Sanctuary + Spirit Guardian - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 vamp70 Apr 23, 2015 16:35:03	If a Cleric round 1 Casts Spirit Guardian , then 2nd Round casts Sanctuary then walks to a area that effects say a bunch of orcs. Would the Spell End? ~~Sanctuary You ward a creature within range against attack. Until the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a W isdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell. This spell doesn’t protect the w arded creature from area effects, such as the explosion of a fireball. If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends. RAW - I read it as he hasn't cast a spell that effected a enemy or made a attack on the creature. or is this a RAI (Rule as intended) and the sanctuary would end. thought , I got a idea which way my DM will go. Also second thing on Sanctuary, if a creature have 3 attacks a round would the creatue have to make 3 saves. and Last Question , once a attacker made a save. I am assuming it has to make a save to attack the Cleric every round. It is a cool spell
#2 jaelis Apr 23, 2015 17:47:55	Me, I'd say that when you walk up to the orcs, sanctuary ends. Also second thing on Sanctuary, if a creature have 3 attacks a round would the creatue have to make 3 saves.
#3 dippyblonde Apr 23, 2015 18:18:45	With the rules as written, the moment the cleric comes within 15ft of the orcs basically the Spirit Guardian spell automatically attackes the orcs the sanctuary spell would indeed end. This due to fact tthat youre not allowed to cause damage to the enemy. If however he had cast Spirtual Weapon and not ordered the weapon to attack, it wouldnt end and he could walk through with Sanctuay still up as he is not causing damage or casting a spell effecting an enemy creature. I also would agree with Jaelis in that fact they would have to make a save per attack, assuming of course that the Sanctuary spell was still active
#4 lawrencehoy Apr 23, 2015 23:00:36	Spiritual Guardians is an Area of Effect spell and it wasn't cast during the Sanctuary spell's duration (or affecting a creature when it was cast); so it would not cause Sancuary to end. EDIT: The only way the Spiritual Guardians spell causes the Sanctuary spell to end, in this type of scenario, is if the Cleric casts Sanctuary first, then moves close to the orc(s) and casts Spiritual Guardians where the Area of Effect (15' radius) encomasses the orc(s).
#5 mellored Apr 24, 2015 5:17:45	lawrencehoy wrote:
#6 lawrencehoy Apr 24, 2015 5:37:28	mellored wrote:
#7 mellored Apr 24, 2015 5:52:32	lawrencehoy wrote:
#8 Coredump00 Apr 24, 2015 6:11:21	I believe that trying to parse a difference between "doing something that directly causes harm" and "make an attack" is way too fine of a distinction. "Hey, I pulled this lever to drop that anvil...but I didn't 'attack' him with the anvil" The next step is "Hey I didn't hit him, my sword hit him"
#9 mellored Apr 24, 2015 6:20:16	Coredump00 wrote:
#10 Bloodscythe Apr 24, 2015 13:03:07	I'd leave it as basic as if the player controlling the cleric has to roll damage dice, then sanctuary ends. If however the NPC has an effect on it that causes damage, and as DM, I'm rolling the damage, then the PC's sanctuary doesn't end. How would you treat a summoned animal or a dominated monster? I'd say that since the attack is coming from an NPC, and not the cleric, sanctuary stays up, even if the cleric is using its action to "make an attack" using the NPC.
#11 OoftaMeg Apr 24, 2015 13:21:33	I'd rule that the sanctuary spell ends, otherwise you are violating the spirit of the rule. You are maintaining a spell that is causing damage to enemy creatures, you are effectively attacking those creatures even if you don't have to an attack roll. On the other hand, if you had a character with sanctuary and flame shield at the same time, I wouldn't end the sanctuary if the fire shield caused damage to a monster because the character was hit by a attack. In that case the monster caused the damage to themselves, it was not actively controlled by the character.
#12 mellored Apr 24, 2015 14:05:27	what about blade barrier, web, or other zone spells? or if you dragged someone into a bonfire? help action for a rogue? commander's strike?
(Reply to #12) OoftaMeg	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #9) Coredump00	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #12) Coredump00	mellored wrote:
