Booming Blade see's you going from tile A to tile B and says "hey, you get a boop for that"
Yes, and after they "get a boop for that" they can choose to stop moving.
You declared your move, that is willing movement.
There is no "declaration" phase in D&D precisely because all sorts of things can interrupt your turn. As an extreme example, a 20th level Fighter can attack up to 10 times using Action Surge, TWF and the Haste spell, moving up to 11 times total before and after each of those attacks. The Fighter is not obligated at all to declare his 10 targets and the path he's taking up front. They simply say what they're doing and make decisions on where to move and who to attack as they see the outcome of previous movements and attacks.
Here's what actually happens:
Creature A starts moving.
5 feet in the movement, creature B interrupts creature A's movement using Booming Blade as a reaction.
Creature A now has the option to continue moving or stop.
This is no different from a fighter deciding they want to move next to a monster, triggering a trap on the way there, taking massive damage, then choosing to move next to the cleric for healing instead.
Using your trap analogy, if the trap was a pressure plate that the release of the plate caused the damage, would force the Player or the NPC to step off the plate because they stepped on in? Sure, they voluntarily stepped on the plate but some people would stop upon hearing the click (assuming that momentum didn't carry them forward, and then they'd be cringing that they didn't stop) and others would try to immediately move to clear. Depending on the nature of the trap and the knowledge of the creature, taking damage such as a nail on the plate or a dart launched at them to encourage them to move might encourage them to change their mind either way.
I'm not saying that I would do it all the time, but I don't think that it should be a case of automatic full damage.
Evasion/Danger Sense etc. Are what you are thinknig about there. Whether they keep moving or not after moving onto the square that triggered the trap is moot. What matters is that they DID move onto the trap. Just as they moved during the Opportunity Attack that trigger the Booming Blade. The movement happened, it isn't up to debate. If the was no movement there was no trigger. You are arguing in favor of taking a move back after finding out the result in an attempt to metagame.
*Edited to be less hostile.*
I appreciate the edit. I had a handful of responses that I scrapped because I didn't want to get banned because of responding to the condescension. This response definitely leaves viable discussion points on the table.
First off, evasion and danger sense wouldn't help with what I was talking about specifically, a trap that can be tripped without fully triggering. You've seen the movies where the trap is triggered and the characters try to find a way to allow the trap tripper to move without releasing the plate by placing a counterweight on the plate as the trap tripper attempts to leave the space intact. Evasion and danger sense cover what happens on a single stage release or if the charges fail to properly counterweight the plate. These two stage trap would be rarely used as they aren't as efficient at dissuading intruders, but could be put in place if someone has a hard time remembering where that trap was.
As for metagame reasons, the only reason the distinction would matter to me at all is if I was the DM, which means I can metagame to my heart's desire regardless of what the rules say. I'm not going to insist on something this open to debate if I'm the player and the DM happens to have an NPC with Warcaster and Booming Blade. I'll take the damage and move away, changing my tactics.
I'm also of the mind that anything the players can do, my NPCs can do, and usually vice versa. If I've built out a character that the players could duplicate, anything my characters can do, they can do. Thus, they'd be able to decide to continue moving before getting zapped just like my NPCs. If I give the BBEG something unusual for a narrative purpose, that won't be something that can be duplicated by the players because they won't have the mechanical support behind it.
Finally, I don't think of myself as an adversary to the players that I DM for, so I don't have a need to metagame so that "I win". I win if the players are having fun and I have fun as well. If my players have more fun with getting the automatic zap from Warcaster and Booming Blade, they're probably going to get it quite a bit, even if I still have the NPCs be able to stop without triggering the zap. While the choice is still mine to make, I prefer to make that choice and will typically do so such that you probably wouldn't notice the difference if you were playing in my game. If I'm forced to always have the Boom happen and I want that NPC to not take damage, then I'll have to come up with another way to have them not take that damage, which will likely negate the attack portion of the Booming Blade damage if not also the weapon attack. It will still happen about as frequently as it would now which is to say not very, but the player would get less benefit from the sequence or take a nasty bit of a shock in return.
Booming Blade see's you going from tile A to tile B and says "hey, you get a boop for that"
Yes, and after they "get a boop for that" they can choose to stop moving.
To be fair, I don't think that they are arguing that point. I think their argument is specifically against anything that stops Booming Blade via Warcaster from immediately dealing the damage from the movement rider. Basically, "I'm moving enough to provoke an OA". "OK. Before you leave my reach, I cast Booming Blade on you." Then the provoking creature has to finish moving to the new square and they take damage because they chose to move. The other arguments would be that either the creature can stop before leaving the reach since the attack happened before leaving the reach and no damage or the creature leaves the square and takes damage if they move from that square. Whether this is because momentum carried them and thus it's not voluntary or whether it's because the attack happened just before they left the square and the sheathing happened just as they entered the square. The fact that it's a five foot square that the creature can move around in without triggering normally doesn't matter and thus that five ft could include half of the originating square and half of the new square doesn't seem to have entered the discussion, probably because that's making it more complex than it already is.
