On principle, I don't see why they should be excluded. The effect doesn't discriminate.
In practice, I'm skeptical that the rules even allow for self-frightening. The condition's rules clearly expect the source of the fear to be external to the target so this seems like splitting hairs.
This is what I'm thinking. Maybe the yes/no question can be answered in the affirmative by the strictest reading of RAW, but the rules have no provisions for how to handle the effects of the frightened condition when you are the source of your own fright. So if you're already winging it either way, why not wing it the way it's clearly intended to be played?
I think that the Gloomstalker should not be affected at all by their own save, and any DM who makes the Gloomstalker roll to see if they're frightened of themself is being ridiculous.
However, it's practically irrelevant if the Gloomstalker is affected or not, since the effect lasts until the start of the Gloomstalker's next turn, so it would end before they get a chance to move, attack, or make a check anyway. I guess the one thing which might be affected is an attack of opportunity.
but if you activate it on the 1st hit of your turn, it would mean you are now frightened of yourself, meaning you will have that condition for the rest of the turn, so You have Disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of fear is within line of sight, meaning any other attack you make is at disadvantage, and what's worse, you "tecnically" cannot move at all, since "You can't willingly move closer to the source of fear." and YOU are the source of your fear, so you cannot move at all because every direction is the same direction you are on... they literally just want the "best sublcass" of the ranger to be obsolete, so they gave it a feature that make it scares itself and also that if you use your other features to become "one with the shadows", means your enemies are no longer frightened of you since they cant see you
Frankly I think the fear effect is supposed to be for ranged attacks. The AoE is large enough that even setting aside the question of if the user is immune there’s a decent chance of friendly fire if you use it in close quarters.
but if you activate it on the 1st hit of your turn, it would mean you are now frightened of yourself, meaning you will have that condition for the rest of the turn, so You have Disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of fear is within line of sight, meaning any other attack you make is at disadvantage, and what's worse, you "tecnically" cannot move at all, since "You can't willingly move closer to the source of fear." and YOU are the source of your fear, so you cannot move at all because every direction is the same direction you are on...
If you're arguing this, then you can also make argument that at no point in your move do you get closer to the source of the fear.
And unlike the "gloom stalkers scare themselves" argument, "you don't have to move away, as long as you don't move closer" isn't particularly silly.
they literally just want the "best sublcass" of the ranger to be obsolete, so they gave it a feature that make it scares itself and also that if you use your other features to become "one with the shadows", means your enemies are no longer frightened of you since they cant see you
If they wanted to hurt the gloom stalker, they could've just made it worse, instead of inserting a hidden trap into one of their optional abilities that:
Most people won't notice
Those that do will just house rule around it, save for those who pride themselves on playing 100% by their reading of RAW, no matter how absurd it is
(And I don't know what you're talking about with "one with the shadows", but features that don't synergize is perfectly normal. You don't want characters to be completely specialized. Tactical flexibility is useful, and the one-hit wonder isn't much fun when out of its element.)
It's not some conspiracy against the subclass -- it's a simple screwup.
