|
Abjuration
Traditions divine, occult
Cast Two Actions somatic, verbal
Range touch; Targets 1 creature
Duration 1 minute
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.
Using an AoE against a Sanctuary'd target is still an attack, so you'd need to make a save and possibly lose the spell entirely: Note that 'attack' is not capitalized, so it is not specifically referring to actions with that particular trait.
An attack is defined in the game. A hostile action is defined in the game (though it could do with some help).
Both are even used in this spell.
Why do you think they would say one when they meant the other?
Capitalization is resevered for specific things. They don't capitalize "attack" in the text of the rules as it is a collection of things with the "Attack" trait. That is not to say, it has lost its meaning.
when a multi action strike (which obviously has the attack trait) was used to hit multiple targets do you lose the attacks to everyone else? The spell description says you lose the action, but I wanted to see if there was anything out there that I had missed.
Read pages 17,461-2 of the core Rule Book.
It defines activities as special tasks that group one or more of your actions together.Some points:
Sanctury stops an action.
You have to do all the actions of an activity to gain its effects.
So technically if it is a multiaction attack if one attack fails according to Sanctuary it all fails.
However the rules on disrupting actions explicitly tell the GM to decide. Clearly relevant for activities that do something like Sudden Charge. If the stike is denied, most GMs will still rule the movement happened even though the strike fizzled.
Personally I'd have everything after the Sanctury was targetted fail. So Swipe might still have partial effect depending on which way the activity was described.
Its very subjective and up to the GM. Same as most role playing games.
First was a battle with a creature that caused damage to the weapon used against it. We didn’t see anything specific in the rules, so we used the hp and hardness of the material in the back of the core rule book. Is there any bonus to it based on the potency bonus?
Not that I'm aware of.
Not that I'm aware of.
First was a battle with a creature that caused damage to the weapon used against it. We didn’t see anything specific in the rules, so we used the hp and hardness of the material in the back of the core rule book. Is there any bonus to it based on the potency bonus?
Ditto.
Important to note is that it's rarer (though not Rare) for an object to get damaged as opposed to in PF1; fewer effects damage objects. Essentially, if "object damage" is part of the plot (i.e. you fight in a library of ancient scrolls, avoid fire; or you're destroying an active trap) then the GM might have predetermined some items are vulnerable. But the default for AoE effects (et al) is that they don't harm objects.PF1 tried to keep even with damage by ramping up the hardness & hit points of items, but it really couldn't keep pace because tens of thousands of gold pieces could be invested in robes, scrolls, wooden staves w/ no pluses, etc. Easily lost if unattended.
A dead PC fighting a dragon might get Raised, but if the dragon breathed where their body was, maybe their armor and best weapon might survive (which is meaningless for PCs without those.) Same with Trample, etc.
So yeah, unless one's playing grimdark, items are pretty safe so don't have the hit point/hardness boosts of before. Yet that does mean creatures that do target items are much more terrifying! And GMs should account for this when inserting those monsters into play. A boss w/ item destruction powers might neutralize the party through wealth destruction, yet also may do nothing to their items so how does one determine the loot?
(Fear of Rust Monsters has reentered the chat after a decade's absence.)
|
|
An attack is defined in the game. A hostile action is defined in the game (though it could do with some help).
Both are even used in this spell.
Why do you think they would say one when they meant the other?
Capitalization is resevered for specific things. They don't capitalize "attack" in the text of the rules as it is a collection of things with the "Attack" trait. That is not to say, it has lost its meaning.
Yep, attack is defined:
Source
Core Rulebook pg. 12 2.0
If your character 'tries to harm another creature' by lobbing a (for instance) Fireball at its general vicinity, that is an attack (at least, in my mind), which means you need to make a saving throw against the sanctuary effect.
Now, if the warded target were also invisible and you honestly had no idea it was in the specific AoE, then this situation gets a lot messier to figure out...
|
They don't capitalize "attack" in the text of the rules as it is a collection of things with the "Attack" trait. That is not to say, it has lost its meaning.
I don't recall the thread, but one of the developers recently said that they do not have a consistent policy of capitalization for traits and/or game terms because some sentence would be awkward to read/write with every other word capitalized. So, while it is a sure thing when an "official" word is capitalized it is intentional, it is not sure that an uncapitalized word is not intended to be an official term reference. We can argue whether or not that is good/bad design, but it is the way the approach it so we need to be aware.
As an example, the word attack in the spell is not capitalized so we really don't know if it is intended to be a trait descriptor or narrative language. However, since the word "Will" is capitalized, we know for sure that is in reference to a will saving throw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An attack is defined in the game. A hostile action is defined in the game (though it could do with some help).
Both are even used in this spell.
Why do you think they would say one when they meant the other?
Capitalization is resevered for specific things. They don't capitalize "attack" in the text of the rules as it is a collection of things with the "Attack" trait. That is not to say, it has lost its meaning.
Yep, attack is defined:
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.
Core Rulebook pg. 12 2.0Source
If your character 'tries to harm another creature' by lobbing a (for instance) Fireball at its general vicinity, that is an attack (at least, in my mind), which means you need to make a saving throw against the sanctuary effect.
No. You are not right here. I do see that you have a natural English reading, but it is not correct. All this rule is referring to when it says "attack with a spell" is spell attack rolls. Yes it should be errated to avoid any confusion. If they had meant all hostile actions - a term they use in this spell but for something else - they would have said it. Fireball is hostile but not an attack. Because what they really mean for attack is "attack roll and/or anything with the attack trait".
The reason for this is pretty obvious. Otherwise someone in the party would put up Sanctuary as Fireballl defense most of the time - to force any wizard to make a save before casting it. Far too strong for a 1st level spell. It would put Globe of Invulnerability to shame.
Now, if the warded target were also invisible and you honestly had no idea it was in the specific AoE, then this situation gets a lot messier to figure out...
Again this sort of mess is clearly in the boundary of the term hostile.
They would have used it if they wanted to. They used it elsewhere in the Sanctury spell. The terms hostile and attack are defined specifically in PF2 and are different.