Can the target of the spell not act hostile toward any creature when this spell is cast or just not hostile towards the specific enemy that is attacking him?
"If the target acts in a hostile manner, the spell is dismissed"
So would this spell be cast on a character that is near death so he can run away hopefully without being killed or?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sanctuary for the target. So you could cast sanctuary on a wounded ally to help them escape. Or an NPC you are trying to protect. Or as is most common on yourself because you are a cleric that just want to focus on buffing and healing and don't plan on making any offensive actions vs your opponents.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The target can't take hostile actions toward anyone. Likewise, the protection is good against everyone. You don't have to choose a specific enemy to have sanctuary against.
Could I have my Summoned Monster attack for me while I have Sanctuary casted on myself?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could I have my Summoned Monster attack for me while I have Sanctuary casted on myself?
I don't think so. From page 197:
Sometimes spell effects prevent a target from acting in
a hostile fashion or end if a creature acts in a hostile
fashion. A hostile act is one that can harm or damage
another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not
those that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For
instance, lobbing a freball into a crowd would be a
hostile act, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a
horrible monster would not be a hostile act as long as the
opener did not know the monster was there. The GM is
the fnal arbitrator of what constitutes as acting hostile.
Emphasis mine. You now have to use one of your actions to make a summon do something, and if that something is "attack", you're indirectly causing harm.
Could I have my Summoned Monster attack for me while I have Sanctuary casted on myself?I don't think so. From page 197:
Emphasis mine. You now have to use one of your actions to make a summon do something, and if that something is "attack", you're indirectly causing harm.Sometimes spell effects prevent a target from acting in
a hostile fashion or end if a creature acts in a hostile
fashion. A hostile act is one that can harm or damage
another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not
those that a creature is unaware could cause harm. For
instance, lobbing a freball into a crowd would be a
hostile act, but opening a door and accidentally freeing a
horrible monster would not be a hostile act as long as the
opener did not know the monster was there. The GM is
the fnal arbitrator of what constitutes as acting hostile.
agreed, good find.
They would still count for flanking, because they are capable of attacking even if they choose not to.
Then, according to some, it isn't hostile unless you're invisible:
I am invisible and close to melee with an enemy. Because I am wielding a melee weapon, I become visible immediately - my movement action is hostile and indirectly causing harm to the enemy because I now threaten them.
The action of holding a weapon is not hostile. The action of using the weapon is hostile. If the intent of your movement is to be threatening to the enemy then yes that's hostile.
Wait wait wait, you're saying a MUTILATION DEMON can teleport to a place with the intention to murder people there without having hostile intentions? Say that out loud for me. I call shenanigans.
They would still count for flanking, because they are capable of attacking even if they choose not to.I think that it is a judgement call. Personally I would view flanking someone as a hostile action, but there might be a lot of players or GMs that doesn't see it like that. But you are right that it doesn't state in RAW that threatening a square is a hostile action.
Except that it's not. "Hostile action" has a definition:
A hostile act is one that can harm or damage
another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not
those that a creature is unaware could cause harm
.
Standing there and being capable of attacking is not causing harm. If "I'm capable of attacking" is a hostile action, than almost every PC is hostile nearly constantly. Even when they're doing diplomacy, because they are capable of stopping that and attacking.
Claiming that it is means that the action "I stand still and do nothing for my turn" is a hostile action if you happen to start the turn in a position that causes flanking. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
So would the Assist action used on my Fighter be considered hostile? Would that break Sanctuary?
By RAW just standing on the other side of the enemy with the ability to hit that enemy grants flanking.
However, when I imagine flanking visually it's the enemy having to guard themselves from threats it knows are there on both sides of it giving it the -2 to AC. If the enemy isn't aware of something standing behind him why would he be flat-footed against the person they could see. Now with sanctuary it's kinda the same issue. How can you be proving to be a threat to someone with out showing the obvious intent of planning to hurt them. Like how do you cause the enemy to have to be weary of you without having your weapon out with the appearance to strike. But the RAW makes it simpler for the table.
Edit: forgot to add in the idea of sanctuary in this part.
As for assist breaking sanctuary, that's an interesting question and really hits a grey ground when looking at it. Depending on the way you describe the assisting it could both break it and not break it. Giving advice like it's left side is unguarded wouldn't since your action isn't directly influencing/forcing the person your assisting to harm the enemy. But "pocket sand" or miming at the enemy trying to force it to look at you instead would be more of a hostile action. But 90% of the time I would probably say it wouldn't.
Last thing, Draco you pulled in 2 arguments on hostile actions that we're being sarcastic against my points from the other thread. Just wanted to point that out.
Last thing, Draco you pulled in 2 arguments on hostile actions that we're being sarcastic against my points from the other thread. Just wanted to point that out.
The entire exchange was incredibly hard to read (that is: distinguish what was sarcasm and what was not).
So would the Assist action used on my Fighter be considered hostile? Would that break Sanctuary?
Maybe? The difference between assist and flanking is that if you're assisting an attack, you're actively helping cause harm even if it's not you doing the damage. Flanking simply requires you to stand in a certain spot and it doesn't ever require you to do anything offensive whatsoever: you simply need to be capable of doing something offensive.
But you could probably argue assist differently if you felt so inclined. It's a bit of a weird one.
Sorry guys I just looked it up. The assist action has the attack tag so it's a no go. Though for flanking I'm not honestly sure. As is it's probably a GM call thing.