Sanctuary

[RSP]

“Sanctuary:
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...”

In our last session, we had some discussion with how Sanctuary functions, and I wanted to see how the Playground views/uses the spell.

Background: I’m the player casting Sanctuary. The DM and I have played campaigns together (with each having DM’d) in the past, however, this is the first 5e campaign for every other player.

So I cast Sanctuary on our Paladin, who’s up close and personal with a remorhaz and low on HP. The remorhaz goes and attacks the Pally, and passes the save. Pally is now dying, and restrained in the remorhaz’s mouth.

The fight continues and the next round it comes back to the remorhaz’s turn. Remorhaz’s have two Actions: Bite and Swallow. They apply the Restrained condition to anyone who they successfully Bite; can only Swallow someone who they’ve already Restrained; and they can’t Bite anyone else while they have someone Restrained from a previous Bite. The Swallowed action uses an attack.

So on the Remorhaz’s turn, the DM decides the Remorhaz would Swallow the Incapacitated Pally. I chime in that, since the Pally didn’t break Sanctuary (he’s 0 HP and Incapacitated), he’s still under the effect. Remorhaz rolls the save and fails: it’s not allowed to swallow the Pally.

The DM decides it will release the Pally from the grapple and attack the Barbarian (who had gotten within melee range with it inbetween its turns). I object, stating that the Remorhaz can try to find a new target for the Swallow, but cannot change its action in order to find a new target (also, I don’t think it could have stopped its attack to release the Pally and then continue with the Sanctuary interrupted attack).

Note: I’ve made heavy use of Sanctuary when playing in past campaigns with this DM before, and never has a creature switched actions after being thwarted by Sanctuary before. Nor has any creature been able to switch weapons (that is: creature makes melee Attack on Sanctuary’d target, fails save so can’t attack but can find new target, so switches from melee weapon to ranged to find new target).

So what do you think?

Can a creature who fails the Sanctuary save take other “actions” between finding a new target, including moving, dropping something, or switching weapons, to acquire a new target?

Can a creature who fails the Sanctuary save switch to a different Action in order to get a new target?

Thanks for your input.

[Damon_Tor]

You are correct.

It used its action, swallow.

[Vogie]

I would DM it the same way, simply because most monsters/NPCs only have a small number of actions, and Sanctuary feels like something that would mess with the decision making aspect of the monsters. If they declare something like "shocking grasp" or a melee attack, but the only person in melee range has sanctuary on them and they fail the save, then they'd continue acting like themselves, continuing the spirit of the character, declaring a ranged attack, different spell, or even different tactic.

That being said, if you have characters like Grave Clerics, Undying Warlocks & Tranquility/Open Hand Monks that have conditional always-on Sanctuary, you may want to play it a little differently.

[Unoriginal]

You can't declare an action and then change it after the die's roll ended in failure. Unless it's a special abilitity the being sonehow has, but a giant man-eating snow bug is rarely also a master of time alteration.

[Damon_Tor]

I would DM it the same way, simply because most monsters/NPCs only have a small number of actions, and Sanctuary feels like something that would mess with the decision making aspect of the monsters. If they declare something like "shocking grasp" or a melee attack, but the only person in melee range has sanctuary on them and they fail the save, then they'd continue acting like themselves, continuing the spirit of the character, declaring a ranged attack, different spell, or even different tactic.

It tried to swallow him and failed. It's not like Sanctuary is time-reversal magic that sends them back in time a second to try again. He used his action, it's gone.

[Unoriginal]

It tried to swallow him and failed. It's not like Sanctuary is time-reversal magic that sends them back in time a second to try again. He used his action, it's gone.

And it's not like it could identify the mystical effect beforehand to make an informed decision. Paladin just became a bit harder to chew down compared to last time.

[No brains]

I'm our resident lunatic who thinks Trickery Clerics aren't bad in part because sanctuary helps me become a good waste of time for enemies. So understand I have a bias.