Foe drops their guard enough to provoke an opportunity attack.
Caster drops a booming blade on the foe.
Foe now gets to choose whether to actually move or not.
Also, looking through the Sage Advice that led me to this conclusion made me realize that reach + War Caster + booming blade is a bombo, because War Caster triggers off opportunity attacks, which happen when someone leaves your reach, and by the time they do that they're out of range of the booming blade.
That's my interpretation, based on discussions about the Sentinel feat (for example here).
Opportunity Attacks happen before the movement (they must do so, else the opponent would be out of the reach of the weapon).
Normally 5E has no "declaration" concept, but here it sort-of does. One person declares, "This creature is moving," then another person gets to do something before the creature actually does the move.
I don't think it would be a wrong interpretation to rule that once the movment has been declared, it must be completed. Just expect howls of ourtage at the table when the GM uses the tactic on the characters (after all, rules apply to both sides of the GM screen).
As a GM, if players are arguing rule interpretations like this, I often respond with, "Are you OK for monsters to do this to your characters?" Sometimes, the answer is, "Ahh.... well... actually... no, let's not do this."
That's my interpretation, based on discussions about the Sentinel feat (for example here).
Opportunity Attacks happen before the movement (they must do so, else the opponent would be out of the reach of the weapon).
Normally 5E has no "declaration" concept, but here it sort-of does. One person declares, "This creature is moving," then another person gets to do something before the creature actually does the move.
I don't think it would be a wrong interpretation to rule that once the movment has been declared, it must be completed. Just expect howls of ourtage at the table when the GM uses the tactic on the characters (after all, rules apply to both sides of the GM screen).
As a GM, if players are arguing rule interpretations like this, I often respond with, "Are you OK for monsters to do this to your characters?" Sometimes, the answer is, "Ahh.... well... actually... no, let's not do this."
I'm not arguing interpretation, everyone is welcome to home-brew however they want to have fun. It's a good thing to make sure folks are having fun.
I'm arguing that if you are taking the stance that this forum is for strict rules as written, then you need to actually do as those words are saying. Unwilling movement, or not moving at all, do not provoke an attack of opportunity. The OA is in response to, but does not alter, that movement from one square to another. With the exception of Sentinal which specifically states that it does so. Using Sentinal as an example of timing, we know that the OA takes place in the square of origin and not the destination square. Otherwise Sentinal would cease their movement at the destination square. Sentinal specifically states that the creature does not proceed to the next square as per rules of movement and speed. As it would be a non-combo, we can assume that the person trying to use Booming Blade as a reaction is not also running Sentinal. After all they WANT the creature to move.
For there to be any OA at all the creature must be moving from one sqare to another, there is no half square for them to stop on if they change there mind. Either they stayed on their square, and so no OA, or they moved to the next one having been slapped on the butt as they went.
There is no question of if they moved or not. As there is no OA without that movement. You are free to move as you please during your action in the standard increments. The game doesn't mind if you move before or after using an action or both. However, there is no "I move half a square".
Whether or not the creature has moveed is the wrong part to contest if you want to argue that Booming Blade doesn't trigger. You need to focus on whether the spell has the sense to know where the creature was compared to where the creature is during that OA. There would after all normally be a turn transition from the time of BB landing and the creature deciding to move or not. I argue that changing your mind after you find you don't like the result does not change a willing movement into an unwilling one. We were suppose to be talking pure mechanics, not interpretations of those mechanics.
I re-emphasis that everyone can and should rule how their group has fun. If you are using feats and multi-classing you are already running home brew. Granted it is "official" home brew, the same as UA would be.
I'm interested in the reasoning of why the initial move might not trigger Booming Blade. Arguing that they just aren't moving in the first place but somehow still trigger a provocation based on the fact they are moving is just silly.
There is no question of if they moved or not. As there is no OA without that movement. You are free to move as you please during your action in the standard increments. The game doesn't mind if you move before or after using an action or both. However, there is no "I move half a square".
Whether or not the creature has moveed is the wrong part to contest if you want to argue that Booming Blade doesn't trigger. You need to focus on whether the spell has the sense to know where the creature was compared to where the creature is during that OA. There would after all normally be a turn transition from the time of BB landing and the creature deciding to move or not. I argue that changing your mind after you find you don't like the result does not change a willing movement into an unwilling one. We were suppose to be talking pure mechanics, not interpretations of those mechanics.
Opportunity Attacks are triggered before the target moves out of reach. So they occur before the target has moved from the "safe" square. They are triggered as the target moves out, yes, but they happen before. Once an Opportunity Attack is resolved, the target is still in their original square, not out of reach. You seem to be arguing that at this point, they have no choice but to move to the space they had intended to move to. You claim this, without any support from the actual rules. You also claim that even though that movement is forced on the target, since they have no choice but to do so, it it still, somehow, willing movement, because they, at some point in the past, had intended to move there, without considering that they might have changed their mind, after being hit by an attack, especially if said attack would cause them to take unavoidable damage if they move.
