My open hand monk has just hit 11 and I am thinking tranquillity is situational to the point I should punch a tree every morning in order to lose the effect.
The effect says "At the end of a long rest, you gain the effect of a sanctuary spell that lasts until the start of your next long rest (the spell can end early as normal). " and sanctuary doesn't give an option to ignore it.
So we go out adventuring and get into a fight and I roll low on initiative. The bad guy tries to attack me but has to make a wisdom save or attack someone else instead. Generally it is better that they attack me than something squishy so more often than not I would have thought it is a bad thing.
To some extent it might depend on how intelligent the monsters are, do they know it is better to attack the squishies, if they do, do they know that although I don't wear armor I am hard to hit (AC 20)?
There may be circumstances where I am the only person they can attack (I open a door with the enemy inside) so then it would be great to gain the effect of sanctuary but if they are firing bows or have poison attacks they are unlikely to do me any harm at all? So it worth doing something like attacking a tree every morming to lose the effect of the feature?
My final question is what happens in the following instance with with a monk with tranquility still up (or anyone under santuary) The bad guy tries to hit the monk but fails his wisdom save so has to attack another creature. He starts to move to the other creature but the monk hits hm with an opportunity attack.
Is the bad guy able to move to get to analternative target?
If so what happens whe nthe monk makes his op attack, he has fails the wis save so he can't attack the monk but the monk has made an attack so sanctuary is no longer up.
Well, at some tables, monks ARE the squishies. Fighter, barbarian, paladin and clerics often have higher AC and can be better targets than the squishy monk that is often played as a skirmisher. Monk AC is usually lower until high levels unless using rolled stats and with d8 hit points they often have lower hit points. Since they also often want high dex and wis ... con sometimes suffers depending on the method of determining stats so a monk might have even lower hit points.
Op attack doesn't stop a creatures movement unless you have the sentinel feat or the monk succeeds in stunning the target in which case their turn ends. If the creature failed its save it can to go off to attack another creature. However, the sanctuary roll has to made for each attack. Sanctuary does not say Attack action. It says attack. So for a creature with multiattack, it could try rolling saves for every attack and may attack on ones where it passes. If the creature fails the save it must choose a new target or lose the attack ... but if it has multiple attacks, it is free to try attacking the monk again, it just requires another save.
P.S. At the level where a typical monk would have an AC20, the other classes will likely have much higher ACs. In addition, opponents will have to hit rolls of +9 to +11 or more at that level ... making a AC20 about a 50/50 hit. On the other hand, if your monk is OP for their level due to high stats then the monsters don't know that.
Op attack doesn't stop a creatures movement unless you have the sentinel feat or the monk succeeds in stunning the target in which case their turn ends. If the creature failed its save it can to go off to attack another creature. However, the sanctuary roll has to made for each attack. Sanctuary does not say Attack action. It says attack. So for a creature with multiattack, it could try rolling saves for every attack and may attack on ones where it passes. If the creature fails the save it must choose a new target or lose the attack ... but if it has multiple attacks, it is free to try attacking the monk again, it just requires another save.
Op attack doesn't stop a creature movement but does it stop the need fora creatures movement, if I take the op attack the effect ends so the creature is not prevented from attacking me but if he isn't prevented form attacking me he doesn't move hence the paradox. Realistically I could bsee it ruled three ways:
The op attack happens as he moves outside my reach, he has used that movement but can then, if he wisheds move back into my range to attack me as sannctuary is over
As the save has failed the attack must still be against another creature but no more saving thorows are required if a creature targets me.
While you can move between attacks wwhen you have multiple attack you can not move "mid attack" therefore if you fail the wisdom save you can only target another creature within your reach. This would meen that the creature under the effect of sanctuary can only get an opportunity attack in between attacks and there is no paradox.
Regarding the intelligence of creatures, that's strictly the GM's realm. They're not required to operate the NPCs in any particular manner, even if, say, affected by confusion or dominate person. The NPC could be immune to the effects and merely pretend to be subject to them, and the DM is under no obligation to tell the PCs as much. ((I certainly would question if the DM knows what (s)he's doing if the NPC started ignoring the effects of Dominate, and if it seemed arbitrary that would be a non-rules issue at that point))
The spell's effect that causes the target to attack another creature if possible should exclude it from moving before making the attack- as it has attempted the attack action while in the monk's reach. It should redirect it or lose the attack, as the spell says. Only an intelligent foe aware of the effect should be able to smartly maneuver themselves to allow an alternative target. If it had more attacks, by all means, move and attack something else, just not with the same failed attack.
Strictly speaking, when you declare you make an attack, you're swinging, thrusting or firing at the time you declare it, and the inability to do so results in a miss. A generous GM might say "perhaps you don't understand the situation" and allow adjustments to make it work or allow a different action, but a stricter table will say "you swing at the air, the creature in the air out of your reach". If the GM allows the NPCs to change their actions, c'est la vie, but I would demand the same leniency for PCs- 'Oh, he's in cover? Then I don't want to do that."
