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.
Well, as jl8e said, as written it seems you do in fact have to make a save against your own fear affect. This is probably an error that is going to get errata at some point. But at the moment you aren't excluded from the fear affect itself and need to make a save to stay away from yourself. I assume functionally if you fail you can't move, as any direction you go would bring yourself closer to you lol.
I would house rule that you are immune to it.
With that said, your party however is likely intentionally suppose to be affected. So you do have to watch using it when another member of the party is close.
The question is whether or not you count as "within range" of your own weapons. I'd say no.
Your own space is considered to be within weapon range. You'd have to argue that yourself counts as an exception, which runs into a question of why you count as an exception when you don't for touch spells.
This seems like a thing that's going to be universally house-ruled, and probably errataed.
I mean, there's other class features that have AoEs with friendly fire potential like the dragon breath attack option on Ascendant Dragon Monks, so I could see this as another case of that. And Scourge Aasimar hit themselves with their AoE damage effect, so self friendly fire isn't exactly unprecedent either.
Clearly, the intent of that feature is to affect hostile creatures.
Just for comparison, it should be similar to this Aasimar trait:
Necrotic Shroud. Your eyes briefly become pools of darkness, and flightless wings sprout from your back temporarily. Creatures other than your allies within 10 feet of you must succeed on a Charisma saving throw (DC 8 plus your Charisma modifier and Proficiency Bonus) or have the Frightened condition until the end of your next turn.
The Mass Fear affects you because it doesn't say it it affect each creature within 10 feet of the target other than you, or refer to them as hostile, or enemy. So it affect you and your allies.
Concretely tough, are you really within your line of sight and can't you already not willingly move closer to you?
RAW is sacred, and I agree with how the current rule works, but I still think the intent is only to affect enemies or foes, based on the article 2024 Ranger vs. 2014 Ranger: What’s New:
Gloom Stalker: No more extra attack on the first round, but more consistent damage throughout each day. Stalker’s Flurry changes the circumstances for the additional attack, but adds the option to Frighten nearby foes. Shadowy Dodge also gets an upgrade.
I think this is just an example of sloppy writing in the 2024 rules. I would never make a gloom stalker roll to save against it's own fear. Just curious to see if others were going to side with RAW for this one.
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.
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.
I also think it's intended to work on enemies only.
It doesn't say that though. It's easy to assume it shouldn't affect you, but a lot of abilities affect your allies and does, that I can't see from the way it is worded to exclude allies
I also think it's intended to work on enemies only.
It doesn't say that though. It's easy to assume it shouldn't affect you, but a lot of abilities affect your allies and does, that I can't see from the way it is worded to exclude allies
I know it doesn't say that, it's my opinion based on effect condition. I don't recall any other effect with self-frightened potential
I also think it's intended to work on enemies only.
It doesn't say that though. It's easy to assume it shouldn't affect you, but a lot of abilities affect your allies and does, that I can't see from the way it is worded to exclude allies
I know it doesn't say that, it's my opinion based on effect condition. I don't recall any other effect with self-frightened potential
Right. I meant you observation works for frienghtening yourself. It doesn't indicate that your allies aren't included though
I think this because it'd be more graceful for them to errata it to hostile or enemy, than creature other than you, unless they rephrase more elaborately. But they could go many ways depending if they want Mass Fear to affect yours allies but not you, or only enemies. It'd definitely be more party friendly if the latter, but may not be as mass effect.
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.
It's not vague in the least. It's a screwup. They happen. No matter how much proofing they do, errors can't be eliminated. This is a particularly easy error to miss, too, because you have to think about it in the context of the game to spot it. It's not like a typo that can be flagged by a spelling checker. And typos still make their way into pretty much every published book.
this basically means WotC make the new rangers so useless they get scared of themselves and also, the being "frightened" requires the affected creatures having you in their line of sight, for a subclass based on NOT BEING SEEING
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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?
As written, yes.
This seems like a thing that's going to be universally house-ruled, and probably errataed.
Well, as jl8e said, as written it seems you do in fact have to make a save against your own fear affect. This is probably an error that is going to get errata at some point. But at the moment you aren't excluded from the fear affect itself and need to make a save to stay away from yourself. I assume functionally if you fail you can't move, as any direction you go would bring yourself closer to you lol.
I would house rule that you are immune to it.
With that said, your party however is likely intentionally suppose to be affected. So you do have to watch using it when another member of the party is close.
The question is whether or not you count as "within range" of your own weapons. I'd say no.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Your own space is considered to be within weapon range. You'd have to argue that yourself counts as an exception, which runs into a question of why you count as an exception when you don't for touch spells.
I mean, there's other class features that have AoEs with friendly fire potential like the dragon breath attack option on Ascendant Dragon Monks, so I could see this as another case of that. And Scourge Aasimar hit themselves with their AoE damage effect, so self friendly fire isn't exactly unprecedent either.
Clearly, the intent of that feature is to affect hostile creatures.
Just for comparison, it should be similar to this Aasimar trait:
The Mass Fear affects you because it doesn't say it it affect each creature within 10 feet of the target other than you, or refer to them as hostile, or enemy. So it affect you and your allies.
Concretely tough, are you really within your line of sight and can't you already not willingly move closer to you?
RAW is sacred, and I agree with how the current rule works, but I still think the intent is only to affect enemies or foes, based on the article 2024 Ranger vs. 2014 Ranger: What’s New:
I also think it's intended to work on enemies only.
I think this is just an example of sloppy writing in the 2024 rules. I would never make a gloom stalker roll to save against it's own fear. Just curious to see if others were going to side with RAW for this one.
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.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
RAW, Gloomstalkers have anxiety.
It doesn't say that though. It's easy to assume it shouldn't affect you, but a lot of abilities affect your allies and does, that I can't see from the way it is worded to exclude allies
I know it doesn't say that, it's my opinion based on effect condition. I don't recall any other effect with self-frightened potential
Right. I meant you observation works for frienghtening yourself. It doesn't indicate that your allies aren't included though
I think this because it'd be more graceful for them to errata it to hostile or enemy, than creature other than you, unless they rephrase more elaborately. But they could go many ways depending if they want Mass Fear to affect yours allies but not you, or only enemies. It'd definitely be more party friendly if the latter, but may not be as mass effect.
oh hey another dumb vague rule.
It's not vague in the least. It's a screwup. They happen. No matter how much proofing they do, errors can't be eliminated. This is a particularly easy error to miss, too, because you have to think about it in the context of the game to spot it. It's not like a typo that can be flagged by a spelling checker. And typos still make their way into pretty much every published book.
this basically means WotC make the new rangers so useless they get scared of themselves and also, the being "frightened" requires the affected creatures having you in their line of sight, for a subclass based on NOT BEING SEEING