You were in a great situation where Sanctuary really shines. Sanctuary says "...the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack." You showed good tactical understanding by putting your enemy in a tactical bottleneck where its choice of attack really mattered. Without any new eligible targets for swallow, the creature (remorhaz [sic?]) was forced into a real gamble if it tried to swallow the unconscious paladin. The creature had a chance to choose a new action when it learned it was chewing on a creature with Sanctuary and like a big dumb centipede on fire, it chose wrong. You played that fight excellently. Have a smile! :smallsmile:

You picked especially well because the creature does not have multiattack. It picked the swallow action, not the bite action and not the multiattack action. Sure the DM could say they are in fluff the creature biting something, but if the attack were intended to work that way, it would be better described with a trait in the bite attack or in a trait outside its attack options.

Action denial is powerful, but sanctuary has enough riders on it to balance that out already. It even got a new nerf in the last errata. RIP Spirit Guardians + Sanctuary. If Sanctuary is used to keep a dying person barely alive, it isn't overpowered to have an enemy waste an action on a tactically dubious spite move.

[Keravath]

I agree with the OP.

The paladin is under sanctuary, this spell requires a wisdom saving throw to be made in order to allow an attack.

"On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell."

If the Remorhaz has a target grappled, that is the only valid target for a bite. The Remorhaz tries to swallow the paladin. The text on the Remorhaz states that to do this it makes a bite attack. The only valid target is the paladin. The Remorhaz fails the save and must choose another target. Since the paladin is the only possible target at the time of the attack and they can't attack them, the attack is lost. The DM can't rewind the action choices of the Remorhaz to have them release the paladin from the grapple so that when they fail the save there might be another adjacent target they could attack.

It was a really good use of a sanctuary spell. However, the paladin is still going to take the 3d6 fire damage from being in contact with the Remorhaz since being grappled is certainly touching.

[Vogie]

That's definitely a fair ruling, and likely the RAW and RAI for Sanctuary.

I, personally, find that most single large enemy monsters and NPCs are already so far behind in action economy that having an entire turn skipped, potentially repeatedly, due to a single first-level spell not only breaks verisimilitude, but is a tad too powerful. Hence why I said that I'd play it the same way the OP's DM did, leaning the fight towards "awesome and flowing" instead of "technically correct". The Remorhaz could, theoretically, just sit there in with the warded paladin in its jowls, unsuccessfully attempting to chew on it for the rest of the fight, as the rest of the party wails on it. That is technically correct - It just wouldn't be a very interesting fight for anyone, including the unconscious-adin hanging out in it's maw.

If the monster in question had, for example, multiple attacks or additional abilities - this wouldn't be an issue. It'd be an attack attempt, blocked by Sanctuary if there are no other targets, and then the fight would continue with the rest of the attacks/abilities by that creature.

[RSP]

That's definitely a fair ruling, and likely the RAW and RAI for Sanctuary.

I, personally, find that most single large enemy monsters and NPCs are already so far behind in action economy that having an entire turn skipped, potentially repeatedly, due to a single first-level spell not only breaks verisimilitude, but is a tad too powerful. Hence why I said that I'd play it the same way the OP's DM did, leaning the fight towards "awesome and flowing" instead of "technically correct". The Remorhaz could, theoretically, just sit there in with the warded paladin in its jowls, unsuccessfully attempting to chew on it for the rest of the fight, as the rest of the party wails on it. That is technically correct - It just wouldn't be a very interesting fight for anyone, including the unconscious-adin hanging out in it's maw.

If the monster in question had, for example, multiple attacks or additional abilities - this wouldn't be an issue. It'd be an attack attempt, blocked by Sanctuary if there are no other targets, and then the fight would continue with the rest of the attacks/abilities by that creature.

I understand this point of view, however, it becomes a very slippery slope of what’s allowed and what’s not, as there is no consistency to know what the spell does, if everytime the spell is used, it’s effectiveness is based on how many attacks the creature has/how many enemies there are.

I’m obviously biased here as well, but whether I’m a player in the game or not, I’d say having different rulings for how a spell or ability works based on how it impacts a particular enemy or combat, isn’t a fair way to DM.

