An interesting conundrum, and a great example why RAW, RAI, and similar examples are all important to consider when making a ruling. It reminds me of other questionable interactions where RAW and RAI seem to conflict.
Freedom of Movement states, "The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled." but the grappled condition states, "A grappled creature's speed becomes 0." The spell description gives an example that technically wouldn't work as a creature with 0 speed has no movement to spend. Is this meant to be an exception? That's how most people interpret it. The important part of this is why the community came to this conclusion. The RAI is clear and RAW was just as distinct, but what lead players to this decision?
On the other hand when looking at Echo Knight's Manifest Echo which states, "As a bonus action, you can teleport, magically swapping places with your echo at a cost of 15 feet of your movement..." , many said that a grappled creature would have no movement to spend regardless of whether or not they had a bonus action. The intent of the ability is crystal clear that you are teleporting, which has historically been a hard counter to grappling. Why the difference in opinion? Could it have something to do with the context of the release of the source material and it's reception?
Regardless on which side you land, of course it's important to follow the rules and examine the whys, but also the feelings behind them. Remember to ground yourselves in the reality that when you make your rulings, they are for the people you play with. People who, hopefully, you enjoy spending time with and are your friends. At the end of the day, the wrong decision is the one where no one is having fun.
Isnt that how Dominate spells work? Like if you use Dominate Person, it explicitly states the affected creature cannot do something (such as use Stillness of Mind) unless they permit it.
To me this seems like a "Stillness would clear it if used" but "You cannot use ANY action against their will"; they decide whether you can use it, and if they do so, you remove the effect.
In my opinion "Stillness of Mind" takes precedence over all actions imposed by another creature, but it actually lacks clarity. They should add more details to avoid misunderstandings.
<<Stillness of Mind: Starting at 7th level, you can use your action to end one effect that is causing you or one willing creature that you touch to be charmed or frightened. This feature is activated at the subconscious level by blocking any action imposed by effects.>>
Isnt that how Dominate spells work? Like if you use Dominate Person, it explicitly states the affected creature cannot do something (such as use Stillness of Mind) unless they permit it.
To me this seems like a "Stillness would clear it if used" but "You cannot use ANY action against their will"; they decide whether you can use it, and if they do so, you remove the effect.
Generally speaking, yes. Anything that takes your entire Action away, including but not limited to Dominate spells, will stop you from using Stillness of Mind, as a general rule.
Isnt that how Dominate spells work? Like if you use Dominate Person, it explicitly states the affected creature cannot do something (such as use Stillness of Mind) unless they permit it.
To me this seems like a "Stillness would clear it if used" but "You cannot use ANY action against their will"; they decide whether you can use it, and if they do so, you remove the effect.
Generally speaking, yes. Anything that takes your entire Action away, including but not limited to Dominate spells, will stop you from using Stillness of Mind, as a general rule.
In that case, what can Stillness of Mind actually do? Is there any charm/fear affect that still lets you do whatever you want? That's not a great charm/fear affect if one exists.
It costs an action so that it isn't just free immunity, but you can still use it when the charm/fear affect would otherwise cause you to do something else.
Isnt that how Dominate spells work? Like if you use Dominate Person, it explicitly states the affected creature cannot do something (such as use Stillness of Mind) unless they permit it.
To me this seems like a "Stillness would clear it if used" but "You cannot use ANY action against their will"; they decide whether you can use it, and if they do so, you remove the effect.
Generally speaking, yes. Anything that takes your entire Action away, including but not limited to Dominate spells, will stop you from using Stillness of Mind, as a general rule.
In that case, what can Stillness of Mind actually do? Is there any charm/fear affect that still lets you do whatever you want? That's not a great charm/fear affect if one exists.
It costs an action so that it isn't just free immunity, but you can still use it when the charm/fear affect would otherwise cause you to do something else.
I think there is several creature features that make you charmed.
As a condition it's actually pretty good as it is removing your ability to attack the creature at all.... So having something to get that back is pretty good.
Dominate spells just make it so you can't take any action is the distinction.
Isnt that how Dominate spells work? Like if you use Dominate Person, it explicitly states the affected creature cannot do something (such as use Stillness of Mind) unless they permit it.
To me this seems like a "Stillness would clear it if used" but "You cannot use ANY action against their will"; they decide whether you can use it, and if they do so, you remove the effect.
Generally speaking, yes. Anything that takes your entire Action away, including but not limited to Dominate spells, will stop you from using Stillness of Mind, as a general rule.
In that case, what can Stillness of Mind actually do? Is there any charm/fear affect that still lets you do whatever you want? That's not a great charm/fear affect if one exists.
It costs an action so that it isn't just free immunity, but you can still use it when the charm/fear affect would otherwise cause you to do something else.
I think there is several creature features that make you charmed.
As a condition it's actually pretty good as it is removing your ability to attack the creature at all.... So having something to get that back is pretty good.
Dominate spells just make it so you can't take any action is the distinction.
So this 7th level feature is now only useful in extreme corner cases? I think it applies to all charm effects (as the feature states) as it takes an entire action. Though, I think this could be decided either way by a DM. But I think that a Monk, who spends their life honing their physical, spiritual, and mental selves would reasonably know something is fiddling with their mind without it being called metagaming. Thus, the feature should work as written, and any Monk that is told "no" would justifiably feel upset and shafted.
