Conquest Paladin and Fear Spell

[Spankinstein]

“The Paladin calls upon his god, denouncing his enemies, making them tremble in fear. They flee in terror before his horrible might. He charges after them upon his loyal steed, easily closing the distance....and they turn.... and attack him?????
I really have an issue with the way Aura of Conquest and the Fear spell “work” or more like “don’t work” together.

FEAR

You project a phantasmal image of a creature's worst fears. 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.

While Frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move. If the creature ends its turn in a location where it doesn't have line of sight to you, the creature can make a Wisdom saving throw. On a successful save, the spell ends for that creature.

Aura of Conquest

Starting at 7th level, you constantly emanate a menacing aura while you’re not incapacitated. The aura extends 10 feet from you in every direction, but not through total cover.

If a creature is frightened of you, its speed is reduced to 0 while in the aura, and that creature takes psychic damage equal to half your paladin level if it starts its turn there.

At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30 feet.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1024766425846534144?s=20

According to the powers that be, an enemy that is under the effect of your fear spell and is within your aura can take any action it wants, attack, cast, grapple, drink a potion....

So what should be the defining tool in the Conquest Paladins arsenal, isn’t. The fear spell states that an affected creature MUST take the Dash action and move away unless there is nowhere to flee. There are plenty of places to flee unless you happen to be fighting in a 10 by 10 room. Does it say anywhere in the rules you can’t take the Dash action if your move is 0? I believe the enemy takes the Dash action, its trying to flee in terror, but it’s nearly paralyzed in fear, and can’t move. It wastes its action in Dashing with a move of 0.
If this combo works as I believe it should, is it too OP?

[AttilatheYeon]

The Crawford tweet should be a general fear mechanical ruling. The Fear spell has specific rules attached. When using the Fear spell, all those affected MUST take the dash action as detailed in the spell. Other fear abilities including your channel divinity that do not include extra mechanics follows JC tweet.

[Spankinstein]

So do you think that if that is the case, that it is incredibly powerful?

[intregus]

It is incredibly powerful but that's the point of the aura.

Dragonborn with their racial feat, the channel divinity and the fear spell makes the conquest paladin a force to be reckoned with after you hit level 7 and gain the aura.

[Deliverance]

I must disagree.

Dashing is movement by definition. Mechanically it is implemented as spending your action for extra movement.

When your movement is reduced to zero, you can't move, so you can't dash. Any GM that would rule otherwise because the rules didn't explicitly state this, and thus allowed stationary dashing, would be off his rocker.

And if you don't accept that argument, because you care about RAW rather than RAI, and ignore the meaning of dashing and physics, then how about: When you are stationary you have nowhere to move, so you fall squarely under the FEAR spell ruling that the "you have to dash" doesn't apply when there's nowhere to move.

Aura of conquest makes your enemies so scared they can't flee you. It doesn't incapacitate them or make them unable to act against you.

Your combo shouldn't work.

[AttilatheYeon]

Just remember, aura or conquest doesn't play nice with the Fear spell. The target has a movement of 0, so in effect has "no where to move". To some DMs this may mean they don't have to use a dash to get away.

[AttilatheYeon]

I must disagree.

Dashing is movement by definition. Mechanically it is extra movement.

When your movement is reduced to zero, you can't move, so you can't dash. Any GM that would rule otherwise because the rules didn't explicitly state this, and thus allowed stationary dashing, would be off his rocker.

And if you don't accept that argument, because you care about RAW rather than RAI, and ignore the meaning of dashing and physics, then how about: When you are stationary you have nowhere to move, so you fall squarely under the FEAR spell ruling that the "you have to dash" doesn't apply when there's nowhere to move.

Aura of conquest makes your enemies so scared they can't flee you. It doesn't incapacitate them or make them unable to act against you.

Your combo shouldn't work.

I changed my response because of this. I disagree that all DMs should agree and abide by this reasoning, but it is a fair arguement.

[Spankinstein]

So if you are affected by a Fear spell and don’t have the will to move, you could still light a torch, read a scroll, retrieve and drink a potion, Conjure animals and mentally command them, etc. THAT, doesn’t make sense.

[Spankinstein]

Can’t move and nowhere to move are two different things.

[Amnestic]

I agree with the OP. The combo should work. Dash's text doesn't state it can't be used with zero movement, and the Fear ruling seems to only apply if they're boxed in by physical walls - assuming there is space they could flee to if they have movement, Fear and Conquest aura should work together.

Dashing isn't movement. It's an action that grants you additional movement. Conquest aura doesn't stop you taking the Dash action, therefore they must still take it per the Fear spell.

[Deliverance]

I agree with the OP. The combo should work. Dash's text doesn't state it can't be used with zero movement, and the Fear ruling seems to only apply if they're boxed in by physical walls - assuming there is space they could flee to if they have movement, Fear and Conquest aura should work together.

Dashing isn't movement. It's an action that grants you additional movement. Conquest aura doesn't stop you taking the Dash action, therefore they must still take it per the Fear spell.
Dash isn't a word chosen at random to describe an action in 5e without any relation to a real world concept or meaning - it is a word that already has a meaning, and the action is an implementation of that conceptual meaning in the D&D framework.

The concept of dashing, in the sense it is used in the English language of sudden rapid movement (rather than e.g. the sense of dashing one thing on the other), is mechanically implemented in 5e as an action that grants you additional movement.

The movement concept of dashing does not allow dashing without moving; it is nonsense in the English language.

To state that you can do stationary dashing, because it is not explicitly excluded in the description of the mechanical implementation of the concept, is declaring the meaning of the concept irrelevant do its mechanical implementation.

But fair enough. Let the concept be meaningless, if that's what you desire. If going by RAW here is yet another reason who you can't dash with zero movement.

By RAW "When you take the Dash action, you gain extra Movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers. With a speed of 30 feet, for example, you can move up to 60 feet on Your Turn if you dash."

With a speed of 0, "dashing" would contradict itself, as the first part says you gain extra movement for the turn, but the second explains that your movement for the turn would be 0, so you do not gain extra movement for the turn because 0 is not greater than 0 and gaining nothing is not gaining something extra.

[Amnestic]

if that's what you desire. If going by RAW here is yet another reason who you can't dash with zero movement.

By RAW "When you take the Dash action, you gain extra Movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers. With a speed of 30 feet, for example, you can move up to 60 feet on Your Turn if you dash."

With a speed of 0, "dashing" would contradict itself, as the first part says you gain extra movement for the turn, but the second explains that your movement for the turn would be 0, so you do not gain extra movement for the turn because 0 is not greater than 0 and gaining nothing is not gaining something extra.

You gain extra movement. The extra movement is equivalent to your move speed.

That's it. Even if your move speed is 0, that still satisfies the terms of the Dash action, and thus the Fear spell.

And I'm super confused by you explaining how the RAI from your perspective is that one of the conquest paladin's Oath spells doesn't work in a sensible way with their Oath Aura. If you wanna rule otherwise at your table go nuts, just make sure any prospective conquestadins know well in advance that their Fear spell gets less effective if they're stood next to their target.

[Civis Mundi]

Personally, I think it would work. My reasoning is this:



As mentioned, Fear specifies that "a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move." It doesn't say unless the creature is unable to move. It only stipulates that there must be space available where it could move, if its speed were not reduced to 0. This is a "cornered lion" mechanic. Otherwise, it must use its action to Dash, doubling 0 to 0 and remaining in place.



Considering it's on the Conquest Paladin's spell list, and not the result of a creative multiclass, I would assume the mechanics are designed to work together, rather than negate each other. If that were not already the case, I would surely rule it so in my own games.



It's definitely strong, but I'm still not sure it's better than a Vengeance Paladin. Their spell list alone is hard to beat, even without their other powerful features. Besides, lots of creatures have resistance or immunity to fear.

[Aett_Thorn]

Yes, the aura and spell effect are strong, but not OP. Compared to other Paladins, which get an always-on effect, the Conquest Paladin has to use other effects or spells to make their aura work. And if an enemy makes their save against the effect, the aura still does nothing. So it should be strong if you can get it to work.

[intregus]

Yes, the aura and spell effect are strong, but not OP. Compared to other Paladins, which get an always-on effect, the Conquest Paladin has to use other effects or spells to make their aura work. And if an enemy makes their save against the effect, the aura still does nothing. So it should be strong if you can get it to work.

This!

Conquest can be strong but like others have said vengenace spell list is crazy good, ancients gets always on resistance to magice damage etc.

The OP combo in my opinion should work.

