Sanctuary protects you from attacks, but ends if you take certain actions.
If the warded creature makes an attack, casts a spell that affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends.
The "casts a spell that affects an enemy" is a little too open-ended for my comfort. On the one end of the spectrum, there's the obvious case of a spell which targets an enemy with a spell attack or save, like Fire Bolt or Fireball. On the other end of the spectrum, there are spells which clearly don't target an enemy, like Cure Wounds cast on yourself or an ally. But in between that there are quite a few increments of "affect"...
A spell which creates an effect on the map, and then that effect interacts with enemies that wander into it on later turns when you're no longer casting the spell (such as Entangle
A spell which enhances your allies with an ability they then use to affect an enemy while the spell is active (such as Dragon's Breath)
A spell which creates a harmful non-damage effect on the target, but the target wasn't your enemy (such as Contagion on someone who thought you were their friend)
A spell which creates an object, which an enemy might interact with (such as Goodberry, or Magic Stone, or Tiny Hut)
A spell which summons or creates a creature, and that creature might then attack or affect an enemy (such as Conjure Animals, or Animate Dead, or even Find Familiar). Followup... for summoning spells, does it matter whether we're talking about a spell where the creature exists during the spell's duration, or if it's an Instant duration spell that creates a permanent being?
A spell which creates a harmless environmental effect, which may or may not be in the enemy's best interest when they are in the affected area (such as Light or Darkness)
A spell which affects an enemy that could be an enemy if given the chance, but which currently has no particular stance towards you, and which you're using to avoid hostilities (such as Sleep cast on a camp of strangers who are likely to be bandits but who don't know the party, or Charm Person or Calm Emotions cast on an aggressive creature who hasn't yet initiated combat)
A spell which enhances your allies passively (does not create a new ability, but provides bonuses to their attacks) (such as Bless)
A spell which does not itself affect an enemy, but the casting of which affects an enemy (such as an Order cleric choosing a target enemy that their ally is allowed to use their reaction to attack, after casting Cure Wounds on that ally)
I've pretty much laid those out along the spectrum I think they fall in, where I'm inclined to think 1-2 definitely pop Sanctuary, 8-9 definitely don't, but the where the line snakes around 3-7 (or, if additional categories need to be inserted in there) seems very open to DM interpretation to me. I'm not sure that there's a RAW "right answer," but where would you draw the line(s)?
1. I'd let you cast it; Sanctuary is canceled if an enemy walks into it and is affected by it.
2. Once it affects an enemy, Sanctuary is canceled.
3. Whether or not they thought you were their friend is irrelevant. How do you view them? If you view them as an enemy but are tricking them, it still counts. If they really are your friend and you're casting Contagion for some non-hostile reason, I'd allow it.
4. Simple physical interaction is for sure an effect, but I wouldn't cancel the spell for that. I would treat the word "affect" as, essentially, "affect mechanically."
5. Conjure Animals for sure cancels Sanctuary once the summons affect an enemy. I would rule the other two as also canceling Sanctuary, but if I were to be pedantic, I would say that Animate Dead and Find Familiar are a no for the same reason that they can't be anti-magic fielded (which I think is a stupid reason and generally don't operate by, thus "if I were to be pedantic").
6. Yes, absolutely cancels Sanctuary if an enemy is affected by either of them. This one isn't ambiguous. What's in the enemy's best interest has no bearing on this. Any effect cancels Sanctuary, even if beneficial. Cure Wounds on an enemy cancles Sanctuary.
7. Similar to 3, if you're casting Sleep on them because you think they're bandits, you're treating them as enemies, ergo they are enemies. In all of these cases, either you're hostile toward the target or they're hostile toward you and you'd like that they not be. That's an enemy.
8. I'd let this one go, mostly because it's just too much effort to figure out if/when the spell actually affects the enemy (i.e., would your ally have missed if they hadn't been blessed?).
9. Depending on exact scenario, either "no because none of it falls under the purview of what cancels Sanctuary" or "no because the same reasons as 8."
