and yet the fact remains that we know dissonant whispers provokes OAs. And if it didn't compel someone to move in an OA situation, we should expect SAC to say that instead. If we like, we can explain this by saying the ground isn't what's dangerous, but rather the act of leaving that is dangerous. Or we can just point to the rule and say that it is what it is, and we can make up our own in-game reason to explain the rule at our tables.
If you're threatened in melee range, then the ground just outside the enemies reach is dangerous ground.
The spell doesn't say you will not take an action or movement obviously dangerous to you, it says a creature ''don't move into obviously dangerous ground' which the ground isn't in itself dangerous, the danger comes from leaving the enemy's reach, rather than the ground.
Feel free to run it how you want, but there is an official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium that provide the proper ruling in such situation for keeping beating a dead horse is time wasting.
If you're threatened in melee range, then the ground just outside the enemies reach is dangerous ground.
The spell doesn't say you will not take an action or movement obviously dangerous to you, it says a creature ''don't move into obviously dangerous ground' which the ground isn't in itself dangerous, the danger comes from leaving the enemy's reach, rather than the ground.
Feel free to run it how you want, but there is an official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium that provide the proper ruling in such situation for keeping beating a dead horse is time wasting.
But moving into the ground is dangerous.
In the same way as if there was a fire in the space.
Moving into the space triggers potential injury.
Say the space is an obvious pressure plate. One that triggers a blade to swing down.
That's obviously dangerous ground, right?
Mechanically it is indistinguishable. The ground IS potentially dangerous.
If you move into it, you have chance of injury.
The question isn't about if the ground is dangerous. It is. It is about 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.
Your whole argument rest on a flawed logic by applying the dangerously adjective to moving rather than ground. There is no question as to wether dissonant whispers compell you to move and provoke an Opportunity Attack, it does as clarified in the official ruling you just keep beating a dead horse.
Moving away from a source of hostility is not "obviously" dangerous, no matter how pedantic the reasoning. Adding also that OA's require a reaction, so they're not guaranteed, not that a create would know, "They have already used their reaction this round!". The flight or fight instinct kicks in, you are forced to choose flight, thus the opportunity to elude a source of hostility. Seems clear to me it is not obviously dangerous to get away from something immediately dangerous.
It is not obvious that an OA is possible, only reasonable it may occurr. Obviously dangerous ground implies a harmful effect immediately moving into the area where a clear and present threat is located.
The question isn't about if the ground is dangerous. It is. It is about how "obviously" dangerous it is.
I think there is something to this way of looking at it. Consider someone inside the area of spike growth. If you hit them with dissonant whispers, and they were not aware of the spikes, I think there would be little question that they would be compelled to move. The ground is objectively dangerous, but not obviously dangerous to the creature. But if they were aware of the spikes, you could make a very solid argument that there is nowhere they could move to that is not obviously dangerous ground, and therefore they would not be compelled to move.
But in terms of dissonant whispers and an OA, we don't have any reason to think that the risk of a creature experiencing an OA would prevent them from being compelled to react and move due to that clause for the reason I laid out in post #44 at the top of this page.
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.
Well - you are also welcome to agree with me =)
I make several types of cognitive mistakes: I figure I've explained myself clearly, because I understand what I'm saying. I assume certain things are universally agreed upon (like, everyone knows alignments are nonsense). And so on. And then, sometimes I read my own arguments and think to myself: Wow, it's a wonder anyone ever understands what I'm saying.
In my defense, english isn't my first language.
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.
Reminds me of the scene from an Austin Powers movie where he dances, seducing the fembots, and their heads explode.
So if you stand next to the guy with the sword, it's dangerous. If you move away from the guy with the sword, it's dangerous. So you just implode under weight of the circular arguments here.
DW makes the target move, which could cause an OA. SAC says so, and just a normal reading of the spells description says so, as well.
Your whole argument rest on a flawed logic by applying the dangerously adjective to moving rather than ground.
Well. The dirt itself is never dangerous. If we're reducing this to the literaly ground itself, then that clause in DW might as well not even be there. Dirt is just dirt.
But the examples make it perfectly clear that isn't what they mean. They are using the word "ground" to mean the area. The space. The square.
And to be sure. Definitionally. If moving into a space causes an enemy to hit you with an attack... then that space was dangerous. You just might not have known it was dangerous.
There is no question as to wether dissonant whispers compell you to move and provoke an Opportunity Attack, it does as clarified in the official ruling you just keep beating a dead horse.