#16 brettlangbdl Apr 24, 2015 21:23:10	I tend to agree that walking spirit guardians into enemies is " inflicting harm / attacking " upon the casters foes, which to me says it is breaking the RAI for the spell description. Also, I don't see how you can say you need to save vs the spell on every single attack, you only save against a spell once per round.. You either save or fail, and if necessary repeat the save every round until you save/fail.
(Reply to #3) vamp70	dippyblonde wrote:
#18 dippyblonde Apr 25, 2015 2:25:59	I stand corrected
#19 OoftaMeg Apr 25, 2015 6:44:32	I know technically you are not making an attack because you are not making an attack roll but if someone did this at my table I would cal shenannigans. You are purposely and aggressively causing someone harm. You are attacking whether or not it meets the technical by the (player's hand) book definition of attacking. It's up to the DM to determine whether or not you are attacking and in this scenario, you are. Had you cast spiritual guardian and tried to stay out of the fight you would not be.
#20 Coredump00 Apr 25, 2015 7:12:07	If you pour oil on someone and light it, you have technically "not made an attack".... but I would still rule you attacked them and broke the spell. Grapple and Shove are both Attacks that do not use an Attack Roll... so we know an attack roll is not strictly necessary. for something to be an attack.
#21 brettlangbdl Apr 25, 2015 8:17:10	that's my point exactly. it seems logical if something your doing is inflicting harm/ hp dmg on a creature, then you have attacked it, whether or not you used an attack action to do so or not. It does say " casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends " .. admittedly the spell effecting the creature was cast the previous round, but it is still effecting a creature? lol
#22 jaelis Apr 25, 2015 8:34:44	Really just depends on whether you want to take a strict mechanical interpretation of "attack," or a more natural language interpretation. Either way seems legit to me, but I'd go with the more natural language because to me it fits the spell better.
#23 WizardV Apr 25, 2015 13:22:28	If I cast spirit guardians and my friend casts invisibility on me. Does the invisibility end when they make a save? That removes the 'sanctuary' intent of the spell. I can understand the argument against allowing this. An argumentative player is going to say my spirit weapon made the attack not me if you go down this line. This argument feels similar to finding out what a illusionist wizard can get away with using malleable illusions. Somewhere a line does need to be drawn, but for this case I would let sanctuary continue. On the flipside, as a player I have literally had DM's use this against the party on 2 occassions. HotDQ episode 3 for example. None of the players either time time complained or disagreed about the combo, so there's 10 more votes in favor of letting it work.
#24 jaelis Apr 25, 2015 18:53:09	WizardV wrote:
#25 WizardV Apr 26, 2015 2:28:37	It's no longer involved. Invisibility has similar wording on the conditions that end it.
#26 vamp70 Apr 26, 2015 5:45:12	Invisibility needs concentration and so does spriit guardian.. :P
#27 jaelis Apr 26, 2015 6:44:19	He's saying: I'm a cleric, I cast Spirit Guardians. The wizard then casts invisibility on me, and I walk up to some orcs. Does invisibility pop? I'd say that should work the same way sanctuary does, however you rule it.
#28 FarBeyondC Apr 26, 2015 9:48:16	Strictly speaking, maintaining a spell isn't the same thing as casting a spell. While this isn't explicitly stated anywhere to my knowledge, there's at least one place where a distinction between casting spells and maintaining spells is made- the druid's Wild Shape ability. Namely, a druid in Wild Shape form (unless of sufficiently high level) cannot cast spells, but can maintain concentration on spells already cast and can use actions (and therefore presumably, bonus actions) that are part of a spell already cast.
(Reply to #27) vamp70	jaelis wrote:
#30 jaelis Apr 26, 2015 19:54:37	That is not the case. The caster is always the one who needs to concentrate on a spell he cast. The rules say that pretty clearly.
#31 lawrencehoy Apr 28, 2015 9:40:20	OoftaMeg wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