they just outright hate the ranger and having synergies with subclass features is a thing So putting on a feature that let you go invisible and then putting a feature that require enemies to see you at all times is like saying: take these 2 features, if you use one cant us the other, also, you scare yourself when you use this one and they do debuff the gloomstalker and eveyoine knows that by just reading how the left the dread ambusher on 2024 rules, they removed that extra hit that you could make that grant your invisible condition in a surprise attack the benefits of not being seen. they gave in exchange that you can use the dreadful strikes whenever you hit, but with a daily limit, which was not there before Saying that not having psynergy between your features is like comparing the gloom stalker with the beast master, or the drakenwarden, which also use the same bonus action from hunter mark to command your animal companion...wait, arent those also ranger subclasses? lets see, most ranger subclasses compete in using the same resources like granting spells that use concentration or special stuff that contradicts other features of the same subclass, and if you see subclasses of ther classes, that usually works backwards and most features improve the alredy existing features or works with those, like the new rogue's Cunning Strike that some subclasses add new uses , or the glamour bard's Beguiling Magic combining with the Mantle of Majesty, hell, even barbarian add new stuff to combine with rage, so they add stuff, not make you choice whenever you use one or the other and cant combine effects
The "cant move" stuff can be argue to both ways, so is up to the dm because is one of those "grey areas" in the ruling, since is basically a apradox, and it makes no sense that it scare itself
The "most people wont notice" is like the evocation wizard in 2014 that states that can protect "OTHERS" from its evocation spells, so most people didnt read that it say OTHERS, meaning it cant protect itself and that is dumb too, one would think they fixed that on... no, wait, is still there on 2024 rules " When you cast an Evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 plus the spell's level." is a miracle that they didnt fixed that, knowing that WotC usually just buffs casters and debuffs the rest of the classes, specially if that class starts with an R and ends with a -anger which is the state of mind of anyone seeing what they did to the Ranger
This is not some Machiavellian conspiracy to tear down the Ranger subclass, this is simply giving it tools that function regardless of whether or not a Gloomstalker can find darkness to hide in. The frighten option can only be used 5 times per day at most, more like 2 or 3. It doesn’t ruin stealth as an option simply by existing.
[...] The "most people wont notice" is like the evocation wizard in 2014 that states that can protect "OTHERS" from its evocation spells, so most people didnt read that it say OTHERS, meaning it cant protect itself and that is dumb too, one would think they fixed that on... no, wait, is still there on 2024 rules " When you cast an Evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 plus the spell's level." is a miracle that they didnt fixed that, knowing that WotC usually just buffs casters and debuffs the rest of the classes, specially if that class starts with an R and ends with a -anger which is the state of mind of anyone seeing what they did to the Ranger
Maybe it's because that was the intent in 2014: to only protect others, not you. According to the Dev:
@LifeNeedsThings can a wizard chose themself as a protected person in the Sculpt Spells feature? The book says “affects other creatures” No. @JeremyECrawford No
Do the rules provide for being the source of your own frightened condition? Are there any other cases of this in the game?
You have Disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of fear is within line of sight. - When are you within your own line of sight, and when are you not within your own line of sight? Is it every time you look at your own hands or feet? Is it when you see your reflection?
You can’t willingly move closer to the source of fear. What does this even mean in the context of you being the source of your fear? If it is impossible to move closer to yourself, do we just disregard this part?
So there's the "can you/can't you" aspect of the question. By the strictest and simplest reading of RAW, the answer might be 'yes'. And then there's the practical aspect of what does it mean in game terms if you fail the saving throw?
In 2014 the DMG had a Line of Sight rule for grid-based play which had to do with drawing uninterrupted lines from one square to another. Based on that, your own square would always be within your own Line of Sight. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent rule for this somewhere in the 2024 books. Keep in mind of course that whether or not you can see something vs whether or not that thing is within your line of sight is two different concepts.
Also, on this topic, consider the Eyebite spell: "One creature of your choice within 60 feet of you that you can see must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected".
What if you choose yourself?
"Panicked. The target has the Frightened condition. On each of its turns, the Frightened target must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest and shortest route available. If the target moves to a space at least 60 feet away from you where it can’t see you, this effect ends."
It's going to be pretty hard to ever get to a space that is at least 60 feet away from yourself!
The 2024 Dungeon Master Guide still has Line of Sight rules; and according to it you don't have line of sight to yourself because you trace an imaginary line from a corner of your space to any part of another space.
Line of Sight
To determine whether there is line of sight between two spaces, pick a corner of one space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of another space. If you can trace a line that doesn't pass through or touch an object or effect that blocks vision—such as a stone wall, a thick curtain, or a dense cloud of fog—then there is line of sight.
Being frightened of yourself has no functional game effects.
You're not in line of sight of yourself, and the negative effects of the condition requires you to basically be able to see yourself. So unless mirrors are involved, it doesn't matter.
Also, it is impossible to move closer to yourself by default anyway: You can't be even closer to where you already are.
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.
if you say that, that would mean all the spells that say "choose a creature you can see" wont apply to yourself, but in RAW and RAI, they do, so if a healing word apply to yourself, so it does this effect, since you can see yourself, adn this has been asked to crawford several times, in which his response always is "can you see yourself? if yes, then you can use the spell in yourself" and this is that way because if you are blinded, you cant even see yourself, and then the feature/spell wouldnt apply.
Do the rules provide for being the source of your own frightened condition? Are there any other cases of this in the game?
You have Disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of fear is within line of sight. - When are you within your own line of sight, and when are you not within your own line of sight? Is it every time you look at your own hands or feet? Is it when you see your reflection?
You can’t willingly move closer to the source of fear. What does this even mean in the context of you being the source of your fear? If it is impossible to move closer to yourself, do we just disregard this part?
So there's the "can you/can't you" aspect of the question. By the strictest and simplest reading of RAW, the answer might be 'yes'. And then there's the practical aspect of what does it mean in game terms if you fail the saving throw?
1. yes. yes, there are spells that dont discriminate and affect the user, like ALL AoE spells that creates effects that affects the cratures within the areas, casters included 2. in jeremy crawford quote: can you see yourself in any way? if yes, it apply ( https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/859555831808892928 ) and i would say reflections count, since you can see it, as long as is on the range of the effect 3. it is impossible to move closer but also is imposible to move away from yourself, this is a grey area of the rules and is up to the dm, this is one of the actual cases of "the Dm's word is final" that the manual says, because a lot of people use that rule without reading it all, it says the dm has final word ON CASES in which the rules arent clear and it takes loneger consideration and that the dm would decide at the very moment to keep playing and then it can be discused later with more calm to rmake a table rule about it, like in this case, decided if you can or not move away from yourself or move closer to yourself, how do you run away if you are the source of your own fear?
Yeah, if mirrors or reflections are somehow involved. Then sure, you can see yourself and would be spooked. And that's where DM fiat comes in, where they might rule that move closer restrictions apply to the reflected image, despite it not being where you actually are. Because otherwise there is no actual restriction on movement because you can't move closer to yourself no matter which direction you go.
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.
Yeah, if mirrors or reflections are somehow involved. Then sure, you can see yourself and would be spooked. And that's where DM fiat comes in, where they might rule that move closer restrictions apply to the reflected image, despite it not being where you actually are. Because otherwise there is no actual restriction on movement because you can't move closer to yourself no matter which direction you go.
In jeremy crawford words: "You are a creature. Can you see yourself? If yes, you can choose yourself if you must target a creature you can see." so yes, you can see yourself in dnd, is not a fallout/skyrim game when you go to 1st person and cant see yourself, you can see yourself since that rule exists ( https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/859555831808892928 ) and as an extra, i would say reflections count, since you can see it, as long as is on the range of the effect. And as said, you can argue you can move closer, but also cant move away, you are as close and as away as you can from yourself at all times, which could be translated as "you cannot move because you should run from you but any direction you move, youa re moving on your own direction"
I would think that you can't frighten yourself just like you can't tickle yourself.
is dnd, you can literally tickle yourself with hideous laughter, "One creature of your choice that you can see within range makes a Wisdom saving throw." the spell didnt say enemy creature, so you can literally choose yourself to laugh too, just as the Gloomstalker feaature didnt exclude the user and can be scared by itself
The level 11 feature lets you try to fear in a 10 foot radius when you hit and do your Dreadful Strike damage. Isn't it kind of silly that if you hit a creature with a melee attack and use Mass Fear, it'll force you to make a saving throw?
The Psychic damage of your Dreadful Strike becomes 2d8. In addition, when you use the Dreadful Strike effect of your Dread Ambusher feature, you can cause one of the following additional effects.
