An obviously dangerous ground to me would be one able or likely to harm or injure you typically by causing damage or other adverse effect either automatically or after a roll such as an ability check saving throw or attack roll.
I think the original question is clear as day: The target moves, unless moving is an obvious death sentence. It doesn't run off a cliff, for instance - but will definitely risk an attack of opportunity.
I find it's much more interesting whether that creature has now spent it's movement? I mean, that's what happens, isn't it? The caster forces the target to spend it's movement, as a reaction, on the caster's turn. Can it even move, if I already moved this turn?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I think the original question is clear as day: The target moves, unless moving is an obvious death sentence. It doesn't run off a cliff, for instance - but will definitely risk an attack of opportunity.
I don't follow. Do you really think something is "dangerous" if and only if it is an obvious death sentence?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I think the original question is clear as day: The target moves, unless moving is an obvious death sentence. It doesn't run off a cliff, for instance - but will definitely risk an attack of opportunity.
I don't follow. Do you really think something is "dangerous" if and only if it is an obvious death sentence?
No. And I don't think that's what I said. I elaborated slightly on the examples given in the spell description - which are obviously valid, and only debatable death sentences. You could certainly survive some fires, and some pits, depending on your current hit point status. On the other hand, if you're already down to 1 HP, anything is a death sentence.
But I think I'm clear enough: Will definitely risk an attack of opportunity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I think the original question is clear as day: The target moves, unless moving is an obvious death sentence. It doesn't run off a cliff, for instance - but will definitely risk an attack of opportunity.
I don't follow. Do you really think something is "dangerous" if and only if it is an obvious death sentence?
No. And I don't think that's what I said. I elaborated slightly on the examples given in the spell description - which are obviously valid, and only debatable death sentences. You could certainly survive some fires, and some pits, depending on your current hit point status. On the other hand, if you're already down to 1 HP, anything is a death sentence.
But I think I'm clear enough: Will definitely risk an attack of opportunity.
I'm pretty sure that is what you said, actually. I'd appreciate some elaboration on how you said something else.
The thing is, we don't have to just use examples given by the book to define what "dangerous" means. We have dictionaries. And the Internet. Sources that agree something can be dangerous without being an obvious death sentence. A couple examples cannot be used to prove what pattern said examples follow, only disprove what patterns they don't. False Equivalence, methinks.
To make it clear, I also think that DW can provoke opportunity attacks. I just got there by a different train of logic, because I don't think the one you're on is valid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I'm pretty sure that is what you said, actually. I'd appreciate some elaboration on how you said something else.
The thing is, we don't have to just use examples given by the book to define what "dangerous" means. We have dictionaries. And the Internet. Sources that agree something can be dangerous without being an obvious death sentence. A couple examples cannot be used to prove what pattern said examples follow, only disprove what patterns they don't. False Equivalence, methinks.
To make it clear, I also think that DW can provoke opportunity attacks. I just got there by a different train of logic, because I don't think the one you're on is valid.
Ah - you want to be literal. Quoting one thing I said, while ignoring everything else I said. Fine.
Here's what. The spell description is literal. It says 'Dangerous Ground'. Where you put your feet. Not 'the guy in that other square, who is going to stab you if you move'. Dangerous ground. And it then proceed to give some examples of ways that the ground can be dangerous - fire, a pit. Stepping off a cliff would qualify, as would a spell effect like Spike Growth. I'd be nice about it, and include Firewall - although technically, that's not the ground.
The point I'm trying to make it that the spell description is clear enough in it's language. You cannot use Dissonant Whispers to force enemy movement into something that causes damage in and off itself, like a Blade Barrier. But it doesn't care about attacks of opportunity.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
As Acromos says, the dissonant whispers text doesn't specify "any danger" it explicitly states:
The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit
So it won't throw itself to its death, or jump up and down on spikes, but this gives us no reason to believe that creatures are intended to be "obviously dangerous ground"; a creature may well be obviously dangerous, but creatures and ground are usually separate things, the ground itself isn't dangerous, the creature is. Meanwhile the danger of being opportunity attacked is a danger sure, but is it an obvious danger when it can miss?
The examples are also pretty clearly only things relating to the ground itself, so environmental hazards.
A DM is certainly free to rule that a gauntlet of opportunity attacks might qualify, i.e- if the creature would have to force its way through a crowd of hostiles, but that would be an addition rather than the Rules As Written.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Another detail -- traps are not "obviously dangerous". A target creature actually could run straight into a pit if it was set up as a pit trap. While not mentioned specifically, I could imagine a DM applying disadvantage to this creature's passive perception while running away, making it far more likely to become the victim of such traps.
Technically, the OA attempt and damage happen before you move away anyway (If it was after, how could you reach them?) so there should be no direct interaction between taking an OA and moving into a dangerous space. If anything, you're potentially moving out of the dangerous space.
Another detail -- traps are not "obviously dangerous". A target creature actually could run straight into a pit if it was set up as a pit trap. While not mentioned specifically, I could imagine a DM applying disadvantage to this creature's passive perception while running away, making it far more likely to become the victim of such traps.
I'd say an unconcealed trap on the ground would be considered an obviously dangeround ground since pit is specifically cited as an emple in the spell. but concealed one would not be obvious.
I'm pretty sure that is what you said, actually. I'd appreciate some elaboration on how you said something else.
The thing is, we don't have to just use examples given by the book to define what "dangerous" means. We have dictionaries. And the Internet. Sources that agree something can be dangerous without being an obvious death sentence. A couple examples cannot be used to prove what pattern said examples follow, only disprove what patterns they don't. False Equivalence, methinks.
To make it clear, I also think that DW can provoke opportunity attacks. I just got there by a different train of logic, because I don't think the one you're on is valid.
Ah - you want to be literal. Quoting one thing I said, while ignoring everything else I said. Fine.
Here's what. The spell description is literal. It says 'Dangerous Ground'. Where you put your feet. Not 'the guy in that other square, who is going to stab you if you move'. Dangerous ground. And it then proceed to give some examples of ways that the ground can be dangerous - fire, a pit. Stepping off a cliff would qualify, as would a spell effect like Spike Growth. I'd be nice about it, and include Firewall - although technically, that's not the ground.
The point I'm trying to make it that the spell description is clear enough in it's language. You cannot use Dissonant Whispers to force enemy movement into something that causes damage in and off itself, like a Blade Barrier. But it doesn't care about attacks of opportunity.
And you're welcome to disagree with that.
Thank you for welcoming me to disagree with that, but I agree. That's the same argument I've been making. You definitely didn't suggest that at any point before now, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The spell wording is "The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit.".
MOVE INTO suggests that the spell doesn't warrant anything about the space that they are currently in, e.g. standing next to somebody who might hit them with a weapon.
The spell wording is "The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit.".
MOVE INTO suggests that the spell doesn't warrant anything about the space that they are currently in, e.g. standing next to somebody who might hit them with a weapon.
It's a good observation that means under the spell you wouldn't refrain from leaving or moving out of an obviously dangerouns ground or spell's area of effect for exemple.
I'm pretty sure that is what you said, actually. I'd appreciate some elaboration on how you said something else.
The thing is, we don't have to just use examples given by the book to define what "dangerous" means. We have dictionaries. And the Internet. Sources that agree something can be dangerous without being an obvious death sentence. A couple examples cannot be used to prove what pattern said examples follow, only disprove what patterns they don't. False Equivalence, methinks.
To make it clear, I also think that DW can provoke opportunity attacks. I just got there by a different train of logic, because I don't think the one you're on is valid.
Ah - you want to be literal. Quoting one thing I said, while ignoring everything else I said. Fine.
Here's what. The spell description is literal. It says 'Dangerous Ground'. Where you put your feet. Not 'the guy in that other square, who is going to stab you if you move'. Dangerous ground. And it then proceed to give some examples of ways that the ground can be dangerous - fire, a pit. Stepping off a cliff would qualify, as would a spell effect like Spike Growth. I'd be nice about it, and include Firewall - although technically, that's not the ground.
The point I'm trying to make it that the spell description is clear enough in it's language. You cannot use Dissonant Whispers to force enemy movement into something that causes damage in and off itself, like a Blade Barrier. But it doesn't care about attacks of opportunity.
And you're welcome to disagree with that.
Thank you for welcoming me to disagree with that, but I agree. That's the same argument I've been making. You definitely didn't suggest that at any point before now, though.
It's truly a gift -- the ability to make an initial argument that is such absolute, transparent nonsense it gets people who basically agree with each other to start fighting over the definitions of individual words
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm pretty sure that is what you said, actually. I'd appreciate some elaboration on how you said something else.
The thing is, we don't have to just use examples given by the book to define what "dangerous" means. We have dictionaries. And the Internet. Sources that agree something can be dangerous without being an obvious death sentence. A couple examples cannot be used to prove what pattern said examples follow, only disprove what patterns they don't. False Equivalence, methinks.
To make it clear, I also think that DW can provoke opportunity attacks. I just got there by a different train of logic, because I don't think the one you're on is valid.