Assuming the GM allows their mooks to move after failing a save to attack something else (FOUL I say), then by that point they're absolutely going to allow their mook to attack the monk, effectively making the spell nearly useless. C'est la vie.
Regarding the question of using sanctuary while being the only attack-able target, that is the strongest use of the spell. When you really don't want to be attacked and don't want to use invisibility, but the enemy wants to attack. Of course the enemy will try to attack, and if they can't, they get to stand next to the door with a pained expression that probably matches the GM who hates it when the PC has effects that beat their monster's efforts.
My open hand monk has just hit 11 and I am thinking tranquillity is situational to the point I should punch a tree every morning in order to lose the effect.
The effect says "At the end of a long rest, you gain the effect of a sanctuary spell that lasts until the start of your next long rest (the spell can end early as normal). " and sanctuary doesn't give an option to ignore it.
So we go out adventuring and get into a fight and I roll low on initiative. The bad guy tries to attack me but has to make a wisdom save or attack someone else instead. Generally it is better that they attack me than something squishy so more often than not I would have thought it is a bad thing.
To some extent it might depend on how intelligent the monsters are, do they know it is better to attack the squishies, if they do, do they know that although I don't wear armor I am hard to hit (AC 20)?
There may be circumstances where I am the only person they can attack (I open a door with the enemy inside) so then it would be great to gain the effect of sanctuary but if they are firing bows or have poison attacks they are unlikely to do me any harm at all? So it worth doing something like attacking a tree every morming to lose the effect of the feature?
My final question is what happens in the following instance with with a monk with tranquility still up (or anyone under santuary)
The bad guy tries to hit the monk but fails his wisdom save so has to attack another creature. He starts to move to the other creature but the monk hits hm with an opportunity attack.
Well, at some tables, monks ARE the squishies. Fighter, barbarian, paladin and clerics often have higher AC and can be better targets than the squishy monk that is often played as a skirmisher. Monk AC is usually lower until high levels unless using rolled stats and with d8 hit points they often have lower hit points. Since they also often want high dex and wis ... con sometimes suffers depending on the method of determining stats so a monk might have even lower hit points.
Op attack doesn't stop a creatures movement unless you have the sentinel feat or the monk succeeds in stunning the target in which case their turn ends. If the creature failed its save it can to go off to attack another creature. However, the sanctuary roll has to made for each attack. Sanctuary does not say Attack action. It says attack. So for a creature with multiattack, it could try rolling saves for every attack and may attack on ones where it passes. If the creature fails the save it must choose a new target or lose the attack ... but if it has multiple attacks, it is free to try attacking the monk again, it just requires another save.
P.S. At the level where a typical monk would have an AC20, the other classes will likely have much higher ACs. In addition, opponents will have to hit rolls of +9 to +11 or more at that level ... making a AC20 about a 50/50 hit. On the other hand, if your monk is OP for their level due to high stats then the monsters don't know that.
Op attack doesn't stop a creature movement but does it stop the need fora creatures movement, if I take the op attack the effect ends so the creature is not prevented from attacking me but if he isn't prevented form attacking me he doesn't move hence the paradox. Realistically I could bsee it ruled three ways:
Regarding the intelligence of creatures, that's strictly the GM's realm. They're not required to operate the NPCs in any particular manner, even if, say, affected by confusion or dominate person. The NPC could be immune to the effects and merely pretend to be subject to them, and the DM is under no obligation to tell the PCs as much. ((I certainly would question if the DM knows what (s)he's doing if the NPC started ignoring the effects of Dominate, and if it seemed arbitrary that would be a non-rules issue at that point))
The spell's effect that causes the target to attack another creature if possible should exclude it from moving before making the attack- as it has attempted the attack action while in the monk's reach. It should redirect it or lose the attack, as the spell says. Only an intelligent foe aware of the effect should be able to smartly maneuver themselves to allow an alternative target. If it had more attacks, by all means, move and attack something else, just not with the same failed attack.
Strictly speaking, when you declare you make an attack, you're swinging, thrusting or firing at the time you declare it, and the inability to do so results in a miss. A generous GM might say "perhaps you don't understand the situation" and allow adjustments to make it work or allow a different action, but a stricter table will say "you swing at the air, the creature in the air out of your reach". If the GM allows the NPCs to change their actions, c'est la vie, but I would demand the same leniency for PCs- 'Oh, he's in cover? Then I don't want to do that."
Assuming the GM allows their mooks to move after failing a save to attack something else (FOUL I say), then by that point they're absolutely going to allow their mook to attack the monk, effectively making the spell nearly useless. C'est la vie.
Regarding the question of using sanctuary while being the only attack-able target, that is the strongest use of the spell. When you really don't want to be attacked and don't want to use invisibility, but the enemy wants to attack. Of course the enemy will try to attack, and if they can't, they get to stand next to the door with a pained expression that probably matches the GM who hates it when the PC has effects that beat their monster's efforts.