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.
As a 4e veteran, I will say that the 5e way of doing things eliminates two issues:
Depending on how the DM describes Terrifying Glare, it may not be clear that it's a fear effect at all (not all powers are named quite this descriptively), and thus the player might not even realize their ability comes into play.
If the player does catch on, they probably say something like, "is that a fear effect?" And then the DM fumbles through their papers/browser tabs for 10 seconds to look it up.
It took some getting used to, but I actually like the "delivery condition" design quite a bit. It does the work of keywords, but in a more explicit and upfront way. Keywords were always a meta-layer of data that were applicable just seldom enough to train DMs and players to just skip past them in the heat of combat. This way, the keyword is the effect you're receiving, so it's much more difficult to overlook.
As a 4e veteran, I will say that the 5e way of doing things eliminates two issues:
Depending on how the DM describes Terrifying Glare, it may not be clear that it's a fear effect at all (not all powers are named quite this descriptively), and thus the player might not even realize their ability comes into play.
If the player does catch on, they probably say something like, "is that a fear effect?" And then the DM fumbles through their papers/browser tabs for 10 seconds to look it up.
If you're using a VTT, the keywords are probably in the roll output, but neither description is actually good at the table. At the table, what I'd want to say is "The scarecrow glares at you, and you are paralyzed with magical fear" -- second person rather than third, gets all important concepts across in actually natural language.
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.
As a 4e veteran, I will say that the 5e way of doing things eliminates two issues:
Depending on how the DM describes Terrifying Glare, it may not be clear that it's a fear effect at all (not all powers are named quite this descriptively), and thus the player might not even realize their ability comes into play.
If the player does catch on, they probably say something like, "is that a fear effect?" And then the DM fumbles through their papers/browser tabs for 10 seconds to look it up.
The 5E way is worse. There are only two ways (well, three, but we'll get to that) to play out the current interaction, and both have major flaws:
You can follow the accepted practice that all abilities also grant information leaking for them to work, which means the DM has to be aware, at all times, of every ability every PC has that leaks information and all of their nuances. Provided you are willing to do this extreme level of work, when you call for the party to make Wisdom saves, you can privately tell the player who has advantage due to the resisted condition that they get advantage on this. But it's utterly exhausting trying to do this in practice with a complex party. I've never in my life encountered a DM who could reliably achieve this, and I've met plenty who have tried.
You tell the player to make a save, they roll it, they fail, you tell them their character is frightened, they realize they have advantage, they roll a second time. Of course, this leaks additional information about the original DC of the save if one fails and the other passes, but at least it lets you play the game normally, wherein you trust your PCs to by and large police their abilities.
Technically there's a third option where you don't let the player have their ability: you call for the save, they fail it, and then you narratively describe the fear. Every time the PC attempts something being frightened interferes with, you tell them about the interference - but at no point do you confirm they're frightened. This makes it easier on the PC to avoid metagaming, since they don't have to self-police knowing things their character doesn't, but has obvious severe problems.
Note: for frightened specifically it would make sense for everyone to always know in-character when they're frightened, because how could you not know, but this conversation is about generic conditions. Dwarves have the same ability against the poisoned condition, and it makes no sense whatsoever for people in general to know that they are poisoned in-character.
With the other approach, you could always reveal an effect's tags for resolving game interactions - so someone hit with this ability would know that it has the Fear tag - but you wouldn't need to handle the above issue in a poor way (and there is no good way to handle it).
It took some getting used to, but I actually like the "delivery condition" design quite a bit. It does the work of keywords, but in a more explicit and upfront way. Keywords were always a meta-layer of data that were applicable just seldom enough to train DMs and players to just skip past them in the heat of combat. This way, the keyword is the effect you're receiving, so it's much more difficult to overlook.
Unfortunately, it's also genuinely unplayable, as I outlined above.
Or, uh, fourth path: you tell the players they're saving against becoming frightened. I don't see why it's *necessary* that a player *has* to forget they have advantage.
Or, uh, fourth path: you tell the players they're saving against becoming frightened. I don't see why it's *necessary* that a player *has* to forget they have advantage.
You actually have to tell them "save against magic, fear, and paralysis", because advantage or disadvantage or immunity to any of those things is important to the outcome. At which point you might as well be handing them a list of keywords; conditions as riders on other conditions is just a somewhat more confusing way of handling keywords.