I feel this takes away the fun of players having good ideas, using abilities in novel ways, or just utilizing good strategy; as everytime a player does something positive that wasn’t anticipated, the effects are handwaived away so that the battle goes as the DM planned. A DM trying to keep an encounter on “script” is not a good thing. Though I certainly understand the feeling of an action, an idea, or even a bit of luck, ending something prematurely that was heavily planned for or expected to go another way; I’ve been a DM when that happens too. However, I feel that’s just part of the game and what’s ultimately one of the best parts of D&D: having unexpected things come up.

Also, I find DMs who handwaive positive effects also find themselves handwaiving when bad stuff happens to the PCs (which is just fair, considering); which just creates a game in which the players are going to succeed regardless of what they do, and, therefore, their choices matter less. And the DM not also handwaiving away the bad stuff is even worse as they’re removing positive effects from choices and leaving the bad, which skews to the PCs losing; which is less fun.

Just my opinions on the matter though.

I’ll also say, I very much doubt my DM would do this; as he’s usually very pro consistency with any of his rulings; and I imagine however he ultimate rules on it working, will be how it works for the campaign.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I wanna know why Pally didn't take the dodge action? It's one of the best ways I know to tank as Pally. WIS save to even GET an attack, and that attack is at disadvantaged. Multi-attack? Multi-save! And all versus my shield of faith + defense style + shield (don't need my big offense weapon right now) + big metal armor. AC should be very close to or greater than 20.

[NaughtyTiger]

That's definitely a fair ruling, and likely the RAW and RAI for Sanctuary.
...
If the monster in question had, for example, multiple attacks or additional abilities - this wouldn't be an issue. It'd be an attack attempt, blocked by Sanctuary if there are no other targets, and then the fight would continue with the rest of the attacks/abilities by that creature.


To be consistent with the OP's DM: If the monster has multiattack, hits Pally the first time, fails the sanctuary save the second, the DM would have to redo the whole action (including undoing the first hit). Starting over everytime multi-attack monster fails the save.

If the monster can change actions, then a caster should be able to change spells...
but she can't by RAW or RAI.

[RSP]

If the monster can change actions, then a caster should be able to change spells...
but she can't by RAW or RAI.

To clarify: the DM ultimately ruled the Remorhaz couldn’t change actions after initially going with they could. I believe they went with something along the lines of “the rules state a spell is lost, so therefore you couldn’t change casting a spell” and I guess extrapolated that reasoning to “you can’t change the Action.” And as such, agreed with my thinking.

As there was disagreement initially, at least, I did want to see how others viewed it.

I do agree with you though that if changing actions is allowed, it should be consistent and allowed for PCs as well.

[EdenIndustries]

That's definitely a fair ruling, and likely the RAW and RAI for Sanctuary.

I, personally, find that most single large enemy monsters and NPCs are already so far behind in action economy that having an entire turn skipped, potentially repeatedly, due to a single first-level spell not only breaks verisimilitude, but is a tad too powerful. Hence why I said that I'd play it the same way the OP's DM did, leaning the fight towards "awesome and flowing" instead of "technically correct". The Remorhaz could, theoretically, just sit there in with the warded paladin in its jowls, unsuccessfully attempting to chew on it for the rest of the fight, as the rest of the party wails on it. That is technically correct - It just wouldn't be a very interesting fight for anyone, including the unconscious-adin hanging out in it's maw.

If the monster in question had, for example, multiple attacks or additional abilities - this wouldn't be an issue. It'd be an attack attempt, blocked by Sanctuary if there are no other targets, and then the fight would continue with the rest of the attacks/abilities by that creature.

As a counterpont, to me it's incredibly awesome and memorable to go, "Remember that time we thought we were doomed when the Remorhaz had the Paladin in its jaws...but then it kept trying to eat him but never could because of Sanctuary? That was insane!" The unexpected victory of that moment to me would make it interesting and memorable, assuming obviously that every encounter doesn't become a game of whack the creature with the unconscious Sanctuary'd Paladin in it's mouth, which yes would be uninteresting. But as a one-off? Amazing!

[Vogie]

The unexpected victory of that moment to me would make it interesting and memorable, assuming obviously that every encounter doesn't become a game of whack the creature with the unconscious Sanctuary'd Paladin in it's mouth, which yes would be uninteresting. But as a one-off? Amazing!

You've been eaten again. Roll for deliciousness