... you've "clarified" this several times as if I was arguing otherwise. I had up to now ignored it because anyone who read any of my comments would know I've not ever argued otherwise, so it felt suuuuuper weird that you're acting otherwise, and I didn't wanna be all like "what are you talking about?". But if you're going to keep bring it up over and over again lets put a pin in it and agree that the DW does cause them to flee. Which provokes.
... I'm just arguing that they do flee because the ground isn't "obviously" dangerous. Though it for sure is dangerous ground.
Let's do a thought experiment. Lets pretend you entirely blindfolded and a teammate is guiding you and telling you where is "dangerous ground" and where is "Not dangerous ground".
You happen to be standing next to an Orc warrior who'd like to kill you. You ask if it is or is not dangerous ground 5ft further away from the orc.
Should your ally tell you that is dangerous ground or should he lie and tell you it is safe ground to move into?
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.
lets put a pin in it and agree that the DW does cause them to flee. Which provokes.
... I'm just arguing that they do flee because the ground isn't "obviously" dangerous. Though it for sure is dangerous ground.
Well the title of your thread and posts following is not arguing that then, it's asking if they flee or stay put.
Right they do flee because the ground isn't obviously dangerous in any way, what's obviously dangerous is not the ground but the enemy's reach being left. Moving into the same ground without leaving the reach of any enemy is not dangerous at all, proving the source of the danger is the enemy not the ground.
I actually feel my question was worth considering: What if the enemy already acted, and have no movement left? Or, again, if they move because of DW, do they then have no move on their 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 actually feel my question was worth considering: What if the enemy already acted, and have no movement left? Or, again, if they move because of DW, do they then have no move on their turn?
dissonant whispers doesn't use the target's movement but its reaction, so it won't go anywhere if it sn't available anymore or if it's speed is currently 0 for some reason (such as grappled). If it does move, it will still be able to move up to its speed on its next turn since it has otherwise no relation with it.
""On a failed save, it takes 3d6 psychic damage and must immediately use its reaction, if available, to move as far as its speed allows away from you.""
I actually feel my question was worth considering: What if the enemy already acted, and have no movement left? Or, again, if they move because of DW, do they then have no move on their turn?
dissonant whispers doesn't use the target's movement but its reaction, so it won't go anywhere if it sn't available anymore or if it's speed is currently 0 for some reason (such as grappled). If it does move, it will still be able to move up to its speed on its next turn since it has otherwise no relation with it.
""On a failed save, it takes 3d6 psychic damage and must immediately use its reaction, if available, to move as far as its speed allows away from you.""
Well - much as I hate to start the whole discussion over again: Yes, it states that it uses the reaction. But it doesn't really say anywhere that ... because it's your reaction, you get to move for free. And it's not like Thunderclap, where the spell moves you - no, you run away. Anyways, since it doesn't mention spending your actual movement on this, you propably don't. But I do feel it's an oversight that the spell description doesn't mention it =)
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.
Well - much as I hate to start the whole discussion over again: Yes, it states that it uses the reaction. But it doesn't really say anywhere that ... because it's your reaction, you get to move for free. And it's not like Thunderclap, where the spell moves you - no, you run away. Anyways, since it doesn't mention spending your actual movement on this, you propably don't. But I do feel it's an oversight that the spell description doesn't mention it =)
Speed is how far a creature can move within a single round, so it's a round-limited resource; if a creature has already used all of its speed for the round when you cast dissonant whispers upon it then while the spell still forces it to spend its reaction trying to move, even if it can't actually go anywhere (the spell doesn't say it must move at least 5 feet or similar).
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.
Speed movement is not a resource spent off turn, instead on your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. Things that make you move off turn may refer to speed as a limit distance, either up to - if willing, or as far as - when unwilling, none of which has an incidence on your speed or how much you can move on your turn.
Well - much as I hate to start the whole discussion over again: Yes, it states that it uses the reaction. But it doesn't really say anywhere that ... because it's your reaction, you get to move for free. And it's not like Thunderclap, where the spell moves you - no, you run away. Anyways, since it doesn't mention spending your actual movement on this, you propably don't. But I do feel it's an oversight that the spell description doesn't mention it =)
Speed is how far a creature can move within a single round, so it's a round-limited resource; if a creature has already used all of its speed for the round when you cast dissonant whispers upon it then while the spell still forces it to spend its reaction trying to move, it won't actually go anywhere.
I think in practice most DMs won't track speed by round, but will have it "reset" at the start of a creature's turn, whether consciously or not, it's just an easier way to run it; when doing it this way all you need to know is if the creature used all of its speed during its turn or not.
