In a situation where a monk has failed the initial Wisdom saving throw against the Mace of Terror and is under the effect of the frightened condition, are they able to use the Stillness of Mind class feature to end the effect. My interpretation is "no" based on the specifics of the Mace of Terror:
This magic weapon has 3 charges. While holding it, you can use an action and expend 1 charge to release a wave of terror. Each creature of your choice in a 30-foot radius extending from you must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or become frightened of you for 1 minute. While it is frightened in this way, a creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can't willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you. It also can't take reactions. For its action, it can use only the Dash action or try to escape from an effect that prevents it from moving. If it has nowhere it can move, the creature can use the Dodge action. At the end of each of its turns, a creature can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on itself on a success.
The player asserts that the text of the Stillness of Mind feature overrides the magic effect, but I can't find any backing for this interpretation. I can understand a thematic ruling in that way, but I do not see RAW support, unless I am overlooking something. I appreciate any additional insight.
The Stillness of Mind feature definitely *could* end that effect, but only by using an Action to do it. Unfortunately for the player, their Action choice has been removed, so cannot be freely used to still their mind.
Thematically, the monk could resist a power like this if only they could find a quick moment to meditate. Sometimes things are so out of control that even a trained monk can't get a handle on it...
It can be tough to decide which of two effects is more "specific" than the other. Is it "a monk can generally resist fear, but not this specific fear?" or "this mace generally restricts frightened creature's actions, but not this specific creature?" Arguable. However, there's really no such thing as a "general" fear effect, it only ever gets handed out by specific spells, and it isn't exactly unusual for those spells to do something like this mace is doing by restricting the Frightened creature's turn. Fear works the same way as this mace, as does Eyebite... although some others like Cause Fear just hand out the condition, and some like Symbol just dictate use of movement and not Action. For Charmed, it's even more likely that most of those effects would ordinarily restrict a character's use of Action, so if Stillness of Mind can't break those, it really won't be as useful as it seems at first blush.
I'm comfortable letting the Monk use a Stillness of Mind action to end the Mace of Terror effect, because I feel like the ability is a specific exception to any and all other features that cause Frightened or Charmed. But I suppose there's room for disagreement.
Mace of Terror doesn't say you can't take Actions, it says you can't take reactions. If you're allowed the opportunity to take an Action at all, I feel like the monk ability adds its special action to the menu, as a specific exception after another spell or ability shrinks that menu down to one. Like I said though, nowhere to really point to in the rules to describe whether that's correct, or if instead the correct order of operations would be add the monk special ability to the action menu first, and then shrink it down to only one option after you come under the effect of the spell... that doesn't make much sense to me, since the monk action only gets added to the menu after you become Frightened, but its certainly a judgment call. Unlike some of the other disputes we've had, I don't think either side gets to claim that the RAW is in any way clear one way or the other.
Oof. I think RAW that the Mace of Terror would "win". It specifies you can't take ANY other actions besides dash. After all, there are many possible ways of ending an effect on yourself - I'm sure there's some spells that could end the effect if you could use the Cast a Spell action, maybe various other actions added by items, character abilities, etc. But you can't take any of those actions because you can only Dash.
On the other hand, I'd probably overrule that at my table and let the player use their ability. In general, as players accumulate lots of niche abilities, I'd lean in favor of letting the players USE those niche abilities so they feel like they have a point. It would be dumb if the monk got Stillness of Mind and then went 10 levels only getting a chance to use it, like, once. Because how often do the players get charmed/frightened, anyway? So I'd probably say sure, it applies.
Mace of Terror doesn't say you can't take Actions, it says you can't take reactions. If you're allowed the opportunity to take an Action at all, I feel like the monk ability adds its special action to the menu, as a specific exception after another spell or ability shrinks that menu down to one. Like I said though, nowhere to really point to in the rules to describe whether that's correct, or if instead the correct order of operations would be add the monk special ability to the action menu first, and then shrink it down to only one option after you come under the effect of the spell... that doesn't make much sense to me, since the monk action only gets added to the menu after you become Frightened, but its certainly a judgment call. Unlike some of the other disputes we've had, I don't think either side gets to claim that the RAW is in any way clear one way or the other.
Made of terror says the only actions you can take are dash, dodge, or escape restraints. Stillness of mind is none of those, so they can't use it.
It is no different from if you had a feature that makes your attacks do bonus necrotic damage, but the enemy is immune to necrotic damage. The feature doesn't get around the immunity.
If you can only take specific actions, you can't take different actions.
Except that Mace of Terror does nothing if you aren’t frightened, and Stillness of Mind does nothing if you aren’t frightened. They both trigger simultaneously, one to say “you can only use your action to do x, y, or z” and another to say “you can now also use your action to do Q.”
I just don’t see either as clearly winning, unless there’s some general rule of interpretation that “specific cannots always beat specific cans.”
Except that Mace of Terror does nothing if you aren’t frightened, and Stillness of Mind does nothing if you aren’t frightened. They both trigger simultaneously, one to say “you can only use your action to do x, y, or z” and another to say “you can now also use your action to do Q.”
I just don’t see either as clearly winning, unless there’s some general rule of interpretation that “specific cannots always beat specific cans.”
Except it doesn't say "also." Stillness of mind generally says "you can use your action to Q." Mace of terror specifically says "you can only use your action to X, Y, or Z." You can't use your action to Q. That is how it works.
If Stillness of mind specifically said "when you are charmed or frightened, you can use your action to end it," you would be right (or at least have a valid argument). Wording is important. If they intended it to useable that way RAI, they should have worded it different RAW.
But like I and others said, we wouldn't run this RAW because it is less fun and less cool. RAF should always be considered.
I think this is an issue of them making rules and not counting for every single possibility when writing them. I would allow a monk to use their stillness of mind feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In a situation where a monk has failed the initial Wisdom saving throw against the Mace of Terror and is under the effect of the frightened condition, are they able to use the Stillness of Mind class feature to end the effect. My interpretation is "no" based on the specifics of the Mace of Terror:
The player asserts that the text of the Stillness of Mind feature overrides the magic effect, but I can't find any backing for this interpretation. I can understand a thematic ruling in that way, but I do not see RAW support, unless I am overlooking something. I appreciate any additional insight.
The Stillness of Mind feature definitely *could* end that effect, but only by using an Action to do it. Unfortunately for the player, their Action choice has been removed, so cannot be freely used to still their mind.
Thematically, the monk could resist a power like this if only they could find a quick moment to meditate. Sometimes things are so out of control that even a trained monk can't get a handle on it...
It can be tough to decide which of two effects is more "specific" than the other. Is it "a monk can generally resist fear, but not this specific fear?" or "this mace generally restricts frightened creature's actions, but not this specific creature?" Arguable. However, there's really no such thing as a "general" fear effect, it only ever gets handed out by specific spells, and it isn't exactly unusual for those spells to do something like this mace is doing by restricting the Frightened creature's turn. Fear works the same way as this mace, as does Eyebite... although some others like Cause Fear just hand out the condition, and some like Symbol just dictate use of movement and not Action. For Charmed, it's even more likely that most of those effects would ordinarily restrict a character's use of Action, so if Stillness of Mind can't break those, it really won't be as useful as it seems at first blush.
I'm comfortable letting the Monk use a Stillness of Mind action to end the Mace of Terror effect, because I feel like the ability is a specific exception to any and all other features that cause Frightened or Charmed. But I suppose there's room for disagreement.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
In this case, the monk's actions are restricted, so it can't end the fear on itself with an action. That is the RAW.
I'd allow it though, because it is more fun and interesting. It also still used up the monk's action, so still a benefit to enemy's action economy.
Mace of Terror doesn't say you can't take Actions, it says you can't take reactions. If you're allowed the opportunity to take an Action at all, I feel like the monk ability adds its special action to the menu, as a specific exception after another spell or ability shrinks that menu down to one. Like I said though, nowhere to really point to in the rules to describe whether that's correct, or if instead the correct order of operations would be add the monk special ability to the action menu first, and then shrink it down to only one option after you come under the effect of the spell... that doesn't make much sense to me, since the monk action only gets added to the menu after you become Frightened, but its certainly a judgment call. Unlike some of the other disputes we've had, I don't think either side gets to claim that the RAW is in any way clear one way or the other.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oof. I think RAW that the Mace of Terror would "win". It specifies you can't take ANY other actions besides dash. After all, there are many possible ways of ending an effect on yourself - I'm sure there's some spells that could end the effect if you could use the Cast a Spell action, maybe various other actions added by items, character abilities, etc. But you can't take any of those actions because you can only Dash.
On the other hand, I'd probably overrule that at my table and let the player use their ability. In general, as players accumulate lots of niche abilities, I'd lean in favor of letting the players USE those niche abilities so they feel like they have a point. It would be dumb if the monk got Stillness of Mind and then went 10 levels only getting a chance to use it, like, once. Because how often do the players get charmed/frightened, anyway? So I'd probably say sure, it applies.
Made of terror says the only actions you can take are dash, dodge, or escape restraints. Stillness of mind is none of those, so they can't use it.
It is no different from if you had a feature that makes your attacks do bonus necrotic damage, but the enemy is immune to necrotic damage. The feature doesn't get around the immunity.
If you can only take specific actions, you can't take different actions.
Except that Mace of Terror does nothing if you aren’t frightened, and Stillness of Mind does nothing if you aren’t frightened. They both trigger simultaneously, one to say “you can only use your action to do x, y, or z” and another to say “you can now also use your action to do Q.”
I just don’t see either as clearly winning, unless there’s some general rule of interpretation that “specific cannots always beat specific cans.”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Except it doesn't say "also." Stillness of mind generally says "you can use your action to Q." Mace of terror specifically says "you can only use your action to X, Y, or Z." You can't use your action to Q. That is how it works.
If Stillness of mind specifically said "when you are charmed or frightened, you can use your action to end it," you would be right (or at least have a valid argument). Wording is important. If they intended it to useable that way RAI, they should have worded it different RAW.
But like I and others said, we wouldn't run this RAW because it is less fun and less cool. RAF should always be considered.
I think this is an issue of them making rules and not counting for every single possibility when writing them. I would allow a monk to use their stillness of mind feature.