You claim "there is no OA without [...] movement". That is not strictly true, as the Sentinel Feat easily demonstrates. Notice, by the way, the language the Sentinel Feat uses: "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.". It does not say "if the target is currently being forced into willing movement, that forced willing movement is cancelled." It does not say that because: 1) there is no such this as forced willing movement, and 2) it does not need to say that, because it is implicit in the rules. If your movement is 0, you cannot move. If your movement is reduced to 0 while you're in a square, you will stay in that square. But having your movement reduced to 0 is not the only way to avoid willingly moving from a square. There is a much simpler way: deciding not to move. Nothing in the rules, errata, Sage Advice, or game/rules designers tweets says your are forced to move if you have declared your intent to move. As has been said before, there is no "declaring" in this version of the game. You do not generate an OA when you declare movement, you generate OA when you willingly move from inside another creature's reach to outside their reach. But the OA happens before that movement, and everything that is a direct, immediate consequence of the OA must also happen before that movement. This is why Sentinel works: the reduction to speed happens before the movement. Similarly, Booming Blade cast in lieu of an Opportunity Attack via War Caster happens before the movement, the target takes the initial damage before the movement, and the target is sheathed in booming energy before the movement. Now, the attack having been resolved, control returns to the target, and it being their Turn, they get to decide what to do, whether to continue moving or not, or whether to attack the caster, or whatever. The fact that they had initially tried to move out of the caster's reach is immaterial at this point: the effects of that have all been resolved.
There is no weirdness or strangeness to the timing of this. The "spell" does not need "the sense to know where the creature was compared to where the creature is during that OA". The creature is within the caster's reach when the OA would happen, and therefore is within the caster's reach when the spell is cast. Once the spell is cast, the creature then either moves out of reach, or doesn't. If it does, it triggers the extra damage. If it doesn't move, it doesn't trigger the extra damage. You might be confused by the concept of "but wait, if they never actually moved out reach, then how come to OA was triggered?". The same confusion might arise every time the Sentinel Feat's first benefit (reducing speed to 0 on OAs) is used. The resolution is simpler than it looks, though: the OA is triggered by the movement, but happens before. In a sense, you're rolling back time a bit: if a creature moves outside someone's range, you stop the game, turn back time just a bit to when the creature was just still inside range, resolve the OA, the return control to the creature and re-start time again. If it helps, think of the OA as an even that potentially changes the timeline.
I'm interested in the reasoning of why the initial move might not trigger Booming Blade. Arguing that they just aren't moving in the first place but somehow still trigger a provocation based on the fact they are moving is just silly.
There is nothing silly in the argument: they moved, triggered an action that happens before the movement, and therefore interrupts that movement, and happens before they are moving, so therefore there is no movement during the action.
Unwilling movement is an affect such as Fear or a Push/Pull, the things that specifically state in their own rule-set that they do not provoke an attack of opportunity. Willing movement is the movement that costs speed and changes what tile you are on. Standing from prone not being a movement but something that does cost speed.
"Without any support from the rules." Except I'm using the literal word for word of an opportunity attack. If the movement was unwilling, the was never an opportunity attack in the first place. If you don't move to leave the square, you didn't provoke the opportunity attack. That's how it works.
If you want to leave the square without provoking the OA why not use one of the many teleports that specifically do what you are wanting to do? Or the disengage action? Clearly they don't have Sentinal as then Booming Blade wouldn't work the way they want. It makes a loud noise that could draw in unwanted attention or set off some unstable material to fall. There are a lot of ways to discourage or avoid an already niche occurrence that is no more threatening than a smite or sneak attack. With so many mechanics that do what you want I don't see why you are trying to quantum tunnel and wave function.
"You claim "there is no OA without [...] movement". That is not strictly true, as the Sentinel Feat easily demonstrates."
>From Sentinal: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn. >From OA: You can make an opportunityattack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunityattack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
OA indicates the creature is moving and that it is leaving my reach. What part of this proves me wrong? Seems to strongly indicate the creature still goes to the square it was going to.
"1) there is no such this as forced willing movement," I agree 100% I'd agree more if such a thing were mathematically logical.
"2) it does not need to say that, because it is implicit in the rules. If your movement is 0, you cannot move. If your movement is reduced to 0 while you're in a square, you will stay in that square. But having your movement reduced to 0 is not the only way to avoid willingly moving from a square. " Another thing we agree on.
"There is a much simpler way: deciding not to move." Agreed, not provoking the OA in the first place is probably the best choice.
"You do not generate an OA when you declare movement, you generate OA when you willingly move from inside another creature's reach to outside their reach." Exactly agree. The creature moved.
