Sanctuary + Eldritch Cannon

[Makorel]

Had an interesting combo from a player tonight. He casted Sanctuary on himself and didn't attack anyone, letting his cannon do the work. I allowed it mainly because I feel like that sort of strategy means you miss out on a lot of damage you're not getting from using your action. I went back after the game and double checked the wording to see how this worked and it's a bit confusing. Sanctuary says that if you attack, cast a spell or deal damage that the spell ends. The Flamethrower states that "the cannon" exhales fire in a 15 foot cone but for the Force Ballista it says to to "make a ranged spell attack, originating from the cannon" without directly stating who is making the ranged spell attack. Furthermore, the bonus action you are taking when you fire the cannon is to "activate" it. I'm curious how other people would have ruled this.

[MaxWilson]

I'd allow it as long as they weren't holding the cannon. It costs a precious spell slot, it has a saving throw, they can still target the cannon or other PCs, it makes sense in character (how would they know who's controlling the cannon?), and it's not that much more effective anyway than just Dodging with your action.

[Expired]

I'd allow it as well, but it is not RAW (which will only matter if you are strictly following the rules).

[Aeriox]

Why isn’t it RAW?

[NaughtyTiger]

errata to Sanctuary:
"If the warded creature makes an attack, casts a spell that affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends."

from Eldtrch Cannon:
"On each of your turns, you can take a bonus action to cause the cannon to activate if you are within 60 feet of it."

the cannon is not a creature; it is an object that does nothing unless the artificer expicitly direct it.

therfore, the artificer, the warded creature, dealt damage to another creature.

[Aeriox]

So if the artificer used the ballista and it missed, the sanctuary spell would keep going? Or would that count as making an attack?

[NaughtyTiger]

So if the artificer used the ballista and it missed, the sanctuary spell would keep going? Or would that count as making an attack?

as i read it, the artificer is using the ballista to make an attack; same as using any other ability to make an attack. (interpretation)

"If the [artificer] makes an attack this spell ends." (RAW)

[AttilatheYeon]

as i read it, the artificer is using the ballista to make an attack; same as using any other ability to make an attack. (interpretation)

"If the [artificer] makes an attack this spell ends." (RAW)

This is mostly how i interpret it post errata. I'd also add deals damage so the flamethrower can also break sanctuary.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, technically if the Artificer used the Flamethrower but the creature turned out to be fire immune, Sanctuary wouldn't break, which just illustrates the point about how strict RAW is wonky.

Fun fact: an Enchanter can walk all over the battlefield attempting to hypnotize creatures with Hypnotic Gaze, and it doesn't break Sanctuary or even Invisibility, because it's not a spell or an attack not does it deal damage. (Instinctive Charm is iffier.)

[king_steve]

Yeah, technically if the Artificer used the Flamethrower but the creature turned out to be fire immune, Sanctuary wouldn't break, which just illustrates the point about how strict RAW is wonky.


It says ‘make an attack’ not ‘hit with an attack’ so wouldn’t it still break even if the target was immune?

[NaughtyTiger]

It says ‘make an attack’ not ‘hit with an attack’ so wouldn’t it still break even if the target was immune?

this lines up well with the barbarian rage thread, too.

I regard "make an attack" as a mechanical phrase specifying a melee/ranged weapon/spell attack with an attack roll.

the flamethrower specifically doesn't make an attack roll, thus some folks would say it doesn't fall under "make an attack" clause

[king_steve]

this lines up well with the barbarian rage thread, too.

I regard "make an attack" as a mechanical phrase specifying a melee/ranged weapon/spell attack with an attack roll.

the flamethrower specifically doesn't make an attack roll, thus some folks would say it doesn't fall under "make an attack" clause

Ah right sorry, I mixed up the flamethrower with the ballista.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, technically if the Artificer used the Flamethrower but the creature turned out to be fire immune, Sanctuary wouldn't break, which just illustrates the point about how strict RAW is wonky.

Fun fact: an Enchanter can walk all over the battlefield attempting to hypnotize creatures with Hypnotic Gaze, and it doesn't break Sanctuary or even Invisibility, because it's not a spell or an attack not does it deal damage. (Instinctive Charm is iffier.)

Non damaging spells in the artificer SSI also doesn't break sanctuary or invisibility.

[Sherlockpwns]

Just as an aside, something I never realized until now as well... A necromancer with sanctuary also can command its undead horde to attack from relative safety without breaking sanctuary? And in fact, use its spells to continue to raise the fallen or buff them? Fascinating...

[AttilatheYeon]

Just as an aside, something I never realized until now as well... A necromancer with sanctuary also can command its undead horde to attack from relative safety without breaking sanctuary? And in fact, use its spells to continue to raise the fallen or buff them? Fascinating...

This may just be a difference in interpretation, and we may both becorrect, but i don't think this is the case any more. In the same way that Spiritual Guardians now breaks sanctuary.

[Expired]

This may just be a difference in interpretation, and we may both becorrect, but i don't think this is the case any more. In the same way that Spiritual Guardians now breaks sanctuary.
I'm disappointed that SG now breaks Sanctuary—it was fun to cast SG and Sanctuary (using the required amount of turns) to run into the center of a group of enemies and then use the Dodge action.

[MaxWilson]

I'm disappointed that SG now breaks Sanctuary—it was fun to cast SG and Sanctuary (using the required amount of turns) to run into the center of a group of enemies and then use the Dodge action.

Isn't Sanctuary a little bit redundant if you're already Dodging?

A Spirit Guardians + Defensive Duelist + Dodging cleric (or Divine Hexlock) sounds like a lot of fun.

[NaughtyTiger]

Isn't Sanctuary a little bit redundant if you're already Dodging?

i don't think so,
sanctuary is a wis save to see if the attack against you can proceed.
then dodge is disad on the attack.

2 separate rolls to determine if the attack fails (given that rolling with disad is 1 roll)

[Democratus]

I'm disappointed that SG now breaks Sanctuary—it was fun to cast SG and Sanctuary (using the required amount of turns) to run into the center of a group of enemies and then use the Dodge action.

If it seems like you are 'getting one over on the system', then that is a good indication that you may be violating RAI. :smallcool:

[AttilatheYeon]

If it seems like you are 'getting one over on the system', then that is a good indication that you may be violating RAI. :smallcool:

I used this combo in an AL game during season7. It felt like an exploit and while it prevented a tpk, took the fun out of the encounter. I never used it again. I'm not unhappy with the errata.

[MaxWilson]

i don't think so,
sanctuary is a wis save to see if the attack against you can proceed.
then dodge is disad on the attack.

2 separate rolls to determine if the attack fails (given that rolling with disad is 1 roll)

By "redundant" I meant "you're already taking very little damage, why spend another spell slot?" but maybe we're just thinking of different scenarios or have different expectations for the caster's AC.

For me, if it's e.g. an AC 19 (+5 from Shield) Divine Hexlock, I'd normally rather save that spell slot for Shield than pre-cast it on Sanctuary, especially since Sanctuary potentially diverts attacks onto other PCs instead of nullifing them.

[druid91]

I used this combo in an AL game during season7. It felt like an exploit and while it prevented a tpk, took the fun out of the encounter. I never used it again. I'm not unhappy with the errata.

Why would it take the fun out of the encounter? You used a defense and an attack.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Had an interesting combo from a player tonight. He casted Sanctuary on himself and didn't attack anyone, letting his cannon do the work. I allowed it mainly because I feel like that sort of strategy means you miss out on a lot of damage you're not getting from using your action. I went back after the game and double checked the wording to see how this worked and it's a bit confusing. Sanctuary says that if you attack, cast a spell or deal damage that the spell ends. The Flamethrower states that "the cannon" exhales fire in a 15 foot cone but for the Force Ballista it says to to "make a ranged spell attack, originating from the cannon" without directly stating who is making the ranged spell attack. Furthermore, the bonus action you are taking when you fire the cannon is to "activate" it. I'm curious how other people would have ruled this.

"If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends."

First off the features uses the Artificer's actions and all the spell DCs/attack bonuses from the Artificer. It's the artificer's, the player's, choice.

An attempt is all that is needed to break sanctuary with an attack. If you roll an attack roll, it's an attack.

For the spell I've seen two thoughts on it.

* Causing a creature to make a saving throw is affecting the creature.
* A creature failing a saving throw is affecting the creature. Personally,

I see both as valid options and wouldn't argue if a DM ruled either way.

A player can't use Sanctuary and allow the ballista to attack without breaking sanctuary.

For the flamethrower I could see a DM saying the dexterity saving throw affects the creature (forcing them to do something) or only damaging them would trigger sanctuary. I really don't care much which a DM rules on this one.

[MaxWilson]

For the flamethrower I could see a DM saying the dexterity saving throw affects the creature (forcing them to do something) or only damaging them would trigger sanctuary. I really don't care much which a DM rules on this one.

The Flamethrower is not "a spell that affects an enemy creature". Affects, yes. A spell, no.

[greenstone]

the cannon is not a creature; it is an object that does nothing unless the artificer expicitly direct it.

That's the key point for me. The cannon is an object, being directed by the artificer.

Using a sword to hurt a foe breaks sanctuary. Using a bow breaks sanctuary. Using a wand does the same. So does using an eldritch cannon.

[NaughtyTiger]

By "redundant" I meant "you're already taking very little damage, why spend another spell slot?" but maybe we're just thinking of different scenarios or have different expectations for the caster's AC.

For me, if it's e.g. an AC 19 (+5 from Shield) Divine Hexlock, I'd normally rather save that spell slot for Shield than pre-cast it on Sanctuary, especially since Sanctuary potentially diverts attacks onto other PCs instead of nullifing them.

ah, cool, yeah redundant makes sense, thanks for clarifying.



Why would it take the fun out of the encounter? You used a defense and an attack.

my view is
if there is little risk of death or even injury, little uncertainty in how the encounter will play out, then why spend the 30 minutes doing the encounter

and that was my experience with sanctuary + spirit guardians+ plant growth

[AttilatheYeon]

Why would it take the fun out of the encounter? You used a defense and an attack.

It made an encounter that should have been deadly into one that was very easy for me and still deadly for the rest of the party. They all ended up needing to dodge while i ran around healing and easily winning the deadly encounter. It's not fun when it feels like an exploit.

[MaxWilson]

It made an encounter that should have been deadly into one that was very easy for me and still deadly for the rest of the party. They all ended up needing to dodge while i ran around healing and easily winning the deadly encounter. It's not fun when it feels like an exploit.

I'm confused. If it was such a deadly encounter, and you were busy spending your action healing instead of Dodging, and the other PCs were Dodging, why didn't you at least feel nervous about losing concentration? Did the enemy not even attempt to target you? Sanctuary usually cuts down on damage by around 2/3 but if all the monsters in a deadly encounter are focusing on you and you still don't feel threatened, it's not a very deadly encounter.

[AttilatheYeon]

I'm confused. If it was such a deadly encounter, and you were busy spending your action healing instead of Dodging, and the other PCs were Dodging, why didn't you at least feel nervous about losing concentration? Did the enemy not even attempt to target you? Sanctuary usually cuts down on damage by around 2/3 but if all the monsters in a deadly encounter are focusing on you and you still don't feel threatened, it's not a very deadly encounter.

Monsters with low wisdom don't do well with wis saves. It was no fun for me because it wasn't hard for mt character. It wasn't fun for the rest of the group because they couldn't do much. It was no fun for the group because of the disconnect between my character and the rest of the group. It also changed the way we played the encounter. If i wasn't practically indestructible, we would have run and tried to regroup. But my characters success kept us fighting when we should have run sans SG wrecking the monsters.