Harmful spell definition

[KyleG]

Would modify memory be a harmful spell as per the conditions on sanctuary?

[Rukelnikov]

As a rule of thumb I consider that if you force a saving throw, make an attack, or deal damage its considered harmful, its not an "if and only if" though.

There may be harmful spells that don't make an attack, force a saving throw or deal damage, for instance Sleep, those usually impose a condition, but not always.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, I don't think 5e has ANY positive condition, so maybe just say "Saving throw, attack roll, deal damage or impose a condition" makes a spell harmful by default.

[Aett_Thorn]

Didn’t they errata Sanctuary a while back to make it a bit more strict as to what could be done?

“ If the warded creature makes an attack, casts a spell that affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends.” - from DND Beyond

I would say that if they are using Modify Memory to affect an enemy, then it meets the new conditions.

[KyleG]

It's about modify memory being cast on someone with sanctuary Im checking

[RSP]

It's about modify memory being cast on someone with sanctuary Im checking

There’s no RAW on this so it’ll come down to “ask your DM.” I’d say altering someone’s memories against their will is harmful to them, but just my opinion.

[Aett_Thorn]

It's about modify memory being cast on someone with sanctuary Im checking

Ah, then I would say yes. You are intentionally trying to affect a creature by messing with their head. Even if you were doing it with good intentions, I’d say that it is a harmful spell in this instance.

[Protolisk]

EDIT: Now that I think of it, I don't think 5e has ANY positive condition, so maybe just say "Saving throw, attack roll, deal damage or impose a condition" makes a spell harmful by default.

Having someone cast Invisibility, or use some other means of turning you invisible, could be seen as not harmful, with no saving throw or attack, yet impose a condition.

Otherwise, you are right, not too many conditions that are positive, its true.

[PhantomSoul]

Having someone cast Invisibility, or use some other means of turning you invisible, could be seen as not harmful, with no saving throw or attack, yet impose a condition.

Otherwise, you are right, not too many conditions that are positive, its true.

I guess selectively harmful... you then can't be targeted by some other beneficial spells an ally might cast. But really that's just pulling at straws to find a niche context where it has a negative potential outcome!
(Not that it matters for Sanctuary post-errata, since Invisibility is a Spell and you can just determine whether it's being Cast on an Ally or an Enemy.)

[Rukelnikov]

Having someone cast Invisibility, or use some other means of turning you invisible, could be seen as not harmful, with no saving throw or attack, yet impose a condition.

Otherwise, you are right, not too many conditions that are positive, its true.

Ahhh yeah, invisible is a (gnerally) beneficial condition, forgot it was a condition in 5e.

[Segev]

It relies on metagame a bit, but the easiest thing is to ask the player of the character under Sanctuary if he wants his character affected by the spell. If he does; it isn't harmful. If he doesn't, it is.

[PhantomSoul]

It relies on metagame a bit, but the easiest thing is to ask the player of the character under Sanctuary if he wants his character affected by the spell. If he does; it isn't harmful. If he doesn't, it is.

That makes sense as a solution (and maybe they have to guess what the modification would be, if they don't know already)

[quindraco]

Would modify memory be a harmful spell as per the conditions on sanctuary?

"Harmful" has no clear-cut definition in 5E. My go-to example is the suggestion spell, where you're banned from suggesting an "obviously harmful act", but one of the explicitly valid uses of the spell involves an obviously harmful act (suggesting a knight commit financial harm on herself).

The sanctuary spell hasn't got the word "harmful" in it currently, but for any spell where you do need a definition, the DM has to guess as to how the spell is intended to work. For suggestion specifically, I think they intended only physical harm - so you can (probably) suggest to someone that they dump their significant other, for example. If obvious financial harm is ok, obvious emotional harm should also be ok.

[Seclora]

It relies on metagame a bit, but the easiest thing is to ask the player of the character under Sanctuary if he wants his character affected by the spell. If he does; it isn't harmful. If he doesn't, it is.

I agree with this, and would expand it to say that if the character being targeted is an NPC then the Player is the DM.

[RSP]

I agree with this, and would expand it to say that if the character being targeted is an NPC then the Player is the DM.

Not sure I’m following this. Are you saying if a PC targets an NPC that is Uber the effect of Sacruary, the Player of the PC gets to decide if the spell is harmful or not?

That doesn’t sound right to me at all.

[Segev]

Not sure I’m following this. Are you saying if a PC targets an NPC that is Uber the effect of Sacruary, the Player of the PC gets to decide if the spell is harmful or not?

That doesn’t sound right to me at all.

I believe he's saying that, if an NPC or other DM-controlled creature is under the effects of sanctuary, then the player who determines whether he wants a given effect to affect his NPC/creature is the DM.

[RSP]

I believe he's saying that, if an NPC or other DM-controlled creature is under the effects of sanctuary, then the player who determines whether he wants a given effect to affect his NPC/creature is the DM.

Ah. Gotcha, though I’d go with they’re the arbiter anyway.

[KyleG]

"Harmful" has no clear-cut definition in 5E. My go-to example is the suggestion spell, where you're banned from suggesting an "obviously harmful act", but one of the explicitly valid uses of the spell involves an obviously harmful act (suggesting a knight commit financial harm on herself).

The sanctuary spell hasn't got the word "harmful" in it currently, but for any spell where you do need a definition, the DM has to guess as to how the spell is intended to work. For suggestion specifically, I think they intended only physical harm - so you can (probably) suggest to someone that they dump their significant other, for example. If obvious financial harm is ok, obvious emotional harm should also be ok.

It doesnt? Remember this isnt about losing the effect its about the effect on someone WITH the spell on them.

I have this definition "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.

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

[DwarfFighter]

Would modify memory be a harmful spell as per the conditions on sanctuary?

No. Modify Memory does no harm to the target.

Edit: MM has an effect that can cause harm indirectly, but it can also be used for benign purposes. This is entirely based on the intentions of the caster and the perceptions of the target.

Conversely, Firebolt can be used to cause damage that is intended to save the target from more harm in the future, e.g. by burning off an ooze or whatever. However, the immediate effect of the spell is to cause quantifiable harm in terms of hit points.

A charm spell may be cast while the caster intends to have the target perform actions that will ensure their safety, but the caster can then change his mind and seek to cause the target harm.

The intention of the spellcaster is not a factor to consider when adjudicating wether a spell is harmful or not.

-DF

[KorvinStarmast]

There’s no RAW on this so it’ll come down to “ask your DM.” I’d say altering someone’s memories against their will is harmful to them, but just my opinion.

I share that opinion.

No. Modify Memory does no harm to the target.

Edit: MM has an effect that can cause harm indirectly, but it can also be used for benign purposes. This is entirely based on the intentions of the caster and the perceptions of the target.

Which means "OP, there's no black and white answer, depends on the situation"

Which I think is a valid answer.

[Segev]

I share that opinion.
Which means "OP, there's no black and white answer, depends on the situation"

Which I think is a valid answer.

That's why I think the limbs teat is whether the player of the target wants the spell to affect the tart or not is a good one.

[KyleG]

And that is the crux of it. I, as the player don't want to have my characters memory modified but im also happy to let the situation play out for story.I as the character also wouldn't want it, but as the character in this case I wouldnt be aware it was being cast.

[Segev]

And that is the crux of it. I, as the player don't want to have my characters memory modified but im also happy to let the situation play out for story.I as the character also wouldn't want it, but as the character in this case I wouldnt be aware it was being cast.

Remember that sanctuary isn't something the target "does." It's something that causes others to be unable to bring themselves to harm the target. The reason for asking the player of the beneficiary of sanctuary if they consider the spell harmful is simply to resolve that question. The spell causes the aggressor to be unable to bring themselves to do it.

We could have the aggressor's player make the decision, but that leads to motivated thinking. We don't want munchkins and "evil DMs" to game the definition and say "oh, no, see, this guy is so crazy he thinks you WANT to be fireballed!" or the like.

Thus, we ask the one who is in theory getting the benefit. If he doesn't want it to affect his character, it's considered "harmful" and the aggressor must roll a Wisdom save or refrain from doing it. If he does want it to affect his character, the actor can perform his action.

[Joe the Rat]

It relies on metagame a bit, but the easiest thing is to ask the player of the character under Sanctuary if he wants his character affected by the spell. If he does; it isn't harmful. If he doesn't, it is.

I think this is the most elegant solution: The target decides if what is happening is harmful. Which seems perfect for dealing with remove curse and those wonderful cursed weapons and effects.

I can see where you can get into the weeds with this and "convincing someone that a spell or a half-nelson will be good for them." Arguing that scorching rays or getting hit in the face with a hammer would be beneficial is pretty much a no sell, but talking someone into accepting a polymorph or a remove curse?

[Segev]

I think this is the most elegant solution: The target decides if what is happening is harmful. Which seems perfect for dealing with remove curse and those wonderful cursed weapons and effects.

I can see where you can get into the weeds with this and "convincing someone that a spell or a half-nelson will be good for them." Arguing that scorching rays or getting hit in the face with a hammer would be beneficial is pretty much a no sell, but talking someone into accepting a polymorph or a remove curse?

This is why I say "the player" rather than "the character" makes the choice. This is a metagame analysis, and should be left as such. It's not about tricking somebody into letting a harmful effect through. It's about whether the effect IS harmful. And while that's a judgment call, it's one the person who is ostensibly protected from harm should get to make the call on.

[PhantomSoul]

This is why I say "the player" rather than "the character" makes the choice. This is a metagame analysis, and should be left as such. It's not about tricking somebody into letting a harmful effect through. It's about whether the effect IS harmful. And while that's a judgment call, it's one the person who is ostensibly protected from harm should get to make the call on.

Agreed -- and it crucially shouldn't be subjected to how broken ability checks can be...!

[Joe the Rat]

This is why I say "the player" rather than "the character" makes the choice. This is a metagame analysis, and should be left as such. It's not about tricking somebody into letting a harmful effect through. It's about whether the effect IS harmful. And while that's a judgment call, it's one the person who is ostensibly protected from harm should get to make the call on.

Treating it as a metagame element makes sense here.

[DarknessEternal]

Last weekend, I ruled that someone casting Dispel Magic on a Sanctuaried person had to pass the save to do so. Seemed definitely to the Sanctuaried man that it would make his life worse, therefore harmful.

[stoutstien]

Last weekend, I ruled that someone casting Dispel Magic on a Sanctuaried person had to pass the save to do so. Seemed definitely to the Sanctuaried man that it would make his life worse, therefore harmful.

RaW dispel can target the sanctuary spell itself which would bypass the save.

[DarknessEternal]

RaW dispel can target the sanctuary spell itself which would bypass the save.

Sure, but that's not what they did.

[stoutstien]

Sure, but that's not what they did.

Interesting things could come up though. What if someone had positive and negative effects on them so dispel would be both harmful and helpful?