Sanctuary plus Spirit Guardians?

[Guest 6801328]

Sanctuary states that "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends." So as long as you cast Spirit Guardians first, it seems like you could walk around wreaking havoc without breaking Sanctuary.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I should have Googled before posting. It's been well discussed.

 

[jaelis]

For reference:

JeremyECrawford
RAW: Sanctuary isn't stopped if an already-cast spell deals damage. RAI: A damaging activity ends the spell.

 

[Charles Rampant]

This came up in my game. I assume that most Clerics have eventually hit on the combo, and queried it with their DM.

For my part, I ruled that Sanctuary was annoying enough already, no way was I letting it combo with Spirit Guardians

 

[Oofta]

I rule that attacking is based on intent and purposely harming another creature, not whether or not you are taking the attack action.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I rule that attacking is based on intent and purposely harming another creature, not whether or not you are taking the attack action.

I would agree with this. For example, technically you already cast flaming sphere (or moonbeam, or whatever). The next round you're not casting the spell again, but you ARE attacking with it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I would agree with this. For example, technically you already cast flaming sphere (or moonbeam, or whatever). The next round you're not casting the spell again, but you ARE attacking with it.

I think I could agree with that if you use your bonus action to move the flaming sphere.

Really RAW should include that if you do damage with a Concentration spell it breaks Sanctuary, but that's not what it says....

 

[iserith]

[video=youtube;9ZSoJDUD_bU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZSoJDUD_bU[/video]

 

[Satyrn]

Sanctuary states that "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends." So as long as you cast Spirit Guardians first, it seems like you could walk around wreaking havoc without breaking Sanctuary.

Thoughts?

I've rejected the concept of RAW, so if my table thinks it's silly that "you could walk around wreaking havoc without breaking Sanctuary" then it becomes real easy for me to rule on this interaction.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've rejected the concept of RAW, so if my table thinks it's silly that "you could walk around wreaking havoc without breaking Sanctuary" then it becomes real easy for me to rule on this interaction.

So how would you rule on this one?

If the Cleric is serenely walking around, and surrounding her are these "spirits" wreaking havoc, how is that different (from the monsters' point of view) from her walking around while her PC companions wreak havoc?

 

[guachi]

Some things that look like loopholes are intentionally there so having the RAI from Crawford is helpful. It turns out that most of us would have come down on the same side as the RAI but it's nice to know where the designers were coming from.

I give my players a blanket statement at the beginning of games that I play RAI/RAW unless otherwise noted. It helps clear up many potential problems like this one. I wasn't aware that Crawford had discussed this but it would certainly help in any discussion with players.