Stone Shape and Sanctuary

[Terrorvein]

Hallo playground,

A player of mine in a solo play by post game has just, uhm, finished tense negotiations with an orc tribe. He's playing a dwarf cleric (6th level, not that it really matters for my question).

Currently his clan is moving holds and he was leading a scouting team to ensure safe passage. Two of his team's runners managed to run afowl with a tribe of orcs and got into trouble. He got in way over his head trying to save them and faced off against about 20 Orcs, with a leader and shaman present.

Now up until this point he's been handling the situation decently enough.
He used Obscuring Mist to hide his (much smaller) team of dwarf warriors and cleverly used the echo of the cavern to make it seem as though there's many more dwarves hiding in the mist then there really are (a good Bluff check).
And he used Sanctuary in an attempt to keep everything non-violent.

A few bad rolls quickly soured negotiations and the orc leader decided that it was time for the PC to leave (so he could go back to beating the two runners unconscious and making them his slaves).

My player decided to go for broke and used Stone Shape to encase the orc leader (leaving two breathing holes, of couse). And now I'm left wondering if using Stone Shape in this way would count as an attack and thus break his Sanctuary?

tldr: Cleric casts Stone Shape to encase orc leader. Does that break Sanctuary?

Thanks in advance!

[Khedrac]

Hmm, interesting situation.

1. Technically stone shape is limited to a single stone object smaller than the volume limit and so cannot reshape the ceiling or floor of a cavern (as they are way bigger than the size limit). That said, kudos to the cleric player for trying to come up with something fancy (and not automatically lethal).

2. If you allow the stone shape (which I think I would want to) then I would grant the orc chief a Reflex saving throw (with is standard for this type of spell effect). (If the player objects then point out that, unless the chief is next to a small boulder this cannot be done anyway.)

3. Because the spell is now an offensive spell with saving throw I would then rule yes, this does break the sanctuary effect, but the player should know this before deciding whether to cast the spell (it's unfair not to warn the player).

What could be suggested as an alternative is to use the stone shape to encase the two unconsious dwarves "disposing of them for the orc chief" and then coming back to rescue them once the orcs are gone (and this would not break the sanctuary).

[Terrorvein]

Hmm, interesting situation.

1. Technically stone shape is limited to a single stone object smaller than the volume limit and so cannot reshape the ceiling or floor of a cavern (as they are way bigger than the size limit). That said, kudos to the cleric player for trying to come up with something fancy (and not automatically lethal).

I know this is outside of the allowed limits of the spell, but my player was making such an effort to keep things non-lethal that I allowed it.


2. If you allow the stone shape (which I think I would want to) then I would grant the orc chief a Reflex saving throw (with is standard for this type of spell effect). (If the player objects then point out that, unless the chief is next to a small boulder this cannot be done anyway.)

Hadn't considered giving the orc chief a Reflex save, but I see your point.
Spells with a similar effect do indeed call for a Reflex save.

Thanks for that!


3. Because the spell is now an offensive spell with saving throw I would then rule yes, this does break the sanctuary effect, but the player should know this before deciding whether to cast the spell (it's unfair not to warn the player).

Yeah, I told him that I was unsure how to rule this (hence my question here) so I would get back to him with a ruling and we'd look at it from there. If I allowed the orc chief a saving throw there is indeed little doubt that his casting of Stone Shape is an offensive spell that would break Sanctuary.

I am in no way trying to mess up his plan (I like his plan) or trying to one up him, it's simply that what I rule could end up going very badly for his character and I want to be sure I rule it fairly. Haven't been a DM for long enough to really make these kinds of calls without second guessing myself.


What could be suggested as an alternative is to use the stone shape to encase the two unconsious dwarves "disposing of them for the orc chief" and then coming back to rescue them once the orcs are gone (and this would not break the sanctuary).

This would be a great plan but I'd already told him that, because we were already bending rules for his creative use of Stone Shape, he needed to be within touch range of the stone he'd want to shape (since the range is touch) and he can't reach the two dwarves before they get into serious (lethal) trouble. At this point there is no way the orc chief (who already made his save against the Sanctuary and has already 'gently' persuaded the PC to leave with a bull rush) would allow him any closer.


Hmm, I think I'll give the orc chief a Reflex save and have the action break Sanctuary that seems to be the fairest all things considered.

Let's see what my player makes of it. :smallbiggrin:

Thank a lot, that really helped!

[Khedrac]

My pleasure.

Note, while the "attack" will break the sanctury, no one who doesn't make their spell-craft check will know that the cleric has broken their sanctuary. So if the orcs are already aware they they cannot attack the cleric, only the shaman has a chance of instantly realising they can now attack the cleric - the others will need to be told (of course if they haven't yet attacked that is different).

[Terrorvein]

That were part of my problem lies.

Only the orc chief has taken aggressive action until now (the bull rush and he made his save). The other orcs were holding back because they were commanded to do so.

Not having his sanctuary up when the fecal matter hits the fan could become a crucial point...

[SirNibbles]

"Attacks
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."
- Player's Handbook, page 171

Relevant RAW. I still don't know how I would rule on Stone Shape based on that.

[Terrorvein]

"Attacks
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents are considered attacks. Attempts to turn or rebuke undead count as attacks. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone."
- Player's Handbook, page 171

Relevant RAW. I still don't know how I would rule on Stone Shape based on that.

Extra emphasis mine. It would seem that RAW this counts as an attack regardless of saving throw or not. I'd say encasing someone in stone is rather hampering :smallwink:

Cool, thanks!