Sudden Strike. You can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and that is within the weapon’s range.
Mass Fear. The target and each creature within 10 feet of it must make a Wisdom saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failed save, a creature has the Frightened condition until the start of your next turn.
I would say no because it is not intended to affect you. It would make the ability stupid and unusable. Making you fearful of yourself. Unless you’re afraid of your own shadow type of player. I wouldn’t effect the player but everyone else in radius
The level 11 feature lets you try to fear in a 10 foot radius when you hit and do your Dreadful Strike damage. Isn't it kind of silly that if you hit a creature with a melee attack and use Mass Fear, it'll force you to make a saving throw?
The Psychic damage of your Dreadful Strike becomes 2d8. In addition, when you use the Dreadful Strike effect of your Dread Ambusher feature, you can cause one of the following additional effects.
Sudden Strike. You can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and that is within the weapon’s range.
Mass Fear. The target and each creature within 10 feet of it must make a Wisdom saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failed save, a creature has the Frightened condition until the start of your next turn.
I would say no because it is not intended to affect you. It would make the ability stupid and unusable. Making you fearful of yourself. Unless you’re afraid of your own shadow type of player. I wouldn’t effect the player but everyone else in radius
when something is intended to not afect you, it is said, usually they put something like "all creatures you choose" or "Any creatures of your choice within the area have to make a saving throw...blablabla" or something like that, i even alrady put the hideous laughter example: "One creature of your choice that you can see within range makes a Wisdom saving throw." they always set parameters: a creature you can see, a creature of your choice, a creature within range, etc but they didnt put that here, meaning IT IS INTENDED, but not unusable, since you can always use a bow and attack from far away, because the point of origin of the effect is 10ft from the creature hitted, not from you. This is exactly like the evoker, which Sculpt spells cant protect the wizard from its own spells, and that wasnt an erro, it was intended and most people didnt even notice that Sculpt Spells works in that way, since its say "When you cast an Evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see..." and this was actually addressed in a previous sageadvice ( "Can a wizard chose themself as a protected person in the Sculpt Spells feature? - no " ) so it is intended to work that way, at least in RAW and RAI
This is what I'm thinking. Maybe the yes/no question can be answered in the affirmative by the strictest reading of RAW, but the rules have no provisions for how to handle the effects of the frightened condition when you are the source of your own fright. So if you're already winging it either way, why not wing it the way it's clearly intended to be played?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think that the Gloomstalker should not be affected at all by their own save, and any DM who makes the Gloomstalker roll to see if they're frightened of themself is being ridiculous.
However, it's practically irrelevant if the Gloomstalker is affected or not, since the effect lasts until the start of the Gloomstalker's next turn, so it would end before they get a chance to move, attack, or make a check anyway. I guess the one thing which might be affected is an attack of opportunity.
but if you activate it on the 1st hit of your turn, it would mean you are now frightened of yourself, meaning you will have that condition for the rest of the turn, so You have Disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of fear is within line of sight, meaning any other attack you make is at disadvantage, and what's worse, you "tecnically" cannot move at all, since "You can't willingly move closer to the source of fear." and YOU are the source of your fear, so you cannot move at all because every direction is the same direction you are on... they literally just want the "best sublcass" of the ranger to be obsolete, so they gave it a feature that make it scares itself and also that if you use your other features to become "one with the shadows", means your enemies are no longer frightened of you since they cant see you
Frankly I think the fear effect is supposed to be for ranged attacks. The AoE is large enough that even setting aside the question of if the user is immune there’s a decent chance of friendly fire if you use it in close quarters.
If you're arguing this, then you can also make argument that at no point in your move do you get closer to the source of the fear.
And unlike the "gloom stalkers scare themselves" argument, "you don't have to move away, as long as you don't move closer" isn't particularly silly.
If they wanted to hurt the gloom stalker, they could've just made it worse, instead of inserting a hidden trap into one of their optional abilities that:
(And I don't know what you're talking about with "one with the shadows", but features that don't synergize is perfectly normal. You don't want characters to be completely specialized. Tactical flexibility is useful, and the one-hit wonder isn't much fun when out of its element.)
It's not some conspiracy against the subclass -- it's a simple screwup.
they just outright hate the ranger and having synergies with subclass features is a thing
So putting on a feature that let you go invisible and then putting a feature that require enemies to see you at all times is like saying: take these 2 features, if you use one cant us the other, also, you scare yourself when you use this one
and they do debuff the gloomstalker and eveyoine knows that by just reading how the left the dread ambusher on 2024 rules, they removed that extra hit that you could make that grant your invisible condition in a surprise attack the benefits of not being seen. they gave in exchange that you can use the dreadful strikes whenever you hit, but with a daily limit, which was not there before
Saying that not having psynergy between your features is like comparing the gloom stalker with the beast master, or the drakenwarden, which also use the same bonus action from hunter mark to command your animal companion...wait, arent those also ranger subclasses? lets see, most ranger subclasses compete in using the same resources like granting spells that use concentration or special stuff that contradicts other features of the same subclass, and if you see subclasses of ther classes, that usually works backwards and most features improve the alredy existing features or works with those, like the new rogue's Cunning Strike that some subclasses add new uses , or the glamour bard's Beguiling Magic combining with the Mantle of Majesty, hell, even barbarian add new stuff to combine with rage, so they add stuff, not make you choice whenever you use one or the other and cant combine effects
The "cant move" stuff can be argue to both ways, so is up to the dm because is one of those "grey areas" in the ruling, since is basically a apradox, and it makes no sense that it scare itself
The "most people wont notice" is like the evocation wizard in 2014 that states that can protect "OTHERS" from its evocation spells, so most people didnt read that it say OTHERS, meaning it cant protect itself and that is dumb too, one would think they fixed that on... no, wait, is still there on 2024 rules " When you cast an Evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see, you can choose a number of them equal to 1 plus the spell's level." is a miracle that they didnt fixed that, knowing that WotC usually just buffs casters and debuffs the rest of the classes, specially if that class starts with an R and ends with a -anger which is the state of mind of anyone seeing what they did to the Ranger
This is not some Machiavellian conspiracy to tear down the Ranger subclass, this is simply giving it tools that function regardless of whether or not a Gloomstalker can find darkness to hide in. The frighten option can only be used 5 times per day at most, more like 2 or 3. It doesn’t ruin stealth as an option simply by existing.
Oh, neat, something intended to be used at range but technically allowable within melee.
Maybe it's because that was the intent in 2014: to only protect others, not you. According to the Dev:
So the same intent in 2024.
I think that it raises some legitimate questions:
So there's the "can you/can't you" aspect of the question. By the strictest and simplest reading of RAW, the answer might be 'yes'. And then there's the practical aspect of what does it mean in game terms if you fail the saving throw?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
In 2014 the DMG had a Line of Sight rule for grid-based play which had to do with drawing uninterrupted lines from one square to another. Based on that, your own square would always be within your own Line of Sight. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent rule for this somewhere in the 2024 books. Keep in mind of course that whether or not you can see something vs whether or not that thing is within your line of sight is two different concepts.
Also, on this topic, consider the Eyebite spell: "One creature of your choice within 60 feet of you that you can see must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected".
What if you choose yourself?
"Panicked. The target has the Frightened condition. On each of its turns, the Frightened target must take the Dash action and move away from you by the safest and shortest route available. If the target moves to a space at least 60 feet away from you where it can’t see you, this effect ends."
It's going to be pretty hard to ever get to a space that is at least 60 feet away from yourself!
The 2024 Dungeon Master Guide still has Line of Sight rules; and according to it you don't have line of sight to yourself because you trace an imaginary line from a corner of your space to any part of another space.
