Fear is an Exploitable Mess of a Spell.

[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).