"But the OA happens before that movement, and everything that is a direct, immediate consequence of the OA must also happen before that movement. This is why Sentinel works: the reduction to speed happens before the movement. Similarly, Booming Blade cast in lieu of an Opportunity Attack via War Caster happens before the movement, the target takes the initial damage before the movement, and the target is sheathed in booming energy before the movement." Exactly true.
"The fact that they had initially tried to move out of the caster's reach is immaterial at this point: the effects of that have all been resolved." But you skip the part were the movement actually happens. The choice to move again happens exactly as you say, but it happens from the square they moved to. The one outside of the attackers reach that they were moving to. Or as the rule states "the creature leaves your reach." "they moved, triggered an action that happens before the movement, and therefore interrupts that movement, and happens before they are moving." This is the part that proves BB triggers.
"so therefore there is no movement during the action." Except there is. The move that made the OA happen in the first place.
You might be confused by the concept of "but wait, if they never actually moved out reach, then how come to OA was triggered?". The same confusion might arise every time the Sentinel Feat's first benefit (reducing speed to 0 on OAs) is used. The resolution is simpler than it looks, though: the OA is triggered by the movement, but happens before. In a sense, you're rolling back time a bit: if a creature moves outside someone's range, you stop the game, turn back time just a bit to when the creature was just still inside range, resolve the OA, the return control to the creature and re-start time again. If it helps, think of the OA as an even that potentially changes the timeline.
It's actually even simpler than a time warp effect. The character drops their guard to turn and leave and gets "sucker punched" by the person they are moving away from. Many people would turn back to face the person that just struck them, unless they had a better reason to continue on.
As for the rest, well said!
As for the "Full Damage Now" side, the concept of where you are is loosely defined in this game (somewhere within a five foot square on a grid), but suddenly precise locations matter and we're Johnny-on-the-spot with those locations? Character A is near the "back" of his square and attacks Character B, who deftly dodges to the "back" of her square. There's nearly 10 foot of space between them, yet when Character A turns to flee suddenly that gap is only 5 foot?
Or Character A pushes in close to Character B to strike, landing a glancing blow. Character B finds herself back 4 ft after trying to unsuccessfully dodge, but recovers in time to strike at the fleeing Character A. If Character B is at the "Back" of her square and character A is at the front of his and he almost leaves her reach by stepping back a foot, you are saying that Character A has to keep traveling 4 more feet because he started moving away (this is the extreme anti-momentum argument)?
Further, if we're going to strictly read Booming Blade, any voluntary movement would trigger the damage. This would include attacking, casting a spell, dexterity saves, several strength saves (if not all), dodging, blocking attacks, and probably several other things. The spell says nothing about a distance, the understanding that it's actual movement is RAI.
Finally, there is nothing specific about the timing of when the sheathing effect takes place. It's after the attack clearly. It's before the end of the caster's turn, since the target could be the next turn. Therefore, there is nothing RAW that says that the OA triggers, the caster casts Booming Blade, the target takes the initial effects of the spell and the weapon attack, finishes moving into the next square (since the spell somehow only triggers by leaving a 5 ft square) just before the sheathing effect takes root (and assuming that you must finish moving into the next square for arguments sake).
There are enough problems with the entire scenario that I find it hard for anyone to say with any certainty that their view is RAW as long as the known parameters are followed.
This spell is also smart enough to be able to determine that you moved as opposed to being shoved, repelling blasted, thorn whipped, thrown about because of an explosion, and quite possibly because you sneezed. And it looks at what your intent was before it was even cast?
Foe drops their guard enough to provoke an opportunity attack.
Caster drops a booming blade on the foe.
Foe now gets to choose whether to actually move or not.
Also, looking through the Sage Advice that led me to this conclusion made me realize that reach + War Caster + booming blade is a bombo, because War Caster triggers off opportunity attacks, which happen when someone leaves your reach, and by the time they do that they're out of range of the booming blade.
That's my interpretation, based on discussions about the Sentinel feat (for example here).
Opportunity Attacks happen before the movement (they must do so, else the opponent would be out of the reach of the weapon).
Normally 5E has no "declaration" concept, but here it sort-of does. One person declares, "This creature is moving," then another person gets to do something before the creature actually does the move.
I don't think it would be a wrong interpretation to rule that once the movment has been declared, it must be completed. Just expect howls of ourtage at the table when the GM uses the tactic on the characters (after all, rules apply to both sides of the GM screen).
As a GM, if players are arguing rule interpretations like this, I often respond with, "Are you OK for monsters to do this to your characters?" Sometimes, the answer is, "Ahh.... well... actually... no, let's not do this."
+1
So much this. Especially that it is fair for the DM to do this too. Ideally this is exactly the sort of thing the player discusses with the DM before hand. How a Cantip causes so much concern I'll never know, though. I mean heck, it's in an add-on book that could be disallowed just as easily as a feat or multi-class could.
The attack of opportunity occurs before the movement. There is no rule that says the creature can’t change their mind once they’ve suffered the AoO. The gymnastics are built into the rules, because AoOs are weird.