I'm not sure I agree on 6 and 7. Light doesn't affect an enemy mechanically (although I suppose Darkness does since obstruction causes Blinded), it creates illumination, and the creature may or may not want illumination. I don't see how that's any different than say casting Creation to make a chair and then an enemy sits in it, you said yourself that simple physical interaction is too trivial to bother breaking Sanctuary.
For 7., I suppose what I mean is... if you're casting Sleep or Charm Person or Calm Emotions because you don't want them to become an enemy, you aren't really treating them as enemies? A pacifist caster that would rather everyone stay nice and calm isn't being hostile when he tries to smooth out rough edges in someone who hasn't yet raised arms?
I'll grant you that Light doesn't affect an enemy mechanically if the enemy is already in a brightly-lit area. But if the enemy is in dim light, once they're in the AoE of your Light, they no longer have disadvantage on sight-based perception, which is a real mechanical effect that is the direct result of the spell.
Re: 7, I guess it's kind of a philosophical point, but the moment you cast Sleep on someone to prevent them from attacking you, you are treating them as an enemy. The same is true of Calm Emotions. There absolutely are uses of both spells that don't constitute "affecting an enemy," but if your goal is to prevent physical violence against yourself, there's no question that you're treating them as hostile.
I think the spell has to effect an enemy at time of casting. By that interpretation, I think only #7 would end it.
Yes. I might even go further as to say the text of the spell has to mention affecting creatures, and those creatures are your enemies.
I disagree about light though, because it does say you can cast it on an object a hostile creature wears, and the creature can make a saving throw to avoid it.
The more I think about it, the less I'm sure about timeline. If you cast the spell while under sanctuary, and it affects a creature later while you're still affected, I would probably rule that sanctuary ends. But that is just my ruling, not an air tight RAW argument. I'm starting to think more and more with rules questions that in these grey areas, a (DM's) ruling is probably fine.
RAW, regarding the sequence of casting the spells, spells that have ongoing/delayed effects which are cast prior to Sanctuary do not break it when an effect happens. RAI, they do. It's not an official ruling, but it is a clear explanation addressing that there is a difference between what was printed and what was really intended. However, this only seems to address things that are cast beforeSanctuary is in effect. It does not address the issue of whether the generalized RAW trigger (post-sanctuary) is casting the spell itself, or the effect actually affecting something. RAI, I think it would follow that the trigger is meant to be whenever a spell you have cast does affect an enemy.
As far as what counts as an enemy, I believe the overarching notion is that an "enemy" is any creature whom is not an allied PC. Otherwise, things like Favored Enemy would not function for tracking a creature which isn't explicitly hostile. Even then, it seems silly that you would never be able to have advantage on tracking down a lost ally. This is a term that badly needs an explicit definition in the PHB. It is far too open to (mis)interpretation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The reason I brought all of this up in the first place is because of Open Hand Monks' level 11 Tranquility. Because it only goes back up after a long rest, being very clear about what you can do during the day that will break it vs. not break it is a pretty big deal. It's one thing to lose the remaining 1-9 rounds of your Sanctuary casting, it's another to lose your level 11 class feature for the entire day with no way to bring it back.
I really wish that Sanctuary, Invisibility, features like the Firbolg's Hidden Step ("until you attack, make a damage roll, or force someone to make a saving throw"), etc. all just used a single vocabulary and definition for what "not being aggressive" meant. There's no reason for each and every one of these features to essentially say the same thing thematically, but all work differently mechanically, leads to so much more disagreement and confusion.
Considering eveything else an Open Hand Monk gets, tranquility is mostly a ribbon feature. It's a nice little boost to playing passivity, or slight protection against ambushes. Drunk guy at the bar going aggro on you? Nope, not today. Use your action & bonus action on Patient Defense/Step of the Wind for a mixture of Dodge/Disengage/Dash to move right through the thick of combat unscathed, or confound enemies that just can't seem to connect with you no matter what they do. The general idea is that tranquility is only supposed to help you while you are playing up the aspect of passivity.
While I recognize that these various spells/features are intended to break under slightly different conditions, I completely agree that there need to be clear, consistent definitions of what these conditions really are. Particularly for the ridiculous situations in which "make an attack" seems to only refer to hostile actions that exclusively involve making an attack roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes, but the concept is to play a pacifist cleric that has taken a very significant compromise in their power level by committing to 11 levels of monk to be able to walk around in combat trying to talk everyone down, so that "ribbon feature" pretty much makes or breaks the concept :)
Yes, but the concept is to play a pacifist cleric that has taken a very significant compromise in their power level by committing to 11 levels of monk to be able to walk around in combat trying to talk everyone down, so that "ribbon feature" pretty much makes or breaks the concept :)
I totally get that, and it is what it is. Walking around in combat trying to talk everyone down is accomplished with the method I mentioned, or some variation that doesn't involve actively doing anything to the other creatures. If you're playing up that pacifist aspect, then you won't be affecting those creatures (physically or magically) in any way. Otherwise, you're not really being pacifistic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think it's pretty straight forward. By "affect" they mean affect directly, do something to the enemy. When it comes to enemy, I think it is up to the DM to define that, but possible interpretations are that creatures that would become hostile if they knew you were gonna cast the spell on them would be considered an enemy, and aggressive creatures that haven't initiated combat is also considered an enemy. Or you could rule that any creature that isn't an ally is an enemy, unless the spell is beneficial to that creature.The caster could itself define enemy. If the intention is to hurt, it might not matter whether the target considers the caster an enemy.
Or my prefered method which is that all creatures are considered enemies unless the spell is beneficial to that creature. This prevents you from casting attacks on allies "until" they turn on you for example. You cannot make false alliances with creatures. It also allows you to buff creatures traditionally considered enemies without breaking Sanctuary for possible tactical manuevers.
As evidence for this I would like to point out how this way of looking at it reduces the amount of examples, condensing them into only a couple different scenarios.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 all fall under the same category. They all don't break Sanctuary (few exceptions listed below) because they don't directly affect an enemy.
3 and 7 breaks Sanctuary, since they directly affect a creature with a non-beneficial spell. It also would make most creatures hostile if they knew you were gonna cast the spell on them, which would qualify for other interpretations of "enemy".
1 and 6 could break Sanctuary if the casting of the spell directly affected a creature, for example if the effect of the spell is placed on top of an enemy. Darkness affects creatures within the area, so casting it on an area with an enemy in it would mean the spell directly affected that creature, but if they walked into it after casting, it indirectly affected that creature. The same applies for 1.
Light is a bit different since it wouldn't directly affect a creature, unless it is cast on something that the creature is holding or wearing. If you cast Light on a rock on the ground, it might affect light sensitive creatures, but even if they are in the area the spell affects, it is an indirect effect, since it is the creature itself that defines what happens, not the spell.
A shadow dragon has this ability: "Shadow Stealth. While in dim light or darkness, the dragon can take the hide action as a bonus action." It is not the spell that makes the creature unable to use Shadow Stealth, it is the conditions for Shadow Stealth that makes the creature unable to use it. This is different from Feeblemind for example, which itself defines the fact that the creature affected can't cast spells. The effect is defined by the spell, not by inherent qualities to the creature. This also means that casting spells the target is totally immune to would still break Sanctuary. You don't get a free pass because the creature was immune to fire damage, because Firebolt defines the effect.
I think this is the most elegant solution to the problem. It allows for some clever manuevers, while blocking some I would consider unfair or against the intention of the spell. Backstabbing isn't possible, but setting up traps is. You can still heal and buff, but you cannot debuff. It doesn't matter whether you cast Moonbeam before or after casting Sanctuary, since the effect it has on any given enemy is always indirectly a result of the spell, not a result of casting the spell. The wording is usually pretty specific about things like this.
I think the spell has to effect an enemy at time of casting. By that interpretation, I think only #7 would end it.
Yes. I might even go further as to say the text of the spell has to mention affecting creatures, and those creatures are your enemies.
I disagree about light though, because it does say you can cast it on an object a hostile creature wears, and the creature can make a saving throw to avoid it.
The more I think about it, the less I'm sure about timeline. If you cast the spell while under sanctuary, and it affects a creature later while you're still affected, I would probably rule that sanctuary ends. But that is just my ruling, not an air tight RAW argument. I'm starting to think more and more with rules questions that in these grey areas, a (DM's) ruling is probably fine.
I think Light only cancels it if you cast it on the equipment of a enemy. It doesn't directly effect them if you cast it on yourself
I would say that the intention of the character who has Sanctuary cast on them should be of some importance.
I would say that #2 and #4 through #8 would depend a lot on what spell you cast and if that spell is for the party to use to attack the enemy creatures or if it is a non-attack related spell. Bless, for instance, can only be useful in a fight, so it would break Sanctuary. Calm Emotions, I would rule, does not since it provides no offensive enhancements to the party whatsoever and does not harm the enemy. I would rule that certain summoning spells would be okay. Summoning beasts or fey that are then ordered not to attack or cast offensive spells would be fine, until any of them do damage or generate a negative status effect against the foes. Darkness cast on the enemy position would end Sanctuary, but Darkness cast on one's own position if it is not adjacent or near-adjacent to the enemy position would not. The Friends cantrip would not nullify Sanctuary, but Major Image-ing a hole beneath the enemy's feet in order to make them think they are falling (and thus believing they would take fall damage and be forced into a prone position would end Sanctuary.
Basically, I think the spell is left vague on purpose to allow the DM to adjudicate based on their experience playing with each particular group of players and their characters.
Yes, but the concept is to play a pacifist cleric that has taken a very significant compromise in their power level by committing to 11 levels of monk to be able to walk around in combat trying to talk everyone down, so that "ribbon feature" pretty much makes or breaks the concept :)
"Guys! Let's talk about this."
- grants ally fiery dragon breath
"Please! We don't want to fight!"
- summons a pack of ravening wolves that immediately attack
What if the warded creature casts Bane or Faerie Fire and then Sanctuary is cast on it. Can the target maintain concentration on the debuff without violating Sanctuary ? Casting and maintaining seem to be different things (eg. Wild Shape).
Bane is particularly nice because it reduces the Wis saving throw needed to penetrate Sanctuary.
The Help action also doesn’t seem to violate Sanctuary.
The ruling seems to be well written for that part andy:
If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends.
To my understanding it means that the creature must perform an attack or cast a spell. Anything that was here before is still ok.
After that ... let's say that the character is envelopped with some kind of aura which can cause harm to anyone around it. Would moving close to an enemy be considered a break of sanctuary? As written no, but I would understand it if the DM said "your intention is to harm, between the lines of the spell's description, I understand that it means "you shall cause no harm" therefore, sanctuary is dropped.
Same thing for the other end: a teleportation can be deemed not harmful.
But ... what if the antagonist wants to teleport the character on top of a field of lava ? There I'd say that he'd have to make a wisdom save because of context ...
Hard to sell to players who are just abiding the rules but ... quite understandable I think
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sanctuary protects you from attacks, but ends if you take certain actions.
The "casts a spell that affects an enemy" is a little too open-ended for my comfort. On the one end of the spectrum, there's the obvious case of a spell which targets an enemy with a spell attack or save, like Fire Bolt or Fireball. On the other end of the spectrum, there are spells which clearly don't target an enemy, like Cure Wounds cast on yourself or an ally. But in between that there are quite a few increments of "affect"...
I've pretty much laid those out along the spectrum I think they fall in, where I'm inclined to think 1-2 definitely pop Sanctuary, 8-9 definitely don't, but the where the line snakes around 3-7 (or, if additional categories need to be inserted in there) seems very open to DM interpretation to me. I'm not sure that there's a RAW "right answer," but where would you draw the line(s)?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The way I would rule these cases is as follows:
1. I'd let you cast it; Sanctuary is canceled if an enemy walks into it and is affected by it.
2. Once it affects an enemy, Sanctuary is canceled.
3. Whether or not they thought you were their friend is irrelevant. How do you view them? If you view them as an enemy but are tricking them, it still counts. If they really are your friend and you're casting Contagion for some non-hostile reason, I'd allow it.
