You can choose to lose the attack. But there’s little benefit to that vs picking a new target. As your action is still used to do nothing. No dodging, no disengaging, etc.
What if there are no valid options in range? Or if the only other options are allies?
There are times when selecting another target would be suboptimal. Either option above would qualify. Another could be that the only other enemy in range would put you in significant danger, either because you would have to move through something that would cause you harm like fire or that you could easily be cut off from your party and retreat. The spells that compel people to do things rarely (if ever) force them to do something that would cause them direct harm (or to knowingly do so at least).
I would argue that the attack that triggered Sanctuary would have to be the same one that is used to attack the other creature, since it's choose another target or lose the attack or spell. If I'm using a bow attack and the only other enemy that is in range is behind 3/4 cover, I may not want to loose the arrow feeling that I'll probably waste it. If the it's a melee attack (and another creature is close and I won't put myself in imminent peril) or a spell, I'd probably be more willing since the resource is already used up and there wouldn't be as much additional incurred cost.
What if there are no valid options in range? Or if the only other options are allies?
There are times when selecting another target would be suboptimal. Either option above would qualify. Another could be that the only other enemy in range would put you in significant danger, either because you would have to move through something that would cause you harm like fire or that you could easily be cut off from your party and retreat. The spells that compel people to do things rarely (if ever) force them to do something that would cause them direct harm (or to knowingly do so at least).
I would argue that the attack that triggered Sanctuary would have to be the same one that is used to attack the other creature, since it's choose another target or lose the attack or spell. If I'm using a bow attack and the only other enemy that is in range is behind 3/4 cover, I may not want to loose the arrow feeling that I'll probably waste it. If the it's a melee attack (and another creature is close and I won't put myself in imminent peril) or a spell, I'd probably be more willing since the resource is already used up and there wouldn't be as much additional incurred cost.
Nothing stopping me from instead of loosing that arrow. Picking up a rock and throwing it.
still better than doing nothing. Still saves the arrow.
Which works great if the DM sees it that way. The way that I would rule it is you'd have to use the same attack since it doesn't say that you can change attacks or actions, just targets.
Which works great if the DM sees it that way. The way that I would rule it is you'd have to use the same attack since it doesn't say that you can change attacks or actions, just targets.
I have to side with the majority given the grammar and context of the spell description.
Creature choice of A) Same action, different target or B) forfeit the action.
It might be fun to make enemies attack each other, but there are different abilities with their own caveats for that purpose.
Now if it were me (and it's not), I would rule that actions that consume ability points (like Ki) or spell slots or spell components would still consume such in a forfeit. I would rule that ammunition would not be consumed in a forfeit. I would rule that magical ammunition with an expiry time would still expire as normal in a forfeit unless their descriptions state specifically they don't expire until used. To me, this spell has a greater counter to targeted magicks, and I believe that's the intent.
AoEs are tricky. RAW says nothing about Sanctuary forcing an attacker to avoid damaging the Sanctuary creature with an AoE. It actually mentions that the Sanctuary creature can be affected by an AoE attack regardless. I would interpret this to mean that Sanctuary has little effect on most AoEs since the original target in most AoEs can always just be a nearby location and not the creature under Sanctuary. (There are some abilities that specify a target creature and still have an AoE effect. That would fall into the change-target-or-forfeit situation but still without consideration whether the Sanctuary target is caught in the radius of the new target.) For RP (not RAW), I would prefer the attacker to ignore the sanctuary target with the attacker's ground-targeted AoE as if the target is not there and retarget appropriately, but I think I would stick with the other more-RAW-ish interpretation unless we're already playing loose with the rules for RP's sake.
With all of this, it would be one step too far for me to also make it a directly offensive spell to force an attacker to attack a friend. It makes no sense to mention the second option in the same sentence if it's not actually an option. Going by their usual style of descriptions if they meant to force an attack on something - anything at all whether friend of foe, they would have specified that they would forfeit only if no other targets were available. This was not stated and adding that caveat is upon the ruling parties.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It seems pretty cut and dry to me honestly. on a failed save they target another creature OR loose the attack/spell. So they get to choose which option.
