Ok, so I'm playing a "protective" fighter type that is about to take a level in Wizard or Artificer. Since the character likes to get "in the way" of enemies to protect their allies, I was looking at the Sanctuary spell on the Artificer spell list. It's a bonus action, and for reference, reads as follows -
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.
Looking for a couple clarification questions on how other DMs have ran it....
1) Does an enemy "know" if a target they're about to attack is under the protection of the spell? It's a ward, but there isn't really description of a shimmering shield or anything like that, making me think it would be invisible.
2) If a target protected by the sanctuary spell is attacked, and the attacker fails the save, it says they must choose a new target or lose the attack. Is that "situation" occurring as the attack is physically made? - and thus they lose the attack if another target isn't in immediate range? Or say there's another target 10 ft. away, can the enemy fail the save and then decide to move 10 ft. and attack the other target instead?
The wording of the spell is just really odd to me, seeming like the saving throw is to be made mid action as the attack is made, but the "deciding to attack another target" makes it seem like it is made before the attack is followed through with. Just trying to determine if it's more like a spectral shield blocking the attack or more like the bugbear looks at the target their about to attack, fails the save and says to itself, "nah, I don't want to attack that person" type of thing... lol
(1) Not by RAW, there is no indication that an affected creature is warded. It is up to the DM to determine how insightful NPCs are when interacting with such an effect.
(2) Unclear. My interpretation is that the "choose another target" condition must be instantaneous. The triggering attack is already committed, so either another target is in range, or it is not.
That was my interpertation as well. It's just odd the way it's written to me concerning the whole "choose another target" thing. Like are they mid swing and then awkwardy have to swing at something else in range just because they fail the throw? Or is the target just forcibly pushed away from their primary target? lol. Just weird. Should just be "fail the save and lose the attack" imo.
Ok, so I'm playing a "protective" fighter type that is about to take a level in Wizard or Artificer. Since the character likes to get "in the way" of enemies to protect their allies, I was looking at the Sanctuary spell on the Artificer spell list. It's a bonus action, and for reference, reads as follows -
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.
Looking for a couple clarification questions on how other DMs have ran it....
1) Does an enemy "know" if a target they're about to attack is under the protection of the spell? It's a ward, but there isn't really description of a shimmering shield or anything like that, making me think it would be invisible.
2) If a target protected by the sanctuary spell is attacked, and the attacker fails the save, it says they must choose a new target or lose the attack. Is that "situation" occurring as the attack is physically made? - and thus they lose the attack if another target isn't in immediate range? Or say there's another target 10 ft. away, can the enemy fail the save and then decide to move 10 ft. and attack the other target instead?
The wording of the spell is just really odd to me, seeming like the saving throw is to be made mid action as the attack is made, but the "deciding to attack another target" makes it seem like it is made before the attack is followed through with. Just trying to determine if it's more like a spectral shield blocking the attack or more like the bugbear looks at the target their about to attack, fails the save and says to itself, "nah, I don't want to attack that person" type of thing... lol
Thanks in advance!
No. If enemies did know, this would make the spell weaker, as enemies would be less likely to end up in situations where they can't productively re-target.
No, the enemy can't do anything else while retargeting - they have to immediately retarget or their attack/spell fizzles.
The point of the Wisdom save is to emphasize that the flavor is that the target tries to hurt you, then magic invades their mind and changes it so they decide to target someone else instead. That's the flavor. So they should find themselves choosing another target without being able to change their mind about making this attack or casting this spell.
Remember that the spell will do nothing against the following:
Anything that doesn't target you (e.g. Cloudkill).
Non-attack non-spells (e.g. caltrops).
Anything the DM decides isn't harmful, which can have weird corner-cases when someone is trying to help you without your consent.
Digging up this enquiry again, have an addition enquiry based on the "On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell." line.
Is the choice open for the creature, say there was another creature who was allied with them in range of original attack and no other viable target. Would they have to proceed with this attack against the ally, or would they have the option to dismiss them as a target and just lose the attack.
If it was intended to force an attack if anything else is within range it would say “must choose a new target if possible or lose the attack”, making the loss conditional instead of just an option.
Thought likely the case, although saw a potential there.
Guess it should be viewed situationally when running a campaign, do they consider the alternatives as allies or just have a shared threat in the moment, and when given a small nudge would they take the chance or opt to miss an attack
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, so I'm playing a "protective" fighter type that is about to take a level in Wizard or Artificer. Since the character likes to get "in the way" of enemies to protect their allies, I was looking at the Sanctuary spell on the Artificer spell list. It's a bonus action, and for reference, reads as follows -
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.
Looking for a couple clarification questions on how other DMs have ran it....
1) Does an enemy "know" if a target they're about to attack is under the protection of the spell? It's a ward, but there isn't really description of a shimmering shield or anything like that, making me think it would be invisible.
2) If a target protected by the sanctuary spell is attacked, and the attacker fails the save, it says they must choose a new target or lose the attack. Is that "situation" occurring as the attack is physically made? - and thus they lose the attack if another target isn't in immediate range? Or say there's another target 10 ft. away, can the enemy fail the save and then decide to move 10 ft. and attack the other target instead?
The wording of the spell is just really odd to me, seeming like the saving throw is to be made mid action as the attack is made, but the "deciding to attack another target" makes it seem like it is made before the attack is followed through with. Just trying to determine if it's more like a spectral shield blocking the attack or more like the bugbear looks at the target their about to attack, fails the save and says to itself, "nah, I don't want to attack that person" type of thing... lol
Thanks in advance!
(1) Not by RAW, there is no indication that an affected creature is warded. It is up to the DM to determine how insightful NPCs are when interacting with such an effect.
(2) Unclear. My interpretation is that the "choose another target" condition must be instantaneous. The triggering attack is already committed, so either another target is in range, or it is not.
That was my interpertation as well. It's just odd the way it's written to me concerning the whole "choose another target" thing. Like are they mid swing and then awkwardy have to swing at something else in range just because they fail the throw? Or is the target just forcibly pushed away from their primary target? lol. Just weird. Should just be "fail the save and lose the attack" imo.
Digging up this enquiry again, have an addition enquiry based on the "On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell." line.
Is the choice open for the creature, say there was another creature who was allied with them in range of original attack and no other viable target. Would they have to proceed with this attack against the ally, or would they have the option to dismiss them as a target and just lose the attack.
If they must choose a new target, and they don't like their options, they can abandon the attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If the creature only has ally to choose for new target then it can loose the attack or spell instead of doing so.
If it was intended to force an attack if anything else is within range it would say “must choose a new target if possible or lose the attack”, making the loss conditional instead of just an option.
thank you all,
Thought likely the case, although saw a potential there.
Guess it should be viewed situationally when running a campaign, do they consider the alternatives as allies or just have a shared threat in the moment, and when given a small nudge would they take the chance or opt to miss an attack