Fear is an Exploitable Mess of a Spell.

[Catullus64]

"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."

Things the spell does not say:

A creature must use its action to Dash. If you can Dash using a bonus action, your regular action is still your own.

A creature must move away first thing on its turn. If aforesaid bonus action dash is in play, you can go right ahead and take your action before fleeing. Any creature can use its free interaction with the environment to immediately pick up whatever it dropped.

The creature must move as far away from you as possible. As the spell is currently worded, any amount of movement away from you satisfies the requirement. The bit about "unless there is nowhere to move" is clearly aimed in this direction, but misses the mark of being unambiguous.

I think it's clear that the spell is not intended to work this way, but there you have it; lots of little loopholes for the opportunistic player, or worse, the cruel DM, to use to gum up the works, or at least waste time in argument.

This post comes courtesy of some rules lawyering by one of my players, who pointed out in bafflement that they could have just used the wording from Turn Undead, which addresses all of these issues. But he still chose to take up game time arguing these points about the spell when it was used on him, so in my opinion he deserves both praise and scorn. Hope you're reading, D, you clever, irritating sonofagun.

[MrStabby]

My off the cuff thought it: You must take the dash action. It doesn't limit itself to only doing it once, if it has a bonus action it must take it twice.

It must move away from you. Thats not a statement of any amount of movement, that's a statement of until it can't move any more.

Agreed, it is "move unless there is nowhere to move to" not "move unless you have already moved some distance this turn".

[quindraco]

The target has satisfied the spell if it takes the Dash action on its turn - bonus action Dash is not only not always mandatory, if you do bonus action Dash, you've taken the Dash action, and you need not spend your action Dashing.

Because it says "safest available route", in fact, this can be interpreted by a DM to sometimes make bonus action Dash mandatory, depending on what actions and bonus actions the target has, as the target may be forced to both Dash and Disengage if that's the safest possible route.

You're not even bringing up the thing that makes Fear so dangerous if the DM is following the RAW (my current DM does not): Fear does not make you afraid of the caster, it makes you afraid of the projected phantasmal image. That means even if the target hasn't got LOS on the caster any more, it still has disadvantage on attacks and checks, because the thing it's frightened of is always within line of sight of it.

[Segev]

My off the cuff thought it: You must take the dash action. It doesn't limit itself to only doing it once, if it has a bonus action it must take it twice.

It must move away from you. Thats not a statement of any amount of movement, that's a statement of until it can't move any more.

Unfortunately, while it's probably the intent of the spell, what you're saying here is not what the spell says. The spell provides specific requirements: take the dash action on each of its turns; move away from the caster. It does NOT say "take only the dash action" nor "take the dash action as many times as you can." It does NOT say "move as far from the caster as you safely can."

Your rulings, here, are perfectly reasonable, but they are technically house rules. Of course, 5e is the edition of rulings, not rules, and therefore imminently reasonable rulings such as yours should not be argued with for more than a briefly amusing "heh, look at how this technically doesn't say what it clearly wants to mean" digression. Which is more amusing in a forum than at the table.

I would agree with your ruling, in general, and support the notion that what fear requires is that you dash as your action and spend all available movement moving as far away as you safely can. I would probably leave the bonus action available for other things, especially "disengage" or "dodge," or maybe even "hide." I'd need to think about rewording that.

[Catullus64]

My off the cuff thought it: You must take the dash action. It doesn't limit itself to only doing it once, if it has a bonus action it must take it twice.

It must move away from you. Thats not a statement of any amount of movement, that's a statement of until it can't move any more.

I mean, I agree with you that that's how it should be run. But the words on the page are sufficiently ambiguous to require an actual act of interpolation.

"It must move away from you" encompasses any amount of movement. "You must take the Dash action" does not make explicit that that's the only thing you can spend actions on. What my friend and I are pointing out is that those ambiguities exist in the text and require judgement to actually make it work as intended.

[Segev]

I mean, I agree with you that that's how it should be run. But the words on the page are sufficiently ambiguous to require an actual act of interpolation.

"It must move away from you" encompasses any amount of movement. "You must take the Dash action" does not make explicit that that's the only thing you can spend actions on. What my friend and I are pointing out is that those ambiguities exist in the text and require judgement to actually make it work as intended.

It's not even ambiguous. It gives specific instructions. You're pointing out that you can follow those instructions perfectly and wind up with the spell doing relatively little, compared to what is almost certainly the intended behavior.

[Frogreaver]

I’ve always understood a dash action to be a different thing than a dash bonus action.

[MaxWilson]

It's not even ambiguous. It gives specific instructions. You're pointing out that you can follow those instructions perfectly and wind up with the spell doing relatively little, compared to what is almost certainly the intended behavior.

Wasting enemy actions while forcing them to break contact is not IMO relatively little. Even the strictest reading of this spell leaves it as still a pretty good spell! (IMO an enemy who lingers, Dashing in place instead of fleeing to summon reinforcements, is typically even better for you than one who flees.)

[Segev]

I’ve always understood a dash action to be a different thing than a dash bonus action.All it says is that the target must dash on its turn. It says nothing about what kind of action must be spent.


Wasting enemy actions while forcing them to break contact is not IMO relatively little. Even the strictest reading of this spell leaves it as still a pretty good spell! (IMO an enemy who lingers, Dashing in place instead of fleeing to summon reinforcements, is typically even better for you than one who flees.)Depends on whether they have useful actions left after dashing. A rogue or rogue-like creature with the ability to dash as a bonus action, or a creature with useful bonus action attacks, can still be frustratingly dangerous. And it's less satisfying to have your spell named "fear" cause them to act entirely unafraid except for a five-foot step back while still firing bows or something at you.

[EggKookoo]

All it says is that the target must dash on its turn. It says nothing about what kind of action must be spent.

Doesn't the spell description literally say "you must take the dash action"?

[Amnestic]

Doesn't the spell description literally say "you must take the dash action"?

Sure, and Cunning action says:



Starting at 2nd Level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a Bonus Action on each of your turns in Combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.

There's zero chance I'd let this reading fly at my table, but the OP is correct that it is incredibly poorly written as a spell, and that CA: Dash satisfies the requirements, leaving their Action free for whatever they want.

[EggKookoo]

There's zero chance I'd let this reading fly at my table, but the OP is correct that it is incredibly poorly written as a spell, and that CA: Dash satisfies the requirements, leaving their Action free for whatever they want.

Oh, yeah, I see what you're saying. It's almost like 5e is ambiguous with its word choices...

[MrStabby]

Sure, and Cunning action says:



There's zero chance I'd let this reading fly at my table, but the OP is correct that it is incredibly poorly written as a spell, and that CA: Dash satisfies the requirements, leaving their Action free for whatever they want.

I won't argue that it is poorly written. Given that this whole thread demonstrates people can have different interpretations of the same text, that seems a pretty sound conclusion.

[Frogreaver]

Sure, and Cunning action says:



There's zero chance I'd let this reading fly at my table, but the OP is correct that it is incredibly poorly written as a spell, and that CA: Dash satisfies the requirements, leaving their Action free for whatever they want.

So let’s say fear doesn’t work well against cunning action. I’m not sure that fact really changes the power of the spell as most enemies don’t get cunning action or cunning action like abilities.

[Keltest]

From my understanding, taking a Cunning Action to dash is different from taking the Dash Action, in the same way that making an offhand strike bonus action is different from just using the attack action with your left hand. Thats why they call it Cunning Action instead of just saying the feature converts Dash to a bonus action. Among other things, this allows you to Dash twice in a round, once with the Dash action and once with your Cunning Action.

[Segev]

So let’s say fear doesn’t work well against cunning action. I’m not sure that fact really changes the power of the spell as most enemies don’t get cunning action or cunning action like abilities.

They can still recover whatever they dropped as a free object interaction, and they can still take a bonus action before they move away, and they can still move away as little as one foot (in theory), thus avoiding even triggering an opportunity attack.

Now, I'm not saying it should be run that way, mind.

[Keltest]

They can still recover whatever they dropped as a free object interaction, and they can still take a bonus action before they move away, and they can still move away as little as one foot (in theory), thus avoiding even triggering an opportunity attack.

Now, I'm not saying it should be run that way, mind.

A creature needs to move away from you. Unless you have it backed into a corner already, there is no theoretical situation where they only end up with a net of one foot distance away from you.

[Segev]

A creature needs to move away from you. Unless you have it backed into a corner already, there is no theoretical situation where they only end up with a net of one foot distance away from you.

Moving one foot away from you is moving away from you. It doesn't say they must move as far from you as they safely can on their turn. Only that they must move away from you on their turn.

[Keltest]

Moving one foot away from you is moving away from you. It doesn't say they must move as far from you as they safely can on their turn. Only that they must move away from you on their turn.

Its implicit to the meaning of the sentence, and not just in a "well this is probably RAI."

If theyre using the Dash action, it means theyre getting maximum distance. Furthermore, the only allowance for not moving away from you, which it has to do, is if it physically cannot. If you havent used all your movement and there is room to move, then you can still move away from them and therefore have to do so.

[Frogreaver]

They can still recover whatever they dropped as a free object interaction, and they can still take a bonus action before they move away, and they can still move away as little as one foot (in theory), thus avoiding even triggering an opportunity attack.

Now, I'm not saying it should be run that way, mind.

It’s very debatable about object interactions working as you describe. Your debatable cunning action stance is not actually an issue in 99% of encounters even if ruled favorably for your argument.

That leaves us with the they don’t really have to move away being the only possible issue - except if the enemy doesn’t move away he doesn’t get a save and thus perpetually loses his action.

None of these rulings particularly trash the spell.

[MaxWilson]

Depends on whether they have useful actions left after dashing. A rogue or rogue-like creature with the ability to dash as a bonus action, or a creature with useful bonus action attacks, can still be frustratingly dangerous. And it's less satisfying to have your spell named "fear" cause them to act entirely unafraid except for a five-foot step back while still firing bows or something at you.

But there aren't many rogue-like creatures in the MM, and not all that many monsters with useful bonus action attacks that aren't tied to the Attack action.

And even a rogue that uses Cunning Action: Dash and then fires a bow at you is still stuck attacking at disadvantage because it's Frightened so they don't get sneak attack damage (and can't approach you, and has disadvantage on ability checks), so they're still pretty neutered. And they don't even get repeated saves until they do run away enough to break line of sight.

I just don't agree that the possibility of encountering the occasional Rogue NPC (or PC) who's reducing to plinking away for sub-cantrip-level damage instead of running away would be enough to make the spell frustrating. Seems like the spell would still be far more frustrating for the Rogue than for the Fear caster.


Moving one foot away from you is moving away from you. It doesn't say they must move as far from you as they safely can on their turn. Only that they must move away from you on their turn.

If they were 5' away before and move to 6', you get an opportunity attack (at least by RAW, and if you're not using a reach weapon) because they moved out of your reach. I 5' is as close as two Medium creatures can get to each other, at least under RAW (which is not a compliment to RAW).

A DM who is willing to say "RAW is stupid, of course you can get closer than 5' to another human" is also a DM who is likely to tell you that Fear requires you to move more than 1'.

[MrStabby]

Moving one foot away from you is moving away from you. It doesn't say they must move as far from you as they safely can on their turn. Only that they must move away from you on their turn.

I think if they can move, they mist move.

Having moved 1ft, if they have movement left and are not backed into a corner, they can move. Therefore they must move. They keep going till a condition is met such that they can't move.

[Segev]

Its implicit to the meaning of the sentence, and not just in a "well this is probably RAI."

If theyre using the Dash action, it means theyre getting maximum distance. Furthermore, the only allowance for not moving away from you, which it has to do, is if it physically cannot. If you havent used all your movement and there is room to move, then you can still move away from them and therefore have to do so.No, it isn't implicit to the sentence, not without the context of "this is caused by fear" from non-game-terms. It's implied by what we know the intended narrative of the spell to be.

Nothing about taking the Dash action requires you to move the maximum distance it grants.

I fully agree: a DM is well within his rights to rule that you have to actually flee at top (safe) speed, not passing "Go," and not collecting the $200 you dropped as you became frightened. But the spell text is poorly worded, as it does not require that.


It’s very debatable about object interactions working as you describe.Please, enlighten me as to the counterargument.


Your debatable cunning action stance is not actually an issue in 99% of encounters even if ruled favorably for your argument. Again, please enlighten me as to the counterargument over my "debatable cunning action stance."

Agreed: not every character or creature has it or similar abilities. However, there is a high probability of at least one PC having it, and the DM having to deal with that PC asking if he can exploit it in this fashion.


That leaves us with the they don’t really have to move away being the only possible issue - except if the enemy doesn’t move away he doesn’t get a save and thus perpetually loses his action. Only if he has nothing he can do with his bonus action and has to spend his action dashing. Technically little stopping him from setting a pick to OA you.

It seems like a stupid exploit to allow, but it is technically valid as per the RAW.


None of these rulings particularly trash the spell.Depends what you want out of it.

Again: I think a DM is entirely in his rights to rule that it makes you dash as fast as possible away from the caster. I think a player is within his rights to complain of a DM tries these exploits with victims of the player's fear spell, as well (unless the players have been using them).


I think if they can move, they mist move.All it says is that they must move away from the caster on their turn. Moving 1 foot away is moving away.


Having moved 1ft, if they have movement left and are not backed into a corner, they can move. Therefore they must move.Nope. They already moved away on their turn. They have met the requirement.


They keep going till a condition is met such that they can't move.It doesn't specify that they must expend all of their available movement.

[MrStabby]

All it says is that they must move away from the caster on their turn. Moving 1 foot away is moving away.

Nope. They already moved away on their turn. They have met the requirement.

It doesn't specify that they must expend all of their available movement.

It absolutely nowhere says they stop if they have moved. There is a condition given whereby they do not need to move; It does not include having already moved.

It doesn't say they must expend all of their movement because it doesn't need to.

[KorvinStarmast]

I’ve always understood a dash action to be a different thing than a dash bonus action. It is, in part because it is One Of Three Choices for that class feature.

From my understanding, taking a Cunning Action to dash is different from taking the Dash Action, in the same way that making an offhand strike bonus action is different from just using the attack action with your left hand. Thats why they call it Cunning Action instead of just saying the feature converts Dash to a bonus action. Yeah. That's how it works (at our tables).

[Segev]

It absolutely nowhere says they stop if they have moved. There is a condition given whereby they do not need to move; It does not include having already moved.

It doesn't say they must expend all of their movement because it doesn't need to.

No rules are required beyond normal movement rules to permit them to stop moving. Rules are required to compel them to continue moving.

[MrStabby]

No rules are required beyond normal movement rules to permit them to stop moving. Rules are required to compel them to continue moving.

Well thank goodness Fear says that a creature moves away from you otherwise there might not be something compeloing movement.

[Segev]

Well thank goodness Fear says that a creature moves away from you otherwise there might not be something compeloing movement.

It doesn't compel movement beyond "moving away." It does not compel moving any distance beyond "moving."

It makes sense that the intent would be to move as far as possible, but the text only says to move away. If you move away at all, you have obeyed the compulsion as listed. It does not say you have to use all of your movement.

[Keltest]

It doesn't compel movement beyond "moving away." It does not compel moving any distance beyond "moving."

It makes sense that the intent would be to move as far as possible, but the text only says to move away. If you move away at all, you have obeyed the compulsion as listed. It does not say you have to use all of your movement.

If you have movement available and arent using it, then you can move away and have not triggered the condition that says you dont have to move away. Therefore, you must move away.

[Damon_Tor]

5e deliberately removed the more exact "rulesy" spell mechanics that so many people complained made 4e feel like "an MMO". The spell is deliberately open to interpretation as to a given target might respond. If the DM wants to do a little half-smirk and say "well actually, the goblins can just pick up the weapons the spell told them to drop and they only move 1 foot away from you and use the dash bonus action and they close their eyes for one milisecond to break LoS so the fear effect ends and so they attack you normally and without penalty" well yeah, he can do that. He can also say a Planetar shows up and 1-shots your whole 3rd level party if he feels like it. And you're free to find a new game if he does either thing.

I don't see a problem with how the spell is written.

[MaxWilson]

5e deliberately removed the more exact "rulesy" spell mechanics that so many people complained made 4e feel like "an MMO". The spell is deliberately open to interpretation as to a given target might respond. If the DM wants to do a little half-smirk and say "well actually, the goblins can just pick up the weapons the spell told them to drop and they only move 1 foot away from you and use the dash bonus action and they close their eyes for one milisecond to break LoS so the fear effect ends and so they attack you normally and without penalty" well yeah, he can do that. He can also say a Planetar shows up and 1-shots your whole 3rd level party if he feels like it. And you're free to find a new game if he does either thing.

I don't see a problem with how the spell is written.

Not that standard MM goblins have a Dash bonus action in the first place. And a DM who deliberately changes goblin stats to mess with you could just give the goblins immunity to the Frightened condition in the first place (does not affect CR).

[KorvinStarmast]

If you have movement available and arent using it, then you can move away and have not triggered the condition that says you dont have to move away. Therefore, you must move away. It takes a deliberately tortured reading of the rules to find otherwise, as I see it.

I check the spell text again:

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.

Direction of movement: away
Magnitude of movement: Dash

When you take the Dash action, you gain extra Movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers.

It does not say anything about "up to your movement speed"


The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of its fear.

[Solid_Snek]

"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."

Things the spell does not say:

A creature must use its action to Dash. If you can Dash using a bonus action, your regular action is still your own.

A creature must move away first thing on its turn. If aforesaid bonus action dash is in play, you can go right ahead and take your action before fleeing. Any creature can use its free interaction with the environment to immediately pick up whatever it dropped.

The creature must move as far away from you as possible. As the spell is currently worded, any amount of movement away from you satisfies the requirement. The bit about "unless there is nowhere to move" is clearly aimed in this direction, but misses the mark of being unambiguous.