Or, uh, fourth path: you tell the players they're saving against becoming frightened. I don't see why it's *necessary* that a player *has* to forget they have advantage.
You actually have to tell them "save against magic, fear, and paralysis", because advantage or disadvantage or immunity to any of those things is important to the outcome. At which point you might as well be handing them a list of keywords; conditions as riders on other conditions is just a somewhat more confusing way of handling keywords.
Ah, well, that's just because they've done a bad job using the concept. You aren't supposed to need to tell them about paralysis, that's the whole point -- and magic ought to be obvious most of the time, but it isn't, because... Who knows. Even so: "The monster tries to magically frighten you" = done.
Now, I'll tell you what I do find annoying. Poison, but not poisoned.
Ah, well, that's just because they've done a bad job using the concept. You aren't supposed to need to tell them about paralysis, that's the whole point -- and magic ought to be obvious most of the time, but it isn't, because... Who knows. Even so: "The monster tries to magically frighten you" = done.
So you're saying that advantage on saves vs being paralyzed would not apply?
Ah, well, that's just because they've done a bad job using the concept. You aren't supposed to need to tell them about paralysis, that's the whole point -- and magic ought to be obvious most of the time, but it isn't, because... Who knows. Even so: "The monster tries to magically frighten you" = done.
So you're saying that advantage on saves vs being paralyzed would not apply?
Advantage on saves vs being paralyzed isn't supposed to exist. (And to my knowledge, it doesn't, so at least they haven't screwed that part up yet.)
Advantage on saves vs being paralyzed isn't supposed to exist.
Why not? I can't think of any examples, mostly they just hand out blanket immunities like freedom of movement, but there's no reason such a resistance shouldn't exist.
Advantage on saves vs being paralyzed isn't supposed to exist.
Why not? I can't think of any examples, mostly they just hand out blanket immunities like freedom of movement, but there's no reason such a resistance shouldn't exist.
Because it's meant to be gated behind a delivery condition. See #15.
Because it's meant to be gated behind a delivery condition. See #15.
There are a ton of creatures and spells that apply it without a delivery condition. For example, a ghoul or hold person.
That's as it may be, but 1) that's not the only reason, see #15, the point is to boost other resistances, and 2) ghoul paralysis has tripped up every person I've ever played with because it's so obviously poison, but it's actually not poison. (As far as I can tell, it's never been poison. And it's never made sense!)
That's as it may be, but 1) that's not the only reason, see #15, the point is to boost other resistances, and 2) ghoul paralysis has tripped up every person I've ever played with because it's so obviously poison, but it's actually not poison. (As far as I can tell, it's never been poison. And it's never made sense!)
Or "Duergar Resilience. The duergar has advantage on saving throws against poison, spells, and illusions, as well as to resist being charmed or paralyzed."
Advantage on saves vs being paralyzed isn't supposed to exist. (And to my knowledge, it doesn't, so at least they haven't screwed that part up yet.)
It's not only supposed to exist, it does exist. Pantagruel even provided a couple examples. You can have advantage on saves vs any condition, as well as poisons, diseases, curses, spells, magic, and any other text WOTC can think of (e.g. there are NPCs with advantage on saves against being turned).
Or, uh, fourth path: you tell the players they're saving against becoming frightened. I don't see why it's *necessary* that a player *has* to forget they have advantage.
You actually have to tell them "save against magic, fear, and paralysis", because advantage or disadvantage or immunity to any of those things is important to the outcome. At which point you might as well be handing them a list of keywords; conditions as riders on other conditions is just a somewhat more confusing way of handling keywords.
No, you just tell them, "on a failed save, this happens." Then you say the stuff you'd have to say anyway when someone fails. The it's on the player to recognize if they have a relevant feature.
I guess you can complain that it's giving away information, but I think that if you're exposed to a thing and you shrug it off you would still have an idea what it might have done otherwise.
If a failed save against a monster’s special trait leads to full damage and happens to also apply a condition, that isn’t a save against that condition. It’s a save against full damage and the condition is incidental and entirely predicated on failing the save against the damage. I don’t think any bonuses to saves against a certain condition would apply.