Being frightened of yourself has no functional game effects.
You're not in line of sight of yourself, and the negative effects of the condition requires you to basically be able to see yourself. So unless mirrors are involved, it doesn't matter.
Also, it is impossible to move closer to yourself by default anyway: You can't be even closer to where you already are.
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.
if you say that, that would mean all the spells that say "choose a creature you can see" wont apply to yourself, but in RAW and RAI, they do, so if a healing word apply to yourself, so it does this effect, since you can see yourself, adn this has been asked to crawford several times, in which his response always is "can you see yourself? if yes, then you can use the spell in yourself" and this is that way because if you are blinded, you cant even see yourself, and then the feature/spell wouldnt apply.
1. yes. yes, there are spells that dont discriminate and affect the user, like ALL AoE spells that creates effects that affects the cratures within the areas, casters included
2. in jeremy crawford quote: can you see yourself in any way? if yes, it apply ( https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/859555831808892928 ) and i would say reflections count, since you can see it, as long as is on the range of the effect
3. it is impossible to move closer but also is imposible to move away from yourself, this is a grey area of the rules and is up to the dm, this is one of the actual cases of "the Dm's word is final" that the manual says, because a lot of people use that rule without reading it all, it says the dm has final word ON CASES in which the rules arent clear and it takes loneger consideration and that the dm would decide at the very moment to keep playing and then it can be discused later with more calm to rmake a table rule about it, like in this case, decided if you can or not move away from yourself or move closer to yourself, how do you run away if you are the source of your own fear?
Yeah, if mirrors or reflections are somehow involved. Then sure, you can see yourself and would be spooked. And that's where DM fiat comes in, where they might rule that move closer restrictions apply to the reflected image, despite it not being where you actually are. Because otherwise there is no actual restriction on movement because you can't move closer to yourself no matter which direction you go.
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.
I would think that you can't frighten yourself just like you can't tickle yourself.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
In jeremy crawford words: "You are a creature. Can you see yourself? If yes, you can choose yourself if you must target a creature you can see." so yes, you can see yourself in dnd, is not a fallout/skyrim game when you go to 1st person and cant see yourself, you can see yourself since that rule exists ( https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/859555831808892928 ) and as an extra, i would say reflections count, since you can see it, as long as is on the range of the effect. And as said, you can argue you can move closer, but also cant move away, you are as close and as away as you can from yourself at all times, which could be translated as "you cannot move because you should run from you but any direction you move, youa re moving on your own direction"
is dnd, you can literally tickle yourself with hideous laughter, "One creature of your choice that you can see within range makes a Wisdom saving throw." the spell didnt say enemy creature, so you can literally choose yourself to laugh too, just as the Gloomstalker feaature didnt exclude the user and can be scared by itself
I would say no because it is not intended to affect you. It would make the ability stupid and unusable. Making you fearful of yourself. Unless you’re afraid of your own shadow type of player. I wouldn’t effect the player but everyone else in radius
when something is intended to not afect you, it is said, usually they put something like "all creatures you choose" or "Any creatures of your choice within the area have to make a saving throw...blablabla" or something like that, i even alrady put the hideous laughter example: "One creature of your choice that you can see within range makes a Wisdom saving throw."
they always set parameters: a creature you can see, a creature of your choice, a creature within range, etc
but they didnt put that here, meaning IT IS INTENDED, but not unusable, since you can always use a bow and attack from far away, because the point of origin of the effect is 10ft from the creature hitted, not from you. This is exactly like the evoker, which Sculpt spells cant protect the wizard from its own spells, and that wasnt an erro, it was intended and most people didnt even notice that Sculpt Spells works in that way, since its say "When you cast an Evocation spell that affects other creatures that you can see..." and this was actually addressed in a previous sageadvice ( "Can a wizard chose themself as a protected person in the Sculpt Spells feature? - no " ) so it is intended to work that way, at least in RAW and RAI