I think it's clear that the spell is not intended to work this way, but there you have it; lots of little loopholes for the opportunistic player, or worse, the cruel DM, to use to gum up the works, or at least waste time in argument.

This post comes courtesy of some rules lawyering by one of my players, who pointed out in bafflement that they could have just used the wording from Turn Undead, which addresses all of these issues. But he still chose to take up game time arguing these points about the spell when it was used on him, so in my opinion he deserves both praise and scorn. Hope you're reading, D, you clever, irritating sonofagun.

Do spells take into account that creatures might have bonus actions? I mean, outside of the ones that GIVE bonus actions? I don't think spells were written with the assumption of Bonus Actions being a thing since you generally won't have a bonus action. So, unless a spell specifically calls it out, I don't think spells should have an affect on bonus actions.

Having spells affect Bonus Actions, without calling them out specifically, would make spells way more powerful against creatures/characters who are better at something and that's a weird punishment route I don't want to go down.

Fear doesn't say "pick an action type" it just says "use your action". Bonus Actions are special actions, yes, but they are way more specific and the spell only calls out the general rule of an action.

I think this is yet another case of 5e not being a well designed game in addition to the devs forgetting about stuff that players are going to use.

So, for me, I would say that spells only do what they say they do and doesn't take into account Bonus Actions so the player (or creature) would get to do with them as they will as the spell doesn't know if the character has a bonus action. Now, a condition may have them act with their bonus action, but the spell would not.

[PhantomSoul]

From my understanding, taking a Cunning Action to dash is different from taking the Dash Action, in the same way that making an offhand strike bonus action is different from just using the attack action with your left hand. Thats why they call it Cunning Action instead of just saying the feature converts Dash to a bonus action. Among other things, this allows you to Dash twice in a round, once with the Dash action and once with your Cunning Action.

Except an Offhand Attack as a Bonus Action doesn't mean using the Attack Action for that Bonus Action (I just confirmed; PHB195), while Cunning Action does grant the Dash Action, so there is a potential difference because 5e is the worst kind of rules lawyering game -- one that pretends not to use technical terms and then uses them all over the place claiming it's "plain English" despite not being (most) interpretable as such! A Bonus Action is also defined as "an additional action", but at our tables we would probably interpret Fear's "using your action" to require your (non-Bonus) Action (not that I think it has come up), especially given how Command works.

---

Edit for newer post:



Having spells affect Bonus Actions, without calling them out specifically, would make spells way more powerful against creatures/characters who are better at something and that's a weird punishment route I don't want to go down.

Agreed, especially given some cases where a spell or ability will say you can "only" do something, or that your turn ends immediately after doing the thing.


I think this is yet another case of 5e not being a well designed game in addition to the devs forgetting about stuff that players are going to use.


100% agreed.

[MaxWilson]

*snip*the worst kind of rules lawyering game -- one that pretends not to use technical terms and then uses them all over the place claiming it's "plain English" despite not being (most) interpretable as such!

No argument there.

[Segev]

If you have movement available and arent using it, then you can move away and have not triggered the condition that says you dont have to move away. Therefore, you must move away.

Incorrect. The requirement is that you must move away from the caster on your turn. Nowhere does it state how far you must move on your turn. Therefore, as long as you have moved away, you have satisfied the requirement.

The DM saying that you must actually move as far as you can is fine, that seems obviously to be RAI. But it is an error in the writing, which only requires you to move away on your turn. Any distance qualifies as filling the requirement if no further instruction is given.

[MrStabby]

Incorrect. The requirement is that you must move away from the caster on your turn. Nowhere does it state how far you must move on your turn. Therefore, as long as you have moved away, you have satisfied the requirement.



It doesnt get any more correct with repitition.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It doesnt get any more correct with repitition.

It depends on what you view as a completion, having moved at all and using all of your movement are both acceptable responses to "you must move away". Dashing doesn't force you to use the speed you gain either, you are able to dash without using any movement, as pointless as it is. Nothing compels you to use all of your movement here.

Clearly the spell could have used better writing, that seems to be the most objective truth we've got out of this since we've once again reached a debate on how literally we're meant to read and interpret this spell.

Do I personally like the interpretation that allows you to expend any small amount of movement and call it good? No, I can't say I'm a fan of it. Can I say it's incorrect and cite any rules to contradict it? No, despite my opinion on it, it's a reasonable reading of the spell.

[MaxWilson]

Clearly the spell could have used better writing, that seems to be the most objective truth we've got out of this since we've once again reached a debate on how literally we're meant to read and interpret this spell.

Do I personally like the interpretation that allows you to expend any small amount of movement and call it good? No, I can't say I'm a fan of it. Can I say it's incorrect and cite any rules to contradict it? No, despite my opinion on it, it's a reasonable reading of the spell.

So... has anyone posted any ideas on actually exploiting this supposedly-highly - exploitable spell? How do you leverage the noted rules technicalities into increased power?

[ProsecutorGodot]

So... has anyone posted any ideas on actually exploiting this supposedly-highly - exploitable spell? How do you leverage the noted rules technicalities into increased power?

I don't honestly think it affects the spells usability all that much, my problem with it is almost entirely centered on a mismatch of expectations rather than a power imbalance. I'm not sure calling it "highly exploitable" is accurate, this is more of a gimmick that you can use to cause some table strife impress people with your rules knowledge.

[Segev]

So... has anyone posted any ideas on actually exploiting this supposedly-highly - exploitable spell? How do you leverage the noted rules technicalities into increased power?

I haven't even been suggesting exploiting it. I have been pointing out that it does, in fact, have those exploits. And recommending ruling against using them. The people arguing with me seem to think that they need to twist the wording to say what it should have been written to say, rather than just acknowledging that it was poorly written and moving on to say that it should be run as if it were written better.

The only exploits I forsee are things like the meat shield not deigning to allow Fear to do more than limit his actions as he uses Sentinel to keep his source of fear right next to him.

[Frogreaver]

My reading is that you must move away by the safest possible route. The reason for this seems obvious. It’s so that an enemy can stop behind cover or other favorable terrain even if not at maximum movement.

I’m not sure we could deem moving 1ft away as the safest route possible in most circumstances. So while I’m on board with the spell not forcing maximum movement - I’m also not on board with the whole 1ft away concept.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My viewpoint--

The rules were not written to be interpreted through a narrow, "legalistic"[1] mindset. They were written to be interpreted by a DM according to the spirit of the rules, for the purposes of having a fun game.

In that light, the spirit of fear is crystal clear. They'd not have said you have to Dash unless they meant "move as far away as possible". They'd not have said "drop what you're holding" if they intended for someone to trivially pick it back up again.

As such, I'd look at anyone (DM or player) interpreting it via the narrow nit-picking lens as seeking personal advantage through rules manipulation. Aka munchkinry. Which in my eyes is one of the worse offenses against the trust of the table (not as bad as outright lying about dice rolls on the player side, nor as bad as intentionally stirring up conflict or not bringing snacks when it's your turn, but worse than most other offenses). Consistent behavior like that would result in one of the two of us leaving the table, as it's not a game I'm willing to play in.

[1] real lawyers and judges would laugh at these readings. Because this sort of hair-splitting, "it didn't say I couldn't" "logic" would get you a show-cause order[2] real darn fast in a real case, plus getting your case thrown out. Judges look at the whole thing, including the intent and meaning. They have canons of construction that go way beyond literal clause-by-clause readings in the most permissive light.

[2] "Show cause" why we shouldn't fine you for making frivolous arguments and wasting everyone's time. Usually that means having to pay both parties costs at a minimum.

[MrStabby]

It depends on what you view as a completion, having moved at all and using all of your movement are both acceptable responses to "you must move away". Dashing doesn't force you to use the speed you gain either, you are able to dash without using any movement, as pointless as it is. Nothing compels you to use all of your movement here.

Clearly the spell could have used better writing, that seems to be the most objective truth we've got out of this since we've once again reached a debate on how literally we're meant to read and interpret this spell.

Do I personally like the interpretation that allows you to expend any small amount of movement and call it good? No, I can't say I'm a fan of it. Can I say it's incorrect and cite any rules to contradict it? No, despite my opinion on it, it's a reasonable reading of the spell.

Oh I am not saying that it is an unreasonable way to rule it. I am saying that simply repeating onself wihtout adding anything new is unlikely to persuade anyone. If what you were to say were to have been persuasive then they would hve been convinced when it was said before. Those who were unconvinced will remain unconvinced. Simply the declaration that they are "incorrect" is not the decicive argument that will persuade anyone.

My principal objection was not so much to the result (I don't really agree, but... whatever) and more to do with the poor level of argumentation put forward to support it. And even then it is not so much an objection as a desire to not have anyone waste more time repeating themselves for little benefit to themselves of their readers.

[Cikomyr2]

I would be pretty disappointed at a player who uses his creative powers in finding this edge interpretation of the rules. Why waste energy in making the game less awesome instead of investing it in making the make cooler.

[Kane0]

Huh. Guess i’ll be using the Turn Undead wording then I suppose.

[Terebin]

It has already been brought up that 5e made a design choice to use naturalistic language and trust players and DMs to interpret the rules within the narrative.

What I think is missing from the discussion is that *all* rulesets written for human readers are subject to interpretation. There isn't actually a way to write a Fear spell that is without ambiguity. 5e makes that a feature, not a bug.

[Segev]

Oh I am not saying that it is an unreasonable way to rule it. I am saying that simply repeating onself wihtout adding anything new is unlikely to persuade anyone. If what you were to say were to have been persuasive then they would hve been convinced when it was said before. Those who were unconvinced will remain unconvinced. Simply the declaration that they are "incorrect" is not the decicive argument that will persuade anyone.

My principal objection was not so much to the result (I don't really agree, but... whatever) and more to do with the poor level of argumentation put forward to support it. And even then it is not so much an objection as a desire to not have anyone waste more time repeating themselves for little benefit to themselves of their readers.

"The rules say that you can't use a two-handed weapon in one hand."
"I think you can, because obviously two-handed weapons really just mean you need to HAVE two hands, not that you need to use them both."
"But that's not what the rules say. They say you need to use two hands."
"The rules clearly don't mean that, though."
"But they rules SAY you have to use two hands on two-handed weapons!"
"Look, repeating yourself doesn't make it more persuasive."

The worst part is, I actually agree with PhoenixPhyre: this only rises to the level of deserving to be acknowledged as what is SAID, despite that rather clearly not being the INTENT, before we move on to agreeing that the intent is what people are trying to claim it says (even though it doesn't) and to run with that. I insist we acknowledge the reality before our eyes of what it DOES and DOES NOT say, because pretending it says what we want it to rather than acknowledging that we're having to correct for an error is not a good method for analyzing rules.

[Keltest]

"The rules say that you can't use a two-handed weapon in one hand."
"I think you can, because obviously two-handed weapons really just mean you need to HAVE two hands, not that you need to use them both."
"But that's not what the rules say. They say you need to use two hands."
"The rules clearly don't mean that, though."
"But they rules SAY you have to use two hands on two-handed weapons!"
"Look, repeating yourself doesn't make it more persuasive."

The worst part is, I actually agree with PhoenixPhyre: this only rises to the level of deserving to be acknowledged as what is SAID, despite that rather clearly not being the INTENT, before we move on to agreeing that the intent is what people are trying to claim it says (even though it doesn't) and to run with that. I insist we acknowledge the reality before our eyes of what it DOES and DOES NOT say, because pretending it says what we want it to rather than acknowledging that we're having to correct for an error is not a good method for analyzing rules.

We arent computers. We are able to look at a complete combination of sentences and understand the overall meaning. In cases of ambiguity of what is meant, context clues are used to decide which of multiple possible meanings is intended.

In this case, the context clues of forcing the Dash action (as opposed to allowing no other action besides it) and a specific end condition listed for the movement allow us to conclude that the meaning is for you to use all your move speed until you cannot move any more.

[Solid_Snek]

We arent computers. We are able to look at a complete combination of sentences and understand the overall meaning. In cases of ambiguity of what is meant, context clues are used to decide which of multiple possible meanings is intended.

In this case, the context clues of forcing the Dash action (as opposed to allowing no other action besides it) and a specific end condition listed for the movement allow us to conclude that the meaning is for you to use all your move speed until you cannot move any more.

I disagree. We are computers, rather complex ones, but we are computers.

When you read something and when someone else reads something, both can come to different conclusions based on the same context.

[Keltest]

I disagree. We are computers, rather complex ones, but we are computers.

When you read something and when someone else reads something, both can come to different conclusions based on the same context.

Yes, obviously, but a literal parsing of the rule sentence by sentence is not how a human being communicates.

[PhantomSoul]

It has already been brought up that 5e made a design choice to use naturalistic language and trust players and DMs to interpret the rules within the narrative.

What I think is missing from the discussion is that *all* rulesets written for human readers are subject to interpretation. There isn't actually a way to write a Fear spell that is without ambiguity. 5e makes that a feature, not a bug.

Except the problem is that they failed at using technical language and failed at using natural language, using something that is in between with neither's benefits. Sure, all language is subject to interpretation, but sloppy communication (that would easily have been avoidable no less) makes that interpretation less consistent. It claims it's a feature, but it's definitely a bug in practice with how they wrote it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, obviously, but a literal parsing of the rule sentence by sentence is not how a human being communicates.

Correct. And the developers in this instance have even specified that the appropriate unit of analysis is (at minimum) the paragraph. Generally, the entire ability or spell is the appropriate context. Nothing outside the ability is context, unless it's referenced in the ability or spell. Just like you can't analyze the timing of events at the sub-turn level (although you can in some instance determine ordering, you don't know how long each sub-portion took in real-time), you can't analyze an ability or spell at less than the paragraph level. It all exists as a unit. No part has meaning independent of the other parts.


"The rules say that you can't use a two-handed weapon in one hand."
"I think you can, because obviously two-handed weapons really just mean you need to HAVE two hands, not that you need to use them both."
"But that's not what the rules say. They say you need to use two hands."
"The rules clearly don't mean that, though."
"But they rules SAY you have to use two hands on two-handed weapons!"
"Look, repeating yourself doesn't make it more persuasive."

The worst part is, I actually agree with PhoenixPhyre: this only rises to the level of deserving to be acknowledged as what is SAID, despite that rather clearly not being the INTENT, before we move on to agreeing that the intent is what people are trying to claim it says (even though it doesn't) and to run with that. I insist we acknowledge the reality before our eyes of what it DOES and DOES NOT say, because pretending it says what we want it to rather than acknowledging that we're having to correct for an error is not a good method for analyzing rules.

What's SAID (the literal text) only really matters because people insist (for whatever reason[1]) that it matters. Fun fact--even laws don't go on a "literal words" basis. Nor do contracts. Nor does, well, anything. Because that's a stupid, inhuman, obtuse way of reading anything unless you're looking for exploits. Which you shouldn't do.

I'll be even more emphatic. A focus on the literal text of any rule is worse than useless. It propagates the false and harmful notion that exact phrasing matters and that the letter of the law is what is binding. And that breaks the game entirely, twisting it into something that it is not. And chasing "literal clarity" actually promotes loophole hunting. And the fact is that no piece of text, no matter how carefully written, is immune to motivated readings.

[1] In my more uncharitable moments, I blame intent-to-exploit (ie munchkinry). In my more charitable moments, I blame 3e and the culture it spawned of hyper-literalism and RAW worship. Which has no part in 5e and has been explicitly repudiated as the appropriate reading methodology. Unless, of course, you want to use a paintbrush as a jackhammer. But if you do, don't blame the paintbrush manufacturer for your difficulties removing the pavement!

[Frogreaver]

What's SAID (the literal text) only really matters because people insist (for whatever reason[1]) that it matters. Fun fact--even laws don't go on a "literal words" basis. Nor do contracts. Nor does, well, anything. Because that's a stupid, inhuman, obtuse way of reading anything unless you're looking for exploits. Which you shouldn't do.

One look at the recent U.S. Supreme Court Deportation case decision that was based on the word 'a' in the phrase 'a notice' to mean a single notice is required as opposed to receiving multiple notices where one might change the date or location of the proceeding is a great recent counterexample to your point here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One look at the recent U.S. Supreme Court Deportation case decision that was based on the word 'a' in the phrase 'a notice' to mean a single notice is required as opposed to receiving multiple notices where one might change the date or location of the proceeding is a great recent counterexample to your point here.

And that was notable for being as rare as it is. And as I said, nothing is immune to motivated reading--no text (or textual interpretation method) is immune to being read to further the reader's desired outcome. But any further would be a breach of forum rules in the extreme.

[Segev]

What is said is important. What is meant is also important. The latter is, generally (and in this case) more important than the former, but pretending that the latter causes the former to not be incorrectly stated only invites poor thinking skills.

Understanding what the words that were used means is crucial to being able to properly parse when they do not say what they were intended to. Yes, it is possible to draw the intended meaning from all the context without recognizing that the actual words chosen expressed it incorrectly, but once it is pointed out that they do, in fact, incorrectly express the intended meaning, it serves nobody to try to insist that the words chosen actually said something other than what they said because the intended meaning was different.

I will not defend people trying to cheese this based on the technicality. I will, however, insist that claiming that the text obviously SAYS what it obviously MEANT is incorrect.

We should acknowledge what the rules do, in fact, say and allow if followed literally and technically, and then move on to acknowledge their obvious intent and suggest/promote running the spell according to the intent. If we do not do this, we inhibit ability to interpret other common-English writings of rules because we encourage incorrectly parsing them to fit a desired outcome, rather than correctly parsing them and then deciding if the desired outcome is better than what they say. Common language and points of reference require understanding what IS said, even if the only consequence is a brief chortle over the error before saying, "But seriously, it should be run this way because it's the obvious intent."

[Hytheter]

A creature must use its action to Dash. If you can Dash using a bonus action, your regular action is still your own.

Being able to use a bonus action instead doesn't bother me. I'd say that's actually kind of a neat trick, it lets rogues subject to the spell get off a parting shot.