4. Simple physical interaction is for sure an effect, but I wouldn't cancel the spell for that. I would treat the word "affect" as, essentially, "affect mechanically."
5. Conjure Animals for sure cancels Sanctuary once the summons affect an enemy. I would rule the other two as also canceling Sanctuary, but if I were to be pedantic, I would say that Animate Dead and Find Familiar are a no for the same reason that they can't be anti-magic fielded (which I think is a stupid reason and generally don't operate by, thus "if I were to be pedantic").
6. Yes, absolutely cancels Sanctuary if an enemy is affected by either of them. This one isn't ambiguous. What's in the enemy's best interest has no bearing on this. Any effect cancels Sanctuary, even if beneficial. Cure Wounds on an enemy cancles Sanctuary.
7. Similar to 3, if you're casting Sleep on them because you think they're bandits, you're treating them as enemies, ergo they are enemies. In all of these cases, either you're hostile toward the target or they're hostile toward you and you'd like that they not be. That's an enemy.
8. I'd let this one go, mostly because it's just too much effort to figure out if/when the spell actually affects the enemy (i.e., would your ally have missed if they hadn't been blessed?).
9. Depending on exact scenario, either "no because none of it falls under the purview of what cancels Sanctuary" or "no because the same reasons as 8."
I'm not sure I agree on 6 and 7. Light doesn't affect an enemy mechanically (although I suppose Darkness does since obstruction causes Blinded), it creates illumination, and the creature may or may not want illumination. I don't see how that's any different than say casting Creation to make a chair and then an enemy sits in it, you said yourself that simple physical interaction is too trivial to bother breaking Sanctuary.
For 7., I suppose what I mean is... if you're casting Sleep or Charm Person or Calm Emotions because you don't want them to become an enemy, you aren't really treating them as enemies? A pacifist caster that would rather everyone stay nice and calm isn't being hostile when he tries to smooth out rough edges in someone who hasn't yet raised arms?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'll grant you that Light doesn't affect an enemy mechanically if the enemy is already in a brightly-lit area. But if the enemy is in dim light, once they're in the AoE of your Light, they no longer have disadvantage on sight-based perception, which is a real mechanical effect that is the direct result of the spell.
Re: 7, I guess it's kind of a philosophical point, but the moment you cast Sleep on someone to prevent them from attacking you, you are treating them as an enemy. The same is true of Calm Emotions. There absolutely are uses of both spells that don't constitute "affecting an enemy," but if your goal is to prevent physical violence against yourself, there's no question that you're treating them as hostile.
I think the spell has to effect an enemy at time of casting. By that interpretation, I think only #7 would end it.
it could affect an enemy with light sensitivity and cause them disadvantage possibly
Yes. I might even go further as to say the text of the spell has to mention affecting creatures, and those creatures are your enemies.I disagree about light though, because it does say you can cast it on an object a hostile creature wears, and the creature can make a saving throw to avoid it.
The more I think about it, the less I'm sure about timeline. If you cast the spell while under sanctuary, and it affects a creature later while you're still affected, I would probably rule that sanctuary ends. But that is just my ruling, not an air tight RAW argument. I'm starting to think more and more with rules questions that in these grey areas, a (DM's) ruling is probably fine.
I think that’s a valid reading of the RAW but I would never rule that way in my game.
RAW, regarding the sequence of casting the spells, spells that have ongoing/delayed effects which are cast prior to Sanctuary do not break it when an effect happens. RAI, they do. It's not an official ruling, but it is a clear explanation addressing that there is a difference between what was printed and what was really intended. However, this only seems to address things that are cast before Sanctuary is in effect. It does not address the issue of whether the generalized RAW trigger (post-sanctuary) is casting the spell itself, or the effect actually affecting something. RAI, I think it would follow that the trigger is meant to be whenever a spell you have cast does affect an enemy.