The wording really isn't ambiguous. You committed to the attack action when you announced your intention. If you fail the save, you have to pick another target to attack... or you decide to abandon the attack action. And if your DM is being weird and forcing you to attack something, just shoot the arrow at the ground at your enemy's feet.
Wording isn't remotely similar, but for an example of a spell which requires selecting a new target, even if that means targeting your own allies with an attack, see Chaos Bolt. "If you roll the same number on both d8s, the chaotic energy leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice within 30 feet of it. Make a new attack roll against the new target, and make a new damage roll, which could cause the chaotic energy to leap again."
A lot of differences between Sanctuary (a spell cast on yourself which forces other creatures to select new targets when they attack you) vs. Chaos Bolt (a spell you use to attack targets, which may require you to pick additional targets even if you don't want to), but it does show generally that if Sanctuary were intended to make an enemy potentially attack their friends, the authors would have had a way to write it in such a way that it did so much more clearly.
The mechanics seems very clear on the word "MUST". I have only come across the word MUST equate as SHOULD. This means it is obligatory. If it is an obligation and one doesnt need to carry out the obligation then why use the word "MUST"? The correct word to use in the latter case is "MAY". Since "MUST" is use and not "MAY", I believe the true way to read the spell is this:
If target succeeds save, attack continues on the same target. Roll to hit.
If target fails save, attack ricochets because of the ward and if there is only one other person nearby which is not the attacker nor the target, it auto chooses that person (also meeting the MUST choose part). If there are more than one nearby, the attacker will choose who to hit (Thus fulfiling the MUST choose part). If there is noone else nearby then the attacker hits air and thus missing everyone.
The spell says "chooses a new target". It doesnt say it hits. Thus even picking a new target, the attacker needs to roll to see whether he hits or not.
With that in mind, it seems a bit op when people jump from choosing a target to hitting a target.
The mechanics seems very clear on the word "MUST". I have only come across the word MUST equate as SHOULD. This means it is obligatory. If it is an obligation and one doesnt need to carry out the obligation then why use the word "MUST"? The correct word to use in the latter case is "MAY". Since "MUST" is use and not "MAY", I believe the true way to read the spell is this:
If target succeeds save, attack continues on the same target. Roll to hit.
If target fails save, attack ricochets because of the ward and if there is only one other person nearby which is not the attacker nor the target, it auto chooses that person (also meeting the MUST choose part). If there are more than one nearby, the attacker will choose who to hit (Thus fulfiling the MUST choose part). If there is noone else nearby then the attacker hits air and thus missing everyone.
The spell says "chooses a new target". It doesnt say it hits. Thus even picking a new target, the attacker needs to roll to see whether he hits or not.
With that in mind, it seems a bit op when people jump from choosing a target to hitting a target.
I don't know if it has been updated/errata'd since this thread was started, but as of now the description of Sanctuary explicitly says "On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell."
On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell.
or
On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell.
Does the attacker have to choose a new target? Can the attacker choose to lose the attack?
I have seen both rulings and I have sided on the must target part.
Is there any official post about this question?
You can choose to lose the attack. But there’s little benefit to that vs picking a new target. As your action is still used to do nothing. No dodging, no disengaging, etc.
Blank
What if there are no valid options in range? Or if the only other options are allies?
There are times when selecting another target would be suboptimal. Either option above would qualify. Another could be that the only other enemy in range would put you in significant danger, either because you would have to move through something that would cause you harm like fire or that you could easily be cut off from your party and retreat. The spells that compel people to do things rarely (if ever) force them to do something that would cause them direct harm (or to knowingly do so at least).
I would argue that the attack that triggered Sanctuary would have to be the same one that is used to attack the other creature, since it's choose another target or lose the attack or spell. If I'm using a bow attack and the only other enemy that is in range is behind 3/4 cover, I may not want to loose the arrow feeling that I'll probably waste it. If the it's a melee attack (and another creature is close and I won't put myself in imminent peril) or a spell, I'd probably be more willing since the resource is already used up and there wouldn't be as much additional incurred cost.
I like the thoughts of enemies being forced to shoot each other.
Nothing stopping me from instead of loosing that arrow. Picking up a rock and throwing it.
still better than doing nothing. Still saves the arrow.
