Many features and traits grant characters and monsters advantage on saving throws against conditions and effects, such as being frightened, charmed, or even knocked prone. However, what is the ruling when that condition is not the only thing inflicted on a failed save - or better yet, when that condition is completely secondary to the main effect?
For example, let's take a look at the Lizardfolk Subchief. It has the following action: "Jaws of Semuanya (Recharge 5–6). The subchief invokes the primal magic of Semuanya, summoning a spectral maw around a target it can see within 60 feet of it. The target must make a DC 13 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (5d8) piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A creature that fails this saving throw is also frightened until the end of its next turn." What happens when it targets a Halfling, who has advantage on saves against being Frightened? Does the fact that the action can make them frightened at all give them advantage on a Dexterity save against piercing damage? RAW, I think that is the answer, but RAI I think the trait is supposed to be more referring to spells like Fear or Wrathful Smite where the condition is the whole thing or at least the main focus.
I'm not sure I could back this up with rules, but I think it's pretty clear that the saving throw isn't to resist being frightened, it's to avoid being struck. No advantage.
That’s a really good question. I don’t think there’s a clear answer, RAW. Of course, you can say “being frightened is the consequence of failing the save, ipso facto, QED,” but it’s important to remember that the rules of 5e are written in such a way that expects DMs to say, for example, “but it’s not REALLY a save against being frightened, it’s a save against taking piercing damage.”
I think a strict RAW answer leans a little more heavily toward the halfling getting advantage than not, but also, when things aren’t super clear like this, seeking refuge in technicalities is, literally, reading the rules incorrectly. The game’s design expects DMs to each just go with their individual gut when it’s not clear.
Many features and traits grant characters and monsters advantage on saving throws against conditions and effects, such as being frightened, charmed, or even knocked prone. However, what is the ruling when that condition is not the only thing inflicted on a failed save - or better yet, when that condition is completely secondary to the main effect?
For example, let's take a look at the Lizardfolk Subchief. It has the following action: "Jaws of Semuanya (Recharge 5–6). The subchief invokes the primal magic of Semuanya, summoning a spectral maw around a target it can see within 60 feet of it. The target must make a DC 13 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (5d8) piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A creature that fails this saving throw is also frightened until the end of its next turn." What happens when it targets a Halfling, who has advantage on saves against being Frightened? Does the fact that the action can make them frightened at all give them advantage on a Dexterity save against piercing damage? RAW, I think that is the answer, but RAI I think the trait is supposed to be more referring to spells like Fear or Wrathful Smite where the condition is the whole thing or at least the main focus.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
If a Halfling only got advantage on a Wisdom saves against being frightened, the rules would have to say that. So yes, the ability works on Dex saves to resist being frightened. It also doesn't matter that the effects are listed in the order "damage, condition" rather than "condition, damage" or that damage is present. You can have the same issue come up with spells instead of monsters.
I think this is absolutely RAI, as well. If they intended anything else, the way to write it that way would have been so easy it beggars belief they didn't simply write it that way.
Also, does anything change if it's something that only triggers on a particularly large failure, not just a failure -- like the Petrifying Gaze feature on a Medusa? "If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the creature is instantly Petrified. Otherwise, a creature that fails the save begins to turn to stone and is Restrained." Say you had advantage against being petrified. Does it apply? What about advantage against being restrained?
Edit: Does advantage against being magically aged apply to the Horrifying Visage feature of a ghost? Such a feature doesn't currently exist, but Timeless Body for Monks outright prevents it, so there's something. Surely that feature doesn't shut off the frightened effects of Horrifying Visage though.
I know this isn't supported at all by the rules, but my thought process is that the Halfling would make a single roll for the initial save, then make a second "bonus" roll that doesn't affect damage specifically against the fear effect. There's no rule that backs this up, this is just how I would run it as a DM so that the Halfling player's race features still impact the game.
In your example of the lizardfolk subchief, I would give the halfling advantage on the saving throw because, to me, it meets the standard of being a saving throw against being frightened.
Also, does anything change if it's something that only triggers on a particularly large failure, not just a failure -- like the Petrifying Gaze feature on a Medusa? "If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the creature is instantly Petrified. Otherwise, a creature that fails the save begins to turn to stone and is Restrained." Say you had advantage against being petrified. Does it apply? What about advantage against being restrained?
Edit: Does advantage against being magically aged apply to the Horrifying Visage feature of a ghost? Such a feature doesn't currently exist, but Timeless Body for Monks outright prevents it, so there's something. Surely that feature doesn't shut off the frightened effects of Horrifying Visage though.
I would say that the advantage does apply to the Horrifying Visage because that action's main purpose is to inflict the frightened condition, not to age the character, which is a rider effect. Additionally, I actually disagree that Timeless Body prevents being aged magically, as the feature only slows the Monk's natural aging. Now, it would be up to DM interpretation whether being aged 20 years means that you are aged as if 20 years passed in a single moment (meaning the Monk only physically ages 2 years) or if you are biologically aged 20 years, which ignores the Monk's feature.
It literally says you can't be aged magically. But what it doesn't say is that you're immune to effects that would age you magically, or something like that. So the Horrifying Visage could still frighten you, I suppose.
It literally says you can't be aged magically. But what it doesn't say is that you're immune to effects that would age you magically, or something like that. So the Horrifying Visage could still frighten you, I suppose.
You are absolutely correct. In related news, today I learned that both Druids and Monks get a feature called Timeless Body, and they are not the same thing.
Your interpretation there is also what I'd rule as correct. It only gives immunity to the aging effect, not the whole action; that is, that part of the action just kinda bounces off them. Just like how being immune to piercing damage in my above example wouldn't make someone immune to the frightened condition, nor would being immune to being frightened (such as through a paladin aura) give them immunity to piercing damage.
Its a saving throw that directly inflicts the frightened condition on a failure. The fact that it also deals damage is irrelevant to the halfling trait. The halfling gets advantage.
I can see how it seems a bit unusual from a flavor perspective, but that's how it works, RAW and RAI.
If you have advantage on saving throws against being frightened, than to me any effect that impose such condition via a saving throw will let you have advantage on it, wether it do other things as well or only does that.
You have this oddity where they have creatures like the Scarecrow, which inflicts frightened, and while frightened you are paralyzed.
Paralyzed makes frightened irrelevant, so the only reason for bothering with this is because they wanted protection from fear to work against it. The question is whether they intended that to be the only way of implementing this.
3e and 4e both would have just assigned the Fear keyword to the ability, which makes it immediately clear (if it has the fear keyword, your bonus works) but 5e did away with keywords (which I think was a mistake).
You have this oddity where they have creatures like the [monster]Scarecrow[/condition], which inflicts frightened, and while frightened you are paralyzed.
Paralyzed makes frightened irrelevant, so the only reason for bothering with this is because they wanted protection from fear to work against it. The question is whether they intended that to be the only way of implementing this.
The designers are on record for saying that frightened, poisoned, and charmed were designed as 'delivery' conditions for additional effects, precisely for this purpose. They didn't want a complex matrix of spells and features interacting with a bunch of different conditions. They also wanted features like the halfling's Brave and the elf's Fey Ancestry this to be more broadly applicable, so they don't go to waste.
The designers are on record for saying that frightened, poisoned, and charmed were designed as 'delivery' conditions for additional effects, precisely for this purpose. They didn't want a complex matrix of spells and features interacting with a bunch of different conditions. They also wanted features like the halfling's Brave and the elf's Fey Ancestry this to be more broadly applicable, so they don't go to waste.
Which is more complicated:
Terrifying Glare. The scarecrow targets one creature it can see within 30 feet of it. If the target can see the scarecrow, the target must succeed on a DC 11 Wisdom saving throw or be magically frightened until the end of the scarecrow’s next turn. The frightened target is paralyzed.
Brave: you have advantage on saves vs being frightened
Terrifying Glare (Fear, Magic). The scarecrow targets one creature it can see within 30 feet of it. If the target can see the scarecrow, the target must succeed on a DC 11 Wisdom saving throw or be paralyzed until the end of the scarecrow's next turn.
Brave: you have advantage on saves vs fear effects.
You have this oddity where they have creatures like the [monster]Scarecrow[/condition], which inflicts frightened, and while frightened you are paralyzed.
Paralyzed makes frightened irrelevant, so the only reason for bothering with this is because they wanted protection from fear to work against it. The question is whether they intended that to be the only way of implementing this.
The designers are on record for saying that frightened, poisoned, and charmed were designed as 'delivery' conditions for additional effects, precisely for this purpose. They didn't want a complex matrix of spells and features interacting with a bunch of different conditions. They also wanted features like the halfling's Brave and the elf's Fey Ancestry this to be more broadly applicable, so they don't go to waste.