[CheddarChampion]

Dragonborn with their racial feat, the channel divinity and the fear spell

Don't forget Wrathful Smite!

[MrStabby]

Its fine. I mean it's twitter not RAW.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking the dash action to double your move speed of zero. Perfectly permitted.

[Mikal]

I must disagree.

Dashing is movement by definition. Mechanically it is implemented as spending your action for extra movement.

When your movement is reduced to zero, you can't move, so you can't dash. Any GM that would rule otherwise because the rules didn't explicitly state this, and thus allowed stationary dashing, would be off his rocker.

And if you don't accept that argument, because you care about RAW rather than RAI, and ignore the meaning of dashing and physics, then how about: When you are stationary you have nowhere to move, so you fall squarely under the FEAR spell ruling that the "you have to dash" doesn't apply when there's nowhere to move.

Aura of conquest makes your enemies so scared they can't flee you. It doesn't incapacitate them or make them unable to act against you.

Your combo shouldn't work.

Fear spell says you must take the dash action. Therefore even if you have 0 movement you must take it as an action. Period (RAW)


0+0= 0.

Just because it would normally be a bad move doesn’t matter and is in many ways the point. You’ve made them quake in fear so bad all they want to do is run away but they. Just. Can’t.

Think of it as a soft incapacitate in that they can use bonus actions (such as misty step) or reactions (such as OAs)

[Nagog]

I must disagree.

Dashing is movement by definition. Mechanically it is implemented as spending your action for extra movement.

When your movement is reduced to zero, you can't move, so you can't dash. Any GM that would rule otherwise because the rules didn't explicitly state this, and thus allowed stationary dashing, would be off his rocker.

And if you don't accept that argument, because you care about RAW rather than RAI, and ignore the meaning of dashing and physics, then how about: When you are stationary you have nowhere to move, so you fall squarely under the FEAR spell ruling that the "you have to dash" doesn't apply when there's nowhere to move.

Aura of conquest makes your enemies so scared they can't flee you. It doesn't incapacitate them or make them unable to act against you.

Your combo shouldn't work.

I don't think that RAI the spell and aura don't work together. The spell alone is useful, the aura alone is useless, so are you proposing that this Aura (keeping in mind subclass auras are some of the most powerful Paladin features) is in reality not much more than a Channel Divinity upgrade, and does not work with a spell that is on it's subclass list and is only attainable on the cusp of Tier 3?


Can’t move and nowhere to move are two different things.

This is the exact reason I feel it should work. If you take the Disengage action, but are stopped by Sentinel, you still took the Disengage action even if it gained you nothing. This is the same way.

The combination of this spell and this Aura works as a small AoE Stun, denying enemies who failed a Wisdom save their action (though Bonus Actions and Legendary Actions are still available for use).

[sithlordnergal]

Dash isn't a word chosen at random to describe an action in 5e without any relation to a real world concept or meaning - it is a word that already has a meaning, and the action is an implementation of that conceptual meaning in the D&D framework.

The concept of dashing, in the sense it is used in the English language of sudden rapid movement (rather than e.g. the sense of dashing one thing on the other), is mechanically implemented in 5e as an action that grants you additional movement.

I mean, there's no real point in trying to bring definitions into DnD rule discussions. If there was then there wouldn't be so many conversations on how Obscurment, Vision, and Darkness, both magical and non-magical, work...and that is a can of worms that should not be opened. As it is, RAW defines a Dash as an Action and states "When you take the Dash action, you gain extra Movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers...Any increase or decrease to your speed changes this additional Movement by the same amount. If your speed of 30 feet is reduced to 15 feet, for instance, you can move up to 30 feet this turn if you dash."

Given RAW itself calls out your speed being reduced, then that means you can Dash with a 0 movement speed, and therefore you add 0 to your movement. With Fear, that means you have to take the Dash action while having a Speed of 0.

It also means that if you are trapped in a Conquest Paladin's Aura while under the Fear spell you are unable to take any other Actions at all until the Paladin chooses to move out of your Line of Sight. Though you are allowed to use Bonus Actions and Reactions, since neither of those are blocked by Fear or the Paladin Aura.


As for your argument about there being nowhere to move, that is also false. Having a movement speed of zero and having nowhere to move to are very different statements. One means you can move, but can move 0 feet, the other means you are trapped in a box that has physical barriers preventing you from moving, such as getting trapped in a 5-by-5 wall of force so that you cannot move even if you had the movement speed to do so


TLDR: This combo works by RAW, and I suspect it works by RAI. And while it is a powerful combo, its also fairly useless the higher your level is, given that Frightened is one of those Conditions that almost everything and their mom is immune to...outside of the PCs.

[Dork_Forge]

It is incredibly powerful but that's the point of the aura.

Dragonborn with their racial feat, the channel divinity and the fear spell makes the conquest paladin a force to be reckoned with after you hit level 7 and gain the aura.

To add to this, the new leonin race from Theros get a bonus action fear aoe that recharges on a short rest.

[Contrast]

My initial thought would have been just to rule that it works like Turning - if they can't move away then they take the dodge action instead.

Having thought a bit more about it I would be slightly concerned about the fact it turns fear saves into an effective save vs death seeing as they will never get another save and can't use their action for anything so the party could kill them at leisure. On the one hand given the 10ft bubble, 30ft cone and non-party safe nature of Fear it'll be difficult to use effectively, on the other hand save or die doesn't have to get many people to be powerful.

[Chronos]

The Fear spell, all by itself, prevents enemies from taking any effective actions. The conquest paladin aura is supposed to make fear effects more effective. It goes completely against the design of the aura to rule that it instead makes the Fear spell less effective.

[diplomancer]

I think letting them take the Dodge action is, though obviously not RAW, still very powerful
(specially considering that, unlike Turn Undead, the effect persists after target takes damage) and somewhat thematic.
But I agree with those that, by RAW, they can't even take the Dodge action, though it's the kind of thing that some DMs will consider nerfing or, worse, nullifying altogeither by heavily Schewing the number of fear-immune enemies.

[x3n0n]

I've missed this a couple of times now in my own play:


When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage. You lose this benefit if you are incapacitated or if your speed drops to 0.

[diplomancer]

I've missed this a couple of times now in my own play:

Interesting; looks like the best way to deal with someone who's dodging is to grapple them, which kinda makes sense.

[Honk]

I guess the real intention behind the „must take dash action“ thing is to get away as fast and as far as possible. Not moving 30ft and then turning around to shoot from outside the spell range or doing other stuff while officially scared.

[Benny89]

I must disagree.

Dashing is movement by definition. Mechanically it is implemented as spending your action for extra movement.

When your movement is reduced to zero, you can't move, so you can't dash. Any GM that would rule otherwise because the rules didn't explicitly state this, and thus allowed stationary dashing, would be off his rocker.

And if you don't accept that argument, because you care about RAW rather than RAI, and ignore the meaning of dashing and physics, then how about: When you are stationary you have nowhere to move, so you fall squarely under the FEAR spell ruling that the "you have to dash" doesn't apply when there's nowhere to move.

Aura of conquest makes your enemies so scared they can't flee you. It doesn't incapacitate them or make them unable to act against you.

Your combo shouldn't work.

That is BS. I don't know if you ever in life experienced fear sitiation (real fear) but once I was attacked by a dog, a really big dog. I was in the corner and he was standing there, teeth out and I was sure he will start to maul me. I wanted to run, but my legs would not move, yet I could only think of trying to run away, but I was terrified. I couldn't move even though I wanted.

If you want less-real-life example is when you have nightmare and something horrible is chasing you, yet you can't start moving, even though all you want is to run away.

That is how it feels I guess inside Fear aura of Conquest + Fear spell. You want to Dash, you try very hard, yet your legs can't move. You don't think logically ("Ow, I can't move so won't dash, I will take attack action instead") because you are terrified.

That's how I see it as DM. Combo does work.

[Sception]

my table has always played that a Feared target under the effect of Aura of Conquest can still use their action as they wish, since their speed 0 leaves them 'nowhere to escape to'. That's the interpretation the 'Wall of Fear' optimization thread for the Conquest Paladin has also always used to my knowledge, so this answer is only confirming how I and at least some others already thought this worked.

And you know what? Even with the more restrictive, less powerful interpretation, it's still an incredibly powerful combo. Yes, the creature can still attack, but they do so with disadvantage. A penalty they'll never escape because they cannot make new saves against Fear while trapped in the aura, which they cannot escape while under the effect of Fear.

This is already a highly effective debuff/cc combo. There is no need for it to be stronger.

