A comment in the Poll thread brought me to an interesting parallel issue: Mounted Combat.
Controlling a mount doesn't consume the rider's movement, so they can "willingly move" into the effect of spells without actually doing anything with their own movement speed.
Similarly, an independent mount results in "forced movement", even if it's at the rider's instruction.
That would never fly at my table. If you're on a mount and giving it instructions/directions, it's willing movement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
All we have to do is show that there is a single use of the word “movement” that doesn’t mean “use your speed” and your entire argument is wrong.
Relentless Avenger
By 7th level, your supernatural focus helps you close off a foe’s retreat. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
💯
The creature switching position with the fighter using Bait & Switch is not doing so using any of it's speed nor does it even say it moves and yet it's clearly identified as movement.
No.
Bait and Switch requires you, the fighter, to spend 5 ft of movement. That movement... your movement, doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
Your ally being moved was never going to provoke opportunity attacks. Their movement speed could be 0 and they could be unable to move entirely, and you could still Bait and Switch them. They didn't use movement, and they were moved. Being moved doesn't ever provoke opportunity attacks.
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.
The problem is that when there is an obvious hole in the "moving requires movement and movement is only spending speed" idea, you can't just fix it by yelling the same idea again. Move and Movement are used in their plain English meanings in the rules. That has been shown.
Sure, there is a thing in the rules called movement which is when you spend your speed in one of your modes of movement, but there is also just the act of changing position. The rules use the same word for both. That is incontrovertible, and telling them apart is difficult. I can understand why you have trouble even telling that it is occurring.
So Relentless avenger consumes your speed for your turn?
Nope.
Your Move, on Your Turn, allows you To Move a distance equal to your speed by spending your movement.
Relentless Avenger also grants you the ability to move a distance equal to half your speed when it triggers.
Being granted the opportunity to move a distance, and then another opportunity to move a distance, is being granted the opportunity to move both those distances.
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.
The problem is that when there is an obvious hole in the "moving requires movement and movement is only spending speed" idea, you can't just fix it by yelling the same idea again. Move and Movement are used in their plain English meanings in the rules. That has been shown.
Your insistence upon this notion is why you're having difficulties knowing if abilities do or don't consume your turn's normal movement.
And again, Movement is frequently used very specifically in non-plain English ways in the rules. It isn't plain English to "spend 1 extra foot of movement for every foot travelled". If you said this in casual conversation people would think you were stroking out.
Sure, there is a thing in the rules called movement which is when you spend your speed in one of your modes of movement, but there is also just the act of changing position.
Yes, the game term Movement. Your insistence it isn't a game term and is only used or ever interpreted as "plain English" is causing you to run in circles.
The rules use the same word for both.
Move. Yes. They use the word: Move for both.
Never "Movement". Movement is always associated with a type and with a speed. Because it is a game term. Movement Type. Movement Speed. Spend Movement. Costs Movement. Use Movement. Game term.
That is incontrovertible, and telling them apart is difficult. I can understand why you have trouble even telling that it is occurring.
I'll uh, just ask for a moment of self reflection.
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.
A comment in the Poll thread brought me to an interesting parallel issue: Mounted Combat.
Controlling a mount doesn't consume the rider's movement, so they can "willingly move" into the effect of spells without actually doing anything with their own movement speed.
Similarly, an independent mount results in "forced movement", even if it's at the rider's instruction.
That would never fly at my table. If you're on a mount and giving it instructions/directions, it's willing movement.
Directing a controlled mount to move while your on it is forced movement. That’s why a mount can take the disengage action and neither you nor the mount would trigger opportunity attacks. Interestingly I’m pretty sure there’s a rule or ruling dictating that if the mount itself triggers an opportunity attack, the rider may be targeted for some reason.
All we have to do is show that there is a single use of the word “movement” that doesn’t mean “use your speed” and your entire argument is wrong.
Relentless Avenger
By 7th level, your supernatural focus helps you close off a foe’s retreat. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
💯
The creature switching position with the fighter using Bait & Switch is not doing so using any of it's speed nor does it even say it moves and yet it's clearly identified as movement.
No.
Bait and Switch requires you, the fighter, to spend 5 ft of movement. That movement... your movement, doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
Your ally being moved was never going to provoke opportunity attacks. Their movement speed could be 0 and they could be unable to move entirely, and you could still Bait and Switch them. They didn't use movement, and they were moved. Being moved doesn't ever provoke opportunity attacks.
These all use "movement" associated with a speed? Also, movement referencing a speed is not the same as using that speed. Is movement spending speed or just referencing it?