Then why did they implement it the wrong way?
Hijacking Pantagruel's example, this is how 5E works:
Terrifying Glare. The scarecrow targets one creature it can see within 30 feet of it. If the target can see the scarecrow, the target must succeed on a DC 11 Wisdom saving throw or be magically frightened until the end of the scarecrow’s next turn. While frightened in this way, the target is paralyzed.
That means Brave and Jiggly both give you advantage on the save against TG, and Heroic makes you immune to TG, but Wiggly only makes you immune to half of TG. That's weird, right? And what's worse, I cheated. The real scarecrow is missing the necessary rules text to let the paralysis wear off - EVER. That's because the paralysis effect isn't pegged to the frightened effect, like in my version - the real monster just says that the frightened target is paralyzed, with no allowance for ever ceasing to be paralyzed.
Because 5e wants to appear rules-light and therefore tries to avoid using things that look technical. Except it's not actually rules-light so they have to reinvent the wheel and wind up doing a bad job of it. There are a vast number of rules where "just use the rule from 3e" or "just use the rule from 4e" (neither of which made any pretense about being rules light; 4e in particular tries to say exactly what things do) would be simpler and clearer than what they actually did in 5e.
You have this oddity where they have creatures like the [monster]Scarecrow[/condition], which inflicts frightened, and while frightened you are paralyzed.
Because 5e wants to appear rules-light and therefore tries to avoid using things that look technical. Except it's not actually rules-light so they have to reinvent the wheel and wind up doing a bad job of it.
5e is extremely rules-light for a D&D version. This subforum is what isn't rules-light, so we view it through that lens :)
Because 5e wants to appear rules-light and therefore tries to avoid using things that look technical. Except it's not actually rules-light so they have to reinvent the wheel and wind up doing a bad job of it.
5e is extremely rules-light for a D&D version. This subforum is what isn't rules-light, so we view it through that lens :)
'Rules-light for a D&D version' does not mean 'rules-light' in any absolute sense, but more importantly, avoiding technical vocabularies does not make a game rules-light, it just means you wind up with incomprehensible rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Many features and traits grant characters and monsters advantage on saving throws against conditions and effects, such as being frightened, charmed, or even knocked prone. However, what is the ruling when that condition is not the only thing inflicted on a failed save - or better yet, when that condition is completely secondary to the main effect?
For example, let's take a look at the Lizardfolk Subchief. It has the following action: "Jaws of Semuanya (Recharge 5–6). The subchief invokes the primal magic of Semuanya, summoning a spectral maw around a target it can see within 60 feet of it. The target must make a DC 13 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (5d8) piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. A creature that fails this saving throw is also frightened until the end of its next turn."
What happens when it targets a Halfling, who has advantage on saves against being Frightened? Does the fact that the action can make them frightened at all give them advantage on a Dexterity save against piercing damage? RAW, I think that is the answer, but RAI I think the trait is supposed to be more referring to spells like Fear or Wrathful Smite where the condition is the whole thing or at least the main focus.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
I'm not sure I could back this up with rules, but I think it's pretty clear that the saving throw isn't to resist being frightened, it's to avoid being struck. No advantage.
That’s a really good question. I don’t think there’s a clear answer, RAW. Of course, you can say “being frightened is the consequence of failing the save, ipso facto, QED,” but it’s important to remember that the rules of 5e are written in such a way that expects DMs to say, for example, “but it’s not REALLY a save against being frightened, it’s a save against taking piercing damage.”
I think a strict RAW answer leans a little more heavily toward the halfling getting advantage than not, but also, when things aren’t super clear like this, seeking refuge in technicalities is, literally, reading the rules incorrectly. The game’s design expects DMs to each just go with their individual gut when it’s not clear.
If a Halfling only got advantage on a Wisdom saves against being frightened, the rules would have to say that. So yes, the ability works on Dex saves to resist being frightened. It also doesn't matter that the effects are listed in the order "damage, condition" rather than "condition, damage" or that damage is present. You can have the same issue come up with spells instead of monsters.
I think this is absolutely RAI, as well. If they intended anything else, the way to write it that way would have been so easy it beggars belief they didn't simply write it that way.
Also, does anything change if it's something that only triggers on a particularly large failure, not just a failure -- like the Petrifying Gaze feature on a Medusa? "If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the creature is instantly Petrified. Otherwise, a creature that fails the save begins to turn to stone and is Restrained." Say you had advantage against being petrified. Does it apply? What about advantage against being restrained?
Edit: Does advantage against being magically aged apply to the Horrifying Visage feature of a ghost? Such a feature doesn't currently exist, but Timeless Body for Monks outright prevents it, so there's something. Surely that feature doesn't shut off the frightened effects of Horrifying Visage though.
I know this isn't supported at all by the rules, but my thought process is that the Halfling would make a single roll for the initial save, then make a second "bonus" roll that doesn't affect damage specifically against the fear effect. There's no rule that backs this up, this is just how I would run it as a DM so that the Halfling player's race features still impact the game.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
In your example of the lizardfolk subchief, I would give the halfling advantage on the saving throw because, to me, it meets the standard of being a saving throw against being frightened.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I would say that the advantage does apply to the Horrifying Visage because that action's main purpose is to inflict the frightened condition, not to age the character, which is a rider effect. Additionally, I actually disagree that Timeless Body prevents being aged magically, as the feature only slows the Monk's natural aging. Now, it would be up to DM interpretation whether being aged 20 years means that you are aged as if 20 years passed in a single moment (meaning the Monk only physically ages 2 years) or if you are biologically aged 20 years, which ignores the Monk's feature.
It literally says you can't be aged magically. But what it doesn't say is that you're immune to effects that would age you magically, or something like that. So the Horrifying Visage could still frighten you, I suppose.
You are absolutely correct. In related news, today I learned that both Druids and Monks get a feature called Timeless Body, and they are not the same thing.
Your interpretation there is also what I'd rule as correct. It only gives immunity to the aging effect, not the whole action; that is, that part of the action just kinda bounces off them. Just like how being immune to piercing damage in my above example wouldn't make someone immune to the frightened condition, nor would being immune to being frightened (such as through a paladin aura) give them immunity to piercing damage.
Its a saving throw that directly inflicts the frightened condition on a failure. The fact that it also deals damage is irrelevant to the halfling trait. The halfling gets advantage.
I can see how it seems a bit unusual from a flavor perspective, but that's how it works, RAW and RAI.
If you have advantage on saving throws against being frightened, than to me any effect that impose such condition via a saving throw will let you have advantage on it, wether it do other things as well or only does that.
You have this oddity where they have creatures like the Scarecrow, which inflicts frightened, and while frightened you are paralyzed.
Paralyzed makes frightened irrelevant, so the only reason for bothering with this is because they wanted protection from fear to work against it. The question is whether they intended that to be the only way of implementing this.
3e and 4e both would have just assigned the Fear keyword to the ability, which makes it immediately clear (if it has the fear keyword, your bonus works) but 5e did away with keywords (which I think was a mistake).
The designers are on record for saying that frightened, poisoned, and charmed were designed as 'delivery' conditions for additional effects, precisely for this purpose. They didn't want a complex matrix of spells and features interacting with a bunch of different conditions. They also wanted features like the halfling's Brave and the elf's Fey Ancestry this to be more broadly applicable, so they don't go to waste.
Which is more complicated:
Then why did they implement it the wrong way?
Hijacking Pantagruel's example, this is how 5E works:
That means Brave and Jiggly both give you advantage on the save against TG, and Heroic makes you immune to TG, but Wiggly only makes you immune to half of TG. That's weird, right? And what's worse, I cheated. The real scarecrow is missing the necessary rules text to let the paralysis wear off - EVER. That's because the paralysis effect isn't pegged to the frightened effect, like in my version - the real monster just says that the frightened target is paralyzed, with no allowance for ever ceasing to be paralyzed.
Because 5e wants to appear rules-light and therefore tries to avoid using things that look technical. Except it's not actually rules-light so they have to reinvent the wheel and wind up doing a bad job of it. There are a vast number of rules where "just use the rule from 3e" or "just use the rule from 4e" (neither of which made any pretense about being rules light; 4e in particular tries to say exactly what things do) would be simpler and clearer than what they actually did in 5e.
But the example in the OP is the opposite.
5e is extremely rules-light for a D&D version. This subforum is what isn't rules-light, so we view it through that lens :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
'Rules-light for a D&D version' does not mean 'rules-light' in any absolute sense, but more importantly, avoiding technical vocabularies does not make a game rules-light, it just means you wind up with incomprehensible rules.