Dissonant Whispers says "The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit."

I've seen some recently argue that this means a creature won't leave an enemy's reach because doing so is "obviously harmful", and so, if they are threatened in combat, a target of this spell will simply stay put and not flee.

Thoughts? Why or why not?

I don't think that moving away from a creature constitutes moving into "obviously dangerous ground." Provoking an OA is obviously dangerous, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with the ground. Fires and pits are hazards of the area you're moving to, which the spell protects you from, but leaving reach is a whole different proverbial can of worms which dissonant whispers doesn't say anything on.

I voted "other" on the poll because the second option does not accurately depict my stance; they flee, but not because an OA is for some reason not obvious in its dangerousness.

Interesting take, so you're saying if they can fly then they will flee because potentially provoking an attack is "obviously dangerous" but the ground is the issue, so if you can fly away you will, but if you move onto an adjacent space on the ground to flee which would provoke, you won't then because the ground is involved. I certainly didn't think to include flying in the vote options I'm glad I added the 3rd custom explanation option.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Interesting take, so you're saying if they can fly then they will flee because potentially provoking an attack is "obviously dangerous" but the ground is the issue, so if you can fly away you will, but if you move onto an adjacent space on the ground to flee which would provoke, you won't then because the ground is involved. I certainly didn't think to include flying in the vote options I'm glad I added the 3rd custom explanation option.

Nope, I'm not saying anything about flying. I'm saying that just because moving somewhere would provoke an opportunity attack doesn't mean that said somewhere is "dangerous ground." I'm accepting "ground" in the more general sense of "an area."

Like, if somebody were holding down a button that prevents the world from exploding, and then they failed the save against DW, they would still move. The reason is because, even though the movement is obviously dangerous, it has nothing to do with the area to which they are moving. The spell doesn't protect against dangerous movement, it protects against movement into dangerous areas.

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Interesting take, so you're saying if they can fly then they will flee because potentially provoking an attack is "obviously dangerous" but the ground is the issue, so if you can fly away you will, but if you move onto an adjacent space on the ground to flee which would provoke, you won't then because the ground is involved. I certainly didn't think to include flying in the vote options I'm glad I added the 3rd custom explanation option.

Nope, I'm not saying anything about flying. I'm saying that just because moving somewhere would provoke an opportunity attack doesn't mean that said somewhere is "dangerous ground." I'm accepting "ground" in the more general sense of "an area."

Like, if somebody were holding down a button that prevents the world from exploding, and then they failed the save against DW, they would still move. The reason is because, even though the movement is obviously dangerous, it has nothing to do with the area to which they are moving. The spell doesn't protect against dangerous movement, it protects against movement into dangerous areas.

But the ground is potentially dangerous, it is outside someone's reach. Moving onto it provokes an attack. That either is "obviously dangerous" or it isn't "obviously dangerous".

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Interesting take, so you're saying if they can fly then they will flee because potentially provoking an attack is "obviously dangerous" but the ground is the issue, so if you can fly away you will, but if you move onto an adjacent space on the ground to flee which would provoke, you won't then because the ground is involved. I certainly didn't think to include flying in the vote options I'm glad I added the 3rd custom explanation option.

Nope, I'm not saying anything about flying. I'm saying that just because moving somewhere would provoke an opportunity attack doesn't mean that said somewhere is "dangerous ground." I'm accepting "ground" in the more general sense of "an area."

Like, if somebody were holding down a button that prevents the world from exploding, and then they failed the save against DW, they would still move. The reason is because, even though the movement is obviously dangerous, it has nothing to do with the area to which they are moving. The spell doesn't protect against dangerous movement, it protects against movement into dangerous areas.

But the ground is potentially dangerous, it is outside someone's reach. Moving onto it provokes an attack. That either is "obviously dangerous" or it isn't "obviously dangerous".

I don't think that the only requirement for an area to be dangerous is for the action of moving into that area to be dangerous.

Anyways, the argument that you made earlier on the other thread doesn't hold water. Getting into a fight is obviously dangerous, even though it's completely possible for every attack against you to miss and for you to walk out unscathed. The definition of dangerous is not something that will cause harm to you, but something that could cause harm to you. If (contrary to my stance) all that is required for an area to be dangerous is for the act of moving into that area to be dangerous, then the first option in the poll would be correct.

Potentially harmful and obviously harmful are not the same thing. Drawing an OA might damage you, or it might not if the creature misses. You (the subject of a dissonant whispers) are super freaked out, so you are willing to take a risk and draw an OA.

Falling off a cliff or running into lava will, without question, damage you — you’re freaked out, but not that freaked out that you are going to do something where you are guaranteed to be harmed. You might take a risk, but not mess with a sure thing. I guess there could be edge cases for, say, something immune to fire damage running into the lava, but that’s what DM rulings are for. 

Quote from Xalthu >>

Potentially harmful and obviously harmful are not the same thing. Drawing an OA might damage you, or it might not if the creature misses. You (the subject of a dissonant whispers) are super freaked out, so you are willing to take a risk and draw an OA.

