponent. So that's 4/4, your allies are hostile in a battle, so you can attack them to keep your rage going. Right?
If your allies are more likely to be hostile than your enemies are, then if we cast that spell that "targets a hostile creature", then can we target our allies? I know this can simply be resolved with the DM saying "no targeting your allies unless they want it", but it is still there. Maybe the Barbarian is just a slip-up, but is it? I don't think it was intended for you to be able to attack your allies, but if you're in a rage, aren't you blinded by fury? In your rage, couldn't you attack your allies, as Heracles did with his family back in the Greek myths? And Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound is very specific, saying "a creature hostile to you" is pretty obvious but can be only used for defensive purposes, it can't really be an offensive weapon. If you're in a dueling tournament, is your opponent "hostile"? So what do y'all think? What makes a "hostile" creature?
I think that the Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound language is simply more specific because it's potentially a neutral party (similar to other spells that can summon creatures that will attack you).
As for the other stuff, the thought exercise is certainly interesting. The mechanics... I think my ruling on the barbarian attacking its allies would vary from situation to situation since it borders heavily on metagaming and the lone wolf who doesn't play well with others.
Hostile, in this case, means "is this thing specifically being antagonistic and/or attacking me?" The Faithful Hound for example, means is anything currently attacking it.
In general, in combat, a hostile creature is anything in combat actively fighting against the player party. Outside of combat, hostility could, at DM discretion, range from someone being angry and READY to fight but not actively fighting to just someone being a jerk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Since we're playing with loopholes I also posit the "hostile to you" could potentially mean "appearing to be hostile according to your perception of the entity", which means that spells that target creature hostile to you could affect anything that your character considers hostile. ;)
Since we're playing with loopholes I also posit the "hostile to you" could potentially mean "appearing to be hostile according to your perception of the entity", which means that spells that target creature hostile to you could affect anything that your character considers hostile. ;)
That *is* how I've interpreted the rule to be, personally, yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I would agree, a very common situation is you are sneaking through a cave and you see a group of zombies, barb goes into rage and attacks one. As they are all surprised none get to attack the barb before the next round. It would be very poor DMing to say the barb drops his rage because he did not attack a hostile creature.
If I was the DM and a Barbarian attacked his ally, I would let the party have the choice to react in a hostile manner, and therefore try to kill the Barbarian, in which case the Barbarian's rage would continue, or they could choose to not react in a hostile manner, in which case the Barbarian's rage would end because they are not actually hostile.
So the only way attacking your party could maintain your rage is if your party tries to kill you. And it will end either with your Barbarian dead, or everyone in your party dead except for you, and you not being invited to any future sessions of D&D with this group of people.
There's an unwritten rule in D&D which says "Don't be a dick." Attacking your own party (or being a Rogue and stealing from your party, that type of thing) breaks this rule.
Interesting question, has anyone got a reading on this from Jeremy Crawford and Sage Advice?
This came up in our game the other day - my Cleric has the ability Channel Divinity: Radiance of the Dawn (PHB, pg. 61).
When using this ability, it dispels all magical darkness, but also deals damage to anyone who is "hostile" - does that mean your friends that are around and already in combat (hostile) vs other opponents?
I know this may seem an easy question, but I began to think about it when I saw a thread about keeping a rage going for barbarians. If you are in a battle, and let's just say you cast a spell that "targets a hostile creature", then it seems pretty obvious that the intent is to target an enemy, right? But it doesn't say, enemy, it says hostile, so wouldn't that also include your allies? According to Merriam-Webster, there are 4 definitions related to this form of hostile:
of or relating to an enemy
marked by malevolence: having or showing unfriendly feelings
openly opposed or resisting
having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature
In a battle, most of these would include both yourself and your enemies (probably). I have 2 examples, the first is Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, which attacks a creature "hostile to you". That definitely relates to an enemy, the target is most likely showing unfriendly feelings (as it IS fighting you), it is also likely resisting or opposed to you, but it may not be intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive, but it could be. So I'll give it a 3.5/4 majority as to if the target is hostile, meaning the hound is made to be defensive. You can't make it attack a stranger, even if you are evil, as the stranger is not an enemy, not being unfriendly, not resisting, and not being offensive. You can't even make it attack a person surrendering to you.
My other example is a barbarian raging. Your rage ends if you don't take damage or attack a hostile creature. But it just says "hostile" there. Not "hostile to you". So, are your allies hostile? Can you attack them to keep your rage going? Well, they are an enemy, to your enemy, and they are unfriendly... to your enemy. They are VERY opposed and resistant, as you are fighting. And you are raging, so you are definitely intimidating, highly antagonistic, and offensive. All to your opponent. So that's 4/4, your allies are hostile in a battle, so you can attack them to keep your rage going. Right?
If your allies are more likely to be hostile than your enemies are, then if we cast that spell that "targets a hostile creature", then can we target our allies? I know this can simply be resolved with the DM saying "no targeting your allies unless they want it", but it is still there. Maybe the Barbarian is just a slip-up, but is it? I don't think it was intended for you to be able to attack your allies, but if you're in a rage, aren't you blinded by fury? In your rage, couldn't you attack your allies, as Heracles did with his family back in the Greek myths? And Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound is very specific, saying "a creature hostile to you" is pretty obvious but can be only used for defensive purposes, it can't really be an offensive weapon. If you're in a dueling tournament, is your opponent "hostile"? So what do y'all think? What makes a "hostile" creature?
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
I think that the Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound language is simply more specific because it's potentially a neutral party (similar to other spells that can summon creatures that will attack you).
As for the other stuff, the thought exercise is certainly interesting. The mechanics... I think my ruling on the barbarian attacking its allies would vary from situation to situation since it borders heavily on metagaming and the lone wolf who doesn't play well with others.
Hostile, in this case, means "is this thing specifically being antagonistic and/or attacking me?" The Faithful Hound for example, means is anything currently attacking it.
In general, in combat, a hostile creature is anything in combat actively fighting against the player party. Outside of combat, hostility could, at DM discretion, range from someone being angry and READY to fight but not actively fighting to just someone being a jerk.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Since we're playing with loopholes I also posit the "hostile to you" could potentially mean "appearing to be hostile according to your perception of the entity", which means that spells that target creature hostile to you could affect anything that your character considers hostile. ;)
That *is* how I've interpreted the rule to be, personally, yes.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I would agree, a very common situation is you are sneaking through a cave and you see a group of zombies, barb goes into rage and attacks one. As they are all surprised none get to attack the barb before the next round. It would be very poor DMing to say the barb drops his rage because he did not attack a hostile creature.
If I was the DM and a Barbarian attacked his ally, I would let the party have the choice to react in a hostile manner, and therefore try to kill the Barbarian, in which case the Barbarian's rage would continue, or they could choose to not react in a hostile manner, in which case the Barbarian's rage would end because they are not actually hostile.
So the only way attacking your party could maintain your rage is if your party tries to kill you. And it will end either with your Barbarian dead, or everyone in your party dead except for you, and you not being invited to any future sessions of D&D with this group of people.
There's an unwritten rule in D&D which says "Don't be a dick." Attacking your own party (or being a Rogue and stealing from your party, that type of thing) breaks this rule.
Interesting question, has anyone got a reading on this from Jeremy Crawford and Sage Advice?
This came up in our game the other day - my Cleric has the ability Channel Divinity: Radiance of the Dawn (PHB, pg. 61).
When using this ability, it dispels all magical darkness, but also deals damage to anyone who is "hostile" - does that mean your friends that are around and already in combat (hostile) vs other opponents?
I think I found an answer on RPGStackExchange: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/65491/what-is-the-definition-of-hostile
This is from 5 years ago, but quotes the DMG p. 244:
This is for social interactions but could be useful nonetheless.