Given this being at it's core a Fear effect... It's not of necessity a compulsion. It's Necromancy, not Enchantment as school. Railroading the target characters response (presumably a PC): into a very specific (and depending on the character inefficient) game mechanic action forgets the fundamentals of combat. Rounds, grid systems and initiative exist to make the game playable - representing what happens in a theatre of mind.
Obsession with the mechanical dash action goes from bad to worse the more into the spell than intended. The move away should be the focus of the targets action, especially if "dashing" would be inefficient for the creature in question that is supposed to be afraid/panicked.
Given this being at it's core a Fear effect... It's not of necessity a compulsion. . . . The move away should be the focus of the targets action, especially if "dashing" would be inefficient for the creature in question that is supposed to be afraid/panicked.
There's no doubt that compulsion is part of this -- the word "must" was used. The question is what exactly is compelled, and under what conditions?
The issue really seems to the interpretation of this line only:
the frightened creature must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest and shortest available route, unless there is nowhere to move
But if you simplify this down as much as possible then the form of this sentence is basically "you must do X, unless Y".
In this case X seems like it should be "take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest and shortest available route", I see no reason why any of that should be separated as it's one continuous piece of text with no basis on which to decide that X is only "move away from you". I mean it literally says "Dash and move away from you" so there's clear emphasis on these being treated as a single command.
No, the use of the word "and" does not create clear emphasis on these being treated as a single command. That is just one of the interpretations.
As a matter of fact, this sentence is actually 100% ambiguous. It's a clear case of ordering some cheese and tomato sandwiches.
Therefore, there is literally no answer as to what is the RAW of the situation. There is more than one valid interpretation. When this happens, the DM must make a Ruling as to what he believes is the intended meaning (RAI) and just go with that.
Imagining an alternate timeline where optimization advice for spellcasters tells you not to take certain teleportation spells because if you get scared you'll be forced to waste a spell slot casting them if they go further than you can run. 😅
In my opinion, teleportation-type spells do not qualify as satisfying the requirement of "the frightened creature must take the Dash action and move away from you". In my opinion, this clause refers only to the meaning of the word "move" which aligns with the rules for "Movement" in Chapter 8 and "Movement and Position" in Chapter 9 which more or less refers to "locomotion". Teleportation uses a concept of the word "move" which has more to do with "relocation" or "reposition" or "transportation". I will almost definitely get some arguments against this but that's my interpretation and would be my Ruling.
So now, we're dealing with overwhelming fear. We really do want to just get away from the thing now, and we might behave irrationally in our attempts to do so. We're not thinking logically or tactically. This is why I don't like the interpretation that after you Dash once you can just turn around and cast a 9th Level spell as if you don't have a care in the world. This seems like it should be wrong, although from the RAW perspective this doesn't seem to be explicitly prevented.
I do agree with you that the sentence can be parsed both ways. I would have never thought of this second way to parse it if it hadn't been mentioned in this thread because, again, it just seems so obvious to me that it's not supposed to work that way. Like, there are very real scenarios where the creature just doesn't have to burn his Action and can now just use his Action for whatever he wants? That just seems wrong. You are meant to be running away. You are panicking. But I agree the RAW is technically ambiguous on that.
I feel that you are adding a lot of rules mechanics just because of your interpretation of the name of the feature. Even if you would require the creature to take the Dash action even if it can't move (which I don't think I agree with) there is nothing in the text that would stop it using a bonus action or a reaction (or an action surge action).
If the meaning was to be so strictly restrictive as you seem to suggest then it really would have been better written something like "the only actions the target can take is the Dash action".
I don't think I was super clear with what I was trying to say there.
I do believe that the intent was for the creature to be forced to burn their action and [also] to use as much movement as possible in a specific manner. Indeed, the name of the feature can give us a mild context clue for determining the RAI of the feature, as well as a few other factors such as the spell level and so on. Since this part of the rule is ambiguous and requires a DM Ruling, I would rule that the creature must dash and [also] must move if able.
However, the rest of what I was trying to say there is that although I think the intention was for the creature to not be able to do anything else and instead to Dash multiple times if able -- the text somewhat clearly does not actually say any of this and so the RAW does support being able to use subsequent actions as well as bonus actions and reactions freely and I would rule it that way even though I don't like it and it "seems like it should be wrong".
As a matter of fact, this sentence is actually 100% ambiguous. It's a clear case of ordering some cheese and tomato sandwiches.
If you said to someone "I want cheese and tomato sandwiches, unless that comes to more than $10" then while the instruction is ambiguous the condition is not; if the order could come to $10 it's going to be held or cancelled regardless of what you meant by the first part. Plus the "and" in that statement still makes clear you want both cheese and tomato, not one or the other.
All that's ambiguous there is whether you want them separately or together, but that very much comes down to the phrasing, because if you tweak it slightly it's absolutely clear, e.g- "I want two sandwiches each with cheese and tomato, unless that comes to more than $10". Also I object in the strongest possible terms to the very concept of tomato on any sandwich, and I despise tomato slices on burgers, stop selling me soggy bread! 😝
But I don't see "Dash and move" being ambiguous in that way, and it's not like it's something we're not already familiar with; Dashing and then moving is the normal way to use the Dash action. But that part doesn't really matter, because there's no clear reason for the "unless there is nowhere to move" condition to apply to only part of the instruction that came before it. My point was that it being "Dash and move" only gives additional weight to them being handled together with regards to that condition, so if you can't move you do neither, not just one of them.
If the intention was for the movement to be treated entirely separately then it could so easily have been put in its own sentence as that gives clear separation, for example: "the frightened creature must take the Dash action. It must then move as far away from you as possible [...], unless there is nowhere to move". I just don't think the current form is really ambiguous without reading more into it than what it says.
Again, the form of the sentence is "you must do X, unless Y"; in this case Y is clearly "there is nowhere to move" and I don't think anybody is really disputing that part? But if X isn't "Dash and move" then what is it, and why? There needs to be some reason the condition doesn't apply to some, but not all, of the instruction, otherwise it surely must?
Not saying it couldn't be clearer but I just don't understand the jump from "unless there is nowhere to move" applying to what came before it, to only some of what came before it.
The point of that example is that the server could deliver some sandwiches -- each sandwich is filled with cheese and with tomato slices. Or, the server could deliver a large block of cheese and also some sandwiches -- each of those sandwiches is filled with only tomato slices.
It is technically impossible to tell from the sentence structure alone which meaning is intended. The statement itself can mean both of those things with equal validity. The way that you would figure out which meaning is more likely intended is from context clues and background knowledge. That's exactly the same as what's going on in this discussion. I agree that the text could have and probably should have easily been written slightly differently to further support either of the possible interpretations.
You guys have fully convinced me that your way of reading the text is valid. It did not even cross my mind that it could ever mean that when I first read it, but now I can see for sure that the sentence has two equally possible meanings.
I think either way that the DM chooses to interpret it is totally fine. There are big picture reasons that I think support my interpretation a bit more strongly than the other, but I don't feel too strongly about this one -- it could go either way and it would be fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Given this being at it's core a Fear effect... It's not of necessity a compulsion. It's Necromancy, not Enchantment as school. Railroading the target characters response (presumably a PC): into a very specific (and depending on the character inefficient) game mechanic action forgets the fundamentals of combat. Rounds, grid systems and initiative exist to make the game playable - representing what happens in a theatre of mind.
Obsession with the mechanical dash action goes from bad to worse the more into the spell than intended. The move away should be the focus of the targets action, especially if "dashing" would be inefficient for the creature in question that is supposed to be afraid/panicked.
There's no doubt that compulsion is part of this -- the word "must" was used. The question is what exactly is compelled, and under what conditions?
No, the use of the word "and" does not create clear emphasis on these being treated as a single command. That is just one of the interpretations.
As a matter of fact, this sentence is actually 100% ambiguous. It's a clear case of ordering some cheese and tomato sandwiches.
Therefore, there is literally no answer as to what is the RAW of the situation. There is more than one valid interpretation. When this happens, the DM must make a Ruling as to what he believes is the intended meaning (RAI) and just go with that.