It does not say anything about "up to your movement speed"

Just because you have extra movement available doesn't mean you have to use it. By that logic, moving is never optional and all players and creatures must compulsively move their full speed every single turn.

[RSP]

“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.”

I’m not sure having a BA Dash removes the need to Dash with your Action. The condition is “while frightened by this spell.” So long as that condition is still in place, a creature must take the Dash action.

So the idea that a BA Dash frees up the Action, is, I believe, false. Unless somehow that BA Dash gets you out of being frightened by the spell (such as within range of a Paladin’s Aura of Courage), the condition stated by the sentence still applies.

So after taking the BA Dash, you’d still be frightened by the spell, and, therefore, must take the Dash Action.

[EggKookoo]

Regarding using your full available movement, doesn't the clause "unless there's nowhere to move" imply you need to keep moving as long as you have movement? If you move 10 feet away, there's still 20 feet of "somewhere to move" left, so you must use it.

I would probably rule it that a rogue must move, action dash, and bonus action dash, all to the combined ~90 feet, as long as there's physical space to do so.

[Segev]

If it said that the target had to dash at every opportunity or could only take the dash action and must move away as fast as it safely could, you'd be right. But not what it says.

It says the target must take the dash action on its turn. As long as the target does so, the target can do anything else with any remaining available actions it wants. It says the tart must move away from the caster. As long as the target moves away from the caster on the target's turn, it has satisfied the requirement. Is one foot further from the caster a move away? Yes, it is. The target has moved away from the caster, satisfying the requirement.

The clause about nowhere to move lets the target not even have to move that little if it cannot do so safely. that's all.

Now, the implication is that the target is fleeing in not-quite-blind terror, and that is what these requirements are trying to simulate. They are simulating it badly if taken as "sufficient." I do recommend ruling that creatures must spend every available action dashing or otherwise trying to move as far from the caster as they safely can.

But it is bad logic to take what the spell should be accomplishing and trying to convince ourselves that the text actually says that. It doesn't.

To add to the discussion: on the one hand, I would be tempted to permit the use of Misty Step, Dimension Door, or Teleport to move away from the caster even faster. On the other, I can see an argument that yo too scared to cast a spell. As written, if you take the dash action and still have either an action or a bonus action available to cast one of those spells or use a similar ability, you can do so. I don't think that is out of line with the spell's intent, unlike the cheesy, athematic possibilities (such as stopping after moving away only one foot).

[RSP]

If it said that the target had to dash at every opportunity or could only take the dash action and must move away as fast as it safely could, you'd be right. But not what it says.

It says the target must take the dash action on its turn. As long as the target does so, the target can do anything else with any remaining available actions it wants.

It neither has to say “every opportunity” nor “can only take the dash action.” The sentence is “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.”

The condition on which the rest of sentence set is “while frightened by this spell”. As long as that’s the case a creature must take the dash action, etc.

Nothing in the spell states anything along the lines of “once you’ve taken the Dash Action, the spell no longer affects the target that turn” or any such.

Essentially it applies as such:

Start of target’s turn: is the target frightened by the Fear spell? If so, they must take the Dash action and move away from the caster by the safest available route on each of its turns, unless there is nowhere to move. So is there anywhere to move? If so take the Dash Action.

Let’s say they have a BA Dash they use. Great. Are they still under the effect of the Fear spell? If so, the restriction on having to take the Dash Action still applies.

[Amnestic]

It neither has to say “every opportunity” nor “can only take the dash action.” The sentence is “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.”

It is notable, as pointed out in the OP, that Turn Undead does have that language though:



A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can't willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you. It also can't take Reactions. For its action, it can use only the Dash action or try to Escape from an effect that prevents it from moving. If there's nowhere to move, the creature can use the Dodge action.


Why didn't the Fear Spell reproduce this? Who knows.

[Keltest]

It is notable, as pointed out in the OP, that Turn Undead does have that language though:



Why didn't the Fear Spell reproduce this? Who knows.

Fear has a clause that causes you to use the safest route, so presumably they did it so that you dont have to expose yourself to extra damage in order to get an extra 5' further away and defeat the point of the safety clause.

[Puh Laden]

The dash action doesn’t actually involve moving at all, it simply doubles your available movement. Since a creature “must use its dash action to move away from you” but moving is not actually part of the dash action, that implies you must use the resource given by the dash action (extra movement). Therefore you must move by using at least the amount of movement granted to you by the dash action.

[Catullus64]

Since 80% of the replies seem to be back-and-forth over the same points (and half of those seem to be an increasingly beleaguered Segev defending my original logic, bless you) I'm going to try a different way of arguing why the spell does work the way I pointed out in my original post.

Take the phrase "a creature must take the Dash action." The aspect of the verb "take" is simple; neither strictly progressive ("a creature must be taking the Dash action", it must use any and all actions available to Dash) nor perfective ("a creature must have taken the Dash action", it must take the Dash action in some way on its turn). The same applies to the verb later in the spell, "move (away from you)".

Many people who don't believe the wording of the spell allows for what I describe in my original post seem to take the stance of "the language of the spell includes an activity that is more in line with RAI, therefore these activities that break with RAI are invalid" My point was that the language does not exclusively restrict a creature's action to the intended uncontrolled flight. "The creature must move away from you" is a phrase that describes any and all movements away from the caster.

People have made much of the "unless there is nowhere else to go" as proof that the wording does not allow this; that it functions like a string of code, repeatedly checking throughout the turn "If (1) somewhere left to move -> continue moving" until it encounters the variable numbered "nowhere left to move". (I know very little about actual coding, you see.) That would be so if the conditional used was "until", but it's "unless." The "keep checking until condition is met" reading is still a possible reading of the language, but not the only one, and that was my main point.

Edit to respond to Puh Laden: Unfortunately, the spell doesn't say "take the Dash action to move away from you", it says "take the Dash action and move away from you.

[Cikomyr2]

Since 80% of the replies seem to be back-and-forth over the same points (and half of those seem to be an increasingly beleaguered Segev defending my original logic, bless you) I'm going to try a different way of arguing why the spell does work the way I pointed out in my original post.

Take the phrase "a creature must take the Dash action." The aspect of the verb "take" is simple; neither strictly progressive ("a creature must be taking the Dash action", it must use any and all actions available to Dash) nor perfective ("a creature must have taken the Dash action", it must take the Dash action in some way on its turn). The same applies to the verb later in the spell, "move (away from you)".

Many people who don't believe the wording of the spell allows for what I describe in my original post seem to take the stance of "the language of the spell includes an activity that is more in line with RAI, therefore these activities that break with RAI are invalid" My point was that the language does not exclusively restrict a creature's action to the intended uncontrolled flight. "The creature must move away from you" is a phrase that describes any and all movements away from the caster.

People have made much of the "unless there is nowhere else to go" as proof that the wording does not allow this; that it functions like a string of code, repeatedly checking throughout the turn "If (1) somewhere left to move -> continue moving" until it encounters the variable numbered "nowhere left to move". (I know very little about actual coding, you see.) That would be so if the conditional used was "until", but it's "unless." The "keep checking until condition is met" reading is still a possible reading of the language, but not the only one, and that was my main point.

Edit to respond to Puh Laden: Unfortunately, the spell doesn't say "take the Dash action to move away from you", it says "take the Dash action and move away from you.

Nop. I hate Legalese in D&D.

[Keltest]

Nop. I hate Legalese in D&D.

Ditto. If your argument boils down to "well if i read it in this way that is obviously not intended, then the meaning changes" then im just going to ignore you out of hand on the internet, or throw my backpack full of books at you if youre actually at my table.

[Cikomyr2]

Ditto. If your argument boils down to "well if i read it in this way that is obviously not intended, then the meaning changes" then im just going to ignore you out of hand on the internet, or throw my backpack full of books at you if youre actually at my table.

I think I would wait until the 30 minutes mark after the game has ground to a halt while you repeat the same argument before I resort to throwing books.

[Catullus64]

Ditto. If your argument boils down to "well if i read it in this way that is obviously not intended, then the meaning changes" then im just going to ignore you out of hand on the internet, or throw my backpack full of books at you if youre actually at my table.

Dude, I'm not at your table. I'm not at anyone's table. I'm not trying to suggest in any way that the spell ought to be played this way, or that DMs should rule it such. I've said as much in previous posts. I'm arguing about how clear the language of the spell is relative to what I think it intends, as brought about by an amusing incident at my own table. I'm indulging in idle word-play, and you seem to be taking that as some kind of affront to decency, worthy of online contempt or in-person comedy violence.

If anything, I created the post in the first place because the argument is unsuitable for the table. Being aware of the places where the game's language is unclear or leaves room for play-halting argument is a healthy habit for players and DMs alike, so you can avoid getting quagmired in such linguistic traps. I know that if I had considered the ambiguous wording of Fear before the session that brought this up, I would have spent less time debating with the player and more time running the game.

[Dalinar]

Y'all ever think Turn Undead and Fear might have just been written by different people with different ideas of how specific the text needed to be to achieve the desired result? The PHB is not a single-author book.

Not that we *can* know that, per se, but it would explain a lot.

I suppose you can argue that that's a quality control failure, but honestly I don't think it's feasible for QC to catch everything before a game releases. The public simply has way more power to find errors than creators do. I've seen some pretty legendary and well-received games over the years that have much more exploitable "bugs" than what Catallus' player found. (The difference, of course, being that those are video games, without a DM to arbitrate things like "no you can't warp time and space to get to the end of the campaign in five minutes" or in this case "no you can't immediately pick up your weapons before the Fear spell forces you to move away" etc. Sorry that I don't have more TTRPG experience to draw examples from, I know this is a slightly different hobby!)

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Turn Undead is much better worded than Fear is, I think it's a stretch to say that has any impact on how we're supposed to interpret the Fear spell.

Actually, come to think of it, has the wording changed all that much compared to similar spells from previous editions? Might be worth a look.

[PhantomSoul]

Y'all ever think Turn Undead and Fear might have just been written by different people with different ideas of how specific the text needed to be to achieve the desired result? The PHB is not a single-author book.


And potentially with different drafts of what Dash does! (But maybe not, though they do sound like they might have used a version of Dash where it actually involved Moving, not just increasing your Speed.)

[EggKookoo]

D&D 5e does not work without a DM injecting RAI into the RAW.

IMHO no version of D&D does, but it's extra-true in this edition.

[Cikomyr2]

Y'all ever think Turn Undead and Fear might have just been written by different people with different ideas of how specific the text needed to be to achieve the desired result? The PHB is not a single-author book.

Not that we *can* know that, per se, but it would explain a lot.

I suppose you can argue that that's a quality control failure, but honestly I don't think it's feasible for QC to catch everything before a game releases. The public simply has way more power to find errors than creators do. I've seen some pretty legendary and well-received games over the years that have much more exploitable "bugs" than what Catallus' player found. (The difference, of course, being that those are video games, without a DM to arbitrate things like "no you can't warp time and space to get to the end of the campaign in five minutes" or in this case "no you can't immediately pick up your weapons before the Fear spell forces you to move away" etc. Sorry that I don't have more TTRPG experience to draw examples from, I know this is a slightly different hobby!)

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Turn Undead is much better worded than Fear is, I think it's a stretch to say that has any impact on how we're supposed to interpret the Fear spell.

Actually, come to think of it, has the wording changed all that much compared to similar spells from previous editions? Might be worth a look.

WotC are not designing a game to be ran by robots who follow instructions TO THE LETTER of their programming.

The wording is vague, let's not overdwell on it? if a clever player want to try to pull that crap with me, I'd just make them do a single intelligence check to see if they can actually control their fear sufficiently to explore the boundaries of the mental effect they are under.

[Segev]

It's not even a fine parsing.

The extremely tortured readings are the ones trying to transform "The creature must take the dash action and move away" into "The creature must expend all possible actions on dashing and move a maximal distance away."

I fully agree that the latter is closer to the intent than the most limited compliance with the former, and support anybody who wants to run fear as requiring that all possible movement be expended to move away from the caster. But the English is plain: the target must take the dash action on its turn (not "take nothing but the dash action" nor "take the dash action as many times as possible") and must move away from the caster (not "move as far away from the caster as possible") unless (not "until") there is nowhere for the target to move away.

In fact, the second interpretation may well be NOT intended, in the sense that it may well be deliberate that a creature with a bonus action dash or which has bonus actions can still use whichever is not consumed by dashing to do something else, particularly if they do it to flee even faster.

But we must accept what the text DOES SAY and that it is, probably, not worded quite right to achieve the intended goal, before we move on to try to determine how to run it to achieve the intended goal, or we invite all sorts of bad logic and language parsing in tortured readings.

I am all for the principle that, if there are multiple ways to interpret text, and one of them yields a sensible rule that fits neatly with others and achieves the flavor desired while others create confusion, contradictions, or results that don't fit the obvious intent, you should go with the one that fits neatly. But I am not in favor of deliberately torturing the language to MAKE it fit the flavor desired. It's far better to acknowledge when it doesn't do quite what we think it should and then discuss how to run it to make it do what we think it should. Especially since tortured readings to get "what it MUST have meant" to "obviously" be "in the text" (when it definitely isn't) sometimes happens on this very forum with rules that actually do, if you read the RAW and interpret it directly, fit nicely with a different paradigm than the one into which it was trying to be shoehorned. But the other paradigm is believed strongly to be "right" and people are insistent on trying to shoehorn the RAW into that paradigm by twisting and forcing it rather than stepping back and just reading it as written.

In this case, I do think people are trying to shoehorn it into fitting the shoe it was meant to fit. But I think trying to do so is not good analysis. We should instead accept that it's not going to fit, and acknowledge that we need to house rule it a bit.

[Cikomyr2]

It's not even a fine parsing.

The extremely tortured readings are the ones trying to transform "The creature must take the dash action and move away" into "The creature must expend all possible actions on dashing and move a maximal distance away."

I fully agree that the latter is closer to the intent than the most limited compliance with the former, and support anybody who wants to run fear as requiring that all possible movement be expended to move away from the caster. But the English is plain: the target must take the dash action on its turn (not "take nothing but the dash action" nor "take the dash action as many times as possible") and must move away from the caster (not "move as far away from the caster as possible") unless (not "until") there is nowhere for the target to move away.

In fact, the second interpretation may well be NOT intended, in the sense that it may well be deliberate that a creature with a bonus action dash or which has bonus actions can still use whichever is not consumed by dashing to do something else, particularly if they do it to flee even faster.

But we must accept what the text DOES SAY and that it is, probably, not worded quite right to achieve the intended goal, before we move on to try to determine how to run it to achieve the intended goal, or we invite all sorts of bad logic and language parsing in tortured readings.

I am all for the principle that, if there are multiple ways to interpret text, and one of them yields a sensible rule that fits neatly with others and achieves the flavor desired while others create confusion, contradictions, or results that don't fit the obvious intent, you should go with the one that fits neatly. But I am not in favor of deliberately torturing the language to MAKE it fit the flavor desired. It's far better to acknowledge when it doesn't do quite what we think it should and then discuss how to run it to make it do what we think it should. Especially since tortured readings to get "what it MUST have meant" to "obviously" be "in the text" (when it definitely isn't) sometimes happens on this very forum with rules that actually do, if you read the RAW and interpret it directly, fit nicely with a different paradigm than the one into which it was trying to be shoehorned. But the other paradigm is believed strongly to be "right" and people are insistent on trying to shoehorn the RAW into that paradigm by twisting and forcing it rather than stepping back and just reading it as written.

In this case, I do think people are trying to shoehorn it into fitting the shoe it was meant to fit. But I think trying to do so is not good analysis. We should instead accept that it's not going to fit, and acknowledge that we need to house rule it a bit.

Actually, your post make me think of something else. What about the Monk's Stillness of Mind ability? It expressly say that you have to use an action to negate a fear effect on yourself. But if the Fear spell forces you to take a dash action, does it mean you can't use Stillness of Mind?

[Catullus64]

Actually, your post make me think of something else. What about the Monk's Stillness of Mind ability? It expressly say that you have to use an action to negate a fear effect on yourself. But if the Fear spell forces you to take a dash action, does it mean you can't use Stillness of Mind?

Unless the Monk uses Step of the Wind to Dash first, I would argue (both in a "this is a plain reading of the text" and a "this is how I would run it at the table" sense) that the Monk could not use Stillness of Mind in that circumstance, since he is then not free to decide his action.

Stillness of Mind is a somewhat awkward feature, in that it allows you to use your action to end a condition... one of two condition types that most frequently restrict your action choices. I have a feeling that if it were written today, it'd be structured differently. I had a very difficult time deciding whether it should be useable to break a Vampire's Charm.

[Protolisk]

Perhaps I didn't read this among the few pages of responses, but as a minor point on the idea of what the Fear spell "does" do versus "should" do, there is an additional interpretation of what fear does in real life. Which also sort of defends the "minimal movement" assertion of what the rules allow for. A scared creature can just... stand still. Frozen in fear.

Mechanically, they still took the Dash action (not much else to do, except for Rogues and Goblins and such, but those are edge cases) and move 1 step back, and then freeze in place. A real "deer in headlights" kind of moment. So in the "fluff" sense of the spell, the person mostly froze there. Not paralyzed (the condition) or anything, but too scared to move effectively. Each turn they fail their save, they falteringly give ground (1 foot per turn) but not really do anything effective during their moment of being scared.

With that in mind, one could say that the spell is explicitly unlike Turn Undead, as Fear can cause different reaction in creatures, while Turn Undead does require them to turn tail and run.

A side note, since not everyone is a Rogue or Goblin, nothing in the spell precludes you from casting bonus action spells anyway, so a Fear affected cleric could still cast Healing Word, or a paladin can charge up an extra smite. Why punish the Rogue/Goblin with extra dashes when other classes/races that can't bonus action dash could still make some use of their turn (but not 100% of their turn)?

[Frogreaver]

And that was notable for being as rare as it is. And as I said, nothing is immune to motivated reading--no text (or textual interpretation method) is immune to being read to further the reader's desired outcome. But any further would be a breach of forum rules in the extreme.

I dislike when a supporting point is made that when disagreed with cannot even be discussed as a tangentially related topic. I really wish such ‘supporting points’ were never brought up in the first place.

[RSP]

Since 80% of the replies seem to be back-and-forth over the same points…

Again, “While frightened by this spell,” is when the effects apply. The effects aren’t limited to “once a turn” or anything like that. So if you’re frightened from the Fear spell, what’s described in the rest of the sentence holds true.

So, assuming that still holds true, “a creature must take the Dash action.” Again, not just once. So if you take a BA Dash Action, but are still frightened by the Fear spell, you haven’t alleviated the condition for the effect (“while frightened by this spell”), and as such, the creature “must take the dash action.” So they are not free to use their Action for anything else (at this point).

There’s a second part to the effect as well: “move away from [the caster] by the safest available route on each of its turns.” So long as that initial statement holds true (“while frightened by this spell”), this clause of the effect is in effect. That is, so long as you have movement and are under the effect of the frightened condition, you have to “move away…” It doesn’t matter if you’ve already moved, because that isn’t parts of the condition or the clause.

Now, there is an exception to get around the two clauses that make up the effect of the Fear spell: these effects are negated if “there is nowhere to move.”

So if the frightened condition is still in effect, and there’s somewhere to move, the two clauses of the spell effect are also still applicable to the afflicted creature.

That is, you can’t just, RAW, choose “well, sure, I’m still under the frightened condition from the Fear spell, and there’s places to move, but I’m just going to ignore the effects of the spell that say I have to take the Dash Action and move away.”

[Cikomyr2]

Unless the Monk uses Step of the Wind to Dash first, I would argue (both in a "this is a plain reading of the text" and a "this is how I would run it at the table" sense) that the Monk could not use Stillness of Mind in that circumstance, since he is then not free to decide his action.

Stillness of Mind is a somewhat awkward feature, in that it allows you to use your action to end a condition... one of two condition types that most frequently restrict your action choices. I have a feeling that if it were written today, it'd be structured differently. I had a very difficult time deciding whether it should be useable to break a Vampire's Charm.

Since Stillness of mind is a cool monk feature really emblematic of how I imagine a cool heroic monk would behave, I Think I would rephrase the following:

Stillness of Mind
Starting at 7th level, you can always use your action to end one effect on yourself that is causing you to be charmed or frightened.

There. Problem solved. You can't action-economy a monk from one of its main class feature.

"but it means you can't use charm or fear effects you neutralize a monk!"

Yes. Thank you. That's exactly what it means, and I think it's 100% appropriate.

[Segev]

Again, “While frightened by this spell,” is when the effects apply. The effects aren’t limited to “once a turn” or anything like that.

This is flat-out untrue.

The spell says that while frightened, they must take the dash action on their turn, and they must move away from the caster on their turn.

Yes, "while frightened by this spell" is a trigger condition for when the effects apply, but the effects that apply are "on their turn, take a dash action and move away from the caster." Nowhere does it say "do nothing else." Fulfil the compelled conditions, and they have satisfied them.

Again: you're trying to force the text into meaning what you believe the intent to have been. This is bad analysis. You're absolutely right that they should be compelled to move as far away as they safely can. You're debatably right over whether they should be compelled to expend every available action and bonus action on dashing.

But that's actually a key reason why the motivated reasoning behind trying to force extra language into it in order to make it say what you believe it should hinders actual analysis and discussion of how to run it: you're trying to shoehorn in "and only dash" or "dash as much as possible" when it doesn't say that, and arguably doesn't MEAN to say that if it, for example, wants to allow a cowardly rogue to disengage and dash away, or a monk to panic-kick off of the scary guy (making attacks and then spending 1 ki point to dash away) or allow the frightened wizard to take the dash action, take a bonus action to cast misty step to get as far as possible that way, and then expend all of his movement (enhanced by the dash) to run in terror.

All of those are entirely legal within the wording of the spell. It is debatable whether they SHOULD be. I say "debatable" because I honestly see arguments for allowing it and against allowing it.

It is critical that we do not try to convince ourselves the text says what we think it meant to say. We need to understand what it does and does not say, and then look at what we think the intent was, and determine what, if anything, needs to be house ruled to make it work correctly.

To do otherwise is to create inability to even agree over what the text says, because we start from our own interpretations of what we THINK it SHOULD say and spend all our time trying to argue that it surely MEANS what we want it to mean rather than discussing how to adjust it.

[Catullus64]

Again, “While frightened by this spell,” is when the effects apply. The effects aren’t limited to “once a turn” or anything like that. So if you’re frightened from the Fear spell, what’s described in the rest of the sentence holds true.

So, assuming that still holds true, “a creature must take the Dash action.” Again, not just once. So if you take a BA Dash Action, but are still frightened by the Fear spell, you haven’t alleviated the condition for the effect (“while frightened by this spell”), and as such, the creature “must take the dash action.” So they are not free to use their Action for anything else (at this point).

There’s a second part to the effect as well: “move away from [the caster] by the safest available route on each of its turns.” So long as that initial statement holds true (“while frightened by this spell”), this clause of the effect is in effect. That is, so long as you have movement and are under the effect of the frightened condition, you have to “move away…” It doesn’t matter if you’ve already moved, because that isn’t parts of the condition or the clause.

Now, there is an exception to get around the two clauses that make up the effect of the Fear spell: these effects are negated if “there is nowhere to move.”

So if the frightened condition is still in effect, and there’s somewhere to move, the two clauses of the spell effect are also still applicable to the afflicted creature.

That is, you can’t just, RAW, choose “well, sure, I’m still under the frightened condition from the Fear spell, and there’s places to move, but I’m just going to ignore the effects of the spell that say I have to take the Dash Action and move away.”

I don't know where you get the conviction that the affected creature needs to continuously check to see if it can further perform the actions required by the spell. The spell tells you that on your turn, you need to do something. That's it; it doesn't say that you need to keep doing the thing indefinitely. Just that something needs to happen each turn while you are frightened.

As has been pointed out before, the "unless there is nowhere to move" clause doesn't do the work that it's supposed to, because it doesn't say "until." It says that if there is nowhere to move, you don't need to perform the compulsions of the spell, and it says nothing more than that.

Your reading seems unduly maximalist; as if a Fighter affected by the spell would be compelled to use his Action Surge to make an additional Dash, because he "must" take whatever means of Dashing are available to him, as would a creature under the effects of Haste.

[Amnestic]

Actually, your post make me think of something else. What about the Monk's Stillness of Mind ability? It expressly say that you have to use an action to negate a fear effect on yourself. But if the Fear spell forces you to take a dash action, does it mean you can't use Stillness of Mind?

You could use Step of the Wind (at the expense of 1 ki) to take the dash action as a BA, thereby opening you up to use Stillness of Mind after the fact as an action. It would have to follow that order though.

[Segev]

You could use Step of the Wind (at the expense of 1 ki) to take the dash action as a BA, thereby opening you up to use Stillness of Mind after the fact as an action. It would have to follow that order though.

I'm not 100% sure it would. The requirement is that you take the dash action--no, wait, you're right.

On your turn, while affected, you MUST take the dash action, so basically the first action you take MUST be a dash action if you are affected on your turn. It's only after you've met the requirement that you can do other things.

[Cikomyr2]

You could use Step of the Wind (at the expense of 1 ki) to take the dash action as a BA, thereby opening you up to use Stillness of Mind after the fact as an action. It would have to follow that order though.

Yhea, I know. But I really dislike this interpretation, because it forces the consumption of 1 qi point for the monk to use one of their basic ability that reflects the thematic of the class.

[Catullus64]

I'm not 100% sure it would. The requirement is that you take the dash action--no, wait, you're right.

On your turn, while affected, you MUST take the dash action, so basically the first action you take MUST be a dash action if you are affected on your turn. It's only after you've met the requirement that you can do other things.

Now who's putting stuff into the text that they think SHOULD be there! :smallwink: One of the original points, though less argued about, was that the spell doesn't specify that the Dash action must be the first thing you do, just that you must take it on your turn. Still fine with Step of the Wind + Stillness of Mind, but it doesn't have to be in that order (although at that point, Step of the Wind would not be required, because the spell has ended... so you would be doing SoM on the assumption that you would be later doing SoW, which you then don't have to do... and I've gone crosseyed).

[Valmark]

I'm not sure I'd call it exploitable. Either ruling is within the limits of the text- as such, a DM has to actively choose to allow it, and then it'll be open to all so I see no chance for opportunistic players or cruel DMs.

In addition, what's the actual gain? That you can stay closer and keep the disadvantage with no save allowed? Still good to throw at the enemy. Especially since unless you have reach chances are you'll be too far to recover what you dropped (if any) or attack (unless you were also at max range).

[Amnestic]

Yhea, I know. But I really dislike this interpretation, because it forces the consumption of 1 qi point for the monk to use one of their basic ability that reflects the thematic of the class.

Mm, it's a choice. Either the monk can dash as an action, or they can step of the wind to stillness of mind.

Does that make sense "in character"? No, not even slightly. It's weird, it's convoluted. But a strict RAW reading would give the player that option.

I also dislike it, and if a monk player in my game said "that's dumb, I just want to Stillness of Mind first" I'd say yeah that's cool lets do that instead, but I believe, RAW, they must take the dash action first, either by action or by BA.

[Segev]

Now who's putting stuff into the text that they think SHOULD be there! :smallwink: One of the original points, though less argued about, was that the spell doesn't specify that the Dash action must be the first thing you do, just that you must take it on your turn. Still fine with Step of the Wind + Stillness of Mind, but it doesn't have to be in that order (although at that point, Step of the Wind would not be required, because the spell has ended... so you would be doing SoM on the assumption that you would be later doing SoW, which you then don't have to do... and I've gone crosseyed).

It's tricky question, I think. Does the requirement that you take the dash action on your turn compel you to do so first, so you can't "use up" your options and then say "woops, out of ways to do it?" Does it compel you to plan out your whole turn so that you know you'll have a means of taking the Dash action? Does it allow you to "plan" to take the Dash action, and then possibly woopie-doodles your way into not having to because you planned to, honest, but you never got around to it before running out of ways to do so?

[RSP]

This is flat-out untrue.

The spell says that while frightened, they must take the dash action on their turn, and they must move away from the caster on their turn.

It says: “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.”

There’s three parts to that sentence:

- The first is “while frightened by this spell” which tells you when the effects apply. So as long as you have that condition, from the Fear spell, the effects are on.
- The second is “a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns.” This tells us what has to occur while frightened. If you decide to use a BA Dash before taking your Action, great, but so long as you’re still under the frightened condition from the Fear spell (see part 1), you “must take the Dash action.” Notice: the spell doesn’t say “Once on each of it’s turns a creature must take the Dash action” which you seem to think it does. Nor does it say, “At the start of it’s turn, a creature must take the Dash action.” That would change the “when” but it’s not what the RAW tells us.
- Finally, we get an out clause: “unless there is nowhere to move.” So, if there is nowhere to move, the creature is no longer compelled to “a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns.



Yes, "while frightened by this spell" is a trigger condition for when the effects apply, but the effects that apply are "on their turn, take a dash action and move away from the caster." Nowhere does it say "do nothing else." Fulfil the compelled conditions, and they have satisfied them.

The “trigger condition” still applies though. You changing the sentence to “a Dash action” (which means a singular Dash action) from “the Dash action” (which means the specific type of action of Dash), isn’t valid. There’s a difference between “a person” and “the person”: the first is any singular person, while the second is a specific person.

So after taking a BA Dash, is the creature still under the frightened condition from the Fear spell? Then the “trigger condition” still applies.



Again: you're trying to force the text into meaning what you believe the intent to have been. This is bad analysis.

See above where you tried to do what you’re accusing me of? “On their turn, take a dash action and move away from the caster” is not what the text says.



I don't know where you get the conviction that the affected creature needs to continuously check to see if it can further perform the actions required by the spell. The spell tells you that on your turn, you need to do something. That's it; it doesn't say that you need to keep doing the thing indefinitely.

I get the conviction from knowing what “While frightened by this spell” means. It’s not that the affected creature “must continually check” (technically, it’s the Player/DM who checks), it’s that while they are still frightened, the effects of the spell persist. So long as the creature is frightened, they “must take the Dash action” and, again, so long as they are frightened, “move away from [the caster] by the safest available route on each of its turns.”



As has been pointed out before, the "unless there is nowhere to move" clause doesn't do the work that it's supposed to, because it doesn't say "until." It says that if there is nowhere to move, you don't need to perform the compulsions of the spell, and it says nothing more than that.

Not sure what you mean by this. The clause is effective in what it says: if there’s nowhere to move, then the creature doesn’t have to “take the Dash action and move away from [the caster] by the safest available route on each of its turns.”



Your reading seems unduly maximalist; as if a Fighter affected by the spell would be compelled to use his Action Surge to make an additional Dash, because he "must" take whatever means of Dashing are available to him, as would a creature under the effects of Haste.

I don’t read the spell as requiring creating Actions to Dash: a fighter need not AS nor a Rogue use CA, because up until they decide to use those abilities, they don’t have those Actions. However, once that decision is made and the Action is available, then the Action would need to be used as the RAW states.

In the case of Haste, yes, Dash is required, as the RAW states, because the Action is already available.

[Valmark]

It says: “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.”

There’s three parts to that sentence:

- The first is “while frightened by this spell” which tells you when the effects apply. So as long as you have that condition, from the Fear spell, the effects are on.
- The second is “a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns.” This tells us what has to occur while frightened. If you decide to use a BA Dash before taking your Action, great, but so long as you’re still under the frightened condition from the Fear spell (see part 1), you “must take the Dash action.” Notice: the spell doesn’t say “Once on each of it’s turns a creature must take the Dash action” which you seem to think it does. Nor does it say, “At the start of it’s turn, a creature must take the Dash action.” That would change the “when” but it’s not what the RAW tells us.
- Finally, we get an out clause: “unless there is nowhere to move.” So, if there is nowhere to move, the creature is no longer compelled to “a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns.

The “trigger condition” still applies though. You changing the sentence to “a Dash action” (which means a singular Dash action) from “the Dash action” (which means the specific type of action of Dash), isn’t valid. There’s a difference between “a person” and “the person”: the first is any singular person, while the second is a specific person.

So after taking a BA Dash, is the creature still under the frightened condition from the Fear spell? Then the “trigger condition” still applies.

See above where you tried to do what you’re accusing me of? “On their turn, take a dash action and move away from the caster” is not what the text says.

I get the conviction from knowing what “While frightened by this spell” means. It’s not that the affected creature “must continually check” (technically, it’s the Player/DM who checks), it’s that while they are still frightened, the effects of the spell persist. So long as the creature is frightened, they “must take the Dash action” and, again, so long as they are frightened, “move away from [the caster] by the safest available route on each of its turns.”

Not sure what you mean by this. The clause is effective in what it says: if there’s nowhere to move, then the creature doesn’t have to “take the Dash action and move away from [the caster] by the safest available route on each of its turns.”

I don’t read the spell as requiring creating Actions to Dash: a fighter need not AS nor a Rogue use CA, because up until they decide to use those abilities, they don’t have those Actions. However, once that decision is made and the Action is available, then the Action would need to be used as the RAW states.

In the case of Haste, yes, Dash is required, as the RAW states, because the Action is already available.

The issue is that you're considering Fear to be more thightly worded then it actually is- nowhere does "unless" mean that you have to move repeatedly or by all your speed. Like another said it's not "until".

"A person" and "the person" are different but they both imply one single person- which is the point of all this, "take the Dash action" is fulfilled by taking it even just once.

"Do this unless X" does not equal "Do this as long as X doesn't happen" or "Do this until X".

Compare it with Turn Undead and the like- as others mentioned that feature specifies that you have to do everything to get away. No such thing is specified in Fear.

Yours it's still a valid reading but by no means one enforced by the spell's text.

[Frogreaver]

It says: “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.”

There’s three parts to that sentence:

- The first is “while frightened by this spell” which tells you when the effects apply. So as long as you have that condition, from the Fear spell, the effects are on.
- The second is “a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns.” This tells us what has to occur while frightened. If you decide to use a BA Dash before taking your Action, great, but so long as you’re still under the frightened condition from the Fear spell (see part 1), you “must take the Dash action.” Notice: the spell doesn’t say “Once on each of it’s turns a creature must take the Dash action” which you seem to think it does. Nor does it say, “At the start of it’s turn, a creature must take the Dash action.” That would change the “when” but it’s not what the RAW tells us.
- Finally, we get an out clause: “unless there is nowhere to move.” So, if there is nowhere to move, the creature is no longer compelled to “a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest available route on each of its turns.



The “trigger condition” still applies though. You changing the sentence to “a Dash action” (which means a singular Dash action) from “the Dash action” (which means the specific type of action of Dash), isn’t valid. There’s a difference between “a person” and “the person”: the first is any singular person, while the second is a specific person.

So after taking a BA Dash, is the creature still under the frightened condition from the Fear spell? Then the “trigger condition” still applies.



See above where you tried to do what you’re accusing me of? “On their turn, take a dash action and move away from the caster” is not what the text says.




I get the conviction from knowing what “While frightened by this spell” means. It’s not that the affected creature “must continually check” (technically, it’s the Player/DM who checks), it’s that while they are still frightened, the effects of the spell persist. So long as the creature is frightened, they “must take the Dash action” and, again, so long as they are frightened, “move away from [the caster] by the safest available route on each of its turns.”



Not sure what you mean by this. The clause is effective in what it says: if there’s nowhere to move, then the creature doesn’t have to “take the Dash action and move away from [the caster] by the safest available route on each of its turns.”



