No, it would reference the Attack trait if that was the intent.
IMHO it should work similar to attacks/hostile actions breaking Invisibility.
(short description says "until it attacks" / spell block refernces hostile actions)
So causing the roof to cave-in on top of you would not be subject to Sanctuary, but Fireball or a Strike would be.
They use Capital letters if they mean a trait.
It's confusing because there's "attack" in plain language (which a fireball clearly would be) but "attack" is also a specific game term in PF2.
Without anything else though, I'd have to agree with Wibble. Attack is a game term, so something that says it works when someone is subject to an attack should specifically relate to things that are attacks and not things that aren't attacks.
The text could have used language like "hostile action" which is much broader in its definition if it was meant to apply to everything, imo.
|
That's confusing? Give a look at this:
Trigger: You are attacked by a creature that you haven't yet acted hostile toward. You must use this reaction before the creature rolls its attack.
The way you cringe or use those puppydog eyes you've been practicing elicits an empathetic response in the attacker. Attempt a Diplomacy check against your attacker's Will DC.
Critical Success: The creature pulls its attack, wasting its action, and can't use hostile actions against you until the beginning of its next turn.
Success: The creature takes a –2 circumstance penalty to damage on the triggering Strike and all its Strikes against you until the beginning of its next turn. The penalty is –4 if you're an expert in Diplomacy, –6 if you're a master, and –8 if you're legendary.
Failure: The creature's attack is unaffected, and the creature is temporarily immune to your Empathic Pleas for 24 hours.
The trigger only refers to an attack: the small "a" seems to imply it is not an actual keyword (unlike the Attack trait), so for now let's keep it generic and say it's any action causing damage for the purposes of this feat (since the benefits are about reducing damage).
The same syntax is used in the Critical Success and Failure sections.
But then in the Success paragraph, we are suddenly talking about Strikes. But not any Strike, the triggering Strike. This means that the attack found in the trigger not only is not just an action causing damage, it isn't even just an action with the Attack trait (such as a spell, or other Attack actions that are not specifically Strikes).
This mean that, in the case of the Empathetic Plea feat, attack is synonymous to Strike, but not to an action with the Attack trait (since spell attacks are not Strikes, and would not benefit from, nor trigger, the feat). How does this apply to the Sanctuary spell? Who knows?!
Clearly the rules have no consistency when using keywords, which is depressing since the whole PF2 ruleset is supposed to be based on the new traits/tag system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the relevant rule.
The names of specific statistics, skills, feats, actions, and some other mechanical elements in Pathfinder are capitalized. This way, when you see the statement “a Strike targets Armor Class,” you know that both Strike and Armor Class are referring to rules.
In my opinion, Sanctuary is meant to work only against Attacks. Otherwise, the ability to completely stop the triggering attack would mean stopping a spell or a dragon breath. For a first level spell, it would be way too good.
In my opinion, Sanctuary is meant to work only against Attacks. Otherwise, the ability to completely stop the triggering attack would mean stopping a spell or a dragon breath. For a first level spell, it would be way too good.
You cannot attack it, it cannot attack you (unless it saves).
I mean, what are you going to do? Stand there round after round not attacking back while they eventually kill you?
Was wondering this recently too and am glad someone thought to ask about it.
I'm currently of the mind that the spell is using the general term for attack, not the game term.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not common practice to capitalize traits. Consider a well-known ability that references traits:
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. This Strike doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to this Strike.
It references the manipulate and move traits multiple times without capitalizing them.
The only conspicuous capitalization here is Strike, to indicate the Strike action.
They use Capital letters if they mean a trait.
I don't think that's true. I've been searching the CRB pdf and the only times that 'attack' is capitalized are when the word is part of a title (like Power Attack), part of a header, in the tag image (in all caps), or because it is the first word in a sentence. I haven't been able to find a single example where the attack trait is written as 'Attack' to indicate that it is a trait. Can you point me to a page where this formatting is used?