As far as what counts as an enemy, I believe the overarching notion is that an "enemy" is any creature whom is not an allied PC. Otherwise, things like Favored Enemy would not function for tracking a creature which isn't explicitly hostile. Even then, it seems silly that you would never be able to have advantage on tracking down a lost ally. This is a term that badly needs an explicit definition in the PHB. It is far too open to (mis)interpretation.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The reason I brought all of this up in the first place is because of Open Hand Monks' level 11 Tranquility. Because it only goes back up after a long rest, being very clear about what you can do during the day that will break it vs. not break it is a pretty big deal. It's one thing to lose the remaining 1-9 rounds of your Sanctuary casting, it's another to lose your level 11 class feature for the entire day with no way to bring it back.
I really wish that Sanctuary, Invisibility, features like the Firbolg's Hidden Step ("until you attack, make a damage roll, or force someone to make a saving throw"), etc. all just used a single vocabulary and definition for what "not being aggressive" meant. There's no reason for each and every one of these features to essentially say the same thing thematically, but all work differently mechanically, leads to so much more disagreement and confusion.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Considering eveything else an Open Hand Monk gets, tranquility is mostly a ribbon feature. It's a nice little boost to playing passivity, or slight protection against ambushes. Drunk guy at the bar going aggro on you? Nope, not today. Use your action & bonus action on Patient Defense/Step of the Wind for a mixture of Dodge/Disengage/Dash to move right through the thick of combat unscathed, or confound enemies that just can't seem to connect with you no matter what they do. The general idea is that tranquility is only supposed to help you while you are playing up the aspect of passivity.
While I recognize that these various spells/features are intended to break under slightly different conditions, I completely agree that there need to be clear, consistent definitions of what these conditions really are. Particularly for the ridiculous situations in which "make an attack" seems to only refer to hostile actions that exclusively involve making an attack roll.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yes, but the concept is to play a pacifist cleric that has taken a very significant compromise in their power level by committing to 11 levels of monk to be able to walk around in combat trying to talk everyone down, so that "ribbon feature" pretty much makes or breaks the concept :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I totally get that, and it is what it is. Walking around in combat trying to talk everyone down is accomplished with the method I mentioned, or some variation that doesn't involve actively doing anything to the other creatures. If you're playing up that pacifist aspect, then you won't be affecting those creatures (physically or magically) in any way. Otherwise, you're not really being pacifistic.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think it's pretty straight forward. By "affect" they mean affect directly, do something to the enemy. When it comes to enemy, I think it is up to the DM to define that, but possible interpretations are that creatures that would become hostile if they knew you were gonna cast the spell on them would be considered an enemy, and aggressive creatures that haven't initiated combat is also considered an enemy. Or you could rule that any creature that isn't an ally is an enemy, unless the spell is beneficial to that creature.The caster could itself define enemy. If the intention is to hurt, it might not matter whether the target considers the caster an enemy.
Or my prefered method which is that all creatures are considered enemies unless the spell is beneficial to that creature. This prevents you from casting attacks on allies "until" they turn on you for example. You cannot make false alliances with creatures. It also allows you to buff creatures traditionally considered enemies without breaking Sanctuary for possible tactical manuevers.
As evidence for this I would like to point out how this way of looking at it reduces the amount of examples, condensing them into only a couple different scenarios.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 all fall under the same category. They all don't break Sanctuary (few exceptions listed below) because they don't directly affect an enemy.
3 and 7 breaks Sanctuary, since they directly affect a creature with a non-beneficial spell. It also would make most creatures hostile if they knew you were gonna cast the spell on them, which would qualify for other interpretations of "enemy".
1 and 6 could break Sanctuary if the casting of the spell directly affected a creature, for example if the effect of the spell is placed on top of an enemy. Darkness affects creatures within the area, so casting it on an area with an enemy in it would mean the spell directly affected that creature, but if they walked into it after casting, it indirectly affected that creature. The same applies for 1.
Light is a bit different since it wouldn't directly affect a creature, unless it is cast on something that the creature is holding or wearing. If you cast Light on a rock on the ground, it might affect light sensitive creatures, but even if they are in the area the spell affects, it is an indirect effect, since it is the creature itself that defines what happens, not the spell.