I don’t read the spell as requiring creating Actions to Dash: a fighter need not AS nor a Rogue use CA, because up until they decide to use those abilities, they don’t have those Actions. However, once that decision is made and the Action is available, then the Action would need to be used as the RAW states.

In the case of Haste, yes, Dash is required, as the RAW states, because the Action is already available.

IMO This is treating written English instructions as a pseudo computer program levels of bad and this is one of the reasons the business dept can describe in English what they want and end up with a computer program that does something else entirely.


I'm not sure I'd call it exploitable. Either ruling is within the limits of the text- as such, a DM has to actively choose to allow it, and then it'll be open to all so I see no chance for opportunistic players or cruel DMs.

In addition, what's the actual gain? That you can stay closer and keep the disadvantage with no save allowed? Still good to throw at the enemy. Especially since unless you have reach chances are you'll be too far to recover what you dropped (if any) or attack (unless you were also at max range).

Agreed, there is no tangible benefit to the OPs ruling. That why the term exploitable is so strange. There's nothing that can really be done with this ruling that is any good.

*Note if they stay in your line of sight they still must take the dash action every turn, along with the disadvantage and not being able to move closer to you.

[Segev]

IMO This is treating written English instructions as a pseudo computer program levels of bad and this is one of the reasons the business dept can describe in English what they want and end up with a computer program that does something else entirely.Worse, it's incorrect code-parsing if you're treating it as pseudocode, because, as Valmark points out, he's not accurately interpreting the words by their meanings.


Agreed, there is no tangible benefit to the OPs ruling. That why the term exploitable is so strange. There's nothing that can really be done with this ruling that is any good.

*Note if they stay in your line of sight they still must take the dash action every turn, along with the disadvantage and not being able to move closer to you.
"Exploitable" can just mean "exploited to allow behavior that is unsatisfying to the caster in ways that the spell's flavor would suggest it shouldn't," here.

But while it's a somewhat specific example, I don't think this is so niche as to be unlikely to ever come up: Imagine a creature with a fear spell ability and a desire to get in melee. It wants to go shred the caster at the back lines. There is a sticky meatshield right in front of it that has abilities that keep it from being able to just move past it. It uses fear, and the meatshield fails its save. The fear-casting creature's player expects the now-Frightened meatshield to drop its weapons and flee, opening the path to the squishy caster. Instead, the meatshield takes the dash action, picks up its weapons as a free object interaction, and moves one foot back away from the creature it's Frightened by. The creature still can't get by the meatshield.

This could be a Conquest Paladin or other gish PC trying to get by some monster meatshield to a squishy monster caster, or it could be a horrifying undead trying to get by the Sentinel-using Fighter to the Evoker Wizard in the back lines. Either way, the player of the fear-using creature is going to find the behavior where the "Frightened meatshield" doesn't actually wind up disarmed and more than 5 feet away from it to be an exploitation of a flaw in the rules of fear, since it rendered the primary purpose of casting it useless.

[MaxWilson]

This could be a Conquest Paladin or other gish PC trying to get by some monster meatshield to a squishy monster caster, or it could be a horrifying undead trying to get by the Sentinel-using Fighter to the Evoker Wizard in the back lines. Either way, the player of the fear-using creature is going to find the behavior where the "Frightened meatshield" doesn't actually wind up disarmed and more than 5 feet away from it to be an exploitation of a flaw in the rules of fear, since it rendered the primary purpose of casting it useless.

In the case of the Sentinel Fighter, at least he now has disadvantage on opportunity attacks and is easier to shove around, and can't approach the monster, so the monster may indeed be able to ignore the fighter now and hit the squishy.

AND the Fighter is losing a turn Dashing instead of attacking.

It's a pretty niche exploit and doesn't work all that well even in this edge case.

Also, a Conquest paladin won't be surprised if a frightened creature doesn't run away. Freezing enemies in place with fear is kind of their shtick.

[Telok]

I can see this argument easily arising in a multi-enemy environment where the feared creature moves around an enemy & away from the fear source, but stops early because provoking a opportunity attack is unsafe. The logic being that they took the dash, moved away, interposed an obstacle (another enemy but still an obstacle) between themselves and the fear, and further movement can KO/kill them.

That begs a question on the saftey clause as to what the limits of "safe" are. DM choice obviously, with traditional misunderstandings and disjoint expectations.

[Segev]

In the case of the Sentinel Fighter, at least he now has disadvantage on opportunity attacks and is easier to shove around, and can't approach the monster, so the monster may indeed be able to ignore the fighter now and hit the squishy.

AND the Fighter is losing a turn Dashing instead of attacking.

It's a pretty niche exploit and doesn't work all that well even in this edge case.

Also, a Conquest paladin won't be surprised if a frightened creature doesn't run away. Freezing enemies in place with fear is kind of their shtick.

It's still a debuff, yes, but when the (quite reasonably) expected reaction is "the meatshield is zero problem anymore" and instead you get "the meatshield is a diminished problem," and the WAY it is "diminished" rather than "eliminated" is so contrary to what the spell's tone and flavor suggest, it's extremely frustrating.

And while emotions don't affect balance, they are still a real part of what game design is trying to impact. Spells should be satisfying. If there were a balance reason trumping the need for satisfying fear spell effects, that'd be one thing, but in this case, it's just poor wording. So ruling it to work the way people expect it to (and several in this thread argue it does, though I think they're wrong) is entirely reasonable. I even recommend it.

Just like - as an example - I would recommend amending the rules for fighting blind such that you only gain advantage against somebody who can't see you if you can see them, which solves the "two blind guys are as likely to hit each other as two sighted guys" problem.

[Keltest]

I can see this argument easily arising in a multi-enemy environment where the feared creature moves around an enemy & away from the fear source, but stops early because provoking a opportunity attack is unsafe. The logic being that they took the dash, moved away, interposed an obstacle (another enemy but still an obstacle) between themselves and the fear, and further movement can KO/kill them.

That begs a question on the saftey clause as to what the limits of "safe" are. DM choice obviously, with traditional misunderstandings and disjoint expectations.

It says "safest" not "safe" so while you can move to avoid opportunity attacks within the limits of the frightened condition, you must eat the opportunity attacks if there is no alternative route to avoid them. A dangerous route is also the safest route if its the only route.

[Segev]

It says "safest" not "safe" so while you can move to avoid opportunity attacks within the limits of the frightened condition, you must eat the opportunity attacks if there is no alternative route to avoid them. A dangerous route is also the safest route if its the only route.

Huh. That's interesting. There is no clause about not running into any amount of danger. "Nowhere to move" doesn't mean "nowhere safe to move." You could literally force somebody to run off a cliff into a volcano. It would require that ANY distance away from you be off that cliff, but you could do it.

[Valmark]

The question then becomes: if you can Dash (or Disengage) as a bonus action and are in melee, do you have to Disengage in order to run away without triggering AoOs? Since that would be safer?

Imo yes, but it's an interesting question. Though I wouldn't enforce it on, for example, a monk since between spending Ki and triggering an AoO it's not clear what's safer. That Ki could be much more important afterwards.

[Keltest]

Huh. That's interesting. There is no clause about not running into any amount of danger. "Nowhere to move" doesn't mean "nowhere safe to move." You could literally force somebody to run off a cliff into a volcano. It would require that ANY distance away from you be off that cliff, but you could do it.

Nah, because climbing down the cliff is safer than jumping off. Theres still a lot of potential for doing really nasty stuff to people there, but i dont think you can actually get somebody to actively enter an overtly harmful area they werent already in and protected against.

[Segev]

Nah, because climbing down the cliff is safer than jumping off. Theres still a lot of potential for doing really nasty stuff to people there, but i dont think you can actually get somebody to actively enter an overtly harmful area they werent already in and protected against.

"Into the wall of fire" is still definitely an option. As is "into the hunger of Hadar sphere."

[Catullus64]

For all its vagueness, I do at heart appreciate what the Fear spell is trying to do: allow an afflicted subject the opportunity to retain some of its roleplaying agency even in the face of an effect that dictates and controls action. It's the same reason why I appreciate the wording of a lot of Charm effects that control perception and belief, not action. It encourages creativity under restraint.

[Keltest]

"Into the wall of fire" is still definitely an option. As is "into the hunger of Hadar sphere."

Sure, if you literally create a circle of spell effects around you and then fear them. But again at that point its like... youve basically just dropped them into a volcano to start with, before the fear is even cast.

[Segev]

For all its vagueness, I do at heart appreciate what the Fear spell is trying to do: allow an afflicted subject the opportunity to retain some of its roleplaying agency even in the face of an effect that dictates and controls action. It's the same reason why I appreciate the wording of a lot of Charm effects that control perception and belief, not action. It encourages creativity under restraint.

I don't think fear is actually trying to do that, though. Not commenting on any other spell, it's pretty clear the INTENT is that it work as some are arguing it does: You have to do your best to run away, albeit as safely as you can. Being able to run away and shoot if you can dash as a bonus action or something can be argued to be reasonable, but could be argued to be still more freedom than it intends to give (as some in this thread HAVE argued). Personally, were I tweaking the wording, I'd simply add that the target is compelled to "move as far away from you as possible by the safest available route...," where the green text are my additions. This fixes the biggest problem with it. Maybe "and may take no other actions until all movement is expended" added in for good measure, to force them to move, then do whatever it is they have actions left to support.

[Keltest]

I don't think fear is actually trying to do that, though. Not commenting on any other spell, it's pretty clear the INTENT is that it work as some are arguing it does: You have to do your best to run away, albeit as safely as you can. Being able to run away and shoot if you can dash as a bonus action or something can be argued to be reasonable, but could be argued to be still more freedom than it intends to give (as some in this thread HAVE argued). Personally, were I tweaking the wording, I'd simply add that the target is compelled to "move as far away from you as possible by the safest available route...," where the green text are my additions. This fixes the biggest problem with it. Maybe "and may take no other actions until all movement is expended" added in for good measure, to force them to move, then do whatever it is they have actions left to support.

I think they very specifically didnt say "as possible" because it creates conflict with the "by the safest route" bit. When you run, are you trying for maximum distance or maximum safety? Which gets priority?

[Segev]

I think they very specifically didnt say "as possible" because it creates conflict with the "by the safest route" bit. When you run, are you trying for maximum distance or maximum safety? Which gets priority?

"Maximum distance by the safest route possible" would prioritize maximum distance, letting you take as safe a route as you could to get there.

The intent, if I ignore the technical truth the OP points out, is pretty clearly to me that if there is a safe route, you can take it, but you can't refuse to keep retreating just because there is no safe route. You have to move away by the safest route. You can only choose not to move away if there is nowhere to go, not just because the only place to go isn't safe.

So what's needed is to clean up the wording to require expending all of your movement to move continually further away, being unable to deliberately choose a dead end, and being allowed to expend the movement to move as safely as possible while still continuously trying to move further away.

[Aimeryan]

What is said is important. What is meant is also important. The latter is, generally (and in this case) more important than the former, but pretending that the latter causes the former to not be incorrectly stated only invites poor thinking skills.

Understanding what the words that were used means is crucial to being able to properly parse when they do not say what they were intended to. Yes, it is possible to draw the intended meaning from all the context without recognizing that the actual words chosen expressed it incorrectly, but once it is pointed out that they do, in fact, incorrectly express the intended meaning, it serves nobody to try to insist that the words chosen actually said something other than what they said because the intended meaning was different.

Note: Not read any more of the thread than to this point.

I agree with everything you have written in this thread thus far, Segev. I also feel your frustration. I think this is why I have stopped using this forum to any degree of frequency; people keep pointing out the 'One True Intent'tm of near anything RAW that is debated as if they somehow know for sure what the intent is. It is like we might as well not even have a PHB, because we all clearly know what the intent is, anyway. Yes, 5e explictly mentions to rule how you want (not that we needed permission), but that doesn't change what is official - and we can't talk about things like balance, efffective solutions, etc., without a shared ruleset.

As I see it, if the devs wanted us to rule by their intent, ignoring what is actually written (or perhaps using that as only a starting point), then they needed to actually give us the intent alongside it. Twitter posts don't cut it. SAC is fine, however, it only covers a mere fraction of the rules, is not presented alongside said rules, and it is has came about at a far later date than the release of said rules.

Case in point, if you believe that the Fear spell is intended (by the writers) to act in a certain way, prove it. You can't use context - context is great, however, context relies on established precedents and fundamental laws, and spells in 5e are not based on these, so context is worthless. If a spell does fire damage, it doesn't necessarily set things on fire (even highly flammable things) - because it is a spell and spells only do what the rules say they do. Fear does what is says it does, nothing more. If the writers come out and say what the intent is, then you can say what the intent is.

[Keltest]

"Maximum distance by the safest route possible" would prioritize maximum distance, letting you take as safe a route as you could to get there.

The intent, if I ignore the technical truth the OP points out, is pretty clearly to me that if there is a safe route, you can take it, but you can't refuse to keep retreating just because there is no safe route. You have to move away by the safest route. You can only choose not to move away if there is nowhere to go, not just because the only place to go isn't safe.

So what's needed is to clean up the wording to require expending all of your movement to move continually further away, being unable to deliberately choose a dead end, and being allowed to expend the movement to move as safely as possible while still continuously trying to move further away.

Ok, but if youre prioritizing distance, then the "safest route" clause is pointless, because getting the extra distance in by braving the opportunity attacks (or whatever) instead of going around means you cant actually choose the safe route.

[Segev]

Ok, but if youre prioritizing distance, then the "safest route" clause is pointless, because getting the extra distance in by braving the opportunity attacks (or whatever) instead of going around means you cant actually choose the safe route.

Right. Which is why I was later amending it to requiring that you expend all your movement to try to get away from the caster by the safest route. I should have pointed that distinction out more clearly.

I'm currently thinking we need the wording to include:
Must take the dash action
Must expend all available movement to attempt to move away from the caster
May choose route for safety, but cannot let safety prevent efforts to get away
May only fail to expend all movement if there is no way to "move away" from the caster
Must expend all available movement before any other actions may be taken

[RSP]

The issue is that you're considering Fear to be more thightly worded then it actually is- nowhere does "unless" mean that you have to move repeatedly or by all your speed. Like another said it's not "until".

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? Where did I say unless=until?



"A person" and "the person" are different but they both imply one single person- which is the point of all this, "take the Dash action" is fulfilled by taking it even just once.

"Do this unless X" does not equal "Do this as long as X doesn't happen" or "Do this until X".

Compare it with Turn Undead and the like- as others mentioned that feature specifies that you have to do everything to get away. No such thing is specified in Fear.

Yours it's still a valid reading but by no means one enforced by the spell's text.

Again, I’m not sure where the unless=until is coming from.

The spell states: “while frightened by this spell”. So long as that is true (and it’s “on each of its turns”), the effect clauses hold true. Did the creature move 5’ away from the caster and take the Dash Action? Great. Is it still frightened by the spell? If yes, the requirements in the effect clauses still hold.

I’m not sure why people continue to ignore this. It’s a simple check: are they still frightened. I guess you can completely ignore that and say “yeah I’m still frightened, but I’m not going to do that stuff” but that’s certainly not RAW.

[Segev]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? Where did I say unless=until?



Again, I’m not sure where the unless=until is coming from.

The spell states: “while frightened by this spell”. So long as that is true (and it’s “on each of its turns”), the effect clauses hold true. Did the creature move 5’ away from the caster and take the Dash Action? Great. Is it still frightened by the spell? If yes, the requirements in the effect clauses still hold.

I’m not sure why people continue to ignore this. It’s a simple check: are they still frightened. I guess you can completely ignore that and say “yeah I’m still frightened, but I’m not going to do that stuff” but that’s certainly not RAW.

You are reading "unless" as "until" if you are leaning on the part that says you have to move away unless there is nowhere to go to mean that you have to KEEP moving away at every opportunity unless there's nowhere to go. Because what's actually written is that you must move away on your turn unless there's nowhere to go. If you move away at all on your turn, you've satisfied this requirement, and the "unless" only applies if there's literally nowhere to move away at all from where you are at the start of your turn.

Even then, though, the wording wouldn't quite do what you want it to, and what I agree it SHOULD do.

The real trouble is that it says the target must move away from the caster on his turn, but that it never specifies anything more than that. Thus, if, at any point on his current turn, the target could truthfully say, "I have moved away from the caster on this turn," he has fulfilled the requirements.

The "While frightened by this spell" clause tells us that the target must move away on his turn iff the target is frightened by the spell; it means that if the target is not frightened by this spell, he does not need to move away from the caster on his turn. It does NOT mean that he has to keep moving away from the caster on his turn once he's already done so. It only tells us on what turns he must move away from the caster, not how far he must move on those turns.

"I have moved away from the caster on this turn" is a true statement if you've so much as taken a half step away, technically.

"While frightened by this spell," says the spell, and, yes, indeed, the creature is frightened by the spell, "the target must move away from the caster on his turn," and yes, indeed, the target has moved away from the caster on his turn. All requirements satisfied.

You keep trying to say that "while frightened by this spell" needing to be checked constantly somehow means the target hasn't moved away form the caster on his turn because he COULD still move further away on this turn. But that isn't the case.

Sure, "while..." can be checked constantly, but the condition to be fulfilled, even checked constantly, is, "Has the target moved away from the caster on his turn?" If he has, he's satisfied the requirement. It doesn't matter if you're constantly checking the "while..." condition; you've completed the command for this iteration of the loop and thus every check as to whether he has fulfilled the requirements, no matter how often you do it, will return "yep, requirements fulfilled" until his next turn.

[Keltest]

The spell doesnt say "you must have moved" it says "you must move". Having moved in the past is not one of the conditions that ends the need to keep moving. Only the inability to do so will.

[Segev]

The spell doesnt say "you must have moved" it says "you must move". Having moved in the past is not one of the conditions that ends the need to keep moving. Only the inability to do so will.