In my opinion, Sanctuary is meant to work only against Attacks. Otherwise, the ability to completely stop the triggering attack would mean stopping a spell or a dragon breath. For a first level spell, it would be way too good.The same could be said of Command or Fear, both 1st level spells that can, in theory, disable a dragon for a couple rounds. The caveats are the Will save and short duration or small number of creatures protected (Sanctuary = 1 creature).
Are these spells good/powerful? Sure. Are these spells overpowered or way too good? Not so sure.
Read Sanctuary again. It doesn't protect one character, it protects the whole party as if you fail the save your whole action is lost.
So, cast Sanctuary on the healer, and it's a massive protection against all AoE effects. For a first level spell, blocking all AoEs with a will save is absolutely massive and completely out of proportion. Shadow Siphon only protects against half the damage of a single AoE and it's a level 5 spells that needs to be Heightened as it's a counteract check.So, clearly, Sanctuary is only meant to work against Attacks.
|
|
In my opinion, Sanctuary is meant to work only against Attacks. Otherwise, the ability to completely stop the triggering attack would mean stopping a spell or a dragon breath. For a first level spell, it would be way too good.I suppose that a dragon's breath would hit a target regardless sanctuary, since it is an aoe effect.
Anyway, I also think that sanctuary is not meant to deal with spells, but by raw it seems to work with anything with the attack tag.
Why would the dragon be able to get around it by using an aoe? "Well, I can't attack it, so I'll burn it to a crisp instead."
Don't think so.
He'd be able to get around it because the spell only talks about attacks. If the action doesn't have the attack trait, then it's not an attack.
This also means that you can't put one creature with a Sanctuary in the middle of a group to protect the whole group from area of effect spells - that would indeed be way to good for a single spell.
Read Sanctuary again. It doesn't protect one character, it protects the whole party as if you fail the save your whole action is lost.
So, cast Sanctuary on the healer, and it's a massive protection against all AoE effects. For a first level spell, blocking all AoEs with a will save is absolutely massive and completely out of proportion. Shadow Siphon only protects against half the damage of a single AoE and it's a level 5 spells that needs to be Heightened as it's a counteract check.
So, clearly, Sanctuary is only meant to work against Attacks.
it only blocks AOEs if you standing in the worst possible formation, and get a good save.
Otherwise they just aim to the side and hit half your group.
And the healer needs to be a fully dedicated healer to get benifit for more than a round. Remember this is 2 action spell.
Simply this.
You target an area, and creatures within it have to deal with the effect.
There is no target to begin with, so sanctuary is useless in this situation ( like a spellguard shield wouldn't protect you against a fireball or a lightning bolt).
Sanctuary doesn't need you to be targetted by the attack.
it only blocks AOEs if you standing in the worst possible formation, and get a good save.
Otherwise they just aim to the side and hit half your group.
And the healer needs to be a fully dedicated healer to get benifit for more than a round. Remember this is 2 action spell.
Then drop it on a Familiar. 50% chance to avoid all AoEs on the party for a first level spell. You still think it's legit?
Then drop it on a Familiar. 50% chance to avoid all AoEs on the party for a first level spell. You still think it's legit?
ohh.. good idea.
And yes.Since it's 50% of avoiding AOEs until someone succeed in the check. Then no more familiar.
And it is also not doing anything to stop a dragon from biting you.
In most battles, bless is still going to be better.
You target an area, and creatures within it have to deal with the effect.There is no target to begin with, so sanctuary is useless in this situation ( like a spellguard shield wouldn't protect you against a fireball or a lightning bolt).
if you claim that, then the protected person can also use fireball without losing breaking
Since your not doing anything hostile. Just turning air into fire. And the creature in the air need to deal with the effects.
You target an area, and creatures within it have to deal with the effect.There is no target to begin with, so sanctuary is useless in this situation ( like a spellguard shield wouldn't protect you against a fireball or a lightning bolt).
if you claim that, then the protected person can also use fireball without losing breaking
Since your not doing anything hostile. Just turning air into fire. And the creature in the air need to deal with the effects.