With the interpretation that a trapped enemy still can't act, Fear on a conqueror becomes an AoE, single save, save or die, something that 5e in general takes pains to avoid, and with good reason imo. I don't think it's reasonable to complain about how something that's already extremely strong isn't much stronger still.

They're still trapped in place. They still have disadvantage on all attack and skill checks. They're still suffering psychic damage every round. And they have no hope of escape other than either you failing a concentration save (unlikely, especially in games that use feat), or an ally gives up a turn to physically shove them out of the aura. If regular fear is better than that - as it will be against some enemies, particularly those who attack by forcing saves instead of rolling to hit, you can just walk out of aura range of them.



I don't mean to oversell the combo as it is. There are several enemies that are immune to frighten, and even more with some combination of sky high wisdom saves, spell resistance, or legendary saves. Even so, it's still strong as is. I don't think it will destroy your game to go with the 'Fear + AoC is a save or die' interpretation, but the more restrictive interpretation is more in line with 5e design philosophy, and still quite good indeed.

[Honk]

And you know what? Even with the more restrictive, less powerful interpretation, it's still an incredibly powerful combo. Yes, the creature can still attack, but they do so with disadvantage.

QfT

And the rules state „unless there is nowhere to move“. With speed 0, your options are kinda slim.

And it is too funny, when the poor prey struggles, but can’t beat your AC in full plate with shield, while you backhand away at them... and if somebody poor sod breaks free at the end of his turn, he’ll get a wrathful smite right where it hurts.

[Mikal]

my table has always played that a Feared target under the effect of Aura of Conquest can still use their action as they wish, since their speed 0 leaves them 'nowhere to escape to'. That's the interpretation the 'Wall of Fear' optimization thread for the Conquest Paladin has also always used to my knowledge, so this answer is only confirming how I and at least some others already thought this worked.

And you know what? Even with the more restrictive, less powerful interpretation, it's still an incredibly powerful combo. Yes, the creature can still attack, but they do so with disadvantage. A penalty they'll never escape because they cannot make new saves against Fear while trapped in the aura, which they cannot escape while under the effect of Fear.

This is already a highly effective debuff/cc combo. There is no need for it to be stronger.

With the interpretation that a trapped enemy still can't act, Fear on a conqueror becomes an AoE, single save, save or die, something that 5e in general takes pains to avoid, and with good reason imo. I don't think it's reasonable to complain about how something that's already extremely strong isn't much stronger still.

They're still trapped in place. They still have disadvantage on all attack and skill checks. They're still suffering psychic damage every round. And they have no hope of escape other than either you failing a concentration save (unlikely, especially in games that use feat), or an ally gives up a turn to physically shove them out of the aura. If regular fear is better than that - as it will be against some enemies, particularly those who attack by forcing saves instead of rolling to hit, you can just walk out of aura range of them.



I don't mean to oversell the combo as it is. There are several enemies that are immune to frighten, and even more with some combination of sky high wisdom saves, spell resistance, or legendary saves. Even so, it's still strong as is. I don't think it will destroy your game to go with the 'Fear + AoC is a save or die' interpretation, and the more restrictive interpretation is still quite good indeed.

That’s a nice house rule for your games I guess, but it’s not RAW. RAW and RAI the fear spell forces you to take the dash action. Period. It’s not an “interpretation”. The Fear spells says “must take the dash action” not “must take the dash action unless...”.

So it’s not up for interpreting: it says X. X is the RAW and RAI.

It doesn’t matter if you’re restrained. It doesn’t matter if you’re caught in the conquest aura and have 0 movement.

That’s the ONLY action you can use. Your house rule weakens the core concept of the subclass. If your table wants that, fine. Thankfully I don’t play in that game.

Compare this to the wand of fear, which specifies if they can’t take the dash action they are allowed to take the dodge action. The wand of fear does not cast the fear spell but is similar. It allows different effects and saves from the fear effect.

Now that being said, your bonus action is still free to do whatever with. So if you have misty step for example you can teleport out of the 0 movement zone and then use your dash enhanced movement to escape.

So maybe instead of making half baked house roles that nerf classes for no reason, you just use things which are actually RAW to try and break out of the hold you’re in. You claim that a person can’t act while in the aura and that’s utterly incorrect. They just are limited in what they can do. And that’s the point of it.

[MrStabby]

Compare this to the wand of fear, which specifies if they can’t take the dash action they are allowed to take the dodge action. The wand of fear does not cast the fear spell but is similar. It allows different effects and saves from the fear effect.


So I dont have the text of the wand to hand, but is sounds like it's similar rather than different. It forces the dash action still. You can still dash action even if your speed is zero - there is no restriction on the use of the action to creatures whose speed is greater than zero. An action doesnt have to be productive for you to be allowed to do it.

[Sception]

That’s a nice house rule for your games I guess, but it’s not RAW. RAW and RAI the fear spell forces you to take the dash action. Period. It’s not an “interpretation”. The Fear spells says “must take the dash action” not “must take the dash action unless...”.

It literally does say 'must take the dash action ... unless'. To quote the spell directly:

"While Frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move."

With speed 0, there is nowhere for the target to move, so the 'unless' clause is triggered, freeing up the target's actions, though they still suffer the effects of frighten and aura of conquest with no hope of escape, so its still a very strong cc.

This interpretation is reinforced by explicit RAI as well. There really isn't room for good faith disagreement here. The RAW is clear enough, and the RAI reinforces it.

...

The wand of fear and mace of terror are NOT the same. They explicitly force the target to cower/dodge if they cannot flee, which Fear DOES NOT do. But that's not the only difference, because the wand and mace allow saves to escape the effect every round no matter what, while the spell only allows saves if the target successfully flees out of line of effect. This is a critical second difference, which balances out the first and prevents the effects from becoming functional 'single save of die' for enemies with no escape.

If you want to house rule the Fear spell to work like a wand of Fear, that's fine, but if you do then you should go all the way with it, by also allowing saves at the end of every round regardless of whether the object of fear is still in sight. If you do, though, you will find that you have made the overall combo weaker, not stronger. Which should reinforce the fact that Fear + Aura of Conquest is already strong enough that it really doesn't need extra help.

[Mikal]

So I dont have the text of the wand to hand, but is sounds like it's similar rather than different. It forces the dash action still. You can still dash action even if your speed is zero - there is no restriction on the use of the action to creatures whose speed is greater than zero. An action doesnt have to be productive for you to be allowed to do it.

Yes. I thought that’s what I had said in my post. Apologies if I didn’t. The difference between the wand and the spell is the wand allows other actions if you cannot dash for whatever reason (i.e. 0 movement)


It literally does say 'must take the dash action ... unless'. To quote the spell directly:

"While Frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move."

With speed 0, there is nowhere for the target to move, so the 'unless' clause is triggered, freeing up the target's actions, though they still suffer the effects of frighten and aura of conquest with no hope of escape, so its still a very strong cc.

Sorry but you’re wrong. That’s not how 5e works. If you were allowed other actions it would be stated in the spell description. Otherwise the wand of fear wouldn’t note you can take another action if you can’t move for whatever reason.

If the rule system intended for the fear spell to allow other actions besides Dash, then it would be stated.

[AHF]

Yes. I thought that’s what I had said in my post. Apologies if I didn’t. The difference between the wand and the spell is the wand allows other actions if you cannot dash for whatever reason (i.e. 0 movement)



Sorry but you’re wrong. That’s not how 5e works. If you were allowed other actions it would be stated in the spell description. Otherwise the wand of fear wouldn’t note you can take another action if you can’t move for whatever reason.

If the rule system intended for the fear spell to allow other actions besides Dash, then it would be stated.

I'm not certain what you are disagreeing with. Are you saying that:
(a) the fear spell doesn't allow for other actions even if there nowhere to move (i.e., you can never do anything other than dash)

or

(b) that the fear spell allows for other actions when there is nowhere to move but having 0 movement doesn't mean that there is nowhere to move?

I think you guys are disagreeing about the meaning of the phrase "nowhere to move" where two possible interpretations are:

(1) If there is no different spot to which you can move away from the source of the fear, then you have "nowhere to move." Under this interpretation, having 0 movement means there is nowhere for you to move regardless of whether you are trapped in a corner or in an open room with plenty of space around you and you can take other actions.

or

(2) For there to be "nowhere to move" means that there is literally no space into which you could move even if you had normal movement. Under this interpretation, your movement speed is irrelevant and instead the only inquiry is around your physical surroundings. If trapped in a box or a corner, etc. where there is no physical space into which you could move away from the source of fear then the exception applies and you can take other actions. But if there is open space away from the source of the fear, then it doesn't matter that you can't move and you must take the dash action in an effort to get away.

I think you are proposing that the correct interpretations are (b) and (2) but I can't tell for sure that you don't think (a) is right and that Dash is the only available action under all circumstances.

[Mikal]

I’m stating that regardless of any other circumstances while under the effects of the fear spell the only action you can take is dash, unless there is literally nowhere you can move to (if you had movement)

Speed 0 doesn’t negate the fact you have places you can move to, and as I stated there are ways to move even with 0 movement and no actions available such as misty step.

Edit: against using the wand of fear as an example, that provides you a second action you can use if you are unable to move while under its effects. I’d the fear spell allowed other actions when you cannot move (but have places you could move to if you could move) it would, like the wand, state what those are.

[Mukade]

I’m stating that regardless of any other circumstances while under the effects of the fear spell the only action you can take is dash, unless there is literally nowhere you can move to (if you had movement)

Speed 0 doesn’t negate the fact you have places you can move to, and as I stated there are ways to move even with 0 movement and no actions available such as misty step.

Edit: against using the wand of fear as an example, that provides you a second action you can use if you are unable to move while under its effects. I’d the fear spell allowed other actions when you cannot move (but have places you could move to if you could move) it would, like the wand, state what those are.

Could you not argue that by specifying which other actions the creature is allowed to take, the wand is more restrictive than the fear spell, which leaves it open?

However, if a creature can dash with a speed of 0 and make it a grand total of 0 feet, then the distinction is irrelevant.

If a creature affected by the wand is trapped in a corner, it can only dodge. If a creature affected by the fear spell is trapped in a corner, they can dodge or fight back (poorly).

[Mikal]

Could you not argue that by specifying which other actions the creature is allowed to take, the wand is more restrictive than the fear spell, which leaves it open?

Yes. And the wand is also easier to break free from vs the more restrictive fear spell.



However, if a creature can dash with a speed of 0 and make it a grand total of 0 feet, then the distinction is irrelevant.

Exactly.


If a creature affected by the wand is trapped in a corner, it can only dodge. If a creature affected by the fear spell is trapped in a corner, they can dodge or fight back (poorly).

I think that’s what I was trying to point out yes. But if you could move somewhere if you had movement available, you aren’t trapped in a corner.

Fun fact: creatures with 0 movement can’t take advantage of the dodge action benefits. I can’t remember if that was posted here or elsewhere. So that also means the wand is more effective though again, easier to break.

A bestow curse on such a subject would probably be best to give them disadvantage on those saves!

[Sception]

Can you move into any other space? No, because you do not have the movement to do so. The spell doesn't care why you can't move into the space, because it doesn't say it cares. With zero movement there is nowhere to move, so the 'unless' clause is triggered negating the requirement to dash. Without that requirement there are no other restrictions on the target's actions. Nothing in the spell restricts the actions of creatures with nowhere to move, so the normal actions are available to them.

Think of the normal situation that would trigger the clause - a cornered target. there might be any number of free spaces such a target could hypothetically occupy behind the caster, except that the frighten effect prevents them from moving closer to the caster first in order to reach the more distant spaces behind. The existance of an effect preventing the target from reaching those spaces means they are not spaces the target can move to. So like a target trapped by aura of conquest, they have nowhere to go, causing the 'unless' clause to trigger, and their actions can be used as they wish.

If there was any doubt on the RAW, Which is frankly plenty clear, the RAI answer clears it right up.

If there are no spaces you can move to, regardless of the reason, then you have nowhere to move. If you have nowhere to move, the Fear spell places no restrictions on your actions. It really is that simple.

[Amnestic]

If there was any doubt on the RAW, Which is frankly plenty clear, the RAI answer clears it right up.


You are stating RAI that the Oath spell becomes less effective when combined with that Oath aura.

I do not know why you would think that was the intention. I do know that you can't assert your reading as the one-true RAI.

[Mikal]

Can you move into any other space? No, because you do not have the movement to do so.

Yes you can move into any other space. You just can’t use movement to do so. See: misty step, shove, forced movement by others.

There’s a difference between cannot and may not.

0 movement is the latter.

[Sception]

By your definition the entire point ofvthe clause - that cornered enemies can act - wouldn't work at all because there exists available spaces anywhere in the multiverse regardless of their ability to reach them. DM has creature cornered by barrs act, you say, "no! there are open places behind those bars the creature could move to, if only those bars weren't there! If they could cast misty step they could get there!" It's a ridiculous and clearly disingenuous ruling.

And the spell isn't weaker with the aura. Trading the action restriction for a movement restriction is an upgrade when that movement restriction also prevents the target from making follow up saves, and if for any reason you think otherwise you can move out of aura range and allow the normal effects.

Enemies running away is bad, you get that, right? If a target isn't cornered, Fear has a tendency to trigger additionsl encounters, as the target comes back a couple rounds later, having successfully saved away the spell, and bringing another room's worth of mobs back with them. Feared enemies acting - with dusadvantage - and not moving, and not saving, that is absolutely a significant upgrade over the normal effect of Fear.

[Mikal]

Hyperbole and strawman much? The point being made is that if you could normally move somewhere with your standard/dash movement speed then it still forces a dash action.

Not “if somewhere in the multiverse exists then you could somehow get there lol”

So.. yeah. You’re obviously not wanting to seriously discuss this. I’m dropping out unless someone else wants to debate about it.

[Snails]

The point being made is that if you could normally move somewhere with your standard/dash movement speed then it still forces a dash action.

This is a good place for "rulings not rules" IMO.

I would be perfectly satisfied with the idea that a creature may perceive there to be "nowhere to run" due to the fact they recognize they lack the movement to ever get there. If the DM roleplays the creature as an entity with a mind that makes split second decisions based on its imperfect perceptions in the moment, there is no definitive answer. And I would be okay with the DM roleplaying the monsters, where some are inclined to fall on the ground and cower and others do otherwise.

[Sception]

You literally listed misty step, a teleport spell, as something that should invalidate the 'unless' clause.


Hyperbole and strawman much? The point being made is that if you could normally move somewhere with your standard/dash movement speed then it still forces a dash action.

No, it's not 'if you could normally', it's 'if you *can, now*. If you can't reach that further space because you are prevented from doing so by the frighten effect, that is not a space you can move to. If you can't reach that further space because it would require a fly speed and your wing is broken, that isn't a apace you can move to. If you can't reach that further space because there are bars in the way, that's not a space you can move to. If you can't reach that further space because you're trapped by a Web spell, that's not a space you can move to. If you can't reach that further space because you've been polymorphed into a T rex and you cannot physically fit, that isn't a space you can move to. If you can't reach that space because you've been grappled, that isn't a space you can move to. If you can't reach that space because there's a wall of force in the way, that isn't a space you can move to.

All of these are circumstantial restrictions that have nothing to do with what your character 'could normally' do, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what your character *can* do, and if there are no spaces the character *can* move to, then there is nowhere for them to go, the unless clause triggers, and the Fear spell no longer restricts their actions, though it still imposes the frightened condition.

This is the clearest interpretation, and the one supported by explicit RAI. See https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/09/19/if-a-creature-is-under-the-fear-spell-but-in-the-aura-of-conquest/

There really aren't any defensible grounds for alternative interpretations of the rules, here.

If you want to house rule an alternative version of Fear that restricts the actions of even trapped enemies, like wand of fear or mace of terror, that's for you and your table, but if you do then you sould really also allow saves at the end of every round regardless of proximity to the caster, again like wand of fear and mace of terror. Otherwise your house rule will turn fear into a single save, aoe, save or die, something 5e tries hard to avoid, and which is especially questionable on a 3rd level spell.

[Snails]

Those arguments by example are very strong. Particularly the grappled creature and the flying creature with a broken wing.

IMNSHO grappling a creature that is trying to get away from you is very definitely giving it "nowhere to run" by RAI. Certainly arguing that it must mechanistically Dash even though it knows a Dash will absolutely fail is a silly argument, especially since there are other actions it could take that might give it a chance to eventually get away. This is a roleplaying game and not a war game played on a computer, and the DM would be right to prefer to have creatures be allowed to make sensible actions based on what they know, acting with intent in line with what the conditions on the creature demand.

Such is an example not of it being unfair that the rules do not stack in the desirable fashion, but the character made a tactical choice that partially negated a facet of their own stack. The letter of the RAW is not there to protect you from your own imperfect tactical decisions.

[Honk]

What a heated discussion...
I guess that’s a executive decision of the DM to decide how a creature or NPC reacts, being stuck between the hammer and a hard place.

Those two rules kinda contradict each other, the fear effect stating „get away as fast as possible“, the aura saying „you’re not going anywhere“.

And I kinda like the roleplaying implications and possibilities that opens. How do YOU deal with a helpless enemy, will the poor chap lash out against the looming figure of Death and Despair.

Especially the „teleport“ movement is an interesting aspect. Not being a DM, but I would like some innate abilities like feystep to work in such situations, since it is the imperative to get far asap and the creature is intimately familiar with such a movement.
For a little wizzard trying a miststep spell, I would impose a heroic DC concentration check, since the spell effect states „...drop whatever it is holding...“ and you‘re busy soiling yourself and bleeding from your eyes and ear due to psychic damage.

To everyone denying some poor gobbo the feeble attempt to wail at the Specter of soul crushing Gloom, how‘s your DM going to present you with a challenge? when you have a lvl 10 wizzard - Pala tagteam steamrolling your dungeon? You have his mighty dragon cowering like a little chicken, getting kicked around?

First your pala gets some nasty Alignment adjustments for torturing helpless creatures and since that might not really effect him, since the new Oath structure kinda unhinges the Gods from their palas in 5e and your group is powergaming hard...
Tomb of Annihilation, trap filled maze of soulcrushing contempt packed with all the nastiness the monster manuals have to offer. The Order of Gelatinous cubes sending their hit teams after you, Atropal horrors from the outer dimensions suddenly all immune to fear and you ask yourself why your DM hates you so much?!
It’s because that little kobold was not allowed to teleport out and you let it die whimpering at your feet, not even bothering to end its suffering quickly...

[sithlordnergal]

To everyone denying some poor gobbo the feeble attempt to wail at the Specter of soul crushing Gloom, how‘s your DM going to present you with a challenge? when you have a lvl 10 wizzard - Pala tagteam steamrolling your dungeon? You have his mighty dragon cowering like a little chicken, getting kicked around?


I mean, that's actually a surprisingly easy thing to deal with. Frightened is one of the most common immune conditions in the game, coming in 4th as the most resisted condition back in 2016, according to a chart I found. And with the release of new books, I'm sure that has only increase the number of creatures that are immune to being Frightened out there.

[Sception]

frighten is almost always redisted by wisdom save, which tend to be among the highest in monsters due to how crippling the results of failure can be. Frighten effects also often impose no or very little effect on passed saves, unlike damage effects which might at least deal half damage. More than a few creatures are outright immune (though nowhere near as many as in 3e, most undead for instamce are quite vulnerable to frighten in 5e), any many more have advantage on their saves against it, whether from advantage against frighten specifically or, more commonly, from spell resistance.

Other spellcasters can target weaker saves, try to impose different conditions, or even cast spells which allow no save. Conquerors confronted with frighten immune enemies need to change up their tactics entirely, since other conditions wont trigger their aura, and they have no native ways to debuff wisdom saves (making sorcerer or eloquence multiclass worth considering) or to impose frighted on other saves (which is why fallen aasimar are probably the best conqueror race). Mostly they just have to fall back on bless, spiritual weapon, and regular attacks with smite.

Even when enemies are vulnerable to frighten and some do fail their saves, the dm as options. Again, even Feared enemies *can* still attack while trapped by the aura. Enemies who force saves instead of rolling attacks aren't even too terribly inconvenienced by the frighten debuff, though they likely don't apprrciate being locked in place, and if the conqueror wishes they can always just move out of aura range and let those enemies flee per the normal effects of the spell, though that incurs the usual risk of fleeing enemies coming back a few rounds later, possibly with reinforcements. Enemies with teleport abilities can escape, while other enemies can give up their action to shove or grapple and pull to get an ally out of the aura.

It's a very good combo, even with the correct understanding of Fear, but there are lots of ways for the DM to play around it (good) or just negate it entirely (boo), so it's far from broken, even when it's actually working. Remember, Conquerors don't get the aura until level 7 at the earliest, and cannot combine it with Fear until, again at the earliest possible, level 9. Fear spells & other frighten effects cast by other characters do not trigger the conqueror's aura. This is a relatively high level ability combo. Not high enough level to be an aoe save or die, but it deserves to be as hood as it is. Mosy campaigns are wrapping up by this level.

[Chronos]

A thought experiment that might clear things up: Suppose that we just have the Fear spell, with no paladin. And suppose that instead of it being walls limiting movement, it's cliffs. The hapless victim is on the top edge of a cliff. Now, if there's a path available to flee that doesn't involve going over the cliff, the victim's allowed to take that, even if it's not the most direct, since the spell specifies "by the safest available route". But what if there is no escape route that doesn't either move closer to the caster (which you can't do, because frightened) or off the cliff? Does that count as "nowhere to go"? Or does it just mean that you're allowed to jump off the cliff in the direction towards the water, instead of the direction towards the jagged rocks on the bottom (that being the safest route out of all of the options available)?

[Mukade]

I think that’s what I was trying to point out yes. But if you could move somewhere if you had movement available, you aren’t trapped in a corner.

Yes that's why I specified trapped in a corner. I agree with you that your speed being reduced to 0 doesn't preclude using the dash action to move your speed.

[MrStabby]

A thought experiment that might clear things up: Suppose that we just have the Fear spell, with no paladin. And suppose that instead of it being walls limiting movement, it's cliffs. The hapless victim is on the top edge of a cliff. Now, if there's a path available to flee that doesn't involve going over the cliff, the victim's allowed to take that, even if it's not the most direct, since the spell specifies "by the safest available route". But what if there is no escape route that doesn't either move closer to the caster (which you can't do, because frightened) or off the cliff? Does that count as "nowhere to go"? Or does it just mean that you're allowed to jump off the cliff in the direction towards the water, instead of the direction towards the jagged rocks on the bottom (that being the safest route out of all of the options available)?

So there are a number of things I see happening

1) the victim is frightened so cannot move closer to the source of the fear - if there is no paladin to move closer to then this cannot apply (say if the paladin is whisked away to a demiplane?), but then there is also no "away from you" so I have no idea what this means...

2) The victim takes the dash action - simple enough.

3) The victim must move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move - so the safest available route doesn't stop them from taking a dangerous route if there are no safe routes, but they will never take a dangerous route if there is a safer route available that takes them away.

4) they can repeat a save whn line of sight is broken. Being at the bottom of a cliff is likely to break line of sight.

[Sception]

A thought experiment that might clear things up

Whether a cliff counts as 'nowhere to go' is a fair question that seems up to DM discretion. However, it doesn't clear up anything regarding a speed zero target. Whether through a field of daisies or over the edge of the abyss, the speed zero target cannot go anywhere and thus has nowhere to go.

Again, consider the obvious default case of a cornered enemy:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/5428976b6569a605fd880d75dad4f27e/67ee7073924346b8-84/s640x960/589c258c124051828bdb45164222893ebdd2c5e1.png

It is almost always the fear effect preventing the enemy from moving towards you that actually corners them. Without that circumstantial effect there might be side paths, or they might be able to just run past you to an open area behind, or what have you. But the circumstantial effect prevents them from actually going to those places, so regardless of whether those places exist, or whether they 'could normaly' go there but for an effect imposed upon them, right now they are not places for the target to go to. Here and Now, the target "has nowhere to go", so is not required to dash.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/317011d0bebc59d1fc4bebbb72cd0c25/67ee7073924346b8-d6/s640x960/c0caab55d19a1cdddd14445a74d52c29948eeca5.png

And here's the same enemy. Like in the first image, there are places that enemy 'could normaly' go, but as with the first image, they are prevented from going there by an effect imposed upon them. Right Now, that is not a place for the target to go. Here and Now, the target "has nowhere to go", so is not required to dash.

For there to be 'somewhere to go', the target has to be able to actually go to that somewhere. If there are no somewheres that they can *actually* go to, then they have 'nowhere to go'. It doesn't matter if they cannot go to a space because it is in another dimension or occupied by another creature or on the other side of some bars or through a wall of force, or simply outside of their current movement speed, if they cannot go there right now, then it isn't somewhere for them to go.

If you are somehow confused by this, if you aren't sure of the intent of the rules from how they are written, then you can reference Sage Advice, which exists to supply the intended rules when players and game masters are otherwise confused: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/09/19/if-a-creature-is-under-the-fear-spell-but-in-the-aura-of-conquest/

But yeah, both the rules and the intent are clear. If a "Fear"ed target can dash away they must do so, but if they cannot dash away, regardless of the circumstances preventing them from doing so, then Fear doesn't prevent them from doing something else instead. Because if you are prevented from going to a place, then that cannot be considered "a place for you to go".

[MrStabby]

Whether a cliff counts as 'nowhere to go' is a fair question that seems up to DM discretion. However, it doesn't clear up anything regarding a speed zero target. Whether through a field of daisies or over the edge of the abyss, the speed zero target cannot go anywhere and thus has nowhere to go.

Again, consider the obvious default case of a cornered enemy:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/5428976b6569a605fd880d75dad4f27e/67ee7073924346b8-84/s640x960/589c258c124051828bdb45164222893ebdd2c5e1.png

It is almost always the fear effect preventing the enemy from moving towards you that actually corners them. Without that circumstantial effect there might be side paths, or they might be able to just run past you to an open area behind, or what have you. But the circumstantial effect prevents them from actually going to those places, so regardless of whether those places exist, or whether they 'could normaly' go there but for an effect imposed upon them, right now they are not places for the target to go to. Here and Now, the target "has nowhere to go", so is not required to dash.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/317011d0bebc59d1fc4bebbb72cd0c25/67ee7073924346b8-d6/s640x960/c0caab55d19a1cdddd14445a74d52c29948eeca5.png

And here's the same enemy. Like in the first image, there are places that enemy 'could normaly' go, but as with the first image, they are prevented from going there by an effect imposed upon them. Right Now, that is not a place for the target to go. Here and Now, the target "has nowhere to go", so is not required to dash.

For there to be 'somewhere to go', the target has to be able to actually go to that somewhere. If there are no somewheres that they can *actually* go to, then they have 'nowhere to go'. It doesn't matter if they cannot go to a space because it is in another dimension or occupied by another creature or on the other side of some bars or through a wall of force, or simply outside of their current movement speed, if they cannot go there right now, then it isn't somewhere for them to go.

If you are somehow confused by this, if you aren't sure of the intent of the rules from how they are written, then you can reference Sage Advice, which exists to supply the intended rules when players and game masters are otherwise confused: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/09/19/if-a-creature-is-under-the-fear-spell-but-in-the-aura-of-conquest/

But yeah, both the rules and the intent are clear. If a "Fear"ed target can dash away they must do so, but if they cannot dash away, regardless of the circumstances preventing them from doing so, then Fear doesn't prevent them from doing something else instead. Because if you are prevented from going to a place, then that cannot be considered "a place for you to go".

Irrespective of how "nowhere to go" is defined, I dont think it matters. The victim takes the dash action, no matter what. It's only if they have no where to go that they dont move. They still have their speed doubled but just dont make full use of it.

[Sception]

Irrespective of how "nowhere to go" is defined, I dont think it matters. The victim takes the dash action, no matter what. It's only if they have no where to go that they dont move. They still have their speed doubled but just dont make full use of it.

The victim does not take the dash action 'no matter what'. The text of the spell very explicitly says they take the dash action "unless there is nowhere to move". If they have no speed, they cannot move anywhere, so by definition there is nowhere for them to move, and if they have nowhere to move then Fear does not require them to take the dash action.

What do you think the "unless there is nowhere to move" part even means otherwise? You can't just ignore such an important piece of the spell's rule text, and you can't just arbitrarily redefine it to not mean or do anything. That text is there so that enemies that can't dash away aren't required to spend their action dashing nowhere at all. That's the entire point of that line.

[Chronos]

You could parse it as "(The target must take the Dash action) (and move away from you unless there is nowhere to go)". But that'd be a pretty tortured reading.

I think the post with the diagrams has convinced me: RAW, the aura means hat the target has nowhere to go, and is therefore not obligated to dash. I still think I'd houserule it, because a class based on fear having a "power" that makes fear less effective is really stupid design.

[MrStabby]

The victim does not take the dash action 'no matter what'. The text of the spell very explicitly says they take the dash action "unless there is nowhere to move". If they have no speed, they cannot move anywhere, so by definition there is nowhere for them to move, and if they have nowhere to move then Fear does not require them to take the dash action.

What do you think the "unless there is nowhere to move" part even means otherwise? You can't just ignore such an important piece of the spell's rule text, and you can't just arbitrarily redefine it to not mean or do anything. That text is there so that enemies that can't dash away aren't required to spend their action dashing nowhere at all. That's the entire point of that line.

Well maybe worth referencing the text:

"While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move."

So it says this rather than:
"While frightened by this spell, unless a creature has nowhere to which it may move it must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns."

Which I would say unambiguously disqualified it from needing to take the dash action. However this is not what was written.

[Sception]

If you're really that confused by two clauses joined by an 'and', both negated by an 'unless', then the reasonable thing to do would be to check if any dev team member has made a statement clarifying the intended meaning. Fortunately for you, there is such a statement.

You can find it here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/09/19/if-a-creature-is-under-the-fear-spell-but-in-the-aura-of-conquest/

You really shouldn't need that help though, because interpreting the 'unless' line to only apply to the movement clause would again be interpreting it out of existence altogether, since there is no need to specify that a creature with nowhere to move doesn't move anywhere.

[Honk]

Aaaaand there we have it...

And for an evil monk, jumping off cliffs might even be „the savest route“. My last char did Kamikaze dives all the time 😈

[Snails]

I still think I'd houserule it, because a class based on fear having a "power" that makes fear less effective is really stupid design.

I get that a player may be disappointed in a specific tactical situation, but I vehemently deny this argument holds, in general.

The ability to simultaneously split off some opponents out of the immediate fight and lock others into place is typically far superior to everyone just running away.

Pushing a portion of the opponents out of the combat on a temporary basis while locking a remainder in a location where they can be quickly murderized is meat & potatoes for Controllers. That a Controller combo involving Fear is not unambiguously better than Fear alone in every conceivable encounter is not a strong argument for interpreting the rules a certain manner.

Furthermore, we do not have any presumption of "Fear effect 1 + Fear effect 2 = moar better Fear", just like we do not presume "mind effect 1 + mind effect 2 = better mind affect". That stacking mind affecting conditions may cause one of the mind affecting conditions to be ignored is perfectly reasonable.

[tomjon]

My reading of the fear spell is you loss all Action options Except dash. Just because you cannot use a dash dose not restore any previous lost choices.

[Honk]

My reading of the fear spell is you loss all Action options Except dash. Just because you cannot use a dash dose not restore any previous lost choices.

As malisteen quoted on the last page:

You can find it here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/09/19...a-of-conquest/

Quote end

The designers seem to beg to differ from your opinion...
what actions are used if dash is not an option is then up to the DM

[Snails]

My reading of the fear spell is you loss all Action options Except dash. Just because you cannot use a dash dose not restore any previous lost choices.

You are choosing to completely resolve the first half of a predicate, while ignoring the clause that modifies the whole predicate. If the "unless" tells us to ignore the entire predicate, then the Dash was never required from the get go. Nothing to restore if nothing is taken away, and the usual palette of options are available.


While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move.

[Spankinstein]

I appreciate all the debate and responses. But “nowhere to move” is not the same as “can’t move”.

[Chronos]

Yes, the ideal is for some but not all of the enemy to run away. And you achieve that via the Fear spell, by itself. Whichever ones save are the ones you kill first.

OK, so it's still possible for them to run away, too, even though they're not forced to. In that case, you... still kill them first. You chase the whole group, and anyone that shows any ability to take non-fleeing actions, you prioritize.

And if you chase them, and nobody uses non-fleeing actions, then congratulations, you've won the encounter.

Making some of them incapable of moving (but now capable of doing anything they want other than moving) is in no way an upgrade to this.

[Honk]

Making some of them incapable of moving (but now capable of doing anything they want other than moving) is in no way an upgrade to this.

It seems like an oversight, that frightened targets get disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls, but can use magic or other abilities unhindered.
The fear spell let’s them drop handheld items (staffs, components) but a wizzard caught in the conquering presences and aura might just hurl a fireball or other close quarter nastiness like bigbys hand, blade barrier etc.
They should get penalty for concentration or non-cantrips Spells only cast on lvl one or something otherwise you grabbed a tigress by the ti** and wonder what’s ripping your face off...

[Spankinstein]

Being able to cast something like Gate or Move Earth while in the Aura is just ridiculous. I can’t move my feet but I can complete the V,S,M components of a spell no problem.

[Mikal]

Being able to cast something like Gate or Move Earth while in the Aura is just ridiculous. I can’t move my feet but I can complete the V,S,M components of a spell no problem.

Don’t waste your time. They don’t want to debate it. That’s why I stopped.

[Sception]

I appreciate all the debate and responses. But “nowhere to move” is not the same as “can’t move”.

This is deliberately reading the 'unless' clause out of existance. There are always open spaces that exist somewhere. Maybe they require movement modes you don't have. Maybe they would require you to first move towards the creature you're frightened of, which you aren't allowed to do. Maybe they're too far away for your current movement speed to reach. Regardless, if you cannot reach them, then they cannot be considered places for you to move to.

Again, refer to the images on the previous page. This interpretation would mean the unless clause wouldn't even apply to cornered enemies, in which case it wouldn't apply to anything at all. Any reading that interprets a rule out of existance cannot be considered a good faith reading of that rule.

[Sception]

Making some of them incapable of moving (but now capable of doing anything they want other than moving) is in no way an upgrade to this.

They cannot flee to trigger other encounters. They cannot escape melee attack range. They cannot stand from prone. They cannot spread out to avoid AoEs. They cannot fly, hover, or burrow. Any attack rolls they do make have disadvantage, and if they only have melee attacks they may have nothing they can do on their turn, anyway, if you choose not to move adjacent to them.

Most importantly, they cannot break line of sight to you, which means *they cannot make new saves to escape the effect*, so they will stay frightened as long as you maintain concentration, instead of just one or two rounds.

As someone who has played /a lot/ of Conquerors since Xanatar's came out, and who made quite a bit of use of the Fear spell even before that, I can assure you from personal experience that, for the overwhelming majority of creatures that can be affected by the Fear spell, trading forced flight with follow up saves to immobilization and no follow up saves, even at the cost of freeing up the targets actions, is absolutely a massive improvement to the spell. And in the rare case that it's not, you can simply choose not to put them in aura range. Any optional variant that you can choose when to apply and when not to apply literally cannot be considered a downgrade.

Even on wizards and sorcerers, casting Fear on enemies you can corner - thus freeing their actions but preventing them from running away and making follow up saves - is nearly always the better use of the spell, and when you can't corner the enemies you're generally better off casting something else, because scattering enemies to the winds typically isn't great control. At best, they never come back, sure, but more often they make their save and are back in a round or two. As often as that, you just end up adding those enemies to a later encounter, which is an actively bad thing to do. At worst, you end up adding entire later encounters to the one you're currently trying to deal with, and that is a /terrible/ outcome. Enemies escaping is usually /bad/ for the party.

[Honk]

Don’t waste your time. They don’t want to debate it. That’s why I stopped.

Depends on what needs to be debated. A designer’s commentary clarified the ruling on „must take a dash action“ and „unless there is nowhere to move“ in combination with the conquest paladins aura...
You might feel otherwise, there might be fringy situations of certain possible movements (without the aura), like jumping off a cliff.
But the general statement was: if your movement speed is 0 or you cannot move AWAY from the source of fear, you can try doing something else.

The new predicament is a scared wizzard-like entity, attacking without attack roll, shooting out special abilities, that can severely damage you or doing other crazy stuff while you think it‘s under lock down

[Sception]

Spells and effects do what they say they do, no more. An effect that imposes disadvantage on attack rolls, like frighten, does not hamper non-attack-based actions unless it says so. You might think rooted to the ground with terror would prevent you from shaping somatic components, but it doesnt say it does that, so it doesn't do that. Likewise, you might think Feeblemind reducing a target's intelligence would mean that target is no longer intelligent enough to use weapons to attack, but again the rules don't say that, so it isn't the case.

And again, if you're in a circumstance where you think a couple rounds of the enemy fleeing is better than a full minute of the enemy being immobilized but able to act, then you can simply choose to move out of aura range of that enemy.

[Sception]

Don’t waste your time. They don’t want to debate it. That’s why I stopped.

Not everything is a debate. This is a 'correct/incorrect' type situation, and the 'must dash even if they can't go anywhere' interpretationnis simply incorrect.

Whether it would be a good house rule *can* be debated. I'd argue that mechanically it would not be, because of the requirement to break line of sight in order to make follow up saves. Any ongoing effect that completely prevents a target from acting needs to have opportunities to escape from it. Allow follow up saves regardless and it would be ok, mechanically. Narratively, I feel like the target should have other action options if they cannot flee. It makes sense to me that, if they cannot flee, they would still fight, in real life fear does provoke a "fight or flight" response after all. But if not that, they should at least be able to dodge (though immobilized creatures would get no benefit from doing so).

Make those changes, and you've effectively made the Fear spell work like the Fear wand or mace magic items. Which is fair, I guess. But that would make them weaker than the current Fear spell is for Conquerors, since, again, most of the time frightened enemies that can act but can't flee and can't make follow up saves is a much stronger control effect than frightened enemies that can't act but can flee and can make follow up saves.

[Chronos]

Yes, fleeing enemies can get to where they break line of sight, and hence have a chance to recover. But first they need to spend at least one round, and possibly more, to get to such a position. Then they have to succeed on another save, which is unlikely, because if they had good Wis saves you probably would have chosen another spell, and the ones fleeing are the ones who already failed one save. Then they have to spend as much time as they spent fleeing, coming back. And if it's really a worry, you can just pursue them. A Fear spell will often leave enemies incapable of doing anything useful for an entire combat.

Give me the choice of being able to move but not act, or to act but not move, and I'll choose the second every time. Even if my action is at disadvantage, I'll still always chose the action. And so that's not the option I want my enemies to have.

[Sception]

Yes, fleeing enemies can get to where they break line of sight, and hence have a chance to recover. But first they need to spend at least one round, and possibly more, to get to such a position. Then they have to succeed on another save, which is unlikely, because if they had good Wis saves you probably would have chosen another spell, and the ones fleeing are the ones who already failed one save. Then they have to spend as much time as they spent fleeing, coming back. And if it's really a worry, you can just pursue them. A Fear spell will often leave enemies incapable of doing anything useful for an entire combat.

If we're accepting what the rules /are/, I'm happy to debate whether they're /good/. I would argue that they're quite good. To answer your points,

If the combat is going to be over by the time they get back, they'll likely not come back. But that doesn't mean you'll never see them again, more often it means they join up with another later encounter, either to face you later when your party reaches that encounter, or worse bringing that encounter back and adding it to the current fight. Either way, you haven't actually broken up the enemies, you've /consolidated/ them, which is actively counter productive, literally the opposite of what a good control effect should be doing.

The enemy only has to 'spend as much time as they spent fleeing coming back' if they are melee-only enemies, and if they are melee-only enemies it doesn't matter if they can still act, you can simply stand 10 feet away from them and they can't do anything regardless.

If you go chasing off after a fleeing enemy, then you've broken up your party as much as you've broken up the enemy encounter group, so you aren't actually helping, which, combined with the enemy-consolidating effect that fleeing enemies often have, is extra terrible. If you and the frightened enemy both run smack dab into another enemy group down the corridor and in another room, but your fellow PCs are still back in the first room fighting the original group of enemies, then you have made a *terrible* tactical blunder.

Wizards and the like *will* just cast something else when Fear isn't a great choice, whether for high wisdom saves, or because it would be bad for enemies to flee and you can't corner them, or because frighten alone wouldn't hamper them much and you can't /not/ corner them. Conquerors on the other hand do not have a wealth of non-wisdom-save based control options to fall back on. If the enemies have decent wisdom saves, but you can still get 3 or more in the cone, then you're going to try fear anyway, because chances are at least one will role poorly on that initial save, and thanks to your aura one low roll is all it takes for a strong and long lasting control effect. Without the aura, fear isn't even worth trying, and you'd probably have to switch not just from one control effect to another, but from a control role to an entirely different role entirely, because even if one or two do flub their saves they'll still quickly shrug the effect anyway. This was a problem with the initial version of the conqueror, whose aura imposed disadvantage on saves against frighten instead of the /much more powerful/ effect of preventing those creatures that do fail their saves from fleeing.

[/quote]Give me the choice of being able to move but not act, or to act but not move, and I'll choose the second every time. Even if my action is at disadvantage, I'll still always chose the action. And so that's not the option I want my enemies to have.[/QUOTE]

Then it's a good thing that /isn't/ an option the enemies have, because /you/ get to pick whether they're in aura range thus /you/ get to pick which effect they're stuck with.

And it isn't just 'action with disadvantage but no move or move but no action', it's 'action with disadvantage but no move /and no way to negate the effect/ or move but no action /with a save to shrug the effect at the end of every round/'. It shouldn't be hard to think of situations where the former is far worse then the latter, because truth is that's most situations.

Also, PC parties are generally on their own. If *you* flee, *you* don't get to join up with another adventuring group, and maybe even bring that second group back with you to help out the fight. Enemies that flee in typical dungeon situations very frequently do get to do exactly that.