Let's compare to the wording in the confusion spell. The first result says, "the creature uses all of its movement to move in a random direction." No ambiguity there, and clearly distinct from if it had said, "the creature moves in a random direction." The third result says, "the creatures uses its action to make a melee attack" against a random target; does this mean that the creature MUST use any multiattack or extra attacks it has? That satisfies "uses its action to make an attack" and, in fact, would be required since it still could make a melee attack by using its action if it has that available and has only made one attack.

"You must move" can be responded to with "I did move," truthfully, as an accurate statement.

However, I will say this: this is the best argument I've seen for the spell maybe doing what it clearly intends to do. I will give this one some more thought to make sure I'm not just being stubborn, though I don't think the distinction between "must have moved" and "must move" covers the gap you are arguing. But maybe it does. Like I said, I need to think on this a bit.

[Catullus64]

The spell states: “while frightened by this spell”. So long as that is true (and it’s “on each of its turns”), the effect clauses hold true. Did the creature move 5’ away from the caster and take the Dash Action? Great. Is it still frightened by the spell? If yes, the requirements in the effect clauses still hold.

I’m not sure why people continue to ignore this. It’s a simple check: are they still frightened. I guess you can completely ignore that and say “yeah I’m still frightened, but I’m not going to do that stuff” but that’s certainly not RAW.

I'm going to try one more approach to this point of argument just because it's interesting to me, but most of the rest of the thread seems to have accepted the ambiguity of the spell language and have moved on to talking about how it might actually affect gameplay, so this'll be my last one. I don't think this is going anywhere fruitful.

Spell text, one more time: "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." I'm going to isolate the movement bit, rather than the part about Dash or Unless, since that seems to be the primary source of contention.

The part that still seems to be a source of disagreement is the subordinate clauses: "While frightened by this spell, a creature must... move away from you...on each of its turns." I think you're reading it such that "while frightened" and "on each of its turns" are both clauses that condition "a creature must move away from you", such that if both are true at any given time, the movement must take place. That's definitely a possible reading of the language.

But it is equally possible to take "a creature must move away from you... on each of its turns" differently; that the prepositional phrase "on each of its turns" specifies a minimum for how often the conditional ("while frightened...a creature must") must take place; that's a valid time-relationship for a prepositional phrase to express. How much does a creature have to move away within that minimum, "on each of its turns"? It doesn't say; therefore the valid minimum is any amount. Thus, the "5-foot and stop" scenario is accurately described by the language here.

In order for the "5-foot and stop" instance to be invalid, you need to take the former interpretation of the spell as exclusively true. If you want to read the former interpretation as exclusively true, you need more language than the spell provides. That is the argument that was present, albeit much less explicitly, in my original post. If a spell has more than one interpretation that fits the language used, it requires an act of judgement by the DM, however small, to make one of those interpretations valid and the others not.

If you still disagree with my reasoning (as I suspect will be the case), please note in any response the exact point in the above argument where I make what you consider an incorrect assertion, so that anyone else still trying to follow has a clear idea of where the substance of our disagreement lies.

[Segev]

I'm going to try one more approach to this point of argument just because it's interesting to me, but most of the rest of the thread seems to have accepted the ambiguity of the spell language and have moved on to talking about how it might actually affect gameplay, so this'll be my last one. I don't think this is going anywhere fruitful.

Spell text, one more time: "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." I'm going to isolate the movement bit, rather than the part about Dash or Unless, since that seems to be the primary source of contention.

The part that still seems to be a source of disagreement is the subordinate clauses: "While frightened by this spell, a creature must... move away from you...on each of its turns." I think you're reading it such that "while frightened" and "on each of its turns" are both clauses that condition "a creature must move away from you", such that if both are true at any given time, the movement must take place. That's definitely a possible reading of the language.

But it is equally possible to take "a creature must move away from you... on each of its turns" differently; that the prepositional phrase "on each of its turns" specifies a minimum for how often the conditional ("while frightened...a creature must") must take place; that's a valid time-relationship for a prepositional phrase to express. How much does a creature have to move away within that minimum, "on each of its turns"? It doesn't say; therefore the valid minimum is any amount. Thus, the "5-foot and stop" scenario is accurately described by the language here.

In order for the "5-foot and stop" instance to be invalid, you need to take the former interpretation of the spell as exclusively true. If you want to read the former interpretation as exclusively true, you need more language than the spell provides. That is the argument that was present, albeit much less explicitly, in my original post. If a spell has more than one interpretation that fits the language used, it requires an act of judgement by the DM, however small, to make one of those interpretations valid and the others not.

If you still disagree with my reasoning (as I suspect will be the case), please note in any response the exact point in the above argument where I make what you consider an incorrect assertion, so that anyone else still trying to follow has a clear idea of where the substance of our disagreement lies.
Personally, I need to be convinced that what you term the first reading is a valid one. If it IS a valid reading, then because the spell is pretty clearly INTENDED to have the result of compelling creatures to move away at a high rate of speed (albeit with safe pathing in mind) means that you SHOULD use that reading. 5e is a game of rulings, and thus if you have multiple ways of reading the RAW, and some lead to eye-rolling or otherwise nonsensical results while others result in a clear alignment of intent and result, the ruling/reading that results in clear alignment of intent and mechanical result is the objectively correct one to choose.

I am, however, unconvinced that it is valid to read the prepositional "on each of its turns" phrase as being part of the "while" condition being checked, because where it's positioned in the sentence, it is actually part of the "do" that the "while" is providing the conditional check for.

I am open to being convinced, because I'd like the spell to actually do its job without house ruling. But so far, I'm not quite convinced that this isn't twisting wording to mean something we want it to, rather than accepting it at its plain meaning and acknowledging we need to fix it via house ruling.

[Keltest]

Personally, I need to be convinced that what you term the first reading is a valid one. If it IS a valid reading, then because the spell is pretty clearly INTENDED to have the result of compelling creatures to move away at a high rate of speed (albeit with safe pathing in mind) means that you SHOULD use that reading. 5e is a game of rulings, and thus if you have multiple ways of reading the RAW, and some lead to eye-rolling or otherwise nonsensical results while others result in a clear alignment of intent and result, the ruling/reading that results in clear alignment of intent and mechanical result is the objectively correct one to choose.

I am, however, unconvinced that it is valid to read the prepositional "on each of its turns" phrase as being part of the "while" condition being checked, because where it's positioned in the sentence, it is actually part of the "do" that the "while" is providing the conditional check for.

I am open to being convinced, because I'd like the spell to actually do its job without house ruling. But so far, I'm not quite convinced that this isn't twisting wording to mean something we want it to, rather than accepting it at its plain meaning and acknowledging we need to fix it via house ruling.

I mean, i'd think your own point here would be the strongest one in favor of our stance. Reading it otherwise creates a nonsensical spell effect that clearly doesnt work the way it was intended and is open to all sorts of absurd lawyering and "what-if" situations.

[Segev]

I mean, i'd think your own point here would be the strongest one in favor of our stance. Reading it otherwise creates a nonsensical spell effect that clearly doesnt work the way it was intended and is open to all sorts of absurd lawyering and "what-if" situations.

It would be, if the "first reading" Catullus64 identified is a valid reading.

That's what I need to be convinced of. And I'd like to be, but it feels like word-twisting to me right now. Are there other examples in English (or in the rules) where that parsing is used? Where, "while X, do Y every Z" means "while X and Z, continuously do Y?"

[Catullus64]

Personally, I need to be convinced that what you term the first reading is a valid one. If it IS a valid reading, then because the spell is pretty clearly INTENDED to have the result of compelling creatures to move away at a high rate of speed (albeit with safe pathing in mind) means that you SHOULD use that reading.
I am, however, unconvinced that it is valid to read the prepositional "on each of its turns" phrase as being part of the "while" condition being checked, because where it's positioned in the sentence, it is actually part of the "do" that the "while" is providing the conditional check for.


I'm just gonna try something to see if it helps us. Let's take the exact same structure of clauses, the same conjunctions and prepositions, and change out the subjects.

"While frightened by this spell... a creature must... move away from you... on each of its turns."

Becomes:

"While it is summertime, you must practice the piano on each Thursday."

One reading (which Rsp29a promotes as the only valid one) says that you must practice midnight to midnight on Thursday, because while it is both Thursday and summertime, you have to be practicing. I think that reading is contained by the language, if a little out of joint with common English usage. (The "double subordinating clause" interpretation.)

But it is no more valid than an interpretation where you play a scale on Thursday morning and don't touch the keyboard for the rest of the day, or the one where you do a reasonable amount of practice; it therefore is up to your music teacher to decide which of these actually adheres to the intent of his practice assignments. Is that a more helpful way of saying what I meant?

[Segev]

I'm just gonna try something to see if it helps us. Let's take the exact same structure of clauses, the same conjunctions and prepositions, and change out the subjects.

"While frightened by this spell... a creature must... move away from you... on each of its turns."

Becomes:

"While it is summertime, you must practice the piano on each Thursday."

One reading (which Rsp29a promotes as the only valid one) says that you must practice midnight to midnight on Thursday, because while it is both Thursday and summertime, you have to be practicing. I think that reading is contained by the language, if a little out of joint with common English usage. (The "double subordinating clause" interpretation.)

But it is no more valid than an interpretation where you play a scale on Thursday morning and don't touch the keyboard for the rest of the day, or the one where you do a reasonable amount of practice; it therefore is up to your music teacher to decide which of these actually adheres to the intent of his practice assignments. Is that a more helpful way of saying what I meant?

That, unfortunately, aligns with my own parsing. Except I disagree that "While it is summertime, you must practice the piano on each Thursday" can, in any way, be interpreted to mean that you must spend every moment of each Summer Thursday practicing the piano. I do not believe that is valid English-parsing.

[Catullus64]

That, unfortunately, aligns with my own parsing. Except I disagree that "While it is summertime, you must practice the piano on each Thursday" can, in any way, be interpreted to mean that you must spend every moment of each Summer Thursday practicing the piano. I do not believe that is valid English-parsing.

Ok, we're still on the same basic side of agreeing that it's not the only valid reading; I think it's not the only valid one, and you think it's not a valid one at all. I wasn't sure it one of us had accidentally switched sides.

[Keltest]

That, unfortunately, aligns with my own parsing. Except I disagree that "While it is summertime, you must practice the piano on each Thursday" can, in any way, be interpreted to mean that you must spend every moment of each Summer Thursday practicing the piano. I do not believe that is valid English-parsing.

It sounds wrong to you because we dont typically break up real time like that. Its not normal sentence structure when referring to events in real time. It also sounds wrong because "all thursday" is an exceptionally long time, and it sounds inherently unreasonable to expect somebody to do that. But game time isnt real time. Its already divided up into different segments. Turns, rounds, actions, etc...

Among other things, the phrasing of "on your turn" means that if you get a reaction that enables you to move on somebody else's turn, you arent obligated to take it.

[Segev]

Ok, we're still on the same basic side of not agreeing that it's not the only valid reading; I think it's not the only valid one, and you think it's not a valid one at all. I wasn't sure it one of us had accidentally switched sides.

If it is a valid reading, I switch sides to saying it is the reading we should go with, based on the fact that if there are multiple readings of any 5e rule, and one leads to something that seems to align with intent and makes sense as a rule, while the other leads to weird problems either in flavor or in execution, the first is the reading to go with and the second should be rejected as clearly not intended.

As long as I cannot see it as a valid reading at all, I remain convinced the spell is defined poorly for what it is intended to do, and needs house ruling.

[Catullus64]

If it is a valid reading, I switch sides to saying it is the reading we should go with, based on the fact that if there are multiple readings of any 5e rule, and one leads to something that seems to align with intent and makes sense as a rule, while the other leads to weird problems either in flavor or in execution, the first is the reading to go with and the second should be rejected as clearly not intended.

As long as I cannot see it as a valid reading at all, I remain convinced the spell is defined poorly for what it is intended to do, and needs house ruling.

Even if it is a valid reading, I would not choose it as a useful interpretation; taking the never-stop-practicing-the-piano approach would, I think, bring us to the situation mentioned where you're compelled to drop Action Surges and Haste actions to Dash, which I don't think is quite right.

[Segev]

It sounds wrong to you because we dont typically break up real time like that. Its not normal sentence structure when referring to events in real time. It also sounds wrong because "all thursday" is an exceptionally long time, and it sounds inherently unreasonable to expect somebody to do that. But game time isnt real time. Its already divided up into different segments. Turns, rounds, actions, etc...

Among other things, the phrasing of "on your turn" means that if you get a reaction that enables you to move on somebody else's turn, you arent obligated to take it.

All true, but that doesn't mean that "all Thursday" is at all a valid reading. Just because it would be unreasonable to expect if it were valid doesn't mean the only reason it seems invalid is because it's unreasonable.

"During a heat wave, drink water every hour to avoid dehydration." Does this mean that, for every hour, you must drink water continuously the entire hour? Or that you simply must drink water - any amount of water - every hour? (Obviously, the failure to specify how much water to drink every hour makes this a badly-written instruction, and my point is that fear is giving a badly-written instruction since the intent is obviously that the targets affected by the spell move more than 1 foot away per round.)

I do not think the interpretation of "drink water continuously for the entire hour" is a valid reading of that sentence. It's a matter of sufficient conditions: if you drink any water during a particular hour, you have drunk sufficient water to satisfy "drink water every hour." There is no parsing of this that makes you fail to drink sufficient water to satisfy that by failing to drink continuously during that hour.

[Keltest]

All true, but that doesn't mean that "all Thursday" is at all a valid reading. Just because it would be unreasonable to expect if it were valid doesn't mean the only reason it seems invalid is because it's unreasonable.

"During a heat wave, drink water every hour to avoid dehydration." Does this mean that, for every hour, you must drink water continuously the entire hour? Or that you simply must drink water - any amount of water - every hour? (Obviously, the failure to specify how much water to drink every hour makes this a badly-written instruction, and my point is that fear is giving a badly-written instruction since the intent is obviously that the targets affected by the spell move more than 1 foot away per round.)

I do not think the interpretation of "drink water continuously for the entire hour" is a valid reading of that sentence. It's a matter of sufficient conditions: if you drink any water during a particular hour, you have drunk sufficient water to satisfy "drink water every hour." There is no parsing of this that makes you fail to drink sufficient water to satisfy that by failing to drink continuously during that hour.

I disagree. "Drink water continuously over the course of the hour" is a valid, if exceptionally odd, reading. I think youre still biasing yourself by phrasing it as something inherently unreasonable even on a valid reading.

"During a jog, keep your heartrate steady when you are in motion" is a much better analogy. (I cant speak to its actual merits as exercise advice, but as a sentence it makes my point). Would you say that you were following their instructions if you kept your heartrate steady for a minute then just gave up and let it fluctuate wildly, as long as you hadnt stopped yet?

[Segev]

I disagree. "Drink water continuously over the course of the hour" is a valid, if exceptionally odd, reading. I think youre still biasing yourself by phrasing it as something inherently unreasonable even on a valid reading.

"During a jog, keep your heartrate steady when you are in motion" is a much better analogy. (I cant speak to its actual merits as exercise advice, but as a sentence it makes my point). Would you say that you were following their instructions if you kept your heartrate steady for a minute then just gave up and let it fluctuate wildly, as long as you hadnt stopped yet?

"when you are in motion" is an inherently different phrase than "on your turn" or "on each Thursday" or "every hour."

If the spell said, "...when it is its turn," then that would be a valid reading. But it doesn't.

"When it is [the creature's] turn" is an ongoing condition. "While it is [the creature's] turn" would be even better for getting that across. But the language "on its turn" means that it must happen during the turn, not that it must fill the turn. And it is incorrect English parsing to try to read it the way you are, as evidenced by the fact that you instinctively changed it to "when you are in motion" in your example.

[Catullus64]

So, with all that's been debated, I'm now thinking back to the original instance which provoked this thread.

The character who was affected by the Fear spell was a Swashbuckler Rogue. He wanted to, on his turn:

1. Pick up his sword.
2. Attack the fear-caster, with whom he was already in melee; between mitigating advantage and his Swashbuckler feature it would be eligible for Sneak Attack, and it would prevent the caster (also a potent melee adversary) from getting in an opportunity attack.
3. Use his bonus action to Dash.
4. Move some 15-25 feet away, the furthest position wherein he would not provoke opportunity attacks from other enemies near the exit from the chamber.

At the time, I got flummoxed because I was thinking of it as "do I allow this or not", and didn't have the wherewithal to break it down into its constituent parts. After the consideration of this thread, I would probably have ruled:

1. Yes, you can use your interact to pick up your weapon.
2. Yes, you can use your action to attack, provided that...
3. You use your bonus action to Dash.
4. Having taken your bonus action to Dash, you must move the full 60 feet which the Bonus Action dash has made your movement allowance for the turn, even through opportunity attacks, since there is no safer route away from the enemy within that movement range. (Here alone do I think I depart from strict RAW.)

That, to me, creates a readable picture of someone acting under the effects of the spell; they're frightened enough to flee, but still quick-witted enough to grab their blade and slash at the foe, fending it off well enough to hold it at bay while he scrambles off.

[Keltest]

"when you are in motion" is an inherently different phrase than "on your turn" or "on each Thursday" or "every hour."

If the spell said, "...when it is its turn," then that would be a valid reading. But it doesn't.

"When it is [the creature's] turn" is an ongoing condition. "While it is [the creature's] turn" would be even better for getting that across. But the language "on its turn" means that it must happen during the turn, not that it must fill the turn. And it is incorrect English parsing to try to read it the way you are, as evidenced by the fact that you instinctively changed it to "when you are in motion" in your example.

Its consistent with, say, Command, which also tells them to perform a variety of actions "on their turn", up to and including moving either towards or away from you. Flee in particular says it uses "the fastest available means" but doesnt specifiy how far they have to move.

[Segev]

So, with all that's been debated, I'm now thinking back to the original instance which provoked this thread.