Isnt that how Dominate spells work? Like if you use Dominate Person, it explicitly states the affected creature cannot do something (such as use Stillness of Mind) unless they permit it.
To me this seems like a "Stillness would clear it if used" but "You cannot use ANY action against their will"; they decide whether you can use it, and if they do so, you remove the effect.
Generally speaking, yes. Anything that takes your entire Action away, including but not limited to Dominate spells, will stop you from using Stillness of Mind, as a general rule.
In that case, what can Stillness of Mind actually do? Is there any charm/fear affect that still lets you do whatever you want? That's not a great charm/fear affect if one exists.
It costs an action so that it isn't just free immunity, but you can still use it when the charm/fear affect would otherwise cause you to do something else.
I think there is several creature features that make you charmed.
As a condition it's actually pretty good as it is removing your ability to attack the creature at all.... So having something to get that back is pretty good.
Dominate spells just make it so you can't take any action is the distinction.
So this 7th level feature is now only useful in extreme corner cases? I think it applies to all charm effects (as the feature states) as it takes an entire action. Though, I think this could be decided either way by a DM. But I think that a Monk, who spends their life honing their physical, spiritual, and mental selves would reasonably know something is fiddling with their mind without it being called metagaming. Thus, the feature should work as written, and any Monk that is told "no" would justifiably feel upset and shafted.
I disagree as it specifically says the creature is completely controlled in the case of dominate spells.
Every other charm works though... Just not dominate.
In that case, what can Stillness of Mind actually do? Is there any charm/fear affect that still lets you do whatever you want? That's not a great charm/fear affect if one exists.
It costs an action so that it isn't just free immunity, but you can still use it when the charm/fear affect would otherwise cause you to do something else.
Both the charmed and frightened conditions let you retain your action. It requires special riders on the effect in question to take your entire Action away. For example, Charm Monster will not take your action away, and neither will Cause Fear. As a result, the general case is that the charmed or frightened monk will have their action available. For a monster example, dryads can't take your action away, and neither can a quasit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
An interesting conundrum, and a great example why RAW, RAI, and similar examples are all important to consider when making a ruling. It reminds me of other questionable interactions where RAW and RAI seem to conflict.
Freedom of Movement states, "The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled." but the grappled condition states, "A grappled creature's speed becomes 0." The spell description gives an example that technically wouldn't work as a creature with 0 speed has no movement to spend. Is this meant to be an exception? That's how most people interpret it. The important part of this is why the community came to this conclusion. The RAI is clear and RAW was just as distinct, but what lead players to this decision?
On the other hand when looking at Echo Knight's Manifest Echo which states, "As a bonus action, you can teleport, magically swapping places with your echo at a cost of 15 feet of your movement..." , many said that a grappled creature would have no movement to spend regardless of whether or not they had a bonus action. The intent of the ability is crystal clear that you are teleporting, which has historically been a hard counter to grappling. Why the difference in opinion? Could it have something to do with the context of the release of the source material and it's reception?
Regardless on which side you land, of course it's important to follow the rules and examine the whys, but also the feelings behind them. Remember to ground yourselves in the reality that when you make your rulings, they are for the people you play with. People who, hopefully, you enjoy spending time with and are your friends. At the end of the day, the wrong decision is the one where no one is having fun.
Isnt that how Dominate spells work? Like if you use Dominate Person, it explicitly states the affected creature cannot do something (such as use Stillness of Mind) unless they permit it.
To me this seems like a "Stillness would clear it if used" but "You cannot use ANY action against their will"; they decide whether you can use it, and if they do so, you remove the effect.
In my opinion "Stillness of Mind" takes precedence over all actions imposed by another creature, but it actually lacks clarity. They should add more details to avoid misunderstandings.
<<Stillness of Mind: Starting at 7th level, you can use your action to end one effect that is causing you or one willing creature that you touch to be charmed or frightened. This feature is activated at the subconscious level by blocking any action imposed by effects.>>
Generally speaking, yes. Anything that takes your entire Action away, including but not limited to Dominate spells, will stop you from using Stillness of Mind, as a general rule.
In that case, what can Stillness of Mind actually do? Is there any charm/fear affect that still lets you do whatever you want? That's not a great charm/fear affect if one exists.
It costs an action so that it isn't just free immunity, but you can still use it when the charm/fear affect would otherwise cause you to do something else.
I think there is several creature features that make you charmed.
As a condition it's actually pretty good as it is removing your ability to attack the creature at all.... So having something to get that back is pretty good.
Dominate spells just make it so you can't take any action is the distinction.
So this 7th level feature is now only useful in extreme corner cases? I think it applies to all charm effects (as the feature states) as it takes an entire action. Though, I think this could be decided either way by a DM. But I think that a Monk, who spends their life honing their physical, spiritual, and mental selves would reasonably know something is fiddling with their mind without it being called metagaming. Thus, the feature should work as written, and any Monk that is told "no" would justifiably feel upset and shafted.
I disagree as it specifically says the creature is completely controlled in the case of dominate spells.
Every other charm works though... Just not dominate.
Both the charmed and frightened conditions let you retain your action. It requires special riders on the effect in question to take your entire Action away. For example, Charm Monster will not take your action away, and neither will Cause Fear. As a result, the general case is that the charmed or frightened monk will have their action available. For a monster example, dryads can't take your action away, and neither can a quasit.