Ah - you want to be literal. Quoting one thing I said, while ignoring everything else I said. Fine.
Here's what. The spell description is literal. It says 'Dangerous Ground'. Where you put your feet. Not 'the guy in that other square, who is going to stab you if you move'. Dangerous ground. And it then proceed to give some examples of ways that the ground can be dangerous - fire, a pit. Stepping off a cliff would qualify, as would a spell effect like Spike Growth. I'd be nice about it, and include Firewall - although technically, that's not the ground.
The point I'm trying to make it that the spell description is clear enough in it's language. You cannot use Dissonant Whispers to force enemy movement into something that causes damage in and off itself, like a Blade Barrier. But it doesn't care about attacks of opportunity.
And you're welcome to disagree with that.
But a fire isn't the ground either. Neither is a pit.
I mean, a pit is literally an absence of ground.
It isn't referring to the ground in a literal sense of the dirt itself being dangerous. It is using the term in the sense that somone refers to an area. Ie to give ground. Or ie. enemy ground.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The spell wording is "The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit.".
MOVE INTO suggests that the spell doesn't warrant anything about the space that they are currently in, e.g. standing next to somebody who might hit them with a weapon.
It's a good observation that means under the spell you wouldn't refrain from leaving or moving out of an obviously dangerouns ground or spell's area of effect for exemple.
But if you leave someones reach my moving into an adjacent space. Then moving into that space was potentially dangerous. Because you use movement to move into spaces. And the act of moving into the space is what provoked.
So it is dangerous ground. (At least at the point in time when you would be moving, anyway)
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yeah that sorta works to invlude a pit, although a pit is a type of trap not a ground type.
But it certainly wouldn't include fire. Fire is something that happens to objects.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But if you leave someones reach my moving into an adjacent space. Then moving into that space was potentially dangerous. Because you use movement to move into spaces. And the act of moving into the space is what provoked.
So it is dangerous ground. (At least at the point in tine when you would be mobing, anyway)
It's potentially dangeroud to do so, but it's not an obviously dangerous ground in this perspective and that's why there's an official ruling on dissonant whispers and Opportunity Attack.
dissonant whispers requires the target to move using its reaction (if available), so that activity also provokes opportunity attacks.
But if you leave someones reach my moving into an adjacent space. Then moving into that space was potentially dangerous. Because you use movement to move into spaces. And the act of moving into the space is what provoked.
So it is dangerous ground. (At least at the point in tine when you would be mobing, anyway)
It's potentially dangeroud to do so, but it's not an obviously dangerous ground in this perspective and that's why there's an official ruling on dissonant whispers and Opportunity Attack.
dissonant whispers requires the target to move using its reaction (if available), so that activity also provokes opportunity attacks.
But it is.
You spend 5ft of movement to enter a square.
Right? Thats how we move from space to space.
If you're threatened in melee range, then the ground just outside the enemies reach is dangerous ground.
If you spend 5ft of movement to enter it, you provoke an attack of opportunity against you. It is a direct causality.
It would be identical to the sequence for some other hazard. When ypu spend your 5ft of movement to enter this dangerous ground, you suffer a harmful consequence. Eg burning, or falling, or getting attacked.
There is no real mechanical distinction here. Spend 5ft of movement to enter the space and you suffer a dangerous consequence.
The only difference here is how "obvious" the danger is. Not that moving into the space is dangerous or not. But how "obviously" dangerous it is.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
An obviously dangerous ground to me would be one able or likely to harm or injure you typically by causing damage or other adverse effect either automatically or after a roll such as an ability check saving throw or attack roll.
I think the original question is clear as day: The target moves, unless moving is an obvious death sentence. It doesn't run off a cliff, for instance - but will definitely risk an attack of opportunity.
I find it's much more interesting whether that creature has now spent it's movement? I mean, that's what happens, isn't it? The caster forces the target to spend it's movement, as a reaction, on the caster's turn. Can it even move, if I already moved this turn?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I don't follow. Do you really think something is "dangerous" if and only if it is an obvious death sentence?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
No. And I don't think that's what I said. I elaborated slightly on the examples given in the spell description - which are obviously valid, and only debatable death sentences. You could certainly survive some fires, and some pits, depending on your current hit point status. On the other hand, if you're already down to 1 HP, anything is a death sentence.
But I think I'm clear enough: Will definitely risk an attack of opportunity.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I'm pretty sure that is what you said, actually. I'd appreciate some elaboration on how you said something else.