If a failed save against a monster’s special trait leads to full damage and happens to also apply a condition, that isn’t a save against that condition. It’s a save against full damage and the condition is incidental and entirely predicated on failing the save against the damage. I don’t think any bonuses to saves against a certain condition would apply.
And thus we see the problem, because the rules don't actually tell you which way to interpret things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not sure if 5E is rule-light system, it's light vs D&D3+ but heavy vs OSR. I'd say 5E is rule-medium ☺
As a 4e veteran, I will say that the 5e way of doing things eliminates two issues:
It took some getting used to, but I actually like the "delivery condition" design quite a bit. It does the work of keywords, but in a more explicit and upfront way. Keywords were always a meta-layer of data that were applicable just seldom enough to train DMs and players to just skip past them in the heat of combat. This way, the keyword is the effect you're receiving, so it's much more difficult to overlook.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
If you're using a VTT, the keywords are probably in the roll output, but neither description is actually good at the table. At the table, what I'd want to say is "The scarecrow glares at you, and you are paralyzed with magical fear" -- second person rather than third, gets all important concepts across in actually natural language.
The 5E way is worse. There are only two ways (well, three, but we'll get to that) to play out the current interaction, and both have major flaws:
With the other approach, you could always reveal an effect's tags for resolving game interactions - so someone hit with this ability would know that it has the Fear tag - but you wouldn't need to handle the above issue in a poor way (and there is no good way to handle it).
Unfortunately, it's also genuinely unplayable, as I outlined above.
Or, uh, fourth path: you tell the players they're saving against becoming frightened. I don't see why it's *necessary* that a player *has* to forget they have advantage.
You actually have to tell them "save against magic, fear, and paralysis", because advantage or disadvantage or immunity to any of those things is important to the outcome. At which point you might as well be handing them a list of keywords; conditions as riders on other conditions is just a somewhat more confusing way of handling keywords.
Ah, well, that's just because they've done a bad job using the concept. You aren't supposed to need to tell them about paralysis, that's the whole point -- and magic ought to be obvious most of the time, but it isn't, because... Who knows. Even so: "The monster tries to magically frighten you" = done.
Now, I'll tell you what I do find annoying. Poison, but not poisoned.
So you're saying that advantage on saves vs being paralyzed would not apply?
Advantage on saves vs being paralyzed isn't supposed to exist. (And to my knowledge, it doesn't, so at least they haven't screwed that part up yet.)
Why not? I can't think of any examples, mostly they just hand out blanket immunities like freedom of movement, but there's no reason such a resistance shouldn't exist.
Because it's meant to be gated behind a delivery condition. See #15.
There are a ton of creatures and spells that apply it without a delivery condition. For example, a ghoul or hold person.
That's as it may be, but 1) that's not the only reason, see #15, the point is to boost other resistances, and 2) ghoul paralysis has tripped up every person I've ever played with because it's so obviously poison, but it's actually not poison. (As far as I can tell, it's never been poison. And it's never made sense!)
Oh, found an example: the bugbear chief has "Heart of Hruggek. The bugbear has advantage on saving throws against being charmed, frightened, paralyzed, poisoned, stunned, or put to sleep."
Or "Duergar Resilience. The duergar has advantage on saving throws against poison, spells, and illusions, as well as to resist being charmed or paralyzed."
It's not only supposed to exist, it does exist. Pantagruel even provided a couple examples. You can have advantage on saves vs any condition, as well as poisons, diseases, curses, spells, magic, and any other text WOTC can think of (e.g. there are NPCs with advantage on saves against being turned).
No, you just tell them, "on a failed save, this happens." Then you say the stuff you'd have to say anyway when someone fails. The it's on the player to recognize if they have a relevant feature.
I guess you can complain that it's giving away information, but I think that if you're exposed to a thing and you shrug it off you would still have an idea what it might have done otherwise.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
You have to tell them ahead of time so they know if they have advantage, disadvantage, or neither.
Yeah. And?
If a failed save against a monster’s special trait leads to full damage and happens to also apply a condition, that isn’t a save against that condition. It’s a save against full damage and the condition is incidental and entirely predicated on failing the save against the damage. I don’t think any bonuses to saves against a certain condition would apply.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And thus we see the problem, because the rules don't actually tell you which way to interpret things.