13
\$\begingroup\$

The party is fighting a narzugon. In addition to the three attacks per round that it makes, its statblock states that it also uses its Terrifying Command ability:

Each creature within 60 feet of the narzugon that isn’t a Fiend must succeed on a DC 17 Charisma saving throw or become frightened of the narzugon for 1 minute. A creature can repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect on itself on a success. A creature that makes a successful saving throw is immune to this narzugon’s Terrifying Command for 24 hours.

The party has a Twilight Cleric who has activated their Channel Divinity: Twilight Sanctuary ability which states:

Whenever a creature (including you) ends its turn in the sphere, you can grant that creature one of these benefits:

  • You grant it temporary hit points equal to 1d6 plus your cleric level.
  • You end one effect on it causing it to be charmed or frightened.

Only two of the party members made their initial saves, leaving the other four with the frightened condition. It is clear to me that the Twilight Cleric can end this condition on each of these four at the end of their turns if the cleric chooses.

What's not clear, is if this method of ending the condition counts as a successful save in terms of each player becoming immune to the narzugon's Terrifying Command.

The reason that this distinction is important is because the narzugon can re-apply the frightened condition on each of its turns (assuming the party fails their saves), and this condition will persist through each player's turn until it is removed at the end of their turn by Twilight Sanctuary - basically negating the benefits of Sanctuary.

Is removing the frightened condition the same as making a successful saving throw when it comes to immunity from the effect?

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

18
\$\begingroup\$

It doesn't make you immune

There are no hidden rules. Having a condition removed isn't the same as making a saving throw against that condition.

The only way to be immune to the Ability is making a successful saving throw or having some ability or spell that explicitly makes you immune to frightened.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Or in other words, “does what it says on the tin”. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 12 at 20:57
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I would add that the PC can still attempt the saving throw before having the condition removed by the cleric. They also get to save against the re-application of the condition if the narzugon tries again. So the protected PC gets twice the rate of attempts to become immune (whilst they are still failing), and even with a powerful monster with a "free to use" fear effect, the Twilight Cleric's power is giving a nice advantage. It's sometimes worth selling this advantage - as the other answer implies, some people don't notice this and think the player ability has been nullified. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 13 at 21:26
3
\$\begingroup\$

RAW no; narratively, yes

"Getting over your fear of X" has no meaning when seeing "X" 6 seconds later reignites your fear.

The rules don't support this by RAW, but the 5th edition rules are so loosey-goosey about definitions and technicalities that I consider RAW an antipattern in edge cases like this, when it conflicts with common sense and narrative cohesion. Your Cleric has these cool abilities so that they can make a difference in fights; you are not sitting at the table to observe the poorly-worded Strictures of Crawford; you are spending your limited time on this earth to tell exciting stories with your friends.

At my table, I'd rule that this works, because to answer in the negative places Rule-play over roleplay. If my magically soothing Cleric can't soothe you, what is the point of playing the game?

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I did agree when I first read this, but then I saw a second reading. The cleric doesn't cure the fear but uses their will to overcome the fear, then the creature uses it's own will to impose it again, and it is a battle of wills between devil and cleric rather than a one and done. So there are always different ways to look at things and I am no longer so sure I would rule this way which was my first thought. \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Commented Jul 13 at 22:55
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri That's a fair reading, and it comes down to the mood of the campaign which one to adhere to, I think. We agree that a judgment call must be made, which is sufficient to escape RAW hell :) \$\endgroup\$
    – order
    Commented Jul 14 at 1:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ The magic IS soothing RAW, it's just not making you immune, Terrifyng Command is an action, removing it's effect is still very useful because the Narzugon won't be using Terrifying command every round, and if it does, that's great news for the party because they don't have to deal with it's attacks. Your cleric is just fighting off the Fiend's magic instead of being able to completely make it irrelevant, if anything that's narratively better. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 15 at 22:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .