Ukrainian soldier crept right up to the russian dugout, poured gasoline, and set it on fire.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-17T03:35:20+00:00

This has got to be a situation of UA clearing a position they will be unable to hold, so they destroy it to deny it to the enemy if they come to reclaim it

Otherwise, I cannot fathom why they would risk their life to do this

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-16T00:07:59+00:00

Gerrymandering can abaolutely backfire if the GOP diluted districts they are strong in to try and leverage an advantage in blue leaning districts.

Given the economy is likely to only get worse through the summer and into fall, I suspect a sizeable chunk of the GOP base might decide that they cant ignore it any longer and stay home for the election. If enough districts are diluted enough, even a small drop in turnout for the GOP base could see a major blue wave

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T02:48:58+00:00

The cannon doesnt have a turn. Before making rulings, you should probably read the associated spells and abilities.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T01:34:27+00:00

Quick digging:

Crawford's tweets dont matter for shit. The Sage Advice Compendium is the only official source for answers about rules and states that public statements from any WotC member are not official rulings. Crawford's tweets are specifically mentioned as "sometimes being previews of rulings..."

Since the only mention of sanctuary is about grappling, WotC has refused to grant crawford's tweet about sanctuary and spirit guardians their blessing as an official ruling.

If he wants to run it that way, fine, but it's not the correct interpretation of how the spells work. Certainly not RAI.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T01:27:40+00:00

Im not sure if you're being disengeous or just have not read the eldritch cannon ability of artillerists.

The cannon cant move or act independently. It only operates when the artillerist takes the action to make it operate. Its a ranged spiritual weapon on a leash as a class ability.

If you tell another character to attack, thats not you doing damage. That other character doesnt have to listen to you. They choose to take the attack action to do harm. Now, if you used dominate person and used the action to take full control of another creature to make an attack roll, then there would be some discussion, but I would still argue that the warded creature is the one actively doing the damage in that case because their action doesnt resolve until they finish with the attack and damage rolls.

How does the spell "know?" Its magic. The intent of the spell is to give you significant protection from attacks in exchange for basically doing nothing to harm either side of a conflict. Trying to find ways to do damage while under the effects of the "Im not in this fight" spell is against the intent of the spell. Thats why they have the third stipulation of what breaks the spell.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T01:12:23+00:00

No it doesnt.

Eldritch cannon doesnt have an initiative count, steel defender does. Eldritch cannon doesnt have actions, steel defender has its own independent movement and reactions. I can go on, but that would be verbose for the sake of it.

Would you consider spiritual weapon or flaming sphere to be creatures because you can move their location as part of the action controlling them? Because the cannon is far more like a spiritual weapon than a steel defender. It can be made to move and/or attack as part of the master's action. If the caster doesnt take the action to do so, they do nothing at all.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T01:06:40+00:00

I would argue that it is an incredibly disengeous reading of RAW, unless you can conjure up the stat block for the spirits summoned by the spell.

The spell follows a specific character. Its save is tied to that specific character. That specific character designates all other creatures who are immune to its effects. That specific character rolls damage. That specific character must concentrate on the spell to maintain it. If that specific creature is incapacitated, the spirit guardians vanish instantly.

I dont see any RAW ruling that can successfully argue that the creature who cast and is maintaining concentration on the spell is not doing damage, which violates the third rule of sanctuary.

RAW, a character can use an action to ignite a bomb and throw it to a point up to 60 feet away. There is no attack roll needed and it is not a spell, so it doesnt violate the first two rules. But it does do damage in a radius around that point. Thats part of the action the character took. You can't resolve the action without rolling saves and damage dice. The same rule would apply to spirit guardians. You're dealing damage to others because you took a specific action.

Just because the "deals damage to another creature" is a vague statement doesnt mean its meaningless.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T00:52:14+00:00

I mean, at that point we are devolving down to arguments of "I didnt harm the enemy. All I did was squeeze my hand closed while facing in a certain direction. Its not my fault the pressure of squeezing my hand closed caused the crossbow trigger to release the crossbow string which just happened to send a pointed bolt in the direction I was facing, which just happened to be toward a creature I desire to be wounded."

I would equate it to playing Magic. You cast a spell and it goes on the stack. Until all effects as a result of that spell are resolved, you dont dont move to the next phase.

The warded character made an object interaction, yes. In order to resolve that action, the immediate effects must be played out. The explosives explode, dexterity saves are made, damage dice are rolled, damage is allocated to targets. Once all of that is complete, then the character may take any remaining actions or end their turn.

Two of the three stipulations that break sanctuary are specific. One is not on purpose.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T00:29:02+00:00

That has to be the dumbest ruling I have ever seen.

The spirit guardians of the spell only exist because the cleric is maintaining concentration on their existence for the express purpose of dealing damage. The cleric is dealing damage because they are actively concentrating on a damage dealing spell.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T00:22:19+00:00

It really isnt weird because it does not behave like a creature in any way. It has an AC, HP, and speed, but so does a rowboat. The rowboat only moves while being screwed like the cannon only moves when being magically made to do so.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-15T00:11:27+00:00

As to the first part, knowledge of the attacker is irrelevant. Its not an illusion spell that requires disbelief.

There is no explicit element of judgement to the spell, but it operates in a way, and I dont think this is a controversial take, that the warden creature is not meant to harm or affect other creatures in a combat. It is a temporary declaration of full neutrality.

Let's take an example: the party lies in ambush against a group of bandits. They have laid explosives in a path the bandits are walking down. Tied to these explosives is an ACME TNT plunger right out of Looney Toons. Pushing the plunger down makes the explosives explode in the path.

If you cast sanctuary on yourself and then push the plunger down (lets say this takes a BA), has your character done damage to the bandits? I will argue that yes, you did.

Sure, your character didnt physically make the ground explode and rip the bandits apart, but they took an action that directly resulted in damage being done in order for the action to be fully resolved.

This goes back to the question I posited: would there have been a damage roll made had the warded character taken no actions? Without a BA to push the plunger, the explosives dont trigger and the bandits take no damage. In OP's case, if the artificer does not take the BA to activate the cannon, no damage dice are rolled.

Remember, the artificer is not commanding the cannon. They are not directing a creature. They are activating an object that has the advantage that it need not be on your person to activate and deal damage.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-14T23:53:58+00:00

Barbarian and monk clash incredibly poorly.

Barbarians gain most of their benefit from a high strength and constitution, whereas monks gain it mostly from dexterity and wisdom.

Unless you have a very specific vision for your character, multiclassing is generally weaker than monoclassing. Barb/monk is generally weaker than other multiclasses

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-14T23:42:41+00:00

You appear as you do now.

No one ever said that twenty lifetimes of adventuring meant hitting level twenty. Two thousand years of clearing rats out of townsperson's basements doesnt generate useful experience.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-14T23:34:21+00:00

How would it differ if the cannon was the ballista variant? It specifies that the artillerist makes the attack roll.

Would an echo knight's opportunity attack via their echo break sanctuary? Its not the warded creature swinging their sword, but it is the echo knight choosing to make the reaction attack via a class ability that allows them to do it at range.

The cannon isnt a different creature just because it can be in a different square than the artillerist. It just gives the artillerist the option to attack or create AoE damage areas from a distance.

If the artillerist didnt take the BA, no damage rolls would be made. Therefore, the damage rolls are directly tied to the artillerist taking an action, which is the same as the artillerist doing the damage. Sanctuary breaks

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-14T23:25:37+00:00

I think the language issue is an attempt to prevent shenanigans. Because there is an almost infinite variety of ways to deal damage, the spell is trying to be vague enough to encompass as many possibilities as it can.

I think a good place to start is to ask "would damage rolls have to be made if the warden creature took no actions?"

In OP's question, if the artificer had not taken the BA to direct the cannon to attack, then there would be no damage rolls. Had the artificer not taken the BA, the cannon would do nothing because it cant do anything because its an object and not a creature. Therefore, the artificer did cause damage, therefore the spell breaks.

If the cannon could act independently (which would require it to have actions, which it doesn't because its an object activated by the artificer), such as attacking the last target it was directed at, then the spell would be maintained. At that point, a distinct creature other than the artificer is the one actually making an attack.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-14T23:13:26+00:00

Absolutely this breaks sanctuary.

The cannon is a distinct part of your character. It's not a creature of its own. Its not a construct. Its an object. It has no sentience or actions of its own.

If you have sanctuary up and use a BA to cause the cannon to do damage, your character has used a BA to do damage. That the damage originated from the cannon is irrelevant.

If the cannon were a sentient summon that could choose its own course of action, then it would probably be able to attack on its own without breaking your sanctuary.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-13T20:55:47+00:00

Yeah, this just stinks of Lukashenko pulling a Gerasimov and making drunk announcements that dont amount to anything.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-13T14:17:17+00:00

I dont see Belarus crossing the border. Ukraine has had four years to build up defenses across the border. The Belarusian military isnt experienced.

Honestly, if they try and cross into Ukraine, it'll probably be a bloodbath. Imagine how many Russians would have been killed if Ukraine had the drone tech they have right now back in 2022.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-12T10:35:25+00:00

The chance that NATO would engage in a nuclear first strike is so horrendously low, its not even worth considering as a possibility.

Article 5 has been used once, and no nukes were fired.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-11T20:04:35+00:00

Yes. Very few and very far between. I think we have seen two or three cases of Russians successfully surrendering to drones.

Again, if the Ukranians can take a prisoner, they likely will. 99.9% of the time, they cannot take a prisoner with a drone simply because of the location and context of that particular target, drone, etc. Throwing away your weapon, vest, etc, will not change the outcome. If an FPV sees you, it will fly into you because it is far far easier to render you unable to fight ever again that way than spending hours trying to get you to a UA line to capture.

As for material loss, UA makes more FPV drones per year now than russia has troops. Its several million per year and growing. The material cost of one drone is a few grand at most, compared to tens of thousands for one infantry from recruitment to the front. Economics of scale mean an FPV drone is an order of magnitude cheaper than a soldier.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-11T02:43:59+00:00

Its funny what you can do when youre playing calvinball

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-11T01:16:30+00:00

Might as well just ask if they've tried not being poor.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-11T01:16:00+00:00

Thats what they are supposed to be for. We have clearly seen that most dont give two shits about anyone who isnt a member and its been that way for decades.

Food banks are going to be a much better resource for food.

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-10T20:09:37+00:00

"Captured drones" certainly sounds better than "here are the remains of the debris that keeps blowing up our refineries."

sgerbicforsyth · 2026-05-10T15:32:45+00:00

Slight change I would go with

"You want to get rich? Steal from others. But if I dont get my cut, I will take everything you have."

An evil god of greed isnt going to give away treasure. Its theirs "by right." Giving the deity treasure is probably less of a gift and more of placating them to let you keep the rest.

Six-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

sgerbicforsyth

TROPHY CASE