Right? At the very least, that's one way to read it: As far as your speed allows. Well, if you spend it all, then you can't go anywhere. But at least, you avoid the attack of opportunity.
Not sure which is right, here.
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.
The notion that Speed is how far a creature can move within a single round is taken out of context, it's in the context of travel pace, not combat.
In combat round, you can move much more than that, you can move, dash as an action and sometimes even as a bonus action etc...
The relevant movement rules for this context are found in the combat chapter;
Movement and Position: In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand. On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here. Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.
The notion that Speed is how far a creature can move within a single round is taken out of context, it's in the context of travel pace, not combat.
In combat round, you can move much more than that, you can move, dash as an action and sometimes even as a bonus action etc...
Is that opinion, or do you have a source that confirms that? Because frankly, I'm not sure that's true. You can be moved - say, by thunderclap. But you cannot move beyond your move speed limit.
That's why I asked.
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.
Forced movement also doesn't consume your movement, nor is things like an Harengon's Rabbit Hop trait. When another ressources is expanded to move you or another creature, it usualy don't consume it, such as a Adult Dragon's Wing Attack, Orc's Aggressive bonus action or Fighter's Maneuvering Attack Maneuver.
It's an opinion based on how i have playtested 5E since 2012, how i've seen the Devs discuss it in twitter or podcasts and or in Sage Advice.Here's an exemple of an official ruling on the Harengon's Rabbit Hop trait: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/creature-evolutions
When a harengon uses Rabbit Hop, does the trait’s jump expend movement? The Rabbit Hop trait lets a harengon jump as a bonus action, and that jump doesn’t consume any of the harengon’s normal movement. That fact is why the trait has a limited number of uses between long rests. If you compare the wording of Rabbit Hop to the wording of the long and high jump rules in the Player’s Handbook, you’ll see that those rules explicitly expend movement, whereas Rabbit Hop doesn’t.
and yet the fact remains that we know dissonant whispers provokes OAs. And if it didn't compel someone to move in an OA situation, we should expect SAC to say that instead. If we like, we can explain this by saying the ground isn't what's dangerous, but rather the act of leaving that is dangerous. Or we can just point to the rule and say that it is what it is, and we can make up our own in-game reason to explain the rule at our tables.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But moving into the ground is dangerous.
In the same way as if there was a fire in the space.
Moving into the space triggers potential injury.
Say the space is an obvious pressure plate. One that triggers a blade to swing down.
That's obviously dangerous ground, right?
Mechanically it is indistinguishable. The ground IS potentially dangerous.
If you move into it, you have chance of injury.
The question isn't about if the ground is dangerous. It is. It is about 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.
Your whole argument rest on a flawed logic by applying the dangerously adjective to moving rather than ground. There is no question as to wether dissonant whispers compell you to move and provoke an Opportunity Attack, it does as clarified in the official ruling you just keep beating a dead horse.
Moving away from a source of hostility is not "obviously" dangerous, no matter how pedantic the reasoning. Adding also that OA's require a reaction, so they're not guaranteed, not that a create would know, "They have already used their reaction this round!". The flight or fight instinct kicks in, you are forced to choose flight, thus the opportunity to elude a source of hostility. Seems clear to me it is not obviously dangerous to get away from something immediately dangerous.
It is not obvious that an OA is possible, only reasonable it may occurr. Obviously dangerous ground implies a harmful effect immediately moving into the area where a clear and present threat is located.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
I think there is something to this way of looking at it. Consider someone inside the area of spike growth. If you hit them with dissonant whispers, and they were not aware of the spikes, I think there would be little question that they would be compelled to move. The ground is objectively dangerous, but not obviously dangerous to the creature. But if they were aware of the spikes, you could make a very solid argument that there is nowhere they could move to that is not obviously dangerous ground, and therefore they would not be compelled to move.
But in terms of dissonant whispers and an OA, we don't have any reason to think that the risk of a creature experiencing an OA would prevent them from being compelled to react and move due to that clause for the reason I laid out in post #44 at the top of this page.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well - you are also welcome to agree with me =)
I make several types of cognitive mistakes: I figure I've explained myself clearly, because I understand what I'm saying. I assume certain things are universally agreed upon (like, everyone knows alignments are nonsense). And so on. And then, sometimes I read my own arguments and think to myself: Wow, it's a wonder anyone ever understands what I'm saying.
In my defense, english isn't my first language.
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.
Reminds me of the scene from an Austin Powers movie where he dances, seducing the fembots, and their heads explode.
So if you stand next to the guy with the sword, it's dangerous. If you move away from the guy with the sword, it's dangerous. So you just implode under weight of the circular arguments here.
DW makes the target move, which could cause an OA. SAC says so, and just a normal reading of the spells description says so, as well.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Well. The dirt itself is never dangerous. If we're reducing this to the literaly ground itself, then that clause in DW might as well not even be there. Dirt is just dirt.
But the examples make it perfectly clear that isn't what they mean. They are using the word "ground" to mean the area. The space. The square.
And to be sure. Definitionally. If moving into a space causes an enemy to hit you with an attack... then that space was dangerous. You just might not have known it was dangerous.
... you've "clarified" this several times as if I was arguing otherwise. I had up to now ignored it because anyone who read any of my comments would know I've not ever argued otherwise, so it felt suuuuuper weird that you're acting otherwise, and I didn't wanna be all like "what are you talking about?". But if you're going to keep bring it up over and over again lets put a pin in it and agree that the DW does cause them to flee. Which provokes.
... I'm just arguing that they do flee because the ground isn't "obviously" dangerous. Though it for sure is dangerous ground.
Let's do a thought experiment. Lets pretend you entirely blindfolded and a teammate is guiding you and telling you where is "dangerous ground" and where is "Not dangerous ground".
You happen to be standing next to an Orc warrior who'd like to kill you. You ask if it is or is not dangerous ground 5ft further away from the orc.
Should your ally tell you that is dangerous ground or should he lie and tell you it is safe ground to move into?
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.
Well the title of your thread and posts following is not arguing that then, it's asking if they flee or stay put.
Right they do flee because the ground isn't obviously dangerous in any way, what's obviously dangerous is not the ground but the enemy's reach being left. Moving into the same ground without leaving the reach of any enemy is not dangerous at all, proving the source of the danger is the enemy not the ground.
I actually feel my question was worth considering: What if the enemy already acted, and have no movement left? Or, again, if they move because of DW, do they then have no move on their 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.
dissonant whispers doesn't use the target's movement but its reaction, so it won't go anywhere if it sn't available anymore or if it's speed is currently 0 for some reason (such as grappled). If it does move, it will still be able to move up to its speed on its next turn since it has otherwise no relation with it.
""On a failed save, it takes 3d6 psychic damage and must immediately use its reaction, if available, to move as far as its speed allows away from you.""
Well - much as I hate to start the whole discussion over again: Yes, it states that it uses the reaction. But it doesn't really say anywhere that ... because it's your reaction, you get to move for free. And it's not like Thunderclap, where the spell moves you - no, you run away. Anyways, since it doesn't mention spending your actual movement on this, you propably don't. But I do feel it's an oversight that the spell description doesn't mention it =)
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.
Speed is how far a creature can move within a single round, so it's a round-limited resource; if a creature has already used all of its speed for the round when you cast dissonant whispers upon it then while the spell still forces it to spend its reaction trying to move, even if it can't actually go anywhere (the spell doesn't say it must move at least 5 feet or similar).
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.
Speed movement is not a resource spent off turn, instead on your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. Things that make you move off turn may refer to speed as a limit distance, either up to - if willing, or as far as - when unwilling, none of which has an incidence on your speed or how much you can move on your turn.
Right? At the very least, that's one way to read it: As far as your speed allows. Well, if you spend it all, then you can't go anywhere. But at least, you avoid the attack of opportunity.
Not sure which is right, here.
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.
The notion that Speed is how far a creature can move within a single round is taken out of context, it's in the context of travel pace, not combat.
In combat round, you can move much more than that, you can move, dash as an action and sometimes even as a bonus action etc...
The relevant movement rules for this context are found in the combat chapter;
Is that opinion, or do you have a source that confirms that? Because frankly, I'm not sure that's true. You can be moved - say, by thunderclap. But you cannot move beyond your move speed limit.
That's why I asked.
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.
Forced movement also doesn't consume your movement, nor is things like an Harengon's Rabbit Hop trait. When another ressources is expanded to move you or another creature, it usualy don't consume it, such as a Adult Dragon's Wing Attack, Orc's Aggressive bonus action or Fighter's Maneuvering Attack Maneuver.
It's an opinion based on how i have playtested 5E since 2012, how i've seen the Devs discuss it in twitter or podcasts and or in Sage Advice.Here's an exemple of an official ruling on the Harengon's Rabbit Hop trait: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/creature-evolutions