All we have to do is show that there is a single use of the word “movement” that doesn’t mean “use your speed” and your entire argument is wrong.
Relentless Avenger
By 7th level, your supernatural focus helps you close off a foe’s retreat. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
💯
The creature switching position with the fighter using Bait & Switch is not doing so using any of it's speed nor does it even say it moves and yet it's clearly identified as movement.
No.
Bait and Switch requires you, the fighter, to spend 5 ft of movement. That movement... your movement, doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
Your ally being moved was never going to provoke opportunity attacks. Their movement speed could be 0 and they could be unable to move entirely, and you could still Bait and Switch them. They didn't use movement, and they were moved. Being moved doesn't ever provoke opportunity attacks.
No? Let's analyse it again will you.....
Does the ally moves? Yes.
Yes.
Does the ally not use it's speed to do so? Yes
Correct.
Is it clealy identified as movement? Yes
No, it isn't. Read it again. The fighter's Movement is what doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
The ally couldn't provoke opportunity attacks because they didn't move, they were moved. Forced moves never provokes.
So, that forced move isn't what they're talking about, clearly. They're talking about the movement the fighter just used. THAT movement doesn't provoke.
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.
All we have to do is show that there is a single use of the word “movement” that doesn’t mean “use your speed” and your entire argument is wrong.
Relentless Avenger
By 7th level, your supernatural focus helps you close off a foe’s retreat. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
💯
The creature switching position with the fighter using Bait & Switch is not doing so using any of it's speed nor does it even say it moves and yet it's clearly identified as movement.
No.
Bait and Switch requires you, the fighter, to spend 5 ft of movement. That movement... your movement, doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
Your ally being moved was never going to provoke opportunity attacks. Their movement speed could be 0 and they could be unable to move entirely, and you could still Bait and Switch them. They didn't use movement, and they were moved. Being moved doesn't ever provoke opportunity attacks.
No? Let's analyse it again will you.....
Does the ally moves? Yes.
Yes.
Does the ally not use it's speed to do so? Yes
Correct.
Is it clealy identified as movement? Yes
No, it isn't. Read it again. The fighter's Movement is what doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
The ally couldn't provoke opportunity attacks because they didn't move, they were moved. Forced moves never provokes.
So, that forced move isn't what they're talking about, clearly. They're talking about the movement the fighter just used. THAT movement doesn't provoke.
All we have to do is show that there is a single use of the word “movement” that doesn’t mean “use your speed” and your entire argument is wrong.
Relentless Avenger
By 7th level, your supernatural focus helps you close off a foe’s retreat. When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you can move up to half your speed immediately after the attack and as part of the same reaction. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
💯
The creature switching position with the fighter using Bait & Switch is not doing so using any of it's speed nor does it even say it moves and yet it's clearly identified as movement.
No.
Bait and Switch requires you, the fighter, to spend 5 ft of movement. That movement... your movement, doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
Your ally being moved was never going to provoke opportunity attacks. Their movement speed could be 0 and they could be unable to move entirely, and you could still Bait and Switch them. They didn't use movement, and they were moved. Being moved doesn't ever provoke opportunity attacks.
No? Let's analyse it again will you.....
Does the ally moves? Yes.
Yes.
Does the ally not use it's speed to do so? Yes
Correct.
Is it clealy identified as movement? Yes
No, it isn't. Read it again. The fighter's Movement is what doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
The ally couldn't provoke opportunity attacks because they didn't move, they were moved. Forced moves never provokes.
So, that forced move isn't what they're talking about, clearly. They're talking about the movement the fighter just used. THAT movement doesn't provoke.
Yes it is even if you try to pretend the contrary by exclude the ally from that reference unecessarily to prove your point. .
This movement = switch place. And the ally is part of it by also switching place with the fighter.
EDIT It's a movement as the ally moves to leaves its space to enter another. Trying to claim it's not a movement is non-sense.
Directing a controlled mount to move while your on it is forced movement. That’s why a mount can take the disengage action and neither you nor the mount would trigger opportunity attacks.
In case I wasn't clear: for the purposes of "willing movement" as it relates to spell and magical effects such as Booming Blade, instructing your mount to move would absolutely be considered willing movement at my table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Every foot jumped costs movement, so you can jump farther than your current speed if you take the Dash action.
Here is the wording for the Dash Action:
Dash
When you take the Dash action, you gain extra Movement for the current turn. The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers. With a speed of 30 feet, for example, you can move up to 60 feet on Your Turn if you dash. Any increase or decrease to your speed changes this additional Movement by the same amount. If your speed of 30 feet is reduced to 15 feet, for instance, you can move up to 30 feet this turn if you dash.
So, I take back what I said earlier. Dash explicitly says that you "gain movement", which is different from the language of other features.
Because Relentless Avenger says "you can move up to half your speed", I feel that the "Common English" RAI for this should be equivalent to "gain movement equal to half your speed", however, I can appreciate the ambiguity. The rules are meant to be simple, and the description of spells and effects are never going to be as comprehensive as the more fundamental basics.
"Gaining Movement" as the result of an Opportunity Attack would be confusing, because you don't get an explicit "Move" action to spend it on.
Similarly, the expression "Gaining Movement" for a teleportation effect would be confusing, since it require additional caveats and clarification.
Yes. Dash specifically says that you gain a bonus to your (capital M) Movement, but you still have to spend your speed to take advantage of the dash. Most of the rest of these features that have been brought up don't actually require you to spend your Movement, they simply reference your speed (mostly to tell you how far you can go, and sometimes call the motion they allow "movement" anyway). If referencing your speed is enough to make something "movement" or "Movement," how do you know? What indicates that? Why is motion that doesn't reference your speed not movement? If a feature lets you walk 5' not on your turn (and makes no mention of speed or movement) does that count as movement?
The thing is, I don't find anything in the rules that clarifies any of those questions which leads me to fall back to English. Movement is the act of changing position, and teleportation generally causes you to change position.
At the end of the day, 5e is deliberately over simplified, and the designers have explicitly said [pp] "These are what the rules say, but not necessarily what I do at my own table. DMs can use, interpret, and ignore them at their discretion."
Those that ascribe to a "coherent" approach may want to assume that uncertainty should be categorized under existing rule umbrellas.
Those that ascribe to a "literalist" approach may enjoy scrutinizing differences to discover new interactions.
The biggest issue with the "literalist" approach is that there are many writers and designers who are going to express things differently, and who aren't going to be cross-referencing all of the previously published content. That means that discrepancies like these are an inevitability, not a deliberate choice on the part of the designers. The more content that's produced, the harder it's going to be to keep track of all of the unintentional nuance.
The biggest issue with the "coherent" approach is that sometimes it isn't easy to decide which umbrella to use.
No, it isn't. Read it again. The fighter's Movement is what doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
The ally couldn't provoke opportunity attacks because they didn't move, they were moved. Forced moves never provokes.
So, that forced move isn't what they're talking about, clearly. They're talking about the movement the fighter just used. THAT movement doesn't provoke.
Yes it is even if you try to pretend the contrary by exclude the ally from that reference unecessarily to prove your point.
Your character can't spend someone else's movement.
This movement = switch place.
Spending the movement allows you to switch places. Yes. What movement did you spend? Normal walking movement? Flying movement? Swimming movement? Regardless, of what movement you're using, it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
And the ally is part of it by also switching place with the fighter.
The ally is moved. They're not doing anything themselves. It is a move caused by the fighter and their ability. It is not done by their ally in any way shape or form.
EDIT It's a movement as the ally moves to leaves its space to enter another. Trying to claim it's not a movement is non-sense.
The ally doesn't do anything. They haven't acted in any way. You've twisted yourself into a knot over here.
The fighter, using bait and switch... moves his ally. The ally isn't moving themselves. They're not moving under their own movement, because nothing says that they do. It doesn't even make sense to say they do, either, because they could be unable to move entirely and still get moved by the fighter using this ability.
Please stop and read the ability again my dude.
Bait and Switch
When you’re within 5 feet of a creature on your turn, you can expend one superiority die and switch places with that creature, provided you spend at least 5 feet of movement and the creature is willing and isn’t incapacitated. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
Roll the superiority die. Until the start of your next turn, you or the other creature (your choice) gains a bonus to AC equal to the number rolled.
This ability talks only about what YOU can do. YOU can swap with an ally. YOU can spend movement to do it. YOU are the person doing the things here. YOUR ally just has to let YOU do it.
They spend no movement. This ability never says they even need the ability to move. Their Speed could be 0. They could be entirely unable to move. You can still bait and switch them because you, the fighter, are the person doing the things listed here. YOU are moving them into your space and YOU are moving into their space. That movement, YOUR movement, doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
Them being moved by YOU never provokes opportunity attacks in the first place.
When it says "This Movement" it is referring to the ONLY movement being discussed here.... YOUR movement. The "you spend at least 5 feet of movement" movement.
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.
So, I take back what I said earlier. Dash explicitly says that you "gain movement", which is different from the language of other features.
Because Relentless Avenger says "you can move up to half your speed", I feel that the "Common English" RAI for this should be equivalent to "gain movement equal to half your speed", however, I can appreciate the ambiguity.
The rules explicitly cover this actually, and use "spend speed" and "spend movement" interchangeably. Both terms explicitly refer to the same thing.
You have Movement Speeds that you can spend that allow you To Move in a manner described by that Movement Type.
Each Movement Speed you have has a Type.
Each Type of Movement you have has a Speed.
Again, they're used interchangeably, and they reference a very specific game term.
The Movement and Positioning Rules cover these interactions.
"However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving."
If something allows you "to move" you still follow the instruction in this chapter for what that means. The Relentless Avenger ability says "you can move up to half your speed". Parse this through the bulleted rules text directly above.
It is granting you the chance to move around. It says as much. It is not granting you any new or unusual means of doing so, you're stuck with whatever Movement Types you already have. Because it doesn't say it does. Those Movement Types all have Speeds. Because they say they do. This granted move is only up to half that speed though, because it says so. SO...
You can move around, using whatever movement you have available to you and as you do so "you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving."
That's it. Just follow the actual rule text. It very literally explains in black and white how this works.
The rules are meant to be simple, and the description of spells and effects are never going to be as comprehensive as the more fundamental basics.
"Gaining Movement" as the result of an Opportunity Attack would be confusing, because you don't get an explicit "Move" action to spend it on.
Similarly, the expression "Gaining Movement" for a teleportation effect would be confusing, since it require additional caveats and clarification.
Yeah totally. That would be an odd way to phrase it. Gives me an idea for an analogy though:
One way to visualize/conceptualize what is happening with movement is like this:
Each Type of Movement your character has is a jar.
So there is a Walk Jar, a Swim Jar, a Fly Jar, etc.
The size of that jar is based on your listed Speed of that type.
The jar can fit in it a number of 1 ft tokens based on your Speed for that type. If you got a 30ft swimming speed, your Swim Jar can hold 30 tokens.
At the start of your turn these jars all fill up.
When you want to move, you spend a token from every jar type you have, for every foot you move around.
So moving one foot costs one token out of every jar type you have.
If you have only a walking speed 20ft and swim speed 30ft, you have only two jars. A 20 token Walk Jar and a 30 token Swim Jar.
If something, like difficult terrain, makes that movement more difficult, you might have to spend an extra token out of each jar.
If any jar runs out, you can no longer move around using that particular type of movement.
If all the jars run out, you can't move around at all anymore on your turn, at least not with any of these types of movement.
When your turn ends, these jars empty.
Dashing, in this context, doubles the size of your jars for the turn (and adds a number of tokens equal to that increase in size). So you 30 token swim jar now is a 60 token swim jar.
You can freely mix and match these types of movements you could make moving around so long as the jar for that type of movement still has a token in it.
When an ability like Relentless Avenger says you can move up to half you speed... in the jar analogy that means:
You get special Relentless Avenger brand jars
one for each movement type you have as normal
They're half the normal size of your speed and come filled up
You can spend these tokens only immediately
Moving around costs a token from each jar, as normal.
If a jar is empty you can't use that type of movement anymore.
When the trigger for these special jars is over they go away.
Again, this is just a visualization aid for the game mechanics at play. I'm not claiming there are actual jars, or tokens, etc. Just an analogy.
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.
So Rav. Here's a question. Let's assume you are right. That your grand experiment is successful and you have discovered that movement is one thing and moving is another.
My question is, what is your point? What further follow on rule or spell effect or feat can you name that triggers off movement but not off any other kind of moving, without it specifically calling out the kinds of moving that will trigger it.
I mean, OAs are triggered by moving, then various clarifying filters are added to that to bring the list of triggers to roughly the same definition as your chosen meaning of Movement - yet they didn't say an OA is triggered "when a creature uses movement to leave your reach".
So the question remains, having studiously defined the game term Movement - what are you going to do with that information? The rest of us are still in general agreement that teleportation is moving, so we feel it is movement because plain English informs us that movement is "an act of moving". Perhaps if you can name the features or effects that trigger specifically off Movement but not just moving then we can direct this conversation in a practical direction - rather than a study of theoretical linguistics.
I've mentioned before that I think that the mega-category of "movement" consists of:
"Your move/Your movement": the movement you undertake up to your speed value during your turn, which Chapter 9 calls "your move" and "your movement."
Actions Granting Movement: the Actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions that you might take that move you (sometimes referencing speed, sometimes referencing a flat value)
Other Movement: anything that moves you without "your move" or your action (e.g. pushing, falling, riding a mount, etc.).
The problem with taking about these sub-categories is, that other poll thread is a perfect demonstration why a lot of readers don't care that much about whether the feature they're reading refers to the mega-category, or to one or more of the sub-categories. Booming Blade talks about a creature that "moves," and yet all sorts of respondents seem to think that only category 1 triggers it and not 2 or 3, despite "your move" or "your movement" not showing up in the spell description.
My takes on where the differences lie:
Booming Blade is talking about categories 1, 2, or 3, so long as they're "willing"
Conditions like Frightened.... same thing, 1, 2, or 3 that's "willing" is prohibited.
Similar, other spells like Spike Growth just talk about "moves", not even caring if its willing. Categories 1, 2, or 3.
Opportunity Attack starts off talking about categories 1, 2, or 3, but then specifies that teleportation and #3 don't actually trigger OAs. Its various enhancements like PAM or Sentinel don't change that.
Spells like Hallow would stop you from entering using 1, 2, or 3.
Noticing a trend? Anything that says "moves" or "movement" is.... talking about all three types of super-category movement.
Anything that says something like "your movement on your turn" or "the creature's movement on its turn" could be just talking about #1, or could again be referencing the super category of 1-3, I'd probably assume the same 1-3. Because.... it just really doesn't seem like 5E is interested in distinguishing much between effects triggering on 1, 2, or 3, other than to the extent that OA has a specific described exemption for #3.
Reeeeally wish that 5E had called #1 "your move" something specific and game-y like "Maneuvering" or "Advancing" so as to distinguish it from the general metaphysical concept of "movement," but here we are.
So Rav. Here's a question. Let's assume you are right. That your grand experiment is successful and you have discovered that movement is one thing and moving is another.
Oh I didn't discover this. it has existed as Common Knowledge since 5e was first published. I just seem to be the intrepid herald of this ancient knowledge to this place where seems to have forgotten it.
My question is, what is your point?
Rules are Rules. The text in the book, is the text in the book.
What further follow on rule or spell effect or feat can you name that triggers off movement but not off any other kind of moving, without it specifically calling out the kinds of moving that will trigger it.
Muddling the game terms of Move and Movement causes a number of bizarre inconsistencies. It has very little real impact when outside a heavily game mechanics based environment. If your game is in a current phase where you're tracking by minutes... hours... days, the distinction is nearly meaningless, most of the time. It really only matters in the mechanics heavy environment of turn based tracking and especially combat, where game terms are concrete and their interacts specified in a mechanical way. If you just want to describe your "character's movements" in the sense that they're waving their arms around, that has no more difference than if you're describing your character's moving their arms around. Those are both colloquial uses and people are free to describe things however they want to.
The issue at hand is when discussing rules specifically, if you start swapping game terms around all willy-nilly it eventually leads to a misconstrued ruling.
There was an example of it earlier in this very thread when someone got confused about if using an ability that allows you to move up to half your speed would somehow use up the normal movement on your own turn. Or someone swearing up and down that when you've been moved by an ally with bait and switch that you somehow are using movement... which, if true, means they can't do so if their speed was 0.
If your speed is 0 does that then mean you cannot be moved by any means whatsoever? Since your speed is 0 you have no movement to be moved with. Or what if someone or something moves you, but, on your turn? Does that "movement" use up your turn's movement?
If you push someone who is swimming and they don't have a swim speed, are they moved only half the distance? What about over difficult terrain? "Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot" is applied to that forced movement right? So pushing someone 10ft over difficult terrain only moves them 5 ft?
If teleporting was movement, for example, getting slowed would reduce the distance you could teleport. If getting moved by an effect, say a pulling effect, was movement, then if you had been hit with ray of frost you'd get pulled 10ft less.
No one actually plays this way, and the game isn't meant to be played that way. Because none of those things "are movement". You can call them movement in a colloquial sense, but they're not movement in a game mechanics sense.
The rest of us are still in general agreement that teleportation is moving, so we feel it is movement because plain English informs us that movement is "an act of moving". Perhaps if you can name the features or effects that trigger specifically off Movement but not just moving then we can direct this conversation in a practical direction - rather than a study of theoretical linguistics.
If Moving=Movement... Anything that interacts with your speed would then interact with moving. Because spending Movement and spending Speed are used interchangeably. Even when it would lead to results not intended by the actual design of the ability. General example: slows would now prevent forced "movement". The actual number of ways it leads to odd or erroneous rulings is too immense to parse, even for someone like me. You'd need to comb through all possible abilities and effects from all books specifically looking for odd interactions as a result of having swapped game term definitions around. Even at just 'all forced movements interacting with things that modify speed or costs extra movement' it is already game breaking.
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.
Booming Blade is talking about categories 1, 2, or 3, so long as they're "willing"
Conditions like Frightened.... same thing, 1, 2, or 3 that's "willing" is prohibited.
Similar, other spells like Spike Growth just talk about "moves", not even caring if its willing. Categories 1, 2, or 3.
Opportunity Attack starts off talking about categories 1, 2, or 3, but then specifies that teleportation and #3 don't actually trigger OAs. Its various enhancements like PAM or Sentinel don't change that.
Spells like Hallow would stop you from entering using 1, 2, or 3.
I kinda think the "willing" thing is more trouble than it's worth in some cases. If something is triggered by moving, it should be triggered by moving, and if you can combo it with thorn whip or whatever, so be it.
I mean, it's not hard to come up with edge cases that make the difference between "willing" and "unwilling" kind of nonsense. For instance:
You're standing on the edge of a cliff (like, the cliff's edge is within the same square on the map as you). Someone hits you with booming blade. If you get shoved off the edge and plummet a hundred feet, the spell doesn't go off? But then if you jump off the edge, it does? What's the difference, really? Why is the jump the only thing that makes the secondary damage go off, and not the push or the plummet?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That would never fly at my table. If you're on a mount and giving it instructions/directions, it's willing movement.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No.
Bait and Switch requires you, the fighter, to spend 5 ft of movement. That movement... your movement, doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks.
Your ally being moved was never going to provoke opportunity attacks. Their movement speed could be 0 and they could be unable to move entirely, and you could still Bait and Switch them. They didn't use movement, and they were moved. Being moved doesn't ever provoke opportunity attacks.
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.
The problem is that when there is an obvious hole in the "moving requires movement and movement is only spending speed" idea, you can't just fix it by yelling the same idea again. Move and Movement are used in their plain English meanings in the rules. That has been shown.
Sure, there is a thing in the rules called movement which is when you spend your speed in one of your modes of movement, but there is also just the act of changing position. The rules use the same word for both. That is incontrovertible, and telling them apart is difficult. I can understand why you have trouble even telling that it is occurring.
Nope.
Your Move, on Your Turn, allows you To Move a distance equal to your speed by spending your movement.
Relentless Avenger also grants you the ability to move a distance equal to half your speed when it triggers.
Being granted the opportunity to move a distance, and then another opportunity to move a distance, is being granted the opportunity to move both those distances.
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.
Your insistence upon this notion is why you're having difficulties knowing if abilities do or don't consume your turn's normal movement.
And again, Movement is frequently used very specifically in non-plain English ways in the rules. It isn't plain English to "spend 1 extra foot of movement for every foot travelled". If you said this in casual conversation people would think you were stroking out.
Yes, the game term Movement. Your insistence it isn't a game term and is only used or ever interpreted as "plain English" is causing you to run in circles.
Move. Yes. They use the word: Move for both.
Never "Movement". Movement is always associated with a type and with a speed. Because it is a game term. Movement Type. Movement Speed. Spend Movement. Costs Movement. Use Movement. Game term.
I'll uh, just ask for a moment of self reflection.
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.
Directing a controlled mount to move while your on it is forced movement. That’s why a mount can take the disengage action and neither you nor the mount would trigger opportunity attacks. Interestingly I’m pretty sure there’s a rule or ruling dictating that if the mount itself triggers an opportunity attack, the rider may be targeted for some reason.
No? Let's analyse it again will you.....
Does the ally moves? Yes.
Does the ally not use it's speed to do so? Yes
Is it clealy identified as movement? Yes
Eyes for weakness.
Telekenetic Movement.
Way of the drunken master.
These all use "movement" associated with a speed? Also, movement referencing a speed is not the same as using that speed. Is movement spending speed or just referencing it?
Yes.
Correct.
No, it isn't. Read it again. The fighter's Movement is what doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
The ally couldn't provoke opportunity attacks because they didn't move, they were moved. Forced moves never provokes.
So, that forced move isn't what they're talking about, clearly. They're talking about the movement the fighter just used. THAT movement doesn't provoke.
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.
Yes it is even if you try to pretend the contrary by exclude the ally from that reference unecessarily to prove your point. .
This movement = switch place. And the ally is part of it by also switching place with the fighter.
EDIT It's a movement as the ally moves to leaves its space to enter another. Trying to claim it's not a movement is non-sense.
In case I wasn't clear: for the purposes of "willing movement" as it relates to spell and magical effects such as Booming Blade, instructing your mount to move would absolutely be considered willing movement at my table.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
@WolfOfTheBees
Here is the SageAdvice I was refering to in the [Poll] thread: [SageAdvice: Super Jump]
Yes. Dash specifically says that you gain a bonus to your (capital M) Movement, but you still have to spend your speed to take advantage of the dash. Most of the rest of these features that have been brought up don't actually require you to spend your Movement, they simply reference your speed (mostly to tell you how far you can go, and sometimes call the motion they allow "movement" anyway). If referencing your speed is enough to make something "movement" or "Movement," how do you know? What indicates that? Why is motion that doesn't reference your speed not movement? If a feature lets you walk 5' not on your turn (and makes no mention of speed or movement) does that count as movement?
The thing is, I don't find anything in the rules that clarifies any of those questions which leads me to fall back to English. Movement is the act of changing position, and teleportation generally causes you to change position.
At the end of the day, 5e is deliberately over simplified, and the designers have explicitly said [pp] "These are what the rules say, but not necessarily what I do at my own table. DMs can use, interpret, and ignore them at their discretion."
Those that ascribe to a "coherent" approach may want to assume that uncertainty should be categorized under existing rule umbrellas.
Those that ascribe to a "literalist" approach may enjoy scrutinizing differences to discover new interactions.
The biggest issue with the "literalist" approach is that there are many writers and designers who are going to express things differently, and who aren't going to be cross-referencing all of the previously published content. That means that discrepancies like these are an inevitability, not a deliberate choice on the part of the designers. The more content that's produced, the harder it's going to be to keep track of all of the unintentional nuance.
The biggest issue with the "coherent" approach is that sometimes it isn't easy to decide which umbrella to use.
Your character can't spend someone else's movement.
Spending the movement allows you to switch places. Yes. What movement did you spend? Normal walking movement? Flying movement? Swimming movement? Regardless, of what movement you're using, it doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
The ally is moved. They're not doing anything themselves. It is a move caused by the fighter and their ability. It is not done by their ally in any way shape or form.
The ally doesn't do anything. They haven't acted in any way. You've twisted yourself into a knot over here.
The fighter, using bait and switch... moves his ally. The ally isn't moving themselves. They're not moving under their own movement, because nothing says that they do. It doesn't even make sense to say they do, either, because they could be unable to move entirely and still get moved by the fighter using this ability.
Please stop and read the ability again my dude.
This ability talks only about what YOU can do. YOU can swap with an ally. YOU can spend movement to do it. YOU are the person doing the things here. YOUR ally just has to let YOU do it.
They spend no movement. This ability never says they even need the ability to move. Their Speed could be 0. They could be entirely unable to move. You can still bait and switch them because you, the fighter, are the person doing the things listed here. YOU are moving them into your space and YOU are moving into their space. That movement, YOUR movement, doesn't provoke opportunity attacks.
Them being moved by YOU never provokes opportunity attacks in the first place.
When it says "This Movement" it is referring to the ONLY movement being discussed here.... YOUR movement. The "you spend at least 5 feet of movement" movement.
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.
That's it. Just follow the actual rule text. It very literally explains in black and white how this works.
Yeah totally. That would be an odd way to phrase it. Gives me an idea for an analogy though:
One way to visualize/conceptualize what is happening with movement is like this:
When an ability like Relentless Avenger says you can move up to half you speed... in the jar analogy that means:
Again, this is just a visualization aid for the game mechanics at play. I'm not claiming there are actual jars, or tokens, etc. Just an analogy.
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.
So Rav. Here's a question. Let's assume you are right. That your grand experiment is successful and you have discovered that movement is one thing and moving is another.
My question is, what is your point? What further follow on rule or spell effect or feat can you name that triggers off movement but not off any other kind of moving, without it specifically calling out the kinds of moving that will trigger it.
I mean, OAs are triggered by moving, then various clarifying filters are added to that to bring the list of triggers to roughly the same definition as your chosen meaning of Movement - yet they didn't say an OA is triggered "when a creature uses movement to leave your reach".
So the question remains, having studiously defined the game term Movement - what are you going to do with that information? The rest of us are still in general agreement that teleportation is moving, so we feel it is movement because plain English informs us that movement is "an act of moving". Perhaps if you can name the features or effects that trigger specifically off Movement but not just moving then we can direct this conversation in a practical direction - rather than a study of theoretical linguistics.
I've mentioned before that I think that the mega-category of "movement" consists of:
The problem with taking about these sub-categories is, that other poll thread is a perfect demonstration why a lot of readers don't care that much about whether the feature they're reading refers to the mega-category, or to one or more of the sub-categories. Booming Blade talks about a creature that "moves," and yet all sorts of respondents seem to think that only category 1 triggers it and not 2 or 3, despite "your move" or "your movement" not showing up in the spell description.
My takes on where the differences lie:
Noticing a trend? Anything that says "moves" or "movement" is.... talking about all three types of super-category movement.
Anything that says something like "your movement on your turn" or "the creature's movement on its turn" could be just talking about #1, or could again be referencing the super category of 1-3, I'd probably assume the same 1-3. Because.... it just really doesn't seem like 5E is interested in distinguishing much between effects triggering on 1, 2, or 3, other than to the extent that OA has a specific described exemption for #3.
Reeeeally wish that 5E had called #1 "your move" something specific and game-y like "Maneuvering" or "Advancing" so as to distinguish it from the general metaphysical concept of "movement," but here we are.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh I didn't discover this. it has existed as Common Knowledge since 5e was first published. I just seem to be the intrepid herald of this ancient knowledge to this place where seems to have forgotten it.
Rules are Rules. The text in the book, is the text in the book.
Muddling the game terms of Move and Movement causes a number of bizarre inconsistencies. It has very little real impact when outside a heavily game mechanics based environment. If your game is in a current phase where you're tracking by minutes... hours... days, the distinction is nearly meaningless, most of the time. It really only matters in the mechanics heavy environment of turn based tracking and especially combat, where game terms are concrete and their interacts specified in a mechanical way. If you just want to describe your "character's movements" in the sense that they're waving their arms around, that has no more difference than if you're describing your character's moving their arms around. Those are both colloquial uses and people are free to describe things however they want to.
The issue at hand is when discussing rules specifically, if you start swapping game terms around all willy-nilly it eventually leads to a misconstrued ruling.
There was an example of it earlier in this very thread when someone got confused about if using an ability that allows you to move up to half your speed would somehow use up the normal movement on your own turn. Or someone swearing up and down that when you've been moved by an ally with bait and switch that you somehow are using movement... which, if true, means they can't do so if their speed was 0.
If your speed is 0 does that then mean you cannot be moved by any means whatsoever? Since your speed is 0 you have no movement to be moved with. Or what if someone or something moves you, but, on your turn? Does that "movement" use up your turn's movement?
If you push someone who is swimming and they don't have a swim speed, are they moved only half the distance? What about over difficult terrain? "Each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot" is applied to that forced movement right? So pushing someone 10ft over difficult terrain only moves them 5 ft?
If teleporting was movement, for example, getting slowed would reduce the distance you could teleport. If getting moved by an effect, say a pulling effect, was movement, then if you had been hit with ray of frost you'd get pulled 10ft less.
No one actually plays this way, and the game isn't meant to be played that way. Because none of those things "are movement". You can call them movement in a colloquial sense, but they're not movement in a game mechanics sense.
If Moving=Movement... Anything that interacts with your speed would then interact with moving. Because spending Movement and spending Speed are used interchangeably. Even when it would lead to results not intended by the actual design of the ability. General example: slows would now prevent forced "movement". The actual number of ways it leads to odd or erroneous rulings is too immense to parse, even for someone like me. You'd need to comb through all possible abilities and effects from all books specifically looking for odd interactions as a result of having swapped game term definitions around. Even at just 'all forced movements interacting with things that modify speed or costs extra movement' it is already game breaking.
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 kinda think the "willing" thing is more trouble than it's worth in some cases. If something is triggered by moving, it should be triggered by moving, and if you can combo it with thorn whip or whatever, so be it.
I mean, it's not hard to come up with edge cases that make the difference between "willing" and "unwilling" kind of nonsense. For instance:
You're standing on the edge of a cliff (like, the cliff's edge is within the same square on the map as you). Someone hits you with booming blade. If you get shoved off the edge and plummet a hundred feet, the spell doesn't go off? But then if you jump off the edge, it does? What's the difference, really? Why is the jump the only thing that makes the secondary damage go off, and not the push or the plummet?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)