Falling off a cliff or running into lava will, without question, damage you — you’re freaked out, but not that freaked out that you are going to do something where you are guaranteed to be harmed. You might take a risk, but not mess with a sure thing. I guess there could be edge cases for, say, something immune to fire damage running into the lava, but that’s what DM rulings are for. 

Except the spell doesn't say "obviously harmful," it says "obviously dangerous." There's a definite distinction.

Definition of dangerous:
able or likely to cause harm or injury.

As you just said, provoking an OA is not obviously/definitely harmful, but rather potentially so. In other words, it is (quite obviously) able or likely to cause harm or injury. It is obviously dangerous. Therefore, the restriction on where the target will move within DW applies.

Of course, all of this assumes that that my claim on the difference between a dangerous area and a dangerous movement to an area from earlier posts is false. If you follow my line of logic, you come to the conclusion that DW can provoke OAs, similarly to how you said (but reached by a different method).

Movement caused by Dissonant Whispers do provoke an Opportunity Attack as explained in Sage Advice Compendium;

Does Polearm Master let me make an opportunity attack against a target that is being forced to approach me? A creature doesn’t provoke an opportunity attack if it is moved without the use of its movement, its action, or its reaction. For example, the effect of the antipathy/sympathy spell requires the target to use its movement, meaning that it would provoke opportunity attacks when it does so. Similarly, dissonant whispers requires the target to move using its reaction (if available), so that activity also provokes opportunity attacks. In contrast, a creature that’s pushed by a gust of wind spell does not provoke opportunity attacks.

Not only provokes OA but also triggers the rider damage from Booming Blade. This is a very common combo in my party. Should we consider both “obviously dangerous”? Definitely no, they are dangerous, but not obvious. This is the distinct meta difference.

While Dissonant whispers  may provoke an Opportunity Attack, it don't think it trigger booming blade 's effect though since it's compelled to do so thus not moving willingly.

It's also an opinion shared by the Dev;

@BobbyBarbarian Would you take damage from the second part of Booming Blade if you fail a save against Dissonant Whispers and move away?

@JeremyECrawford  Booming blade hurts you if you move away willingly. Dissonant whispers forces you to move—doesn't  trigger BL.

Here's another issue.  Suppose the one who is fleeing is within melee range of an enemy -- but that enemy has already used his reaction and therefore is unable to execute an opportunity attack?  Are some saying that the person who is fleeing will somehow be able to distinguish this in their panic and will sometimes run away when they cannot be attacked but in other times they would stay put if they could be attacked?  To me, that is unreasonable.

Quote from Ir0ns0ul >>

Not only provokes OA but also triggers the rider damage from Booming Blade. This is a very common combo in my party. Should we consider both “obviously dangerous”? Definitely no, they are dangerous, but not obvious. This is the distinct meta difference.

Walking away from somebody with a sword at your back seems pretty obviously dangerous to me.

Dissonant whispers 's reference  made is about ''obviously dangerous ground'' and nothing else. which booming blade is not.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Dissonant whispers 's reference  made is about ''obviously dangerous ground'' and nothing else. which booming blade is not.

I agree. And booming blade has to be willing movement anyways. But I don't think it's fair to claim that provoking an opportunity attack isn't obviously dangerous.

Obviously dangerous? Yes.

Obviously dangerous ground? No.

Quote from Plaguescarred>>

Obviously dangerous? Yes.

Obviously dangerous ground? No.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. I agree with you. I don't agree with the person that I quoted, who said that they weren't obviously dangerous.

To put a different spin on it, staying in melee range is obviously dangerous in the same way that running away is.

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Quote from Quar1on >>

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Interesting take, so you're saying if they can fly then they will flee because potentially provoking an attack is "obviously dangerous" but the ground is the issue, so if you can fly away you will, but if you move onto an adjacent space on the ground to flee which would provoke, you won't then because the ground is involved. I certainly didn't think to include flying in the vote options I'm glad I added the 3rd custom explanation option.

Nope, I'm not saying anything about flying. I'm saying that just because moving somewhere would provoke an opportunity attack doesn't mean that said somewhere is "dangerous ground." I'm accepting "ground" in the more general sense of "an area."

Like, if somebody were holding down a button that prevents the world from exploding, and then they failed the save against DW, they would still move. The reason is because, even though the movement is obviously dangerous, it has nothing to do with the area to which they are moving. The spell doesn't protect against dangerous movement, it protects against movement into dangerous areas.

But the ground is potentially dangerous, it is outside someone's reach. Moving onto it provokes an attack. That either is "obviously dangerous" or it isn't "obviously dangerous".

I don't think that the only requirement for an area to be dangerous is for the action of moving into that area to be dangerous.

Anyways, the argument that you made earlier on the other thread doesn't hold water. Getting into a fight is obviously dangerous, even though it's completely possible for every attack against you to miss and for you to walk out unscathed. The definition of dangerous is not something that will cause harm to you, but something that could cause harm to you. If (contrary to my stance) all that is required for an area to be dangerous is for the act of moving into that area to be dangerous, then the first option in the poll would be correct.

If the definition is any ground that "could" cause damage then all ground is dangerous because if you fall onto it you take damage. Your definition of "obviously dangerous" renders all ground as obviously dangerous and so dissonant whispers would never allow the target to move anywhere.