vamp70

Apr 23, 2015 16:35:03

If a Cleric round 1 Casts Spirit Guardian , then 2nd Round casts Sanctuary then walks to a area that effects say a bunch of orcs.

Would the Spell End?

~~Sanctuary

You ward a creature within range against attack. Until
the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded
creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first
make a W isdom saving throw. On a failed save, the
creature must choose a new target or lose the attack

or spell. This spell doesn’t protect the w arded creature
from area effects, such as the explosion of a fireball.
If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell
that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends.

RAW - I read it as he hasn't cast a spell that effected a enemy or made a attack on the creature.

or is this a RAI (Rule as intended) and the sanctuary would end.

thought , I got a idea which way my DM will go.

Also second thing on Sanctuary, if a creature have 3 attacks a round would the creatue have to make 3 saves.

and Last Question , once a attacker made a save. I am assuming it has to make a save to attack the Cleric every round.

It is a cool spell

jaelis

Apr 23, 2015 17:47:55

Me, I'd say that when you walk up to the orcs, sanctuary ends.

Also second thing on Sanctuary, if a creature have 3 attacks a round would the creatue have to make 3 saves.

dippyblonde

Apr 23, 2015 18:18:45

With the rules as written, the moment the cleric comes within 15ft of the orcs basically the Spirit Guardian spell automatically attackes the orcs the sanctuary spell would indeed end. This due to fact tthat youre not allowed to cause damage to the enemy.

If however he had cast Spirtual Weapon and not ordered the weapon to attack, it wouldnt end and he could walk through with Sanctuay still up as he is not causing damage or casting a spell effecting an enemy creature.

I also would agree with Jaelis in that fact they would have to make a save per attack, assuming of course that the Sanctuary spell was still active

lawrencehoy

Apr 23, 2015 23:00:36

Spiritual Guardians is an Area of Effect spell and it wasn't cast during the Sanctuary spell's duration (or affecting a creature when it was cast); so it would not cause Sancuary to end.

EDIT: The only way the Spiritual Guardians spell causes the Sanctuary spell to end, in this type of scenario, is if the Cleric casts Sanctuary first, then moves close to the orc(s) and casts Spiritual Guardians where the Area of Effect (15' radius) encomasses the orc(s).

mellored

Apr 24, 2015 5:17:45

lawrencehoy wrote:

lawrencehoy

Apr 24, 2015 5:37:28

mellored wrote:

mellored

Apr 24, 2015 5:52:32

lawrencehoy wrote:

Coredump00

Apr 24, 2015 6:11:21

I believe that trying to parse a difference between "doing something that directly causes harm" and "make an attack" is way too fine of a distinction.

"Hey, I pulled this lever to drop that anvil...but I didn't 'attack' him with the anvil" The next step is "Hey I didn't hit him, my sword hit him"

mellored

Apr 24, 2015 6:20:16

Coredump00 wrote:

#10

Bloodscythe

Apr 24, 2015 13:03:07

I'd leave it as basic as if the player controlling the cleric has to roll damage dice, then sanctuary ends. If however the NPC has an effect on it that causes damage, and as DM, I'm rolling the damage, then the PC's sanctuary doesn't end.

How would you treat a summoned animal or a dominated monster? I'd say that since the attack is coming from an NPC, and not the cleric, sanctuary stays up, even if the cleric is using its action to "make an attack" using the NPC.

#11

OoftaMeg

Apr 24, 2015 13:21:33

I'd rule that the sanctuary spell ends, otherwise you are violating the spirit of the rule. You are maintaining a spell that is causing damage to enemy creatures, you are effectively attacking those creatures even if you don't have to an attack roll.

On the other hand, if you had a character with sanctuary and flame shield at the same time, I wouldn't end the sanctuary if the fire shield caused damage to a monster because the character was hit by a attack. In that case the monster caused the damage to themselves, it was not actively controlled by the character.

#12

mellored

Apr 24, 2015 14:05:27

what about blade barrier, web, or other zone spells? or if you dragged someone into a bonfire? help action for a rogue? commander's strike?

(Reply to #12)

OoftaMeg

mellored wrote:

(Reply to #9)

Coredump00

mellored wrote:

(Reply to #12)

Coredump00

mellored wrote:

#16

brettlangbdl

Apr 24, 2015 21:23:10

I tend to agree that walking spirit guardians into enemies is " inflicting harm / attacking " upon the casters foes, which to me says it is breaking the RAI for the spell description. Also, I don't see how you can say you need to save vs the spell on every single attack, you only save against a spell once per round.. You either save or fail, and if necessary repeat the save every round until you save/fail.

(Reply to #3)

vamp70

dippyblonde wrote:

#18

dippyblonde

Apr 25, 2015 2:25:59

I stand corrected

#19

OoftaMeg

Apr 25, 2015 6:44:32

I know technically you are not making an attack because you are not making an attack roll but if someone did this at my table I would cal shenannigans. You are purposely and aggressively causing someone harm. You are attacking whether or not it meets the technical by the (player's hand) book definition of attacking.

It's up to the DM to determine whether or not you are attacking and in this scenario, you are. Had you cast spiritual guardian and tried to stay out of the fight you would not be.

#20

Coredump00

Apr 25, 2015 7:12:07

If you pour oil on someone and light it, you have technically "not made an attack".... but I would still rule you attacked them and broke the spell.

Grapple and Shove are both Attacks that do not use an Attack Roll... so we know an attack roll is not strictly necessary. for something to be an attack.

#21

brettlangbdl

Apr 25, 2015 8:17:10

that's my point exactly. it seems logical if something your doing is inflicting harm/ hp dmg on a creature, then you have attacked it, whether or not you used an attack action to do so or not. It does say " casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends " .. admittedly the spell effecting the creature was cast the previous round, but it is still effecting a creature? lol

#22

jaelis

Apr 25, 2015 8:34:44

Really just depends on whether you want to take a strict mechanical interpretation of "attack," or a more natural language interpretation. Either way seems legit to me, but I'd go with the more natural language because to me it fits the spell better.

#23

WizardV

Apr 25, 2015 13:22:28

If I cast spirit guardians and my friend casts invisibility on me. Does the invisibility end when they make a save? That removes the 'sanctuary' intent of the spell.

I can understand the argument against allowing this. An argumentative player is going to say my spirit weapon made the attack not me if you go down this line. This argument feels similar to finding out what a illusionist wizard can get away with using malleable illusions. Somewhere a line does need to be drawn, but for this case I would let sanctuary continue. On the flipside, as a player I have literally had DM's use this against the party on 2 occassions. HotDQ episode 3 for example. None of the players either time time complained or disagreed about the combo, so there's 10 more votes in favor of letting it work.

#24

jaelis

Apr 25, 2015 18:53:09

WizardV wrote:

#25

WizardV

Apr 26, 2015 2:28:37

It's no longer involved. Invisibility has similar wording on the conditions that end it.

#26

vamp70

Apr 26, 2015 5:45:12

Invisibility needs concentration and so does spriit guardian.. :P

#27

jaelis

Apr 26, 2015 6:44:19

He's saying:

I'm a cleric, I cast Spirit Guardians. The wizard then casts invisibility on me, and I walk up to some orcs. Does invisibility pop? I'd say that should work the same way sanctuary does, however you rule it.

#28

FarBeyondC

Apr 26, 2015 9:48:16

Strictly speaking, maintaining a spell isn't the same thing as casting a spell. While this isn't explicitly stated anywhere to my knowledge, there's at least one place where a distinction between casting spells and maintaining spells is made- the druid's Wild Shape ability. Namely, a druid in Wild Shape form (unless of sufficiently high level) cannot cast spells, but can maintain concentration on spells already cast and can use actions (and therefore presumably, bonus actions) that are part of a spell already cast.

(Reply to #27)

vamp70

jaelis wrote:

#30

jaelis

Apr 26, 2015 19:54:37

That is not the case. The caster is always the one who needs to concentrate on a spell he cast. The rules say that pretty clearly.

#31

lawrencehoy

Apr 28, 2015 9:40:20

OoftaMeg wrote: