PREFACE: I am not asking about this spell because of something that happened at my game table. The idea simply crossed my mind during random musings and I'm asking out of simple curiosity.
Depending on the answer, I may use it as a GM later though. Nothing quite like being on a time constraint, having to stop a bunch of cultists from finishing the last stages of their diabolical plot, and all the cultists have heightened sanctuary cast on them to keep you from touching them.
***
Obviously, sanctuary does a damn good job at keeping low will save fighter types from directly attacking the subject of the spell, so much so that a heightened sanctuary might be a worthwhile investment until much higher level abjurations like (like repulsion) come along.
What I want to know, is if indirect attacks are still possible? Things like chopping down a tree and toppling it onto the target, or cutting the rope of a rope bridge the target is standing on, or activating a trap hazard while the target is in the way. Or would the spell's magic prevent you from doing even that?
What I want to know, is if indirect attacks are still possible? Things like chopping down a tree and toppling it onto the target, or cutting the rope of a rope bridge the target is standing on, or activating a trap hazard while the target is in the way. Or would the spell's magic prevent you from doing even that?
Note that the spell says "directly attack the warded creature". This seems to imply that it's the same rules as for invisibility, which say that "Causing harm indirectly is not an attack.".
There's been lengthy discussions on what constitutes direct attacks in regards to invisibility, IIRC you've been active in a few. I'd say that whatever you rule breaks invisibility should also be ruled to trigger sanctuary.
So casting sanctuary, summoning monster, then having monster attack would be possible ??
So casting sanctuary, summoning monster, then having monster attack would be possible ??
As long as the monster got a genetral comand like "attack everybody who enter this room" and pass their save throw, yes.
Generally I would say "non"-intelligent creatures attack easy targets first, so they will avoid a sanctuary PC.
Example:
For "indirect spells" I think this counts for fireballs, dragonbreath etc., which are cast on another character, but you are in the blast radius. But if a PC want to chop a tree, with the goal that this tree hit the shielded char, I would count it as direct attack, because the only cause for the chopping is to hurt the shielded one.
For "indirect spells" I think this counts for fireballs, dragonbreath etc., which are cast on another character, but you are in the blast radius. But if a PC want to chop a tree, with the goal that this tree hit the shielded char, I would count it as direct attack, because the only cause for the chopping is to hurt the shielded one.
That doesn't cut it for me, if one strives towards having uniform rulings of certain words across the board. Invisibility states that indirect attacks are okay, but also that AoE's aren't.
I think indirect attacks are things like triggering a trap or natural hazard or ordering someone else to attack a certain target (doesn't matter if the creature is summoned or not). A situation where someone or something else is actually attacking.
For "indirect spells" I think this counts for fireballs, dragonbreath etc., which are cast on another character, but you are in the blast radius. But if a PC want to chop a tree, with the goal that this tree hit the shielded char, I would count it as direct attack, because the only cause for the chopping is to hurt the shielded one.That doesn't cut it for me, if one strives towards having uniform rulings of certain words across the board. Invisibility states that indirect attacks are okay, but also that AoE's aren't.
I think indirect attacks are things like triggering a trap or natural hazard or ordering someone else to attack a certain target (doesn't matter if the creature is summoned or not). A situation where someone or something else is actually attacking.
Ok, thats a point...
The Invisbility Description gives a few good examples of indirect attacks:But first of all, this only counts for this spell (as stated "or purposes of this spell...") and also, you can summon monsters and (now i would say) you can order them to attack the shielded one, but the monsters have to make saves themself to be able to attack the target.
With the "remotely trigger traps" line it's also possible to use the "chopping the tree" action would be ok, but as DM i would rule against it, because this IS a direct attack action. Otherwise where is the difference between chopping a tree to hit an enemy and raising your hammer and let it "fall down" to hitting an enemy?
Sanctuary states it doesn't prevent AoE attacks, so limiting a character from doing any attack that may or may not even affect someone who is protected by sanctuary is a bit much, even as a heightened spell. Tossing a fireball at the guard who is 10' from the person under the effect of sanctuary is OK. That being the case, targeting a fireball next to a person under the effect of sanctuary is OK as well it would seem. You are not directly targeting the protected person which is all the spell prevents.
As for the tree, technically it would be considered a targeted attack as you are most definitely attempting to target someone with it. Making a tree fall on someone specifically is different than having the tree cut down and fall in a random direction that happened to contain the protected person. Dropping that tree on the house in which a protected person is hiding causing it to collapse on them, is a whole other matter however.
I guess it depends on if you are going by RAW or not. By RAW a lightning bolt is an AoE spell and is something you could use to affect the protected person even though it seems like you are targeting them, you really aren't technically.