The spell itself is for offensive purposes, so yes.
Even without targeting or hitting anybody ( let's say, trying to destroy the bridge in order to put a dead end between the party and the enemies which are chasing) the sanctuary effect will come to an end.
so you agree that casting fireball is an attack...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since your not doing anything hostile.
Just to clarify, you're absolutely doing something hostile.
But "hostile action" and "attack" are different terms in the CRB. Paizo could have chosen to say the former if they wished and should errata the spell if that's the intent.
so you agree that casting fireball is an attack...
You target an area, and creatures within it have to deal with the effect.There is no target to begin with, so sanctuary is useless in this situation ( like a spellguard shield wouldn't protect you against a fireball or a lightning bolt).
if you claim that, then the protected person can also use fireball without losing breaking
Since your not doing anything hostile. Just turning air into fire. And the creature in the air need to deal with the effects.
The spell itself is for offensive purposes, so yes.
Even without targeting or hitting anybody ( let's say, trying to destroy the bridge in order to put a dead end between the party and the enemies which are chasing) the sanctuary effect will come to an end.
Yes, I do.
But since the enemy is not casting the spell on the specific target with sanctuary, the sanctuary spell effect simply doesn't affect it.
sanctuary does not mention being "targeted". It protects against "attacks".
You ward a creature with protective energy that deters enemy attacks. Creatures attempting to attack the target must attempt a Will save each time.
Maybe it was different in previous editions.
Since your not doing anything hostile.Just to clarify, you're absolutely doing something hostile.
But "hostile action" and "attack" are different terms in the CRB. Paizo could have chosen to say the former if they wished and should errata the spell if that's the intent.
I do not see a functional difference. Especially for fireball.
Maybe for Bon Mot or Demoralize or some such, but even that seems pretty debatable.
If they want to errata sanctuary to be Attack, then they can. But I don't see the need. It's a fairly niche spell, it can be strong in the right circumstance.
You ward a creature with protective energy that deters enemy attacks. Creatures attempting to attack the target must attempt a Will save each time. If the target uses a hostile action, the spell ends.
Critical Success Sanctuary ends.
Success The creature can attempt its attack and any other attacks against the target this turn.
Failure The creature can't attack the target and wastes the action. It can't attempt further attacks against the target this turn.
Critical Failure The creature wastes the action and can't attempt to attack the target for the rest of sanctuary's duration.
"When a creature tries to harm another creature, it makes a Strike or uses some other attack action. Most attacks are Strikes made with a weapon, but a character might Strike with their fist, grapple or shove with their hands, or attack with a spell."
"When a creature tries to harm another creature, it makes a Strike or uses another attack action. Most attacks require an attack roll and target Armor Class."
An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe for Bon Mot or Demoralize or some such, but even that seems pretty debatable.
Debatability is the whole point.
By maintaining consistent language, we can more evenly apply the rules. So when something says it applies to an attack, we know what that means because we know what an attack is.
As opposed to simply changing the definition of attack whenever we feel like it.
It's a fairly niche spell, it can be strong in the right circumstance.
That's fine. I'm not arguing about whether or not your version of the spell would be too powerful, just that if that's the goal, the spell should use the phrasing that exists to describe what you want it to describe.
That's all I'm saying. That when given the choice between a game term that describes exactly what you want and a different term, it would make much more sense to use the one that actually lines up with what you want the spell to do, rather than use a completely different word and say "oh yeah but that's not what I mean."
By maintaining consistent language, we can more evenly apply the rules. So when something says it applies to an attack, we know what that means because we know what an attack is.As opposed to simply changing the definition of attack whenever we feel like it.
I agree that consistent wording would be better.
But baring that. I'll use the most balanced interpretation.
By maintaining consistent language, we can more evenly apply the rules. So when something says it applies to an attack, we know what that means because we know what an attack is.As opposed to simply changing the definition of attack whenever we feel like it.