And thinking of how things would affect the party is worth doing, since Fear can be cast by enemies, too. If a cornered enemy can't act, can't escape, and can't make saves to end the effect, then it's effectively a save or die. Do you really want to tell me you'd impose a TPK on the party because they flubbed their saves against a third level spell? The nearest equivalent to Fear as a 3rd level spell is Hypnotic Pattern, which is already considered a very powerful spell, and that ends instantly on a target the first time it takes damage, or can be ended by another creature that takes an action to shake them, not even requiring a second save. Your Fear variant would have neither escape clause. An enemy could just stand there slowly cutting you to death with a kitchen knife and if you flubbed just that one first save there's nothing you could hope to do about it. Doesn't sound like a fair or fun gaming experience to me. Doesn't sound in line with the rest of 5e's design philosophy when it comes to 'save or die' type effects, either.



If, however, you still want to run with a (much) stronger than usual version of the Fear spell, I don't think it will destroy the game. I disagree that it's necessary or a good idea, but if we're not playing at the same table that disagreement is neither here nor there.

[Foxydono]

Fear spell says you must take the dash action. Therefore even if you have 0 movement you must take it as an action. Period (RAW)


0+0= 0.

Just because it would normally be a bad move doesn’t matter and is in many ways the point. You’ve made them quake in fear so bad all they want to do is run away but they. Just. Can’t.

Think of it as a soft incapacitate in that they can use bonus actions (such as misty step) or reactions (such as OAs)
Agree completely. Both RAW and RAI.

[Sception]

Agree completely. Both RAW and RAI.

"Unlesss there is nowhere to move". If you cannot move anywhere, you have nowhere to move.

The RAI is explicit and can be found here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/09/19/if-a-creature-is-under-the-fear-spell-but-in-the-aura-of-conquest/

[Spankinstein]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1024779465153363968?s=20

Another tweet from him regarding the combo. Using the word Paralyze. Seems the combo is even more powerful than we thought. The Paralyzed condition includes the Incapacitated condition.

[Sception]

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1024779465153363968?s=20

Another tweet from him regarding the combo. Using the word Paralyze. Seems the combo is even more powerful than we thought. The Paralyzed condition includes the Incapacitated condition.

That is taken out of context. At this point in the thread I have to imagine that it was taken /deberately/ out of context, as the full context has been linked to /multiple times/ in this thread, going all the way back to the initial post of the thread, and you have pulled the singular tweet out of the many times linked thread that, taken out of context this way, has an implication contrary to the overtly stated RAI, in which this question:

"if a creature is under the fear spell (must use action to dash) but in the aura of conquest (reduces speed to 0) do they waste there action to dash with 0 speed or at that point can they use there action as normal? Thank you for any advice"

Received this answer:

"If you're under the effect of the fear spell yet have nowhere to move, you can use your action as you like. (That's what "unless there is nowhere to move" is getting at in the spell's text.)"

As such, it is OVERWHELMINGLY clear that, according to designer intent, Feared enemies trapped by the aura can still act, since they cannot move, and thus there is "nowhere for them to move."


The RAW has some grammatical ambiguity due to the nature of the english language, where an exception clause attached to two clauses joined by an 'and' can apply to both or just the latter clause. But the RAI clears this ambiguity up completely, and frankly it should not have been necessary in the first place since the former clause is the only one to which the exception would have been relevant in the first place, so interpreting the "unless" bit to only apply to the movement and not to the dash action would be interpreting the clause out of existence entirely.

[Spankinstein]

I think his tweets collectively, imply that the Feared can’t take actions in the Aura. Wish they’d have an official, unambiguous, ruling.

[Snails]

I think his tweets collectively, imply that the Feared can’t take actions in the Aura. Wish they’d have an official, unambiguous, ruling.

No. He is clearly answering the question of whether "speed 0" = "nowhere to run" at the top of thread, and answers in the affirmative that such a creature can use their action as normal.

He is using "paralyzed by fear" in the sense that running away is not an option (which is not a helpful usage of a common idiom, but it is what it is). That such a creature can take some other Action if the paladin chooses to lock the creature in place has already been established.

I can respect the argument that the Aura should be more powerful than I interpret it. Such is just a disagreement.

But the arguments that RAW and RAI says we have a hard lock here are nearly non-existent.

(1) "X and Y, unless Z" simply cannot be definitively claimed to have Z only apply to Y. It is at best one possible interpretation where another interpretation is at least as strong or stronger. So there is no real RAW argument here.

(2) One of the notable features of 5e is how the designers scrubbed out the locks we see in 1e/2e/3e. So there is no real RAI argument here. That the designers really intended this to be the exception is based on ... nothing. And the tweets, considered together, do say there is no lock.

[Spankinstein]

Gonna have to disagree. The more I read his tweets, the more it’s clear that the Aura and Fear spell work as a combo, not against each other. Speed of 0 does not equal nowhere to move. Speed of 0 does not mean you can’t take the Dash action. Nowhere to move does not equal Cannot move.

[Chronos]

So what in the tweets leads you to that conclusion?

[Spankinstein]

“Don't want your Aura of Conquest to affect a creature you've frightened? Walk away. Once you're far enough away, they'll stop being paralyzed by fear and start fleeing because of it.”

“It's working as intended. You're meant to have that choice: paralyze them with fear or cause them to flee because of it.”

“Different classes intentionally work differently. Please choose the one that gives you the fun you want. For example, if you don't want people quaking in their boots next to you, I don't recommend playing a conquest paladin.”

Each of these tweets strengthen the argument that the Aura and Fear spell combo work. He does not state that with a speed of 0 the feared has nowhere to go and therefore doesn’t need to take the dash action. Even a Shrieker with a speed of 0 already would still be affected.

[Contrast]

Snip

Just because I feel like I'm going crazy the question asked was:


if a creature is under the fear spell (must use action to dash) but in the aura of conquest (reduces speed to 0) do they waste there action to dash with 0 speed or at that point can they use there action as normal? Thank you for any advice

And the answer was:


If you're under the effect of the fear spell yet have nowhere to move, you can use your action as you like. (That's what "unless there is nowhere to move" is getting at in the spell's text.)

And your argument is that he is saying yes you have to dash and just mentioned that section of the rules because...reasons?

All I can say is that your reading of his response is very different to mine.

[AHF]

Gonna have to disagree. The more I read his tweets, the more it’s clear that the Aura and Fear spell work as a combo, not against each other. Speed of 0 does not equal nowhere to move. Speed of 0 does not mean you can’t take the Dash action. Nowhere to move does not equal Cannot move.

I cannot see how you possibly interpret his tweets as supporting that read. The tweets appear to be very clearly saying that an opppnent stuck in the aura doesn’t have to use dash.

I think reasonable minds can differ around the RAW rule due to the ambiguity of what it means to have “nowhere to move” but don’t see that uncertainty in the RAI defining tweets at all.

[Spankinstein]

I don’t know. When he says “Paralyze them with fear or cause them to flee because of it”. It seems clear to me. If you’re paralyzed you can’t take actions.

[Snails]

I don’t know. When he says “Paralyze them with fear or cause them to flee because of it”. It seems clear to me. If you’re paralyzed you can’t take actions.

He is zeroing in on the movement aspect of tactical options for the paladin, using the phrase "paralyzed by fear" to describe the inability to move specifically. That such a creature can take a non-Dash action was directly asked and directly answered in the affirmative.

So, at best, you could argue he contradicted himself, which does not support your position.

[Chronos]

It occurs to me that the best-case scenario for a Fear spell is when the enemy can flee, but not very far. The spell obligates a Dash action if there's anywhere to flee to, no matter how far away that fleeable point is, and no matter whether a Dash is even necessary to reach that point. In the right terrain, like a room with no doors between two corners, a caster might even be able to force this repeatedly, with the enemy fleeing from one corner to the other. This way, the enemy isn't doing anything to the party, and never gets to reroll the save, and provokes attacks of opportunity every round.

Is it at least possible to turn off the Aura of Conquest? A perfect setup like that might be rare, but if it comes up, you'd want to be able to take advantage of it.

[micahaphone]

Being grappled also sets your speed to 0, so if you grappled someone who is under the Fear spell, will they waste their turn endlessly dashing instead of breaking the grapple?

RAI I'd say the creature is trying to run away so it can use its action to try to break the grapple.

Being frightened still gives you disadvantage on many things. Your feet are frozen in place in supernatural fear, your intent is to run but you can't, so you'll fight (poorly) until the instant you could move away.


By the same token, even if it's RAW I wouldn't let a caster teleport closer to something they're afraid of.