Sanctuary Confusion

How does this work?

It says that the person in the Sanctuary can not attack without breaking the spell. It isn't clear on what attack means. Normally, I would rule this to include anything that could negatively impact someone else.

But the question has come up.

1. Can you cast Summon Monster from a Sanctuary (without breaking the spell)?
2. Can you cast a Grease spell from a Sanctuary (without breaking the spell)?

Those are the only real examples I'm thinking of at the moment, but they should do well to illustrate the point of my question.

I've always used Invisibility as a guide for this. If its something that would break invisibility than it would break Sanctuary.

1. Yes
2. No

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

I've always used Invisibility as a guide for this. If its something that would break invisibility than it would break Sanctuary.

1. Yes
2. No

invisibility wrote:

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

True, both invisibility and sanctuary limit a caster to nonattack spells in order to maintain those benefits.

Is there a list of nonattack spells?

Is there a set criteria for defining nonattack spells?

Is grease able to break sanctuary in all uses of the spell? Not all uses are able to effect opponents immediately or ever.

I think using Invisibility as a guide is a neat way to house rule it, but in all seriousness, it does say:

"For the purposes of this spell..."

That doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence that it's intended to work that way for the purposes of a different spell.

Here's the thing: Sanctuary is obviously intended to be a spell that a caster can put up so said caster can go around healing, or buffing. Not so a caster can around entangling, disarming, and tripping . . . all of which are bona fide combat maneuvers.

Another good question is whether or not it's considered an attack to debuff an enemy. If someone started dispelling my protections I would consider that an attack. Wouldn't you?

I would also consider someone summoning a monster to bite me an attack. I mean, it's a spell designed to cause me damage.

I would also consider someone summoning a monster to bite me an attack. I mean, it's a spell designed to cause me damage.

By that definition, so would spells like Bull's Strength and Bless, since its making the caster's allies hit me better. The caster is not the one doing the attacking, an allied creature is.

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All

offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. 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.

Well, there ya go. Knew it had to be somewhere.

EDIT: Added page number

Magic chapter of CRB wrote:

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All

offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. 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.

Well, there ya go. Knew it had to be somewhere.

Very good find. Thank you, that helps a lot.

I can probably find the page, but feel free to reference if you can spare a moment.

@Lapidea, sounds to me like your GM has a good head on his shoulders considering the above reference. "or hamper subjects are attacks." Obscuring Mist, without a doubt, hampers subjects, right?

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Magic chapter of CRB wrote:

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All

offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage
opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel
energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures
in the area. 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.

Well, there ya go. Knew it had to be somewhere.

Very good find. Thank you, that helps a lot.

I can probably find the page, but feel free to reference if you can spare a moment.

@Lapidea, sounds to me like your GM has a good head on his shoulders considering the above reference. "or hamper subjects are attacks." Obscuring Mist, without a doubt, hampers subjects, right?

If I have 5 rounds of sanctuary left. And 5 trolls spot me and my party from 90 ft out. I cast obscuring mist on myself and the party's location...I just broke sanctuary? Seems awful silly to me.

I realize these restrictions are largely for the purpose of game balance, but the rationale behind them gets a little silly after a point. Area Effect spells like Grease and Entangle, for instance. I can reasonably see those spells disrupting invisibility or sanctuary if they are cast on an area occupied by an enemy "at the time of the casting." But the actual wording doesn't include that caveat, it basically says that if the spell will disrupt your invisibility or sanctuary any time an enemy has to resist it with a saving throw, even if they step into it several rounds after you cast it and maneuvered yourself away from your casting position. I suppose you could rationalize it by saying that if someone steps into a greased area or an area of entanglement, that they suddenly say to themselves, "Hey, that ain't natural!" then start looking around for who did it, thereby rendering the caster no longer SEP (in the case of Sanctuary) or suddenly allowing them to auto-succeed on the perception roll to notice an invisible person, regardless of the penalties, but even that rationale falls flat if there are other casters they are aware of who could have potentially cast those spells. Honestly, this is one of many cases where I think the game designers (going all the way back to the original D&D) threw common sense out the window just to keep a spell from being a little bit overpowered. When a game balance decision isn't backed up by a good rational explanation, I think the game suffers a bit for it.

Does poor vision hamper a character? You bet. Check out the SRD. It reads:

"Hampered Movement

Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement."

You'll find this here.

...somewhat more than halfway done under "Tactical Movement".

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I have a question for the spell Sanctuary. The target says Creature Touched. Does that mean you can cast it on yourself too?

As for the 'hamper' discussion, I would have to disagree that obscuring mist or grease would disrupt the spell. The mist and the grease itself are not magical. A spell like Slow is. The foe is having to save against a non-magical material component (grease) and the save is only to prevent them from slipping. Slow is actually saving to ward off the magical effect.

It's kinda like you "summoned" the grease, and it made them slip all on it's own, just like any other summoned monster. ;)

Couple thoughts:

Foul Necromancy --
But for posterity's sake:

Sanctuary uses the wording directly in referring to the to the nature of the attack. It also does not prevent a warded creature from being harmed or affected by AoE attacks. If you are under the effects of Sanctuary you are not going to end the warding if you cast Obscuring Mist or Darkness even if foes are in the area. That'll take something like Entangle, Fireball, or Acid Fog. At least that is how I view it and believe RAI.

And yes you can use it on yourself. I had a character use it once, then deliberately move through an area where a large number of foes were set to use AoO's with reach weapons. She drew all the AoO's and the remainder of the party entered and closed with the foes without getting hammered by the AoO's.