Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7574182" data-attributes="member: 6987520">For my understanding/interpretation it does. You actually get to Step 2 when the DM notifies you that you are required to make a Wisdom saving throw to resist the effects of the spell. You are, at this point, past Step 1 because you have chosen a target. So, it does make it past Step 1.Due to the effects of the Sanctuary spell, if you fail the saving throw you must return to Step 1 if possible (i.e. you have another target to choose) or proceed to Step 3 and resolve the attack, in which case it is lost because of the spell and no attack roll is made.I understand your point. You are claiming that since no attack roll is made, the attack is never resolved since that is what generally is involved in Step 3. However, this is the case of Specific beats General. Due to the Sanctuary spell resulting in the attack being lost, it was resolved and is finished. There are no further steps to take. There is nothing further for you to do and the next action (or attack if you have Extra Attack) is taken. Once all your attacks are resolved, your Attack action is complete.Of course you can interpret it otherwise, but then perhaps you are more comfortable ending the process at Step 2. "... In addition, spells... can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll." Because of the failed Wisdom saving throw, the penalty enforced by the DM is that your attack is lost and you will not be making an attack roll for Step 3. Regardless, your attack is ended and you either move on to the next attack if you have one or the next Action (or movement if you have speed left on your turn). You have taken the Attack action because to try to return to the beginning and argue otherwise would negate the fact that you choose a target and had to resist the effects of Sanctuary. At that point, you would have to undo what has already been done. Personally, I might involve time-travel within my game, but not in the playing of my game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sanctuary could have been worded differently to avoid the confusion as well. Instead of the attack being lost, if no other target is available it could have simply stated the attack results in an automatic miss on the attack roll. Then Step 3 would have been satisfied, I believe, to your logic. Also, Step 3 could have been worded to include the concept the Specific situations will arise that beat the General process of making an attack.The intent of the rules is pretty clear IMO and you can debate the semantics if you like but the PHB is not a legal, written contract where every possibility has so be spelled out in black-and-white. If you want to get caught in the logic-loop be my guest, but you are ignoring Specific beats General at that point as far as I am concerned. I am fairly certain you are intelligent enough to understand that to go beyond this point is simply to be argumentative, and that is a waste of my time. Play in your logic-loopy world if you must. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification