Condition Immunities vs. RAW

[Sleffie]

Hello everyone,

A matter of debate has recently come up during our session which I'd like to put forward to hear additional input. I have tried searching for similar cases on this forum and others, but did not find satisfying answers. If any previous thread has slipped through, I apologize.

The actual circumstance was the following: The party encountered a flesh golem, which has a condition immunity against frightened. The bard in the party used Dissonant Whispers against it and it failed its saving throw. As such, it suffered 3d6 psychic damage and had to immediately use its reaction to move as far as its speed allows away from the bard.

The matter of debate was the following: I (as DM) felt that the actual "use its reaction to move away/flee" effect shouldn't happen due to its immunity against fear. Whilst the actual damage being caused by horrid whispers of nastiness felt alright, the actual "fear effect" (which isn't specifically stated, that's just how I interpretate the spell) seems off because this golem is a construct automaton who doesn't feel such things. (It was relevant because another character had used Booming Blade, but this is besides the point. Having the thing walk off is always a good thing.)

Adhering to RAW, the actual Frightened Condition (which it has immunity to) is never applied, nor does it state anywhere that if it happened to have such immunity that the effect doesn't work. As opposed to, for example, Suggestion which specifically states: "Creatures that can’t be charmed are immune to this effect." As such, the bard using the spell argued that it should work. Looking at RAW, I agree. However, I felt that it shouldn't be the case, because this construct willed to life by its nefarious creator doesn't adhere to the concept of fear... simply performing the task set out for it.

(Admittedly, following that logic, it also shouldn't suffer the 3d6 psychic damage. Since that damage originates from the same horrific dissonant whispers that causes it to flee. In retrospect, if I were to keep to my standpoint, I'd have to negate that as well. At the time, I didn't want the Bard's spell to fizzle entirely.)

Afterwards, we've spoken about the subject for some time, looking at various things in the books. Amongst those things were:

1. "After constructing the body from clay, flesh, iron, or stone, the golem's creator infuses it with a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. This tiny spark of life has no memory, personality, or history. It is simply the impetus to move and obey. This process binds the spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem's creator."
AND
"A golem can't think or act for itself. Though it understands its commands perfectly, it has no grasp of language beyond that understanding, and can't be reasoned with or tricked with words."
AND
"Its brain is capable of simple reason, though its thoughts are no more sophisticated than those of a young child." .... "Its dead flesh isn't an ideal container for an elemental spirit, which sometimes
howls incoherently to vent its outrage."

This didn't help much. I kept to the point that, whilst there was an earth elemental piloting the fleshy bulky golem it still had to follow its creator's orders and that the elemental itself wasn't in risk of danger to itself, rather to the prison that bound it. The other side of the spectrum was: "This elemental is sentient and knows fear. It has thoughts no more sophisticated that those of a young child, so one could argue they are comparative and small children DO know fear and the elemental spirit sometimes howls incoherent outrage, which means it has emotions."

The Bard's main argument was that, according to RAW, it holds true. There's the earlier example of Suggestion, and there are other spells which specifically mention exceptions. Additionally, a brief search of the Monster Manual showed that roughly 40 monsters also had immunity against the Frightened Condition, which weren't all as easily "explained away" as the construct flesh golem.

In the end, everyone was agreed upon that essentially it boils down to DM's discretion/ruling. Especially considering the flow of the game, and that we should investigate afterwards. My personal expectation of posting this question here was that we'd probably receive "According to RAW, the bard is right... but the DM should have the final say.". Regardless, I'm curious what people's opinions are.

[Sleffie]

As a matter of interest, we continued on the subject and started discussing Oozes.

Oozes also have immunity against Frightened. I felt that the same thing should apply to oozes, due to them being too... simplistic to be fearful of things. They have a desire to feed and shun areas of bright light and extreme temperatures, but this seems more instinct than actual intelligence. Using Dissonant Whispers on an ooze shouldn't net result, because they are not fearful of anything... they lack the capacity for fear.

However, if one were to craft a convincing illusion that emitted the visual of fire and the warmth of it, it would most certainly work on them. Instinct would entice them to stay away, because the source could be potentially dangerous.

(Right now, checking oozes some more... I realize they lack the understanding of a language... so one could argue that Dissonant Whispers are entirely lost on them. Oh well.)

The Bard mentioned the old 3.5 system, in which certain creatures/monsters/automatons/stuff had an ability score of 0 which made them mindless. This gave them immunity to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) and they automatically failed their Intelligence checks. However, he also mentioned that this whole concept didn't exist in 5e anymore, but still was worth considering.

[pwykersotz]

I agree with your decision to rule it that way in terms of running the game how you see fit, but I look at it differently. Dissonant whispers is an enchantment, and as such it can compel a creature to do certain things. It bears similarity to fear, but it's different from, say, the Fear spell which is an illusion that imposes the frightened condition. I would run the spell as written, and force it to move away. It's not being frightened, it's being compelled.

[Vogonjeltz]

Hello everyone,

A matter of debate has recently come up during our session which I'd like to put forward to hear additional input. I have tried searching for similar cases on this forum and others, but did not find satisfying answers. If any previous thread has slipped through, I apologize.

The actual circumstance was the following: The party encountered a flesh golem, which has a condition immunity against frightened. The bard in the party used Dissonant Whispers against it and it failed its saving throw. As such, it suffered 3d6 psychic damage and had to immediately use its reaction to move as far as its speed allows away from the bard.

The matter of debate was the following: I (as DM) felt that the actual "use its reaction to move away/flee" effect shouldn't happen due to its immunity against fear. Whilst the actual damage being caused by horrid whispers of nastiness felt alright, the actual "fear effect" (which isn't specifically stated, that's just how I interpretate the spell) seems off because this golem is a construct automaton who doesn't feel such things. (It was relevant because another character had used Booming Blade, but this is besides the point. Having the thing walk off is always a good thing.)

Adhering to RAW, the actual Frightened Condition (which it has immunity to) is never applied, nor does it state anywhere that if it happened to have such immunity that the effect doesn't work. As opposed to, for example, Suggestion which specifically states: "Creatures that can’t be charmed are immune to this effect." As such, the bard using the spell argued that it should work. Looking at RAW, I agree. However, I felt that it shouldn't be the case, because this construct willed to life by its nefarious creator doesn't adhere to the concept of fear... simply performing the task set out for it.

(Admittedly, following that logic, it also shouldn't suffer the 3d6 psychic damage. Since that damage originates from the same horrific dissonant whispers that causes it to flee. In retrospect, if I were to keep to my standpoint, I'd have to negate that as well. At the time, I didn't want the Bard's spell to fizzle entirely.)

Afterwards, we've spoken about the subject for some time, looking at various things in the books. Amongst those things were:

1. "After constructing the body from clay, flesh, iron, or stone, the golem's creator infuses it with a spirit from the Elemental Plane of Earth. This tiny spark of life has no memory, personality, or history. It is simply the impetus to move and obey. This process binds the spirit to the artificial body and subjects it to the will of the golem's creator."
AND
"A golem can't think or act for itself. Though it understands its commands perfectly, it has no grasp of language beyond that understanding, and can't be reasoned with or tricked with words."
AND
"Its brain is capable of simple reason, though its thoughts are no more sophisticated than those of a young child." .... "Its dead flesh isn't an ideal container for an elemental spirit, which sometimes
howls incoherently to vent its outrage."

This didn't help much. I kept to the point that, whilst there was an earth elemental piloting the fleshy bulky golem it still had to follow its creator's orders and that the elemental itself wasn't in risk of danger to itself, rather to the prison that bound it. The other side of the spectrum was: "This elemental is sentient and knows fear. It has thoughts no more sophisticated that those of a young child, so one could argue they are comparative and small children DO know fear and the elemental spirit sometimes howls incoherent outrage, which means it has emotions."

The Bard's main argument was that, according to RAW, it holds true. There's the earlier example of Suggestion, and there are other spells which specifically mention exceptions. Additionally, a brief search of the Monster Manual showed that roughly 40 monsters also had immunity against the Frightened Condition, which weren't all as easily "explained away" as the construct flesh golem.

In the end, everyone was agreed upon that essentially it boils down to DM's discretion/ruling. Especially considering the flow of the game, and that we should investigate afterwards. My personal expectation of posting this question here was that we'd probably receive "According to RAW, the bard is right... but the DM should have the final say.". Regardless, I'm curious what people's opinions are.

Clay golems are immune to psychic damage.

[Sleffie]

Clay golems are immune to psychic damage.

But... it was a flesh golem?

Still, if it was a clay golem. Would you have said that the psychic damage wouldn't have gone through, but the forced movement would have? (Clay golems have the same condition immunities vs. charmed and frightened.)

[Vogonjeltz]

But... it was a flesh golem?

Right, and they are not. Ergo, it is intended to function.

No, if it were a clay golem it could not work, in the same way that poison damage immune creatures don't suffer from any riders related to a poison.

I'd also add that the line in the creature description indicates the flesh golem is capable of simple reason by virtue of having a brain, which is in contrast to all the other kinds of golems (who are also psychic immune)

[Sleffie]

I agree with your decision to rule it that way in terms of running the game how you see fit, but I look at it differently. Dissonant whispers is an enchantment, and as such it can compel a creature to do certain things. It bears similarity to fear, but it's different from, say, the Fear spell which is an illusion that imposes the frightened condition. I would run the spell as written, and force it to move away. It's not being frightened, it's being compelled.

Fear came up. Would you rule that, whilst the golem wouldn't get the Frightened Condition, it did have to drop everything it was holding? (Ignoring the fact a Flesh Golem doesn't hold anything.)

Additionally, how would you feel in regards to Phantasmal Killer? It's also an illusion spell, which states that targets get the Frightened Condition. Aside from that, it also states: At the start of each of the target’s turns before the spell ends, the target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or take 4d10 psychic damage. On a successful save, the spell ends.

[pwykersotz]

Fear came up. Would you rule that, whilst the golem wouldn't get the Frightened Condition, it did have to drop everything it was holding? (Ignoring the fact a Flesh Golem doesn't hold anything.)

Additionally, how would you feel in regards to Phantasmal Killer? It's also an illusion spell, which states that targets get the Frightened Condition. Aside from that, it also states: At the start of each of the target’s turns before the spell ends, the target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or take 4d10 psychic damage. On a successful save, the spell ends.

Now this is my table rulings, so extrapolate at your own risk. :smalltongue:

I would rule with Fear that no, it would not drop what it was holding. Like I said, I agree with your ruling in concept, because you were trying to go with the underlying theme of the spell rather than be slave to the exact RAW. I just have a different view of Dissonant Whispers in its underlying concept. But I would rule that everything in the spell Fear is in the context of...well...fear. I would have it be unaffected.

With Phantasmal Killer I would rule similarly. There is nothing to be made manifest because the target has no fears. Thus none of the spell effects can take place.

In addition to all of this, I would allow an Arcana check to know in general that spells which prey upon fear are not effective, and if a player didn't know my expectations, I'd probably allow them to retroactively roll and on a success change the spell that they used.

[Zaq]

Honestly? Immunities are annoying, and it should only be a rare circumstance where an immunity negates a PC's abilities. (Especially for someone like a Bard who has a fixed list of spells known. It's one thing to punish the Wizard for picking the wrong spell today, but it's really frustrating to be punished for picking the wrong spell while making your character.) One problem I have with 3.5 is that it was entirely too free with making creatures immune to various things; I know 5e is trying to appeal to players of basically every other edition (give or take 4e), but was that really a selling point that we want to return to?

I'm not saying that PCs should always have their plans go exactly as expected, or that they should never encounter setbacks, or that everything should be equally effective. Of course there should be challenges that interfere with what the PCs expect to do. But I don't feel like it's good game design to just say "your toys don't work on this monster. At all." Do you also think it would be appropriate to tell the Rogue (if there were one in your party) that they couldn't Sneak Attack the golem? Sure, that's how it used to be, but that was annoying and it was one of the reasons I never actually played a Rogue in 3.5.

I mean, if your sensitivities are really bothered by a golem being forced to run away, then give it advantage on the saving throw or something. (But, of course, since you're spontaneously making the monster stronger by doing that, you need to compensate somehow; either give the party a bigger reward for beating it than you originally planned, or give it disadvantage on a saving throw that's equally important and that is actually used by the PCs, or give the Bard Inspiration for being clever, or something. Don't just tweak things to be spontaneously harder without applying an equal and opposite reaction. It's fine to premeditate making a monster stronger, but if you're spontaneously nerfing a specific PC's abilities at the table, they should get a consolation prize.) But don't drag us back to the bad old days of "half the Monster Manual is immune to half the PCs, so you'd better hope that you're one of the people who actually gets to have fun with their toys today." I think the Bard was clever for picking a spell that had the effect they wanted without triggering an annoying immunity, and I believe that GMs should reward cleverness rather than punishing it.

[Sleffie]

Right, and they are not. Ergo, it is intended to function.

No, if it were a clay golem it could not work, in the same way that poison damage immune creatures don't suffer from any riders related to a poison.

So, if I understand it right. A clay golem would not get the psychic damage (due to obvious immunity to psyhic damage) and as such also wouldn't be compelled to move.

However, in regards to Fear, which says "Each creature in a 30-foot cone must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or drop whatever it is holding and become frightened for the duration." it -would- drop whatever it is holding, due to that being worded before the frightened effect? As opposed to your earlier mentioned poisoned effects, which I can't find as easily and I'm hoping you'll enlighten me one. (I will admit, I do not have the fortitude to look for it right now.)


I'd also add that the line in the creature description indicates the flesh golem is capable of simple reason by virtue of having a brain, which is in contrast to all the other kinds of golems (who are also psychic immune)

Fair, it does specifically mention the brain as opposed to the elemental spirit mentioned in the Iron and Clay golem. (A Stone golem doesn't mention either, so... ehh...) Still... the psychic immunity is a thing. Amongst those lines, I guess you could say that the former brain of whatever the Flesh Golem is composed of is dominated, but still essentially a brain. Making it so that, as you said, it is intended to function.

[Sleffie]

Honestly? Immunities are annoying, and it should only be a rare circumstance where an immunity negates a PC's abilities. (Especially for someone like a Bard who has a fixed list of spells known. It's one thing to punish the Wizard for picking the wrong spell today, but it's really frustrating to be punished for picking the wrong spell while making your character.)

As soon as it came up, the Bard argued "Hrm... I should replace this spell with another one, then.". Which rang alarm bells for me. (We just rebooted our game sessions with an alternative gig; A status quo we returned to, DM's could switch between 1-X sessions, parties could vary depending on who of the players was present. So simple tweaks to your character were okay.) I still felt Dissonant Whispers was a great spell, its damage is decent for a 1st level spell besides the utility. Regardless, by sheer happenstance we had six players. I obviously try to have every character have their moment in the limelight/to shine, but regardless. This still seemed off for me. Still, I wouldn't argue that they're punished for picking the wrong spell, when it works tons of other times.


I'm not saying that PCs should always have their plans go exactly as expected, or that they should never encounter setbacks, or that everything should be equally effective. Of course there should be challenges that interfere with what the PCs expect to do. But I don't feel like it's good game design to just say "your toys don't work on this monster. At all." Do you also think it would be appropriate to tell the Rogue (if there were one in your party) that they couldn't Sneak Attack the golem? Sure, that's how it used to be, but that was annoying and it was one of the reasons I never actually played a Rogue in 3.5.

I don't think the Flesh Golem doesn't have weaknesses the Rogue couldn't exploit with it's Sneak Attack. It feels solid that certain parts of its fleshy fleshness are more vulnerable than other parts and exploiting that is fair game, regardless of how it was in 3.5. Nothing of what I read in the 5e DMG or the fluff suggests anything of the sorts to me.


I mean, if your sensitivities are really bothered by a golem being forced to run away, then give it advantage on the saving throw or something. (But, of course, since you're spontaneously making the monster stronger by doing that, you need to compensate somehow; either give the party a bigger reward for beating it than you originally planned, or give it disadvantage on a saving throw that's equally important and that is actually used by the PCs, or give the Bard Inspiration for being clever, or something. Don't just tweak things to be spontaneously harder without applying an equal and opposite reaction. It's fine to premeditate making a monster stronger, but if you're spontaneously nerfing a specific PC's abilities at the table, they should get a consolation prize.) But don't drag us back to the bad old days of "half the Monster Manual is immune to half the PCs, so you'd better hope that you're one of the people who actually gets to have fun with their toys today." I think the Bard was clever for picking a spell that had the effect they wanted without triggering an annoying immunity, and I believe that GMs should reward cleverness rather than punishing it.

The Bard was being clever. His tactic was solid. The Flesh Golem was struck by Booming Blade and if it would willingly move it'd get additional damage. (Which it would have to do, since after the involuntary movement, it wasn't in range to smash people with it's fleshy fists.) I appreciated that, and so did everyone else. It wasn't a point of taking away their toys. (Not to mention that if it had been many of the other types of creatures it probably wouldn't even have struck a cord with me.) It was the fact it was caused by a spell which, RP/Fluff-wise felt like some sort of fear effect.

Admittedly, due to the nature of this night's session. Which had six players (which for sake of gameflow, and being able to put everyone in the spotlight, I'll refrain from in the future. But I figured was alright because we were establishing the setting that would from that point on would allow varying DM's, party squads, etc.) I pitted the players against a fairly tough mix of monsters all led by the BBEG holed up in their future home. Still, since it was one siege of a relatively small mansion/stronghold, I figured everyone could blow their spell slots and 1/rest abilities.


Eh... I don't know. I notice I'm defending myself. I apologize. Thanks for your feedback and opinions. I think I'm mostly defending myself against the concept of "taking away toys" or deliberately not trying to have the players have a good time.

Regardless, I read a lot of interesting things. Since I've posted the link to this thread to the Bard as soon as I posted it, we'll continue bantering over it soon I imagine. (All in good spirits, after all, it's a game and the intention is for everyone to have fun.) Everything I've posted in reponse is just for more clarification. I'm extremely happy and grateful towards everyone who responds.

Xoxo.

[joaber]

You can simply interpret that dissonant whisppers isn't about fear.

Just imagine you're passing by a street and the loudest alarm you ever heard start beeping. You run away, not because you're with fear, you do always because that thing destroyed your eardrums. Same thing with dissonant whisppers but directly in your brain, that's why he cause psychic damage, that's why a deaf creature save automatically, not the fearless one.

Just be creative to make things fit in your campaing instead of house rule what works great how it is.

[hacksnake]

Caveat: I haven't investigated the RAW for the scenario in any detail; I'm taking OP's word that RAW says the spell works & he house ruled it on the fly weakening the result of the bard's action vs. what you might have expected the result to be based on the rules of the game.

I think in cases like this you really strongly need to balance DM Fiat against Player agency & fun. For me player agency/fun will typically win regardless of which side of the screen I'm on.

Here's the problem, as I see it, in a nutshell.
The rules say the DM can rewrite the rules.
The rules (+ whatever house rules the DM provides @ character creation time etc) are the only information the players have about how the game works.
The players need to make all sorts of permanent decisions based on that sort of limited information.

Everytime, literally every single time, you house rule something after the fact that directly contradicts how the rules are written you are potentially undermining irreversible decisions that a player has made and is stuck with (unless they roll a new character or you allow them a redo on something etc).

It's not fun to make decisions in a game in good faith and then later have the rug pulled out from under your feet because the rules suddenly changed.

Is it honestly more fun to make golems immune to Dissonant Whispers?
Are you nerfing the bard's spell "just because"?
It kind of reads like the reason is "just because".

I don't think "just because" is a good enough reason to destroy even a small amount of fun. You're all playing a game that has rules. Rewriting those rules changes the value proposition of previously committed decisions.

I bet your player is/was annoyed about the whole thing and didn't feel like there was a good reason to nerf his dude & that's exactly what you did - nerf his dude.

It's probably not a huge deal unless you run into these situations a lot. If that is the case you should probably offer him to redo his whole character however he sees fit based on the new information about how the game works all of a sudden. Ex: you're playing "Gonzo's House of Golem & Slime Horrors the Level 1-20 Campaign".

My $0.02. Some of this may have come across strongly; not taking the time to edit it. It's all really situational. TL;DR - I think you need to heavily weigh player agency & fun against changing how the rules work.

EDIT:
I think there's an important distinction to be drawn between adjudicating an action that the rules are even a little hazy about vs. changing how the rules (spells/feats/etc) work.

I say I want to swing from a chandelier to get across the lava. There's no clear rules for how that works. Purely DM fiat. There's a good case to imagine it'll probably be Athletics or Acrobatics or maybe "pick which ever is better" between them. But maybe there's also real good information you lack that influences it. Like the chandelier is actually not structurally sound and will collapse under a load... so it's impossible to make it across.

For me, that's the point of "rule 0". Adjudicating an action that really has no clear rules for it. Also, there's no reason you have to use MM monsters (although you might want to set the expectation that you'll have homebrew monsters with the players up front). Maybe your flesh golems aren't MM flesh golems. That should be true before the encounter begins though.

I don't think "rule 0" is really intended to extend to "I don't think this spell should work this way after you cast it already so now the rules are suddenly different". I think it's an important distinction.

[JackPhoenix]

Perhaps the golem doesn't run because it's afraid (it can't feel fear, after all), but because Dissonant Whispers scrambled its "programming" (psychic damage is a point for this theory) in a way that's consistent with ordering it to run.

Perhaps Dissonant Whispers isn't about making the target afraid, but about figuratively hacking its brain.

[Serket]

Since the OP mentioned it, Dissonant Whispers doesn't use language (or have a language restriction). It's a whispered melody. The bard hurts your brain with music only you can hear.

This music affects nervous systems directly, so presumably it can overload the (semi-dead?) brain that serves as a control centre for the flesh golem. I mean, if you want a rationalisation :smallsmile:

[Vogonjeltz]

So, if I understand it right. A clay golem would not get the psychic damage (due to obvious immunity to psyhic damage) and as such also wouldn't be compelled to move.

Correct.


However, in regards to Fear, which says "Each creature in a 30-foot cone must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or drop whatever it is holding and become frightened for the duration." it -would- drop whatever it is holding, due to that being worded before the frightened effect? As opposed to your earlier mentioned poisoned effects, which I can't find as easily and I'm hoping you'll enlighten me one. (I will admit, I do not have the fortitude to look for it right now.)

For anything immune to the Frightened condition, I'd posit that the entire spell is effectively negated in that case.

Mmmm maybe I'm thinking of the sage advice on purity of body granting immunity to poison confers immunity to poison damage and immunity to the poisoned condition. I didn't turn up anything with an also cursory search (other than only finding examples of monsters where poison immunity and poisoned condition immunity go hand in hand, and some sage advice on purity of body conferring immunity to poison damage and the poisoned condition).

[Nu]

If the spell works via RAW, I would prefer to bend my interpretation of the spell's effect to make it work rather than bend the RAW to make it not work. But that's just me. Say the psychic damage of Dissonant Whispers scrambles the golem's programming (as was previously mentioned) so it suddenly moves in another direction. Or something to that effect.