Timeline for Sanctuary + readied spell that affects an enemy
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3 at 21:33 | comment | added | Kirt | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Nov 3 at 21:33 | comment | added | Kirt | @NobodytheHobgoblin Suppose I cast web first, then later received sanctuary, then still later my web affected enemies. Would my sanctuary drop at that last point? If so, then the unambiguous way to say that would be "If the warded creature makes an attack, cast [not casts] a spell that later affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends." Again, I am assuming "good intent" - that the writers are trying to write clearly, rather than ambiguously. | |
| Nov 3 at 17:51 | comment | added | Nobody the Hobgoblin | That is a perfectly reasonable way to handle it and I see no issues from doing so. (I do it as I say in my answer: if an enemy -however that is defined, but not e.g. one of your allies- stumbles into your web later on, then you cast a spell that affected an enemy and the sanctuary drops. Which in my experience also causes no problems.) My comment was less about how it plays, and more on the grammatical range of meaning of "affects", which a LLM tells me is more like does affect than can affect, but of course, a LLM might just be wrong on that, too. | |
| Nov 3 at 15:40 | comment | added | Kirt | @NobodytheHobgoblin If sanctuary drops on a spell that does affect an enemy, does that apply only when the spell is cast? Or does my sanctuary drop if I cast a spell that later affects an enemy, as in this case with a readied spell. Or say I cast web and only three turns later someone stumbles into it, does my sanctuary drop at the subsequent moment the spell I cast affects a foe? Given a choice between an interpretation that clearly covers every situation and an interpretation that just raises more questions, I prefer the former. | |
| Nov 3 at 15:35 | comment | added | Kirt | @NobodytheHobgoblin 'Affects', by itself, is perfectly ambiguous. It could mean either 'does affect' or 'can effect', and those helping verbs can be added when you want to clarify meaning. Without them, we are left with 'that' vs 'which', and 'that' tells us it is restrictive. You are correct, 'that' could be telling us it is restricted to spells that actually do affect enemies. However, interpreting it that when then creates a further ambiguity. | |
| Nov 3 at 9:06 | comment | added | Nobody the Hobgoblin | Is "affects" is more likely "does affect" or "can affect"? I'm not a native speaker, but asking ChatGPT, it tells me that there is no semantic difference between "does affect" and "affects", other than emphasis and tone, i.e. "affects" states the fact plainly, while "does affect" underscores this fact with more emphasis. | |
| Nov 3 at 8:59 | comment | added | Nobody the Hobgoblin | I thought about if this after all could be the right answer. Dictionary provides a test: if you leave out a "that" clause, it changes what's inlcuded, if you leave out a "which" clause, it doesn't. Here, leaving out the clause would make it trigger on any spell, so it's restrictive, as you say. But restricted to what? It does not say "that can affect a creature" (see @Dale's answer), it says "that affects a creature". I believe the restricition comes only into play if the spell actually affects a creature, yet it still is a restrictive clause. | |
| Nov 2 at 23:27 | history | edited | Kirt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 366 characters in body
|
| Mar 26 at 15:05 | history | answered | Kirt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |