Shield of Missile Attraction vs. Sanctuary

[JonBeowulf]

Who wins?

SoMA states that any ranged attack against a target within 10' of you targets you instead.
Sanctuary states that anything that targets you must succeed on a WIS saving throw or pick a new target.

"Specific over general" doesn't help here since they are both specific.

I find it hard accept that a 1st level spell can negate a cursed item (if only for one round). A literal interpretation of the text can lead to a loop until the WIS save fails:

1. SoMA carrier has Sanctuary cast on him
2. Enemy targets him and has to attempt a WIS save
3. Enemy fails the save and must target someone else
4. Only valid targets are within 10' of the SoMA carrier
5. SoMA kicks in and forces the enemy to target them
6. Enemy attempts the WIS save again, return to #3 on a fail, else proceed
7. Enemy rolls the attack

Would it be a fair ruling to allow Sanctuary to function only once? I guess I can just target a different PC if this situation arises, but that negates the effect of both the curse and the spell. Not much fun for anyone.

[Amnestic]

Sanctuary's a 1st level spell, Shield of Missile Attraction is a rare magic item. I'd be tempted to have SoMA negate Sanctuary entirely (for ranged attacks, obvs). Probably give that info to players before it comes up though.

[Unoriginal]

Who wins?

SoMA states that any ranged attack against a target within 10' of you targets you instead.
Sanctuary states that anything that targets you must succeed on a WIS saving throw or pick a new target.

"Specific over general" doesn't help here since they are both specific.

I find it hard accept that a 1st level spell can negate a cursed item (if only for one round). A literal interpretation of the text can lead to a loop until the WIS save fails:

1. SoMA carrier has Sanctuary cast on him
2. Enemy targets him and has to attempt a WIS save
3. Enemy fails the save and must target someone else
4. Only valid targets are within 10' of the SoMA carrier
5. SoMA kicks in and forces the enemy to target them
6. Enemy attempts the WIS save again, return to #3 on a fail, else proceed
7. Enemy rolls the attack

Would it be a fair ruling to allow Sanctuary to function only once? I guess I can just target a different PC if this situation arises, but that negates the effect of both the curse and the spell. Not much fun for anyone.

Sanctuary applies before the attack is made ("any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw"), to the point the attacker can choose to not attack instead of targetting someone else. SoMA's curse, on the other hand, applies after the attack is made ("Whenever a ranged weapon attack is made").

Also, Sanctuary affects the creature doing the attack, SoMA's curse affect the attack itself.

So the enemy would need to succeed a save to shoot at the SoMA wielder, and if they fail but target someone else within 10ft the projectile would still fly toward the SoMA wielder.

[JonBeowulf]

Sanctuary applies before the attack is made ("any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw"), to the point the attacker can choose to not attack instead of targetting someone else. SoMA's curse, on the other hand, applies after the attack is made ("Whenever a ranged weapon attack is made").

Also, Sanctuary affects the creature doing the attack, SoMA's curse affect the attack itself.

So the enemy would need to succeed a save to shoot at the SoMA wielder, and if they fail but target someone else within 10ft the projectile would still fly toward the SoMA wielder.

Okay, so by this interpretation, if the attacker fails the save, they fire at the new target and then is like "WTF?" when the arrow heads to the SoMA wielder. I like that.

Bend it like Bekham!

[KorvinStarmast]

Sanctuary applies before the attack is made ("any creature who targets the warded creature with an attack or a harmful spell must first make a Wisdom saving throw"), to the point the attacker can choose to not attack instead of targetting someone else. SoMA's curse, on the other hand, applies after the attack is made ("Whenever a ranged weapon attack is made").

Also, Sanctuary affects the creature doing the attack, SoMA's curse affect the attack itself.

So the enemy would need to succeed a save to shoot at the SoMA wielder, and if they fail but target someone else within 10ft the projectile would still fly toward the SoMA wielder.

Thaks for saving me the typing.

[No brains]

I see no reason why they shouldn't beneficially stack!

Shield of Missile Attraction is already the least cursed item that exists, arguably an upgrade of the Arrow Catching Shield that has a wider radius and bypasses your reaction. There are plenty of tanks that want to write a check with their altruism that their hp can gladly cash, but for the per-round withdraw limit!