A shadow dragon has this ability: "Shadow Stealth. While in dim light or darkness, the dragon can take the hide action as a bonus action." It is not the spell that makes the creature unable to use Shadow Stealth, it is the conditions for Shadow Stealth that makes the creature unable to use it. This is different from Feeblemind for example, which itself defines the fact that the creature affected can't cast spells. The effect is defined by the spell, not by inherent qualities to the creature. This also means that casting spells the target is totally immune to would still break Sanctuary. You don't get a free pass because the creature was immune to fire damage, because Firebolt defines the effect.
I think this is the most elegant solution to the problem. It allows for some clever manuevers, while blocking some I would consider unfair or against the intention of the spell. Backstabbing isn't possible, but setting up traps is. You can still heal and buff, but you cannot debuff. It doesn't matter whether you cast Moonbeam before or after casting Sanctuary, since the effect it has on any given enemy is always indirectly a result of the spell, not a result of casting the spell. The wording is usually pretty specific about things like this.
I will note that certain responses from Crawford refutes certain points I have made here. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/05/27/heat-metal-on-a-dagger-being-carried-by-someone-with-sanctuary-on/ This means Light would never cancel Sanctuary, since it cannot target a creature.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/07/01/cast-witch-bolt-and-in-the-next-turn-cast-sanctuary-witch-bolt-cancel-sanctuary/ This means RAW supports my interpretation of spells like Moonbeam, but RAI does not.
I think Light only cancels it if you cast it on the equipment of a enemy. It doesn't directly effect them if you cast it on yourself
I would say that the intention of the character who has Sanctuary cast on them should be of some importance.
I would say that #2 and #4 through #8 would depend a lot on what spell you cast and if that spell is for the party to use to attack the enemy creatures or if it is a non-attack related spell. Bless, for instance, can only be useful in a fight, so it would break Sanctuary. Calm Emotions, I would rule, does not since it provides no offensive enhancements to the party whatsoever and does not harm the enemy. I would rule that certain summoning spells would be okay. Summoning beasts or fey that are then ordered not to attack or cast offensive spells would be fine, until any of them do damage or generate a negative status effect against the foes. Darkness cast on the enemy position would end Sanctuary, but Darkness cast on one's own position if it is not adjacent or near-adjacent to the enemy position would not. The Friends cantrip would not nullify Sanctuary, but Major Image-ing a hole beneath the enemy's feet in order to make them think they are falling (and thus believing they would take fall damage and be forced into a prone position would end Sanctuary.
Basically, I think the spell is left vague on purpose to allow the DM to adjudicate based on their experience playing with each particular group of players and their characters.
Does it count if
1st Round: Spirit Shroud
2nd Round: Sanctuary
Could you keep Sanctuary even if you already cast Spirit Shroud your last turn only used it for the -10ft movement speed?
"Guys! Let's talk about this."
- grants ally fiery dragon breath
"Please! We don't want to fight!"
- summons a pack of ravening wolves that immediately attack
"Can't we all just get along?"
- casts Contagion on the rogue
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
What if the warded creature casts Bane or Faerie Fire and then Sanctuary is cast on it. Can the target maintain concentration on the debuff without violating Sanctuary ? Casting and maintaining seem to be different things (eg. Wild Shape).
Bane is particularly nice because it reduces the Wis saving throw needed to penetrate Sanctuary.
The Help action also doesn’t seem to violate Sanctuary.
The ruling seems to be well written for that part andy:
To my understanding it means that the creature must perform an attack or cast a spell. Anything that was here before is still ok.
After that ... let's say that the character is envelopped with some kind of aura which can cause harm to anyone around it. Would moving close to an enemy be considered a break of sanctuary? As written no, but I would understand it if the DM said "your intention is to harm, between the lines of the spell's description, I understand that it means "you shall cause no harm" therefore, sanctuary is dropped.
Same thing for the other end: a teleportation can be deemed not harmful.
But ... what if the antagonist wants to teleport the character on top of a field of lava ? There I'd say that he'd have to make a wisdom save because of context ...
Hard to sell to players who are just abiding the rules but ... quite understandable I think