I agree that consistent wording would be better.
But baring that. I'll use the most balanced interpretation.
How do you objectively determine the most balanced interpretation?
By maintaining consistent language, we can more evenly apply the rules. So when something says it applies to an attack, we know what that means because we know what an attack is.As opposed to simply changing the definition of attack whenever we feel like it.
I agree that consistent wording would be better.
But baring that. I'll use the most balanced interpretation.
How do you objectively determine the most balanced interpretation?
Math.
Math.How do you objectively determine the most balanced interpretation?
By maintaining consistent language, we can more evenly apply the rules. So when something says it applies to an attack, we know what that means because we know what an attack is.As opposed to simply changing the definition of attack whenever we feel like it.
I agree that consistent wording would be better.
But baring that. I'll use the most balanced interpretation.
that and play testing.
And i always use it against the players first. A group of enemies in all gathered closely around an cleric with a familiar on the shoulder.
The first fireball failed and surprised them, but they had a fun encounter figuring out their way around it.
Note that I do not expend the spell slot, that would be too much. Just lose the actions. And it is obvious the source.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And i always use it against the players first. A group of enemies in all gathered closely around an cleric with a familiar on the shoulder.
The first fireball failed and surprised them, but they had a fun encounter figuring out their way around it.
Note that I do not expend the spell slot, that would be too much. Just lose the actions. And it is obvious the source.
Clear proof that it's way overpowered.
that and play testing.Math.How do you objectively determine the most balanced interpretation?
By maintaining consistent language, we can more evenly apply the rules. So when something says it applies to an attack, we know what that means because we know what an attack is.As opposed to simply changing the definition of attack whenever we feel like it.
I agree that consistent wording would be better.
But baring that. I'll use the most balanced interpretation.
Quite right!
Clear proof that it's way overpowered.And i always use it against the players first. A group of enemies in all gathered closely around an cleric with a familiar on the shoulder.
The first fireball failed and surprised them, but they had a fun encounter figuring out their way around it.
Note that I do not expend the spell slot, that would be too much. Just lose the actions. And it is obvious the source.
Or the wizard could of rolled better, and did massive of damage. Or used dispel magic (really easy to dispel a level 1).
It's a high risk/high reward strategy.
Math.
By maintaining consistent language, we can more evenly apply the rules. So when something says it applies to an attack, we know what that means because we know what an attack is.As opposed to simply changing the definition of attack whenever we feel like it.
I agree that consistent wording would be better.
But baring that. I'll use the most balanced interpretation.
How do you objectively determine the most balanced interpretation?
I don't see a break down of the math of how the most balanced interpretation works out here.
Clear proof that it's way overpowered.And i always use it against the players first. A group of enemies in all gathered closely around an cleric with a familiar on the shoulder.
The first fireball failed and surprised them, but they had a fun encounter figuring out their way around it.
Note that I do not expend the spell slot, that would be too much. Just lose the actions. And it is obvious the source.Or the wizard could of rolled better, and did massive of damage. Or used dispel magic (really easy to dispel a level 1).
It's a high risk/high reward strategy.
"The first fireball failed and surprised them, but they had a fun encounter figuring out their way around it."
If a 5th level fight is defined by a first level spell, there is a clear problem with the first level spell.
Try to find any other first level spell players need to "figure out their way around" at level 5, you won't find any.
Try to find any other first level spell players need to "figure out their way around" at level 5, you won't find any.
grease.
I don't know, that sounds like a very contrived "gotcha" scenario. Too much metagaming on the part of the GM for my taste.A group of enemies in all gathered closely around an cleric with a familiar on the shoulder.
The first fireball failed and surprised them, but they had a fun encounter figuring out their way around it.
Note that I do not expend the spell slot, that would be too much. Just lose the actions. And it is obvious the source.
hence the "made it obvious" that there was a spell on the mouse. And not taking away the spell slots.
No one tried to identify the spell. It also could of been illusions.