Speaking of, what's people take on Sanctuary vs Arrow Catching Shield? Any different?

The experience of attempting to attack through Sanctuary is already a little jank; if there's a creature that's mindless except for the desire to cause pain specifically to affront the gods, somehow Sanctuary can still protect against that creature's attacks. (Provided it fails its wisdom save.) I think it would be amusingly clever for a cursed Missile Attractor to rush down an archer's nest with a squad, somehow magically making all the archers think, "Oh no, I could hit that guy if I shoot near him! It's too much to bear!"

I do have to disagree with Unoriginal a little. I say a little because it's still a call I'd take, but I read Sanctuary as taking place during the attack, rather than before the attack. This is because a creature loses the attack or spell if they cannot select a new target. If I were to think about this like a program, Sancruary introduces a new check/ step after the target is selected. Something like Wis Save P/F> P; Proceed. F; Choose new target or discard attempted attack. The implication is that the creature does not get expended actions back if they choose to 'lose' the attack or spell. It works especially well with the spell's theme of guilting a creature out of an attack and pairs nicely with the ruling that taking to long to decide on an action makes someone lose that action.

Anyway, that's a silly interaction to point out! Thank you for bringing that to my attention!

[Unoriginal]

I do have to disagree with Unoriginal a little. I say a little because it's still a call I'd take, but I read Sanctuary as taking place during the attack, rather than before the attack. This is because a creature loses the attack or spell if they cannot select a new target.

It takes place during the planning stage of the attack, but before the attack itself happens in the world.

To give an example: imagine an archer with an Arrow of Dragon Slaying is trying to attack a Dragon protected by Sanctuary.

If the archer fails their save, and there is no other target in range, that doesn't mean they're firing their Arrow of Dragon Slaying at nothing. They go "can't attack this being" and run out of time to do that attack, keeping the Arrow for their next attack.

[Phhase]

I find it seems quite a simple interaction. Sanctuary states that a failing enemy must choose a new target or lose the attack. Since they cannot, because of the shield's effect (assuming there are no other valid targets on the field), they lose the attack.

[Sorinth]

I've always viewed the SoMA as altering physics to bend the ranged attack towards the wearer, wheres Sanctuary is a mind influencing like effect where it causes the attacker to not want to harm the target and therefore let's them choose a different target. RAW is probably just up to the DM to do whatever they want.

[JNAProductions]

I've always viewed the SoMA as altering physics to bend the ranged attack towards the wearer, wheres Sanctuary is a mind influencing like effect where it causes the attacker to not want to harm the target and therefore let's them choose a different target. RAW is probably just up to the DM to do whatever they want.

This is how I view it too.
You cannot INTENTIONALLY attack a target with Sanctuary up unless you pass the save. But you aren’t doing that if you shoot a nearby target, even if something else redirects it to the protected target.

[gooch]

It's potentially more fun if you apply the sanctuary restriction to the missile as well.
It's like the classic toast-cat construct. Everyone knows cats always land on their feet. And everyone knows if you drop a piece of buttered toast on the floor, it always lands buttered side down.
So... What happens when you strap a piece of buttered toast to the back of a cat, and throw it in the air?
Perpetual motion machine?

[Rukelnikov]

You don't need to roll WIS to attack someone within 10 ft of the SoMA wielder, and once you attack them, the magic redirects the missile, its "shield of missile attraction" not "shield of missile using attacks attraction". So I don't think there's any conflict in this case.

However, what happens if you Stand Against the Tide or Redirect Attack against someone with Sanctuary? The creature cannot choose not to attack in that case...

[Yakk]

"On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack or spell."
"Whenever a ranged weapon attack is made against a target within 10 feet of you, the curse causes you to become the target instead."

I'd rule "If you target the shield-sanctuary target, or a creature within 10' of it, you must make a wisdom save; on failure, if you choose a target within 10' of the shield bearer you lose your attack or spell. On success, you attack the shield-sanctuary target."

It is simple and doesn't involve janky timing or strange readings.

In general, I treat the descriptions of spells and magic items as what happens in the usual situation, not as legalese. Once the situation becomes strange, just make a call.