D&D 5E Rules question - Knight of the sword Demoralizing Strike vs creature immune to frightened

[ECMO3]

Demoralizing Strike. Once per turn, when you hit a creature with a weapon attack roll, you can attempt to frighten that target. The target must make a Wisdom saving throw (DC equals 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat). On a failed save, the target is frightened of you until the end of your next turn. On a successful save, the target has disadvantage on the next attack roll it makes before the end of its next turn. You can use this benefit a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.

The way I read this RAW is if you target a creature that is immune to frightened, then he has to save. If he fails the save nothing happens since he is immune to frightened but if he makes the save he has disadvantage on his next attack.

Correct?

 

[DMZ2112]

By the RAW you are absolutely correct.

The RAW is also intensely stupid, but that's your dungeon master's problem.

 

[Shiroiken]

Demoralizing Strike. Once per turn, when you hit a creature with a weapon attack roll, you can attempt to frighten that target. The target must make a Wisdom saving throw (DC equals 8 + your proficiency bonus + the ability modifier of the score increased by this feat). On a failed save, the target is frightened of you until the end of your next turn. On a successful save, the target has disadvantage on the next attack roll it makes before the end of its next turn. You can use this benefit a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.

The way I read this RAW is if you target a creature that is immune to frightened, then he has to save. If he fails the save nothing happens since he is immune to frightened but if he makes the save he has disadvantage on his next attack.

Correct?

Correct by strict use of RAW, which is why I generally consider RAW rather stupid. Expect your DM to rule nothing happens, since by RAI the Demoralizing Strike obviously cannot affect someone immune to fear.

 

[aco175]

I guess a case of specific over general, where the monster is generally not able to be frightened.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You can read it like this:

1. If you are immune to being frightened, you don't have to save at all, as the save would be redundant in the case of a failure, so you don't need to try. I usually don't bother with a saving throw against fireball if the creature is immune to fire.

Or

2. If the creature immune to the frightened condition makes the save, he can't stop laughing that you even tried to intimidate it and thus can't concentrate on the next attack.

 

[Clint_L]

My reading of RAW is that it doesn't have to make a save, since you don't ever have to save against conditions to which you are immune. That would also produce the logical result. Character attempts to frighten it. It is immune. No save needed. Next.

 

[ECMO3]

My reading of RAW is that it doesn't have to make a save, since you don't ever have to save against conditions to which you are immune. That would also produce the logical result. Character attempts to frighten it. It is immune. No save needed. Next.

Two follow on questions/comments on this:
1. Is there a rule that says you don't have to save against abilities to which you are immune? The save has other mechanics aside from how it effects you. Making a save can trigger a reaction for other things like Beguiling Twist or Silvery Barbs even if the save has no effect on you.

2. You are not saving against being frightened, the disadvantage is a stand alone affect. This is fundamentally different than a spell like Fear or Hypnotic Pattern. In those cases they use verbiage "while frightened" or "while charmed" where the extra effect does not happen unless the condition happens. I would view this more like the spell Immolation, if you are immune to fire damage you take no damage but you still burn and spread light IAW the spell or the spell Ice Storm if you are immune to cold you still need to save and would take bludgeoning damage.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't think there is a rule which says you don't save (at least I can't recall one), but it is something I'd probably do on a case by case basis, such as your demoralising strike question above.

 

[DMZ2112]

Clint's interpretation is reasonable, but the RAW does not define immunity to conditions as automatic success on saving throws, and the secondary effect is triggered by a saving throw, not by being unaffected by the condition. In my opinion, immunity can negate a saving throw, but it can't negate the chance of an unrelated secondary effect.

I agree with ECM03 that the secondary harm unrelated to the condition mandates the save. That's what makes the situation different than it was in the last thread, about the Courage Aura.

ECM's September thread about the fear-immune Warlock and Beguiling Twist is also relevant, because that is a situation where an ability grants a benefit to the target on a successful save that is not related to the condition.

If immune targets of conditions can benefit from a successful saving throw, they can also suffer from a successful saving throw, and vice versa. The dungeon master is empowered to decide whether this is consistently true or consistently false (or not consistent, but I wouldn't recommend that).

--

Now, all that said, my personal take as a dungeon master is that I wouldn't require a fear-immune target to save against Demoralizing Strike, and would negate all effects of the ability on the target. This is because the narrative intention of the ability on the whole as well as the disadvantage on a successful save is clearly that they are fear effects, and therefore related. But this is fiat.

If 'demoralization' is not a fear effect, the first part of the ability should have been written out longhand without using the Frightened condition.

The secondary fear effect on a successful save granted by Beguiling Strike does not target the original immune target of the condition, so I'd let the immune creature make the save and the result would stand.

 

[jmartkdr2]

By the RAW you are absolutely correct.

The RAW is also intensely stupid, but that's your dungeon master's problem.

This is applicable far too often.