In my opinion, teleportation-type spells do not qualify as satisfying the requirement of "the frightened creature must take the Dash action and move away from you". In my opinion, this clause refers only to the meaning of the word "move" which aligns with the rules for "Movement" in Chapter 8 and "Movement and Position" in Chapter 9 which more or less refers to "locomotion". Teleportation uses a concept of the word "move" which has more to do with "relocation" or "reposition" or "transportation". I will almost definitely get some arguments against this but that's my interpretation and would be my Ruling.
I don't think I was super clear with what I was trying to say there.
I do believe that the intent was for the creature to be forced to burn their action and [also] to use as much movement as possible in a specific manner. Indeed, the name of the feature can give us a mild context clue for determining the RAI of the feature, as well as a few other factors such as the spell level and so on. Since this part of the rule is ambiguous and requires a DM Ruling, I would rule that the creature must dash and [also] must move if able.
However, the rest of what I was trying to say there is that although I think the intention was for the creature to not be able to do anything else and instead to Dash multiple times if able -- the text somewhat clearly does not actually say any of this and so the RAW does support being able to use subsequent actions as well as bonus actions and reactions freely and I would rule it that way even though I don't like it and it "seems like it should be wrong".
If you said to someone "I want cheese and tomato sandwiches, unless that comes to more than $10" then while the instruction is ambiguous the condition is not; if the order could come to $10 it's going to be held or cancelled regardless of what you meant by the first part. Plus the "and" in that statement still makes clear you want both cheese and tomato, not one or the other.
All that's ambiguous there is whether you want them separately or together, but that very much comes down to the phrasing, because if you tweak it slightly it's absolutely clear, e.g- "I want two sandwiches each with cheese and tomato, unless that comes to more than $10". Also I object in the strongest possible terms to the very concept of tomato on any sandwich, and I despise tomato slices on burgers, stop selling me soggy bread! 😝
But I don't see "Dash and move" being ambiguous in that way, and it's not like it's something we're not already familiar with; Dashing and then moving is the normal way to use the Dash action. But that part doesn't really matter, because there's no clear reason for the "unless there is nowhere to move" condition to apply to only part of the instruction that came before it. My point was that it being "Dash and move" only gives additional weight to them being handled together with regards to that condition, so if you can't move you do neither, not just one of them.
If the intention was for the movement to be treated entirely separately then it could so easily have been put in its own sentence as that gives clear separation, for example: "the frightened creature must take the Dash action. It must then move as far away from you as possible [...], unless there is nowhere to move". I just don't think the current form is really ambiguous without reading more into it than what it says.
Again, the form of the sentence is "you must do X, unless Y"; in this case Y is clearly "there is nowhere to move" and I don't think anybody is really disputing that part? But if X isn't "Dash and move" then what is it, and why? There needs to be some reason the condition doesn't apply to some, but not all, of the instruction, otherwise it surely must?
Not saying it couldn't be clearer but I just don't understand the jump from "unless there is nowhere to move" applying to what came before it, to only some of what came before it.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
I'm totally with you about the tomato slices! lol
The point of that example is that the server could deliver some sandwiches -- each sandwich is filled with cheese and with tomato slices. Or, the server could deliver a large block of cheese and also some sandwiches -- each of those sandwiches is filled with only tomato slices.
It is technically impossible to tell from the sentence structure alone which meaning is intended. The statement itself can mean both of those things with equal validity. The way that you would figure out which meaning is more likely intended is from context clues and background knowledge. That's exactly the same as what's going on in this discussion. I agree that the text could have and probably should have easily been written slightly differently to further support either of the possible interpretations.
You guys have fully convinced me that your way of reading the text is valid. It did not even cross my mind that it could ever mean that when I first read it, but now I can see for sure that the sentence has two equally possible meanings.
I think either way that the DM chooses to interpret it is totally fine. There are big picture reasons that I think support my interpretation a bit more strongly than the other, but I don't feel too strongly about this one -- it could go either way and it would be fine.