The thing is, we don't have to just use examples given by the book to define what "dangerous" means. We have dictionaries. And the Internet. Sources that agree something can be dangerous without being an obvious death sentence. A couple examples cannot be used to prove what pattern said examples follow, only disprove what patterns they don't. False Equivalence, methinks.
To make it clear, I also think that DW can provoke opportunity attacks. I just got there by a different train of logic, because I don't think the one you're on is valid.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Ah - you want to be literal. Quoting one thing I said, while ignoring everything else I said. Fine.
Here's what. The spell description is literal. It says 'Dangerous Ground'. Where you put your feet. Not 'the guy in that other square, who is going to stab you if you move'. Dangerous ground. And it then proceed to give some examples of ways that the ground can be dangerous - fire, a pit. Stepping off a cliff would qualify, as would a spell effect like Spike Growth. I'd be nice about it, and include Firewall - although technically, that's not the ground.
The point I'm trying to make it that the spell description is clear enough in it's language. You cannot use Dissonant Whispers to force enemy movement into something that causes damage in and off itself, like a Blade Barrier. But it doesn't care about attacks of opportunity.
And you're welcome to disagree with that.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
As Acromos says, the dissonant whispers text doesn't specify "any danger" it explicitly states:
So it won't throw itself to its death, or jump up and down on spikes, but this gives us no reason to believe that creatures are intended to be "obviously dangerous ground"; a creature may well be obviously dangerous, but creatures and ground are usually separate things, the ground itself isn't dangerous, the creature is. Meanwhile the danger of being opportunity attacked is a danger sure, but is it an obvious danger when it can miss?
The examples are also pretty clearly only things relating to the ground itself, so environmental hazards.
A DM is certainly free to rule that a gauntlet of opportunity attacks might qualify, i.e- if the creature would have to force its way through a crowd of hostiles, but that would be an addition rather than the Rules As Written.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Another detail -- traps are not "obviously dangerous". A target creature actually could run straight into a pit if it was set up as a pit trap. While not mentioned specifically, I could imagine a DM applying disadvantage to this creature's passive perception while running away, making it far more likely to become the victim of such traps.
Technically, the OA attempt and damage happen before you move away anyway (If it was after, how could you reach them?) so there should be no direct interaction between taking an OA and moving into a dangerous space. If anything, you're potentially moving out of the dangerous space.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'd say an unconcealed trap on the ground would be considered an obviously dangeround ground since pit is specifically cited as an emple in the spell. but concealed one would not be obvious.
Thank you for welcoming me to disagree with that, but I agree. That's the same argument I've been making. You definitely didn't suggest that at any point before now, though.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The spell wording is "The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit.".
MOVE INTO suggests that the spell doesn't warrant anything about the space that they are currently in, e.g. standing next to somebody who might hit them with a weapon.
It's a good observation that means under the spell you wouldn't refrain from leaving or moving out of an obviously dangerouns ground or spell's area of effect for exemple.
It's truly a gift -- the ability to make an initial argument that is such absolute, transparent nonsense it gets people who basically agree with each other to start fighting over the definitions of individual words
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
But a fire isn't the ground either. Neither is a pit.
I mean, a pit is literally an absence of ground.
It isn't referring to the ground in a literal sense of the dirt itself being dangerous. It is using the term in the sense that somone refers to an area. Ie to give ground. Or ie. enemy ground.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
But if you leave someones reach my moving into an adjacent space. Then moving into that space was potentially dangerous. Because you use movement to move into spaces. And the act of moving into the space is what provoked.
So it is dangerous ground. (At least at the point in time when you would be moving, anyway)
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To me, for game purposes, a ground is whatever surface or area you will move accros, be it earth, floor, lava etc...
Yeah that sorta works to invlude a pit, although a pit is a type of trap not a ground type.
But it certainly wouldn't include fire. Fire is something that happens to objects.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It's potentially dangeroud to do so, but it's not an obviously dangerous ground in this perspective and that's why there's an official ruling on dissonant whispers and Opportunity Attack.
But it is.
You spend 5ft of movement to enter a square.
Right? Thats how we move from space to space.
If you're threatened in melee range, then the ground just outside the enemies reach is dangerous ground.
If you spend 5ft of movement to enter it, you provoke an attack of opportunity against you. It is a direct causality.
It would be identical to the sequence for some other hazard. When ypu spend your 5ft of movement to enter this dangerous ground, you suffer a harmful consequence. Eg burning, or falling, or getting attacked.
There is no real mechanical distinction here. Spend 5ft of movement to enter the space and you suffer a dangerous consequence.
The only difference here is how "obvious" the danger is. Not that moving into the space is dangerous or not. But how "obviously" dangerous it is.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.