Quick question. Suppose you're a ranger with beast companion, or a wizard with a familiar, or artificer with a steele defender. You or another casts sanctuary on you. Does sanctuary get canceled out if you use your bonus action to command your companion do the attacking or is your companion considered a different entity in regards to the sanctuary spell? For example, action: Cure wounds, bonus action steel defender attack X target.
"You ward a creature within range against attack. Until the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell. This spell doesn't protect the warded creature from area effects, such as the explosion of a fireball.
If the warded creature makes an attack, casts a spell that affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends."
That's what I had been thinking, it was primarily the aspect of the player giving the direct command to their companion to do the action which would negate sanctuary. V/S directing action of beast companion; V/S casting a spell attack. Both accomplish the same result. Being another living being/construct would be the differentiating factor?
As long as the character themselves aren't attacking or casting the spell, being a separate creature is the key.
However, if he wizard cast a spell to be delivered by the familiar from Find Familiar sanctuary would still break as although the familiar is another creature, the wizard has cast a spell that affects an enemy.
Technically, Find Familiar is a spell. So if your familiar affects an enemy in any way, does it cancel out Sanctuary? x)
Affect in what way? If you cast a touch spell through the familiar using its reaction then this will break sanctuary because you are casting the spell, otherwise a familiar can't normally attack or do anything else that would end sanctuary on itself, let alone for you.
Even if it could, this is something of a grey area, same with summon spells like summon fey, as you are not the one attacking or dealing damage (the summoned creature is), but it wouldn't be dealing that damage if not for you casting the spell earlier. This seems to be a loophole compared to spirit guardians where you are arguably dealing damage with your aura, but then it's described as spectral creatures doing the damage.
I'm not sure if either effect is intended to be allowed while warded via sanctuary, but in the case of a distinct creature it's more debatable; probably fine rules-as-written, questionable rules-as-intended, and probably going to annoy your DM.
This same issue applies to companion creatures; what your DM needs to decide is what they consider to be "you" dealing damage. For me the sanctuary spell's intent is "no hostile act for none in return" but ordering a brown bear to maul someone's face off is a pretty hostile act, and since it's the player's companion creature as a DM I'd be inclined to rule that if it deals damage then that is damage dealt by the player, even though it's indirectly the case. I believe this is how it's actually supposed to be, it just doesn't do a good job of clarifying what dealing damage means.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Technically, Find Familiar is a spell. So if your familiar affects an enemy in any way, does it cancel out Sanctuary? x)
Affect in what way? If you cast a touch spell through the familiar using its reaction then this will break sanctuary because you are casting the spell, otherwise a familiar can't normally attack or do anything else that would end sanctuary on itself, let alone for you.
Pact of the Chain warlocks are able to command their familiars to take the attack action.
Technically, Find Familiar is a spell. So if your familiar affects an enemy in any way, does it cancel out Sanctuary? x)
Affect in what way? If you cast a touch spell through the familiar using its reaction then this will break sanctuary because you are casting the spell, otherwise a familiar can't normally attack or do anything else that would end sanctuary on itself, let alone for you.
Pact of the Chain warlocks are able to command their familiars to take the attack action.
Sure but it's still the creature attacking not you, so this isn't the condition that it might infringe on.
The question for your DM is whether you ordering your familiar to do damage is you dealing damage or not, same as for a summoned creature. Personally I think it's intended to be yes, and this would end sanctuary, but in RAW that's not really the case unless you argue on the basis that a creature ordering another creature to deal damage, is still the first creature dealing damage indirectly. But that's a bit thin.
IIRC all we have to go on otherwise are tweets that suggest the intent was "do no harm to maybe receive no harm" but that doesn't help a lot either. So RAW the familiar can do as much damage as it likes and your sanctuary stays, RAI I think not, in practice I don't think familiar is the case to worry about since it does so little damage anyway, but it'd be nice to know how to treat summons, especially since we have so many more of them now.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Quick question. Suppose you're a ranger with beast companion, or a wizard with a familiar, or artificer with a steele defender. You or another casts sanctuary on you. Does sanctuary get canceled out if you use your bonus action to command your companion do the attacking or is your companion considered a different entity in regards to the sanctuary spell? For example, action: Cure wounds, bonus action steel defender attack X target.
"You ward a creature within range against attack. Until the spell ends, any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell. This spell doesn't protect the warded creature from area effects, such as the explosion of a fireball.
If the warded creature makes an attack, casts a spell that affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends."
You as the ranger aren't making the attack, so Sanctuary would continue to affect you.
That's what I had been thinking, it was primarily the aspect of the player giving the direct command to their companion to do the action which would negate sanctuary. V/S directing action of beast companion; V/S casting a spell attack. Both accomplish the same result. Being another living being/construct would be the differentiating factor?
As long as the character themselves aren't attacking or casting the spell, being a separate creature is the key.
However, if he wizard cast a spell to be delivered by the familiar from Find Familiar sanctuary would still break as although the familiar is another creature, the wizard has cast a spell that affects an enemy.
Technically, Find Familiar is a spell. So if your familiar affects an enemy in any way, does it cancel out Sanctuary? x)
No because you're not casting a spell it's already been cast, you are commanding it to take action which is different.
Affect in what way? If you cast a touch spell through the familiar using its reaction then this will break sanctuary because you are casting the spell, otherwise a familiar can't normally attack or do anything else that would end sanctuary on itself, let alone for you.
Even if it could, this is something of a grey area, same with summon spells like summon fey, as you are not the one attacking or dealing damage (the summoned creature is), but it wouldn't be dealing that damage if not for you casting the spell earlier. This seems to be a loophole compared to spirit guardians where you are arguably dealing damage with your aura, but then it's described as spectral creatures doing the damage.
I'm not sure if either effect is intended to be allowed while warded via sanctuary, but in the case of a distinct creature it's more debatable; probably fine rules-as-written, questionable rules-as-intended, and probably going to annoy your DM.
This same issue applies to companion creatures; what your DM needs to decide is what they consider to be "you" dealing damage. For me the sanctuary spell's intent is "no hostile act for none in return" but ordering a brown bear to maul someone's face off is a pretty hostile act, and since it's the player's companion creature as a DM I'd be inclined to rule that if it deals damage then that is damage dealt by the player, even though it's indirectly the case. I believe this is how it's actually supposed to be, it just doesn't do a good job of clarifying what dealing damage means.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A creature created by a spell is not a spell, which is why the Shepherd Druid ability to render the natural attacks of summons magical does something.
Pact of the Chain warlocks are able to command their familiars to take the attack action.
Sure but it's still the creature attacking not you, so this isn't the condition that it might infringe on.
The question for your DM is whether you ordering your familiar to do damage is you dealing damage or not, same as for a summoned creature. Personally I think it's intended to be yes, and this would end sanctuary, but in RAW that's not really the case unless you argue on the basis that a creature ordering another creature to deal damage, is still the first creature dealing damage indirectly. But that's a bit thin.
IIRC all we have to go on otherwise are tweets that suggest the intent was "do no harm to maybe receive no harm" but that doesn't help a lot either. So RAW the familiar can do as much damage as it likes and your sanctuary stays, RAI I think not, in practice I don't think familiar is the case to worry about since it does so little damage anyway, but it'd be nice to know how to treat summons, especially since we have so many more of them now.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.