The character who was affected by the Fear spell was a Swashbuckler Rogue. He wanted to, on his turn:

1. Pick up his sword.
2. Attack the fear-caster, with whom he was already in melee (between mitigating advantage and his Swashbuckler feature it would be eligible for Sneak Attack, and it would prevent the caster (also a potent melee adversary) from getting in an opportunity attack.
3. Use his bonus action to Dash.
4. Move some 15-25 feet away, the furthest position wherein he would not provoke opportunity attacks from other enemies near the exit from the chamber.

At the time, I got flummoxed because I was thinking of it as "do I allow this or not", and didn't have the wherewithal to break it down into its constituent parts. After the consideration of this thread, I would probably have ruled:

1. Yes, you can use your interact to pick up your weapon.
2. Yes, you can use your action to attack, provided that...
3. You use your bonus action to Dash.
4. Having taken your bonus action to Dash, you must move the full 60 feet which the Bonus Action dash has made your movement allowance for the turn, even through opportunity attacks, since there is no safer route away from the enemy within that movement range. (Here alone do I think I depart from strict RAW.)

That, to me, creates a readable picture of someone acting under the effects of the spell; they're frightened enough to flee, but still quick-witted enough to grab their blade and slash at the foe, fending it off well enough to hold it at bay while he scrambles off.

First off, unless he had other conditions triggering sneak attack, the disadvantage from being Frightened means he cannot have advantage on the attack, and thus can't get sneak attack. (There ARE other triggers besides Advantage, though, which may have been in play for all I know.)

Secondly, if I were interpreting it strictly by the RAW, I agree with your second list, except for point 4, because he would be able to move any distance he wanted as long as he moved away from the caster at all.

Thirdly, if I were running it, I would have house ruled it such that he couldn't pick up the weapon without actually spending his action on the basis of taking time to pick up something you were so scared you dropped rather than cutting and running takes a certain amount of time beyond normal "free object interactions," and I still would have required him to expend all available movement and to SOMEHOW dash at least once. But that's my house ruling, not what the spell actually says, as far as I can tell.

[Catullus64]

First off, unless he had other conditions triggering sneak attack, the disadvantage from being Frightened means he cannot have advantage on the attack, and thus can't get sneak attack. (There ARE other triggers besides Advantage, though, which may have been in play for all I know.)

Secondly, if I were interpreting it strictly by the RAW, I agree with your second list, except for point 4, because he would be able to move any distance he wanted as long as he moved away from the caster at all.

Thirdly, if I were running it, I would have house ruled it such that he couldn't pick up the weapon without actually spending his action on the basis of taking time to pick up something you were so scared you dropped rather than cutting and running takes a certain amount of time beyond normal "free object interactions," and I still would have required him to expend all available movement and to SOMEHOW dash at least once. But that's my house ruling, not what the spell actually says, as far as I can tell.

Advantage was from something external (Faerie Fire, maybe the caster was prone, don't remember) which cancelled out the advantage from being frightened, therefore allowing him to meet the Sneak Attack conditions from Rakish Audacity.

I did say that in the fourth point I was explicitly departing from RAW.

I'm still not entirely certain about the picking up of the sword myself. Under the majority of circumstances, picking up something you dropped for any reason is exactly the sort of thing for which I allow interact to be used in place of actions; and if I'm allowing other actions to take place before the Dash, it's hard to justify not allowing this as well. But doing so seems so plainly contrary to the intent behind forcing creatures to drop what they are holding in the first place.

[Segev]

I suppose it being dropped makes it unattended so some other creature could pick it up as its object interaction. Perhaps the caster?

[PhantomSoul]

Moving before picking up also works -- if you have the reading of using your full movement (with dash), then you're no longer in the place where the weapon is. (At most of my tables, picking up from the ground is fall prone + object interaction + get up from prone, so also takes half of your movement. Granted if you had to dodge or otherwise couldn't move from the place where you were, that doesn't help you not pick up the weapon.)

[RSP]

You are reading "unless" as "until" if you are leaning on the part that says you have to move away unless there is nowhere to go to mean that you have to KEEP moving away at every opportunity unless there's nowhere to go. Because what's actually written is that you must move away on your turn unless there's nowhere to go. If you move away at all on your turn, you've satisfied this requirement, and the "unless" only applies if there's literally nowhere to move away at all from where you are at the start of your turn.

Even then, though, the wording wouldn't quite do what you want it to, and what I agree it SHOULD do.

The real trouble is that it says the target must move away from the caster on his turn, but that it never specifies anything more than that. Thus, if, at any point on his current turn, the target could truthfully say, "I have moved away from the caster on this turn," he has fulfilled the requirements.

The "While frightened by this spell" clause tells us that the target must move away on his turn iff the target is frightened by the spell; it means that if the target is not frightened by this spell, he does not need to move away from the caster on his turn. It does NOT mean that he has to keep moving away from the caster on his turn once he's already done so. It only tells us on what turns he must move away from the caster, not how far he must move on those turns.

"I have moved away from the caster on this turn" is a true statement if you've so much as taken a half step away, technically.

"While frightened by this spell," says the spell, and, yes, indeed, the creature is frightened by the spell, "the target must move away from the caster on his turn," and yes, indeed, the target has moved away from the caster on his turn. All requirements satisfied.

You keep trying to say that "while frightened by this spell" needing to be checked constantly somehow means the target hasn't moved away form the caster on his turn because he COULD still move further away on this turn. But that isn't the case.

Sure, "while..." can be checked constantly, but the condition to be fulfilled, even checked constantly, is, "Has the target moved away from the caster on his turn?" If he has, he's satisfied the requirement. It doesn't matter if you're constantly checking the "while..." condition; you've completed the command for this iteration of the loop and thus every check as to whether he has fulfilled the requirements, no matter how often you do it, will return "yep, requirements fulfilled" until his next turn.

“On each of its turns” signifies when it occurs; it isn’t an out to “While frightened by this spell.”

So if you have an ability that say let’s you move as a Reaction, and that occurs not on your turn, you would not be beholden to “ move away from [the caster] by the safest available route.”

You’ve, for whatever reason, decided “while frightened by this spell” ceases to exist as a condition of the effects, once one of the effects has applied, and that’s just not what “while frightened by this spell” means.

[Segev]

“On each of its turns” signifies when it occurs; it isn’t an out to “While frightened by this spell.”

So if you have an ability that say let’s you move as a Reaction, and that occurs not on your turn, you would not be beholden to “ move away from [the caster] by the safest available route.”

You’ve, for whatever reason, decided “while frightened by this spell” ceases to exist as a condition of the effects, once one of the effects has applied, and that’s just not what “while frightened by this spell” means.

I'm not using it as "an out to 'while frightened by this spell.'"

In fact, let's remove "while frightened by this spell" from consideration, because it's irrelevant.

Let's just say that there is a monster with the special feature, "The PCs must move away from the monster on each of their turns." Nothing here says they must move away their maximum movement, nor that they must move throughout their entire turn, nor that they must move any specific distance. Only that they must move, and the direction of movement must be "away from the monster." Any amount of such movement qualifies as obeying the requirement.

If we add in, "While the monster is using this ability, the PCs must move away from the monster on each of their turns," it doesn't change anything other than the fact that they only are required to obey the rule while the monster is using the ability, rather than all the time.

What you are not sufficiently showing is that there is a requirement to continuously move throughout the turn. As far as I can see, there isn't: it only requires the movement on each of the affected creature's turns. It doesn't require it throughout those turns.

"On your turn, you move one of the chess pieces according to its movement rules." Does this mean you spend your entire turn physically moving a chess piece? No; there is often a very lengthy portion of the turn where you're considering what move to make before you actually make it, and even after making it, you can take it back as long as you don't stop touching the piece. Sure, you still have to move that piece, now, but you can change where you move it to. All of that is your turn, and it doesn't make, "On your turn, you move one of the chess pieces according to its movement rules" a false statement.

[Valmark]

“On each of its turns” signifies when it occurs; it isn’t an out to “While frightened by this spell.”

So if you have an ability that say let’s you move as a Reaction, and that occurs not on your turn, you would not be beholden to “ move away from [the caster] by the safest available route.”

You’ve, for whatever reason, decided “while frightened by this spell” ceases to exist as a condition of the effects, once one of the effects has applied, and that’s just not what “while frightened by this spell” means.
Rsp, try replying to these examples:

I'm just gonna try something to see if it helps us. Let's take the exact same structure of clauses, the same conjunctions and prepositions, and change out the subjects.

"While frightened by this spell... a creature must... move away from you... on each of its turns."

Becomes:

"While it is summertime, you must practice the piano on each Thursday."

One reading (which Rsp29a promotes as the only valid one) says that you must practice midnight to midnight on Thursday, because while it is both Thursday and summertime, you have to be practicing. I think that reading is contained by the language, if a little out of joint with common English usage. (The "double subordinating clause" interpretation.)

But it is no more valid than an interpretation where you play a scale on Thursday morning and don't touch the keyboard for the rest of the day, or the one where you do a reasonable amount of practice; it therefore is up to your music teacher to decide which of these actually adheres to the intent of his practice assignments. Is that a more helpful way of saying what I meant?


All true, but that doesn't mean that "all Thursday" is at all a valid reading. Just because it would be unreasonable to expect if it were valid doesn't mean the only reason it seems invalid is because it's unreasonable.

"During a heat wave, drink water every hour to avoid dehydration." Does this mean that, for every hour, you must drink water continuously the entire hour? Or that you simply must drink water - any amount of water - every hour? (Obviously, the failure to specify how much water to drink every hour makes this a badly-written instruction, and my point is that fear is giving a badly-written instruction since the intent is obviously that the targets affected by the spell move more than 1 foot away per round.)

I do not think the interpretation of "drink water continuously for the entire hour" is a valid reading of that sentence. It's a matter of sufficient conditions: if you drink any water during a particular hour, you have drunk sufficient water to satisfy "drink water every hour." There is no parsing of this that makes you fail to drink sufficient water to satisfy that by failing to drink continuously during that hour.

These are built in the same way- and if your interpretation was the only possible one one would mean that you have to practice piano for 24 hours straight, while the other would mean you have to costantly drink water as long as it's hot.

Both of those are clearly preposterous compared to what someone tipically means- even if they are valid readings they are definitely not the only ones nor the usually intended ones.

[Segev]

Rsp, try replying to these examples:




These are built in the same way- and if your interpretation was the only possible one one would mean that you have to practice piano for 24 hours straight, while the other would mean you have to costantly drink water as long as it's hot.

Both of those are clearly preposterous compared to what someone tipically means- even if they are valid readings they are definitely not the only ones nor the usually intended ones.

Actually, if they ARE AT ALL VALID, I would argue that FOR THIS SPELL, they would be the INTENDED reading of that construction, and thus what should be run with.

I honestly hope somebody can convince me that RSP's reading is at all valid, because I'd be house ruling to something of similar effect anyway. But I do not think it is at all valid to say that "while X, do Y on each Z" means "while X and Z, do Y."

[RSP]

I'm not using it as "an out to 'while frightened by this spell.'"

In fact, let's remove "while frightened by this spell" from consideration, because it's irrelevant.

Let's just say that there is a monster with the special feature, "The PCs must move away from the monster on each of their turns." Nothing here says they must move away their maximum movement, nor that they must move throughout their entire turn, nor that they must move any specific distance. Only that they must move, and the direction of movement must be "away from the monster." Any amount of such movement qualifies as obeying the requirement.

If we add in, "While the monster is using this ability, the PCs must move away from the monster on each of their turns," it doesn't change anything other than the fact that they only are required to obey the rule while the monster is using the ability, rather than all the time.

No. Is the monster still using the ability? Then they must keep moving away during each of their turns. If the phrasing was “At the beginning of their turn” or some such, that would not be a continuous time period.




"On your turn, you move one of the chess pieces according to its movement rules." Does this mean you spend your entire turn physically moving a chess piece?

“On your turn” is not the same type of clause. A better example would be, “While it is your turn, your time must run.” Does this statement mean that while it is your turn, you can run 1 second of your time then turn off your clock while you think of your move? No. It means over the entirety of the time period covered, that must clause has to be taking effect. In this instance, your clock must run while it is also your turn.

[RSP]

Actually, if they ARE AT ALL VALID, I would argue that FOR THIS SPELL, they would be the INTENDED reading of that construction, and thus what should be run with.

I honestly hope somebody can convince me that RSP's reading is at all valid, because I'd be house ruling to something of similar effect anyway. But I do not think it is at all valid to say that "while X, do Y on each Z" means "while X and Z, do Y."

I find it odd that, while the vast majority of tables read the ability my way since the game came out in 2014, you know doubt that it’s possible to be read that way; basically saying all those people have been wrong.

[Valmark]

Actually, if they ARE AT ALL VALID, I would argue that FOR THIS SPELL, they would be the INTENDED reading of that construction, and thus what should be run with.

I honestly hope somebody can convince me that RSP's reading is at all valid, because I'd be house ruling to something of similar effect anyway. But I do not think it is at all valid to say that "while X, do Y on each Z" means "while X and Z, do Y."
I mean... Take the piano one.

Let's say that I'm some kind of madman that comes to you, wakes you up and from midnight to midnight on Thursday I keep you at a piano, making you practice (ignore the fact that a sane person would punch me the minute I try to do this).

You would be able to say that while it was summer (frightened) on every Thursday (on your turn) you had to practice piano (you had to take the Dash action and move). I most certainly kept you at it for the WHOLE thursday, but you don't need to specify that.

I find it odd that, while the vast majority of tables read the ability my way since the game came out in 2014, you know doubt that it’s possible to be read that way; basically saying all those people have been wrong.
Not really what Segev is saying- the fact that it could be a meaning not supported by the rules doesn't mean that it's wrong, depending on what the rules were supposed to mean.

Can you reply to the examples, though?

[Xetheral]

How about this one?


"While in the desert, you must wear a wide-brimmed hat on each of your trips outside."

[Frogreaver]

Count me sold on the RAW being it doesn’t require your full movement.

However, Moving away by the safest route implies there is a route to move away. And if there’s a route that does seem to suggest you will be following the route.

[RSP]

How about this one?


"While in the desert, you must wear a wide-brimmed hat on each of your trips outside."

The issue with all of these statements is it’s not what we’re discussing. You could come up with all sorts of statements and waste time analyzing each but they don’t properly encapsulate what we’re discussing, which is a rule in a game, as opposed to general advice.

If you really want to have something like this apply, try the scenario where you’re playing a game with your friends wherein if you break any rules, you lose the game. If one of those rules is: “while in the desert, you must wear a wide-brimmed hat on each of your trips outside.” Well then if you’re in the desert, and on a trip outside, and at anytime you are not wearing a wide-brimmed hat, you’d lose the game.

[Valmark]

The issue with all of these statements is it’s not what we’re discussing. You could come up with all sorts of statements and waste time analyzing each but they don’t properly encapsulate what we’re discussing, which is a rule in a game, as opposed to general advice.

If you really want to have something like this apply, try the scenario where you’re playing a game with your friends wherein if you break any rules, you lose the game. If one of those rules is: “while in the desert, you must wear a wide-brimmed hat on each of your trips outside.” Well then if your in the desert, and one a trip outside and at anytime you are not wearing a wide-brimmed hat, you’d lose the game.

This isn't the same thing though- applying a penalty in case one doesn't go along with it it's different from having a compelled behavior.

"Do this else X" is a different structure from the examples and from Fear- you're not anymore comparing it correctly.

That said... If I were to go out while wearing it nothing in that sentence would enforce me to never take it off. It's the sensible interpretation but I wore it regardless on my trip out, whether I took it off or not at a certain point.

Again, please, reply to the two examples I quoted instead of dismissing them.

[RSP]

This isn't the same thing though- applying a penalty in case one doesn't go along with it it's different from having a compelled behavior.

"Do this else X" is a different structure from the examples and from Fear- you're not anymore comparing it correctly.

That said... If I were to go out while wearing it nothing in that sentence would enforce me to never take it off. It's the sensible interpretation but I wore it regardless on my trip out, whether I took it off or not at a certain point.

Again, please, reply to the two examples I quoted instead of dismissing them.

I don’t care to analyze sentences that have nothing to do with 5e rules. As I said previously, general advice isn’t the same as a rule. You say I changed the sentence by making it a rule, yet the sentence the rest of us are discussing is exactly that: a rule.

It’s my understanding the point of this forum is discussing 5e rules. Even if “sentences unrelated to 5e that Valmark wants to discuss” is an appropriate item for this forum, I have no desire to join in on that discussion.

[Valmark]

I don’t care to analyze sentences that have nothing to do with 5e rules. As I said previously, general advice isn’t the same as a rule. You say I changed the sentence by making it a rule, yet the sentence the rest of us are discussing is exactly that: a rule.

It’s my understanding the point of this forum is discussing 5e rules. Even if “sentences unrelated to 5e that Valmark wants to discuss” is an appropriate item for this forum, I have no desire to join in on that discussion.

No, I said that you changed the sentence by attaching something else to it (in this case a penalty)- which is not how the rule is formed in Fear. You are effectively not talking about the same rule being discussed in the thread.

Or put another way your example had less to do with Fear then Catullus', Segev's and Xetheral's.

And even considering this I would still be fulfilling your example even if I took the hat off- "wear X on your trips outside while in the desert or you lose the game" has no clause that forces me to wear it from the start to finish of the trip with no exception, nor does it have that meaning in the common sense. I could, for example, sit in the shade of a tree and take it off momentarily to relax, putting it back on when I resume traveling. Nobody could say that I wasn't wearing my hat on the trip, and yet I did not wear it the whole time.

[Catullus64]

I don’t care to analyze sentences that have nothing to do with 5e rules. As I said previously, general advice isn’t the same as a rule. You say I changed the sentence by making it a rule, yet the sentence the rest of us are discussing is exactly that: a rule.