Blank
Which works great if the DM sees it that way. The way that I would rule it is you'd have to use the same attack since it doesn't say that you can change attacks or actions, just targets.
As I do too.
but, some DMs are more lenient than others.
Blank
"Oh I can't hurt this guy? Guess I'll smack my friend instead."
The spell forces them to not attack you, it doesn't force them to attack eachother.
I have to side with the majority given the grammar and context of the spell description.
Creature choice of A) Same action, different target or B) forfeit the action.
It might be fun to make enemies attack each other, but there are different abilities with their own caveats for that purpose.
Now if it were me (and it's not), I would rule that actions that consume ability points (like Ki) or spell slots or spell components would still consume such in a forfeit. I would rule that ammunition would not be consumed in a forfeit. I would rule that magical ammunition with an expiry time would still expire as normal in a forfeit unless their descriptions state specifically they don't expire until used. To me, this spell has a greater counter to targeted magicks, and I believe that's the intent.
AoEs are tricky. RAW says nothing about Sanctuary forcing an attacker to avoid damaging the Sanctuary creature with an AoE. It actually mentions that the Sanctuary creature can be affected by an AoE attack regardless. I would interpret this to mean that Sanctuary has little effect on most AoEs since the original target in most AoEs can always just be a nearby location and not the creature under Sanctuary. (There are some abilities that specify a target creature and still have an AoE effect. That would fall into the change-target-or-forfeit situation but still without consideration whether the Sanctuary target is caught in the radius of the new target.) For RP (not RAW), I would prefer the attacker to ignore the sanctuary target with the attacker's ground-targeted AoE as if the target is not there and retarget appropriately, but I think I would stick with the other more-RAW-ish interpretation unless we're already playing loose with the rules for RP's sake.
With all of this, it would be one step too far for me to also make it a directly offensive spell to force an attacker to attack a friend. It makes no sense to mention the second option in the same sentence if it's not actually an option. Going by their usual style of descriptions if they meant to force an attack on something - anything at all whether friend of foe, they would have specified that they would forfeit only if no other targets were available. This was not stated and adding that caveat is upon the ruling parties.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It seems pretty cut and dry to me honestly. on a failed save they target another creature OR loose the attack/spell. So they get to choose which option.
Come on, guys :)
The wording really isn't ambiguous. You committed to the attack action when you announced your intention. If you fail the save, you have to pick another target to attack... or you decide to abandon the attack action. And if your DM is being weird and forcing you to attack something, just shoot the arrow at the ground at your enemy's feet.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Wording isn't remotely similar, but for an example of a spell which requires selecting a new target, even if that means targeting your own allies with an attack, see Chaos Bolt. "If you roll the same number on both d8s, the chaotic energy leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice within 30 feet of it. Make a new attack roll against the new target, and make a new damage roll, which could cause the chaotic energy to leap again."
A lot of differences between Sanctuary (a spell cast on yourself which forces other creatures to select new targets when they attack you) vs. Chaos Bolt (a spell you use to attack targets, which may require you to pick additional targets even if you don't want to), but it does show generally that if Sanctuary were intended to make an enemy potentially attack their friends, the authors would have had a way to write it in such a way that it did so much more clearly.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The mechanics seems very clear on the word "MUST". I have only come across the word MUST equate as SHOULD. This means it is obligatory. If it is an obligation and one doesnt need to carry out the obligation then why use the word "MUST"? The correct word to use in the latter case is "MAY". Since "MUST" is use and not "MAY", I believe the true way to read the spell is this:
If target succeeds save, attack continues on the same target. Roll to hit.
If target fails save, attack ricochets because of the ward and if there is only one other person nearby which is not the attacker nor the target, it auto chooses that person (also meeting the MUST choose part). If there are more than one nearby, the attacker will choose who to hit (Thus fulfiling the MUST choose part). If there is noone else nearby then the attacker hits air and thus missing everyone.
The spell says "chooses a new target". It doesnt say it hits. Thus even picking a new target, the attacker needs to roll to see whether he hits or not.
With that in mind, it seems a bit op when people jump from choosing a target to hitting a target.
I don't know if it has been updated/errata'd since this thread was started, but as of now the description of Sanctuary explicitly says "On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell."
it doesnt have to attack it can opt to loose it