It’s my understanding the point of this forum is discussing 5e rules. Even if “sentences unrelated to 5e that Valmark wants to discuss” is an appropriate item for this forum, I have no desire to join in on that discussion.

More's the pity. I think we were all having fun with it.

[MaxWilson]

If you really want to have something like this apply, try the scenario where you’re playing a game with your friends wherein if you break any rules, you lose the game. If one of those rules is: “while in the desert, you must wear a wide-brimmed hat on each of your trips outside.” Well then if you’re in the desert, and on a trip outside, and at anytime you are not wearing a wide-brimmed hat, you’d lose the game.

That's not how rules work. For example, the rules from Uno say:


The game continues until a player has one card left. The moment a player has just one card they must yell “UNO!”. If they are caught not saying “Uno” by another player before the next player has taken their turn, that player must draw two new cards as a penalty. Assuming that the player is unable to play/discard their last card and needs to draw, but after drawing, is then able to play/discard that penultimate card, the player has to repeat the action of calling out “Uno”. The bottom line is – Announcing “Uno” needs to be repeated every time you are left with one card.

If your doctrine on rule reading were correct, a player who failed to continuously repeat "Uno uno uno uno uno..." while holding just one card would have to draw two new cards as soon as they got caught stopping (e.g. to take a breath). The game would never end. Of course, this is not how Uno is played. It's understood that once you have fulfilled the rule, it no longer applies to you for the moment: the opposite of the doctrine you are proposing.

[RSP]

Here’s what a search of the Basic Rules resulted in of other rules that are similarly worded to our discussed sentence.

Defensive Fighting Style
“While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.”

Push, Drag, or Lift
“While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.”

Travel Pace
“While traveling at a fast pace, characters take a –5 penalty to their passive Wisdom (Perception) scores to notice hidden threats.”

AMF
“While an effect is suppressed, it doesn’t function, but the time it spends suppressed counts against its duration.”

Arcane Lock
“While affected by this spell, the object is more difficult to break or force open; the DC to break it or pick any locks on it increases by 10.”

Dominate Monster/Person
“While the creature is charmed, you have a telepathic link with it as long as the two of you are on the same plane of existence.”

Dream
“While in the trance, the messenger is aware of his or her surroundings, but can’t take actions or move.”

Etherealness
“While on the Ethereal Plane, you can only affect and be affected by other creatures on that plane.”

Find the Path
“While you are traveling there, whenever you are presented with a choice of paths along the way, you automatically determine which path is the shortest and most direct route (but not necessarily the safest route) to the destination.”

Imprisonment
“While affected by this spell, the creature doesn’t need to breathe, eat, or drink, and it doesn’t age.”

Otto’s Irresistible Dance
“While the target is affected by this spell, other creatures have advantage on attack rolls against it.”

Warding Bond
“While the target is within 60 feet of you, it gains a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws, and it has re- sistance to all damage.”

Adult Red Dragon Lair Action
“While poisoned in this way, a creature is incapacitated.”

Animated Armor
“While the armor remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from a normal suit of armor.”

Doppelganger
“While the target is in range, the doppelganger can continue reading its thoughts, as long as the doppelganger’s concentration isn’t broken (as if concentrating on a spell). While reading the target’s mind, the doppelganger has advantage on Wisdom (Insight) and Charisma (Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion) checks against the target.”

In all of these cases “while” indicates the period of time during which the effects are active.

“While you are wearing armor” isn’t a once a turn thing. You don’t get the +1 AC from DFS once a turn; you get it so long as you are wearing armor.

Just like you don’t just move away from the caster of Fear once, you do so as long as you are frightened by the spell.

All these rules work the same way; that is, their effects apply throughout the entirety of the time period indicated by the “While” clause. Arbitrarily deciding Fear works differently so you don’t need to follow the rules certainly isn’t RAW.

[Valmark]

[List of rules]

In all of these cases “while” indicates the period of time during which the effects are active.

“While you are wearing armor” isn’t a once a turn thing. You don’t get the +1 AC from DFS once a turn; you get it so long as you are wearing armor.

Just like you don’t just move away from the caster of Fear once, you do so as long as you are frightened by the spell.

All these rules work the same way; that is, their effects apply throughout the entirety of the time period indicated by the “While” clause. Arbitrarily deciding Fear works differently so you don’t need to follow the rules certainly isn’t RAW.

Note that aside from Find the Path all of those rules have a different wording from Fear, so they aren't actually indicative. "While X do Y" is different from "While X on each Z do Y".

Meanwhile for Find the Path (re-quoted for ease):
“While you are traveling there, whenever you are presented with a choice of paths along the way, you automatically determine which path is the shortest and most direct route (but not necessarily the safest route) to the destination.”

It does have roughly the same structure (While you're traveling=While you're frightened, when you have a choice of paths=when it's your turn, you determine the right path=you take the Dash action and move unless no space to move) but nothing says if you remain at the pathway you keep determing the right path. It's perfectly sensible to say that once you determined the right path you don't need to do it again for the same pathway (unless for whatever reason the right one changes).

I'd agree if it said "While Frightened move" and nothing else, but it doesn't do that (and I'm not sure that would be the only reading either).

[Segev]

How about this one?


"While in the desert, you must wear a wide-brimmed hat on each of your trips outside."

A good one. It's one that, taken in context, does imply that it's something you should do all the time while on the trip. It's actually the first one that I find naturally constructed (in the same manner as the rule it's analogizing), but which actually conveys the "all the time" aspect intended.

I think the trouble here is that "move away from you on each of its turns" doesn't have the same sense of "throughout" that "wear a hat" does. In fact, it can be literally impossible for the character to move throughout his turn, even under the effects of the spell.

But given context CAN imply the intent, at least, we now have a second example where people would roll their eyes at somebody who interpreted the rule to mean "I wore one for five seconds, so I followed the rule, even if I was out for an hour and most of that time I didn't have a hat on." Moreover, we know from context that this rule is advice, because the consequences of breaking it will apply even if you "obey" it in such a manner.

Similarly, we know that fear is trying to represent being utterly terrified of the caster. Terrified people who are forced by their fear to dash away don't "take the dash action" to move only one foot away, squandering all the rest of the movement they could have used to create distance.

So I think I can accept this example as illustrating the validity of the interpretation that, at the least, context can imply that movement should be a near-continuous thing. Still poorly worded, because it should have said that they had to expend all of their movement trying to get away from the caster by the safest route possible unless there is nowhere to go.

[Catullus64]

In all of these cases “while” indicates the period of time during which the effects are active.

“While you are wearing armor” isn’t a once a turn thing. You don’t get the +1 AC from DFS once a turn; you get it so long as you are wearing armor.

Just like you don’t just move away from the caster of Fear once, you do so as long as you are frightened by the spell.

All these rules work the same way; that is, their effects apply throughout the entirety of the time period indicated by the “While” clause. Arbitrarily deciding Fear works differently so you don’t need to follow the rules certainly isn’t RAW.

I feel like you're arguing against a phantom opponent here. None of the frequent contributors to this thread, that I've noticed, is trying to claim that Fear's effects don't persist through its duration. Specific words and phrases have been cited which muddle the clarity of the spell in terms of what it compels a creature to actually do.

Least of all is anyone trying to twist the rules to argue for a specific outcome in gameplay. The reason why I (can't speak for others, but I think there's a certain agreement about this) insist on reading the spell in a certain way is so that I can be clear about to what extent I'm departing from RAW when I choose to run the spell in a sensible way (i.e. requiring the frightened character to move their full Dash distance on their turn.)

I think you're distorting the intentions of your opponents here just a little bit.

[Xetheral]

A good one. It's one that, taken in context, does imply that it's something you should do all the time while on the trip. It's actually the first one that I find naturally constructed (in the same manner as the rule it's analogizing), but which actually conveys the "all the time" aspect intended.

I think the trouble here is that "move away from you on each of its turns" doesn't have the same sense of "throughout" that "wear a hat" does. In fact, it can be literally impossible for the character to move throughout his turn, even under the effects of the spell.

But given context CAN imply the intent, at least, we now have a second example where people would roll their eyes at somebody who interpreted the rule to mean "I wore one for five seconds, so I followed the rule, even if I was out for an hour and most of that time I didn't have a hat on." Moreover, we know from context that this rule is advice, because the consequences of breaking it will apply even if you "obey" it in such a manner.

Similarly, we know that fear is trying to represent being utterly terrified of the caster. Terrified people who are forced by their fear to dash away don't "take the dash action" to move only one foot away, squandering all the rest of the movement they could have used to create distance.

So I think I can accept this example as illustrating the validity of the interpretation that, at the least, context can imply that movement should be a near-continuous thing. Still poorly worded, because it should have said that they had to expend all of their movement trying to get away from the caster by the safest route possible unless there is nowhere to go.

I'm glad the example was helpful! :)

[RSP]

Note that aside from Find the Path all of those rules have a different wording from Fear, so they aren't actually indicative. "While X do Y" is different from "While X on each Z do Y".

Meanwhile for Find the Path (re-quoted for ease):
“While you are traveling there, whenever you are presented with a choice of paths along the way, you automatically determine which path is the shortest and most direct route (but not necessarily the safest route) to the destination.”

It does have roughly the same structure (While you're traveling=While you're frightened, when you have a choice of paths=when it's your turn, you determine the right path=you take the Dash action and move unless no space to move) but nothing says if you remain at the pathway you keep determing the right path. It's perfectly sensible to say that once you determined the right path you don't need to do it again for the same pathway (unless for whatever reason the right one changes).

I'd agree if it said "While Frightened move" and nothing else, but it doesn't do that (and I'm not sure that would be the only reading either).

I’m not sure why you believe there’s a question on it leading down the correct path. “While you are traveling there” does, indeed, indicate the entirety of the time traveling to “there.”

[Segev]

I’m not sure why you believe there’s a question on it leading down the correct path. “While you are traveling there” does, indeed, indicate the entirety of the time traveling to “there.”

You misunderstand what he said, because he never said "there's a question on it leading down the correct path."

What he said was that there is nothing in find the path that says the spell KEEPS pinging you with "THIS IS THE RIGHT PATH" as long as you're at the choice of paths. It could as easily ping you with that information exactly once. Fortunately, since you only need to be told once which path is the right one to be able to pick it out no matter how long you stay at the crossroads, this isn't an issue.

The point being that find the path's wording doesn't imply that even what it shares with fear's wording would require that either of them have a constant "thing" they're doing (whether telling you "THIS WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY" or compelling you to move and keep moving as long as you're able). Only that they do a thing on each event (reaching a choice of paths or each of your turns).

[Valmark]

I’m not sure why you believe there’s a question on it leading down the correct path. “While you are traveling there” does, indeed, indicate the entirety of the time traveling to “there.”

You misunderstood- I'm questioning wether it keeps telling you the right way once it already did it.

Let's say I come upon two roads and FtP tells me I have to go left- if I stop at the crossroad without going anywhere (maybe I'm taking a short rest) there's nothing in the text that says that it keeps telling me to go left for the whole time I'm still.

Indeed, since it says "Whenever you are presented with a choice" it's easy to think that it activates in the moment you come upon a crossroad and doesn't keep warning you while you're there (since when I present you something it usually means when I show it- I am not presenting it anymore afterwards)

[DwarfFighter]

So, with all that's been debated, I'm now thinking back to the original instance which provoked this thread.

The character who was affected by the Fear spell was a Swashbuckler Rogue. He wanted to, on his turn:

1. Pick up his sword.
2. Attack the fear-caster, with whom he was already in melee; between mitigating advantage and his Swashbuckler feature it would be eligible for Sneak Attack, and it would prevent the caster (also a potent melee adversary) from getting in an opportunity attack.
3. Use his bonus action to Dash.
4. Move some 15-25 feet away, the furthest position wherein he would not provoke opportunity attacks from other enemies near the exit from the chamber.

At the time, I got flummoxed because I was thinking of it as "do I allow this or not", and didn't have the wherewithal to break it down into its constituent parts. After the consideration of this thread, I would probably have ruled:

1. Yes, you can use your interact to pick up your weapon.
2. Yes, you can use your action to attack, provided that...
3. You use your bonus action to Dash.
4. Having taken your bonus action to Dash, you must move the full 60 feet which the Bonus Action dash has made your movement allowance for the turn, even through opportunity attacks, since there is no safer route away from the enemy within that movement range. (Here alone do I think I depart from strict RAW.)

That, to me, creates a readable picture of someone acting under the effects of the spell; they're frightened enough to flee, but still quick-witted enough to grab their blade and slash at the foe, fending it off well enough to hold it at bay while he scrambles off.

This seems to be OK RAW by me. I'm not super-happy about fulfilling the "must take the Dash action" by spending a bonus action instead of an action, but fine. It's a Rogue thing, and everyone should get to have their cool features shine once in a while.

The item drop isn't so trivially countered as to render it pointless: The caster should of course step up and grab the dropped item on the same turn he cast the spell, or send a minion or Unseen Servant to sweep away that trash.

I think you're right in calling for the character to keep moving while he can. Writing exhaustive compulsory movement rules is hard, so here it's all up to GM's discretion. Is moving away by jumping through a window safer than running past the guards at the door? The window option is certainly the most amusing to me!

I still think the "grab weapon and attack" goes against the spirit of the spell: The character sees "a phantasmal image" of their worst fear. Getting away from that should be their only focus, lashing out at the caster instead of the image belies that.

-DF

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Coming in late I know.

But honestly, I'd absolutely let someone with 2 levels of rogue or monk strike the thing they're by and then run. Fight or Flight can produce some weird reactions and I could very easily see "Oh my god, RUN!" while swinging my weapon right at it before I book it.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Haven't read this thread in it's entirety yet, but I'm wondering about something related. Frightened condition specifies that you cannot willingly move closer to the target of fear. Does that mean that if there's an escape route, but it's somewhat twisty so it would be required to take a couple of steps closer to the source of fear - does it mean that you cannot use that route at all? This question also becomes more interesting if we indeed subscribe to the idea that rules are not meant to say what they are saying, but the spirit is what matters.

[Valmark]

Haven't read this thread in it's entirety yet, but I'm wondering about something related. Frightened condition specifies that you cannot willingly move closer to the target of fear. Does that mean that if there's an escape route, but it's somewhat twisty so it would be required to take a couple of steps closer to the source of fear - does it mean that you cannot use that route at all? This question also becomes more interesting if we indeed subscribe to the idea that rules are not meant to say what they are saying, but the spirit is what matters.

Imo yes- like someone being forced into a corner. Though I wouldn't start calculating the exact distance to make sure there is space to run, it could be bothersome in some case.

[EggKookoo]

Haven't read this thread in it's entirety yet, but I'm wondering about something related. Frightened condition specifies that you cannot willingly move closer to the target of fear. Does that mean that if there's an escape route, but it's somewhat twisty so it would be required to take a couple of steps closer to the source of fear - does it mean that you cannot use that route at all? This question also becomes more interesting if we indeed subscribe to the idea that rules are not meant to say what they are saying, but the spirit is what matters.

I guess it depends on how you look at the rules. Some rules specify things like "end your turn," so you could say it's okay to use that path as long as you end your turn no closer to the source than you were at the start, but that opens up other issues (like running 10 feet toward the source, attacking it, then running 20 feet away).

But personally I subscribe pretty strongly to the idea that rules are meant to be interpreted, especially in this edition but I think it's always been true to one degree or another. What the players are working out at the table isn't literally what's happening in the fiction itself. The rules are a UI.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I guess it depends on how you look at the rules. Some rules specify things like "end your turn," so you could say it's okay to use that path as long as you end your turn no closer to the source than you were at the start, but that opens up other issues (like running 10 feet toward the source, attacking it, then running 20 feet away).

But personally I subscribe pretty strongly to the idea that rules are meant to be interpreted, especially in this edition but I think it's always been true to one degree or another. What the players are working out at the table isn't literally what's happening in the fiction itself. The rules are a UI.

I'm never against the idea that rules could be interpreted or even altered if the situation demands so, but at the same time I prefer more strict wording for the rules, which creates fewer situations like the infamous Dragon's Breath ruling or the multitudes of "Weapon Attack" variants that all mean different things. In this particular case, it definitely wouldn't hurt if rules were more clear about what Frightened person is meant to do with his Action and Move.

As for the example I mentioned, why I was thinking about it is because "closer" could mean linear distance, or it could mean the path it should take to reach you. I can see the argument for the second interpretation, which makes the escape through such a twisted route possible.

[Segev]

I think I would re-word it to say, "While frightened, the creature must take the dash action and expend all of its movement moving away from you by the safest possible route before doing anything else on each of its turns."

This, I think, satisfies the "don't stop to pick up what you dropped" and removes any question of what order you can take non-dash actions in, while leaving the frightened creature free to choose sub-optimal long-term escape routes and still having to actually move as far away as it reasonably can.

[Telok]

Coming in late I know.

But honestly, I'd absolutely let someone with 2 levels of rogue or monk strike the thing they're by and then run. Fight or Flight can produce some weird reactions and I could very easily see "Oh my god, RUN!" while swinging my weapon right at it before I book it.

People's fear & panic responses include anything from fleeing to fainting to freezing. But that's not what the spell does. I wonder if it's better to think of the spell as limited, one command, Dominate spell. Because if the intent was for a victim to flee to saftey there are a number of abilities a creature might have that would work better, but that can't be used due to requiring the dash action. The various teleportation abilities being among the most obvious.

[RSP]

Gotcha. Apologies for misunderstanding.

I imagine it would depend on two things:

1) whether you’re “traveling there” while short resting.

2) whether you determined the way you will go (that is, are no longer presented with a choice as you’ve already decided, or did you spend the SR to think about it).

Fear is a simpler conditional clause (“while frightened…”), though you could say there’s a second conditional clause in the effect of the spell - it only occurs on the affected creature’s turns.

Either way, if the either of the spells’ conditionals are met, yes, they do what they say.