It’s not unexpected that you may have difficulty with it. AoOs explicitly break causality. You’re trying to argue that, after the AoO is resolved, the creature must keep moving because if they don’t they can’t have provoked the AoO to begin with. But that argument relies on a real-world understanding of causality, which the rules explicitly disobey, so it doesn’t hold any water. If it were true, Sentinel couldn’t work at all, because it removes the creature’s choice to keep moving without including any sort of provision like “but it can still have provoked the AoO despot not actually leaving your reach.”
The attack of opportunity occurs before the movement. There is no rule that says the creature can’t change their mind once they’ve suffered the AoO. The gymnastics are built into the rules, because AoOs are weird.
It’s not unexpected that you may have difficulty with it. AoOs explicitly break causality. You’re trying to argue that, after the AoO is resolved, the creature must keep moving because if they don’t they can’t have provoked the AoO to begin with. But that argument relies on a real-world understanding of causality, which the rules explicitly disobey, so it doesn’t hold any water. If it were true, Sentinel couldn’t work at all, because it removes the creature’s choice to keep moving without including any sort of provision like “but it can still have provoked the AoO despot not actually leaving your reach.”
You are arguing that you don't take the BB secondary because you stayed put.. But you want to take the rest of the damage anyway?
I'm saying you just shouldn't take any damage at all because YOU DIDN'T MOVE!
It's really easy. I don't get the loopty loop.
Move> Damage, Dice willing. Don't move>No damage
Why is everyone trying to take partial damage for no reason?
"I'm not doing anything but, here have a OA for no reason."
I missed the part in the rules that required you give out OA's for standing still.
At the point in time at which the AoO occurs, no movement has happened. This is said explicitly in the rules.
The intent of the rule is clear: it’s not moving that triggers an AoO, but rather “making as if to move.” But instead, the rules express themselves with time travel, which means that, yes, once the reaction has been resolved, an opportunity for the trigger to not occur is now available. Like I said, AoOs are weird, and it’s not surprising that people here don’t understand them. I’m not defending how the rule is written, but it is what it is.
You don't need to defend the rules. Semantics are important in 'rules as written' though. At the time the OA occurs no movement has occurred yet. It is a thing that was happening, it happens unless something stops it from happening. Then the turn carries on.
A falling rock doesn't just randomly decide it isn't falling because hitting the ground might hurt. You fireball doesn't randomly decide that it would rather be a light cantrip, chaos magic not withstanding. Hah.
We weren't arguing "rules as intended". There is nothing weird about opportunity attacks. They very clearly state what causes them and what they do as a result. People just keep trying to find a creative way to circumvent an effect that is spelled out plainly instead of just admitting they were hoping the OA would miss any they want to stay put because it didn't. AKA meta-gaming.
To note, if we were arguing RAI I agree that the intent is that you do not take the secondary effect from moving to the next tile as you were already in motion. It should trigger from moving an addition tile after that. The standard spell timing suggests the creature should be aware of the affect, even if not aware of what that effect does, before they choose to move or not.
As for what I personally find fun, outside of the obvious bickering hah.. Would be letting the damage happen and then having the noise draw in reinforcements while rocks fall on the party that was trying to sneak into somewhere. And maybe the creature they hit turns out to be someone they were supposed to rescue.
You don't need to defend the rules. Semantics are important in 'rules as written' though. At the time the OA occurs no movement has occurred yet. It is a thing that was happening, it happens unless something stops it from happening. Then the turn carries on.
Yes, exactly: "unless something stops it from happening," like the actor choosing to no longer act based on the new information that Booming Blade has been cast on them.
A falling rock doesn't just randomly decide it isn't falling because hitting the ground might hurt. You fireball doesn't randomly decide that it would rather be a light cantrip, chaos magic not withstanding. Hah.
I'm gonna be honest, I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here.
We weren't arguing "rules as intended". There is nothing weird about opportunity attacks. They very clearly state what causes them and what they do as a result. People just keep trying to find a creative way to circumvent an effect that is spelled out plainly instead of just admitting they were hoping the OA would miss any they want to stay put because it didn't. AKA meta-gaming.
A character making an in-game decision based on in-game information is definitively not metagaming. The purpose of Booming Blade is to disincentivize movement. It's a tank spell whose goal is to make moving away an unattractive proposition. And if you don't think it's weird that attacks of opportunity explicitly travel backward in time and in so doing allow their trigger to not occur, I dunno what to tell you. At this point it feels like you only think it isn't weird because you refuse to actually read the text, so all I can really do is shrug.
Our disparity seems to be that I'm arguing RAW, and you are arguing RAI. Which RAI I agree with you entirely.
Game mechanics do game mechanic things for game mechanic reasons. I personally feel that the OA is done in a very intuitive way given the mechanics it is interacting with. It is important to keep in mind that 5E rules were designed to be used with a grid and miniatures primarily. Theater of the mind only requires a little tweaking to work fine.
The "in game decision" was "I know I might be attacked if I move, but I'm moving anyway" and then they do move and they do get hit. If the possibility of being hit with a booming blade was a thing they would/could give consideration to before deciding to move, they already did that when they said they wanted to move. Fainting any action for the sake of seeking a positive outcome and retracting it when the effect is undesired is exactly meta-gaming.
I’m absolutely arguing from RAW. Please point to the rule that says a creature can’t decide not to move once they’ve been attacked.
Your understanding of metagaming is incorrect. Metagaming is when you make an in-character decision based on out-of-character information that you as a player have access to but your character does not. Choosing to do something and then changing your mind once new information becomes available is just a natural thing that people, both real and fictional, do all the time.
I’m absolutely arguing from RAW. Please point to the rule that says a creature can’t decide not to move once they’ve been attacked.
Your understanding of metagaming is incorrect. Metagaming is when you make an in-character decision based on out-of-character information that you as a player have access to but your character does not. Choosing to do something and then changing your mind once new information becomes available is just a natural thing that people, both real and fictional, do all the time.
Are we playing this game now? Ok, show me in the rules where it says you are entitled to undo any action that has an unfavorable result. I'll wait.
Actually, I'm exhausted from the endless barrage of "nuh-uh, I took it back". I'll consider checking back in a few months when maybe someone puts more effort into a counter argument or provides some actual evidence. Until then I'll stand on my stated RAW/RAI positions.
The great thing about the game is anyone can home rule as they want and it is all good. I sincerely hope you all enjoy your own games in the way you find fun.
I’m absolutely arguing from RAW. Please point to the rule that says a creature can’t decide not to move once they’ve been attacked.
Your understanding of metagaming is incorrect. Metagaming is when you make an in-character decision based on out-of-character information that you as a player have access to but your character does not. Choosing to do something and then changing your mind once new information becomes available is just a natural thing that people, both real and fictional, do all the time.
Are we playing this game now? Ok, show me in the rules where it says you are entitled to undo any action that has an unfavorable result. I'll wait.
There's no undoing of anything. Opportunity attacks take place right before the target leaves the threatened space according to the rules and creatures can start or stop their movement as they wish during their turns. They are not obligated to move in 5 foot increments, that just how the combat rules track space for ease of miniature combat. That's how the rules are written and how the developers have said it works.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, and after they "get a boop for that" they can choose to stop moving.
There is no "declaration" phase in D&D precisely because all sorts of things can interrupt your turn. As an extreme example, a 20th level Fighter can attack up to 10 times using Action Surge, TWF and the Haste spell, moving up to 11 times total before and after each of those attacks. The Fighter is not obligated at all to declare his 10 targets and the path he's taking up front. They simply say what they're doing and make decisions on where to move and who to attack as they see the outcome of previous movements and attacks.
Here's what actually happens:
This is no different from a fighter deciding they want to move next to a monster, triggering a trap on the way there, taking massive damage, then choosing to move next to the cleric for healing instead.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I appreciate the edit. I had a handful of responses that I scrapped because I didn't want to get banned because of responding to the condescension. This response definitely leaves viable discussion points on the table.
First off, evasion and danger sense wouldn't help with what I was talking about specifically, a trap that can be tripped without fully triggering. You've seen the movies where the trap is triggered and the characters try to find a way to allow the trap tripper to move without releasing the plate by placing a counterweight on the plate as the trap tripper attempts to leave the space intact. Evasion and danger sense cover what happens on a single stage release or if the charges fail to properly counterweight the plate. These two stage trap would be rarely used as they aren't as efficient at dissuading intruders, but could be put in place if someone has a hard time remembering where that trap was.
As for metagame reasons, the only reason the distinction would matter to me at all is if I was the DM, which means I can metagame to my heart's desire regardless of what the rules say. I'm not going to insist on something this open to debate if I'm the player and the DM happens to have an NPC with Warcaster and Booming Blade. I'll take the damage and move away, changing my tactics.
I'm also of the mind that anything the players can do, my NPCs can do, and usually vice versa. If I've built out a character that the players could duplicate, anything my characters can do, they can do. Thus, they'd be able to decide to continue moving before getting zapped just like my NPCs. If I give the BBEG something unusual for a narrative purpose, that won't be something that can be duplicated by the players because they won't have the mechanical support behind it.
Finally, I don't think of myself as an adversary to the players that I DM for, so I don't have a need to metagame so that "I win". I win if the players are having fun and I have fun as well. If my players have more fun with getting the automatic zap from Warcaster and Booming Blade, they're probably going to get it quite a bit, even if I still have the NPCs be able to stop without triggering the zap. While the choice is still mine to make, I prefer to make that choice and will typically do so such that you probably wouldn't notice the difference if you were playing in my game. If I'm forced to always have the Boom happen and I want that NPC to not take damage, then I'll have to come up with another way to have them not take that damage, which will likely negate the attack portion of the Booming Blade damage if not also the weapon attack. It will still happen about as frequently as it would now which is to say not very, but the player would get less benefit from the sequence or take a nasty bit of a shock in return.
To be fair, I don't think that they are arguing that point. I think their argument is specifically against anything that stops Booming Blade via Warcaster from immediately dealing the damage from the movement rider. Basically, "I'm moving enough to provoke an OA". "OK. Before you leave my reach, I cast Booming Blade on you." Then the provoking creature has to finish moving to the new square and they take damage because they chose to move. The other arguments would be that either the creature can stop before leaving the reach since the attack happened before leaving the reach and no damage or the creature leaves the square and takes damage if they move from that square. Whether this is because momentum carried them and thus it's not voluntary or whether it's because the attack happened just before they left the square and the sheathing happened just as they entered the square. The fact that it's a five foot square that the creature can move around in without triggering normally doesn't matter and thus that five ft could include half of the originating square and half of the new square doesn't seem to have entered the discussion, probably because that's making it more complex than it already is.
That's my interpretation, based on discussions about the Sentinel feat (for example here).
Opportunity Attacks happen before the movement (they must do so, else the opponent would be out of the reach of the weapon).
Normally 5E has no "declaration" concept, but here it sort-of does. One person declares, "This creature is moving," then another person gets to do something before the creature actually does the move.
I don't think it would be a wrong interpretation to rule that once the movment has been declared, it must be completed. Just expect howls of ourtage at the table when the GM uses the tactic on the characters (after all, rules apply to both sides of the GM screen).
As a GM, if players are arguing rule interpretations like this, I often respond with, "Are you OK for monsters to do this to your characters?" Sometimes, the answer is, "Ahh.... well... actually... no, let's not do this."
I'm not arguing interpretation, everyone is welcome to home-brew however they want to have fun.
It's a good thing to make sure folks are having fun.
I'm arguing that if you are taking the stance that this forum is for strict rules as written, then you need to actually do as those words are saying.
Unwilling movement, or not moving at all, do not provoke an attack of opportunity.
The OA is in response to, but does not alter, that movement from one square to another.
With the exception of Sentinal which specifically states that it does so.
Using Sentinal as an example of timing, we know that the OA takes place in the square of origin and not the destination square.
Otherwise Sentinal would cease their movement at the destination square.
Sentinal specifically states that the creature does not proceed to the next square as per rules of movement and speed.
As it would be a non-combo, we can assume that the person trying to use Booming Blade as a reaction is not also running Sentinal.
After all they WANT the creature to move.
For there to be any OA at all the creature must be moving from one sqare to another, there is no half square for them to stop on if they change there mind.
Either they stayed on their square, and so no OA, or they moved to the next one having been slapped on the butt as they went.
There is no question of if they moved or not. As there is no OA without that movement.
You are free to move as you please during your action in the standard increments.
The game doesn't mind if you move before or after using an action or both.
However, there is no "I move half a square".
Whether or not the creature has moveed is the wrong part to contest if you want to argue that Booming Blade doesn't trigger.
You need to focus on whether the spell has the sense to know where the creature was compared to where the creature is during that OA.
There would after all normally be a turn transition from the time of BB landing and the creature deciding to move or not.
I argue that changing your mind after you find you don't like the result does not change a willing movement into an unwilling one.
We were suppose to be talking pure mechanics, not interpretations of those mechanics.
I re-emphasis that everyone can and should rule how their group has fun.
If you are using feats and multi-classing you are already running home brew.
Granted it is "official" home brew, the same as UA would be.
I'm interested in the reasoning of why the initial move might not trigger Booming Blade.
Arguing that they just aren't moving in the first place but somehow still trigger a provocation based on the fact they are moving is just silly.
Opportunity Attacks are triggered before the target moves out of reach. So they occur before the target has moved from the "safe" square. They are triggered as the target moves out, yes, but they happen before. Once an Opportunity Attack is resolved, the target is still in their original square, not out of reach. You seem to be arguing that at this point, they have no choice but to move to the space they had intended to move to. You claim this, without any support from the actual rules. You also claim that even though that movement is forced on the target, since they have no choice but to do so, it it still, somehow, willing movement, because they, at some point in the past, had intended to move there, without considering that they might have changed their mind, after being hit by an attack, especially if said attack would cause them to take unavoidable damage if they move.
You claim "there is no OA without [...] movement". That is not strictly true, as the Sentinel Feat easily demonstrates. Notice, by the way, the language the Sentinel Feat uses: "When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.". It does not say "if the target is currently being forced into willing movement, that forced willing movement is cancelled." It does not say that because: 1) there is no such this as forced willing movement, and 2) it does not need to say that, because it is implicit in the rules. If your movement is 0, you cannot move. If your movement is reduced to 0 while you're in a square, you will stay in that square. But having your movement reduced to 0 is not the only way to avoid willingly moving from a square. There is a much simpler way: deciding not to move. Nothing in the rules, errata, Sage Advice, or game/rules designers tweets says your are forced to move if you have declared your intent to move. As has been said before, there is no "declaring" in this version of the game. You do not generate an OA when you declare movement, you generate OA when you willingly move from inside another creature's reach to outside their reach. But the OA happens before that movement, and everything that is a direct, immediate consequence of the OA must also happen before that movement. This is why Sentinel works: the reduction to speed happens before the movement. Similarly, Booming Blade cast in lieu of an Opportunity Attack via War Caster happens before the movement, the target takes the initial damage before the movement, and the target is sheathed in booming energy before the movement. Now, the attack having been resolved, control returns to the target, and it being their Turn, they get to decide what to do, whether to continue moving or not, or whether to attack the caster, or whatever. The fact that they had initially tried to move out of the caster's reach is immaterial at this point: the effects of that have all been resolved.
There is no weirdness or strangeness to the timing of this. The "spell" does not need "the sense to know where the creature was compared to where the creature is during that OA". The creature is within the caster's reach when the OA would happen, and therefore is within the caster's reach when the spell is cast. Once the spell is cast, the creature then either moves out of reach, or doesn't. If it does, it triggers the extra damage. If it doesn't move, it doesn't trigger the extra damage. You might be confused by the concept of "but wait, if they never actually moved out reach, then how come to OA was triggered?". The same confusion might arise every time the Sentinel Feat's first benefit (reducing speed to 0 on OAs) is used. The resolution is simpler than it looks, though: the OA is triggered by the movement, but happens before. In a sense, you're rolling back time a bit: if a creature moves outside someone's range, you stop the game, turn back time just a bit to when the creature was just still inside range, resolve the OA, the return control to the creature and re-start time again. If it helps, think of the OA as an even that potentially changes the timeline.
There is nothing silly in the argument: they moved, triggered an action that happens before the movement, and therefore interrupts that movement, and happens before they are moving, so therefore there is no movement during the action.
Unwilling movement is an affect such as Fear or a Push/Pull, the things that specifically state in their own rule-set that they do not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Willing movement is the movement that costs speed and changes what tile you are on.
Standing from prone not being a movement but something that does cost speed.
"Without any support from the rules."
Except I'm using the literal word for word of an opportunity attack.
If the movement was unwilling, the was never an opportunity attack in the first place.
If you don't move to leave the square, you didn't provoke the opportunity attack.
That's how it works.
If you want to leave the square without provoking the OA why not use one of the many teleports that specifically do what you are wanting to do?
Or the disengage action? Clearly they don't have Sentinal as then Booming Blade wouldn't work the way they want.
It makes a loud noise that could draw in unwanted attention or set off some unstable material to fall.
There are a lot of ways to discourage or avoid an already niche occurrence that is no more threatening than a smite or sneak attack.
With so many mechanics that do what you want I don't see why you are trying to quantum tunnel and wave function.
"You claim "there is no OA without [...] movement". That is not strictly true, as the Sentinel Feat easily demonstrates."
>From Sentinal: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
>From OA: You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
OA indicates the creature is moving and that it is leaving my reach.
What part of this proves me wrong?
Seems to strongly indicate the creature still goes to the square it was going to.
"1) there is no such this as forced willing movement,"
I agree 100%
I'd agree more if such a thing were mathematically logical.
"2) it does not need to say that, because it is implicit in the rules. If your movement is 0, you cannot move. If your movement is reduced to 0 while you're in a square, you will stay in that square. But having your movement reduced to 0 is not the only way to avoid willingly moving from a square. "
Another thing we agree on.
"There is a much simpler way: deciding not to move."
Agreed, not provoking the OA in the first place is probably the best choice.
"You do not generate an OA when you declare movement, you generate OA when you willingly move from inside another creature's reach to outside their reach."
Exactly agree. The creature moved.
"But the OA happens before that movement, and everything that is a direct, immediate consequence of the OA must also happen before that movement. This is why Sentinel works: the reduction to speed happens before the movement. Similarly, Booming Blade cast in lieu of an Opportunity Attack via War Caster happens before the movement, the target takes the initial damage before the movement, and the target is sheathed in booming energy before the movement."
Exactly true.
"The fact that they had initially tried to move out of the caster's reach is immaterial at this point: the effects of that have all been resolved."
But you skip the part were the movement actually happens.
The choice to move again happens exactly as you say, but it happens from the square they moved to.
The one outside of the attackers reach that they were moving to.
Or as the rule states "the creature leaves your reach."
"they moved, triggered an action that happens before the movement, and therefore interrupts that movement, and happens before they are moving."
This is the part that proves BB triggers.
"so therefore there is no movement during the action."
Except there is.
The move that made the OA happen in the first place.
The gymnastics here are strong.
It's actually even simpler than a time warp effect. The character drops their guard to turn and leave and gets "sucker punched" by the person they are moving away from. Many people would turn back to face the person that just struck them, unless they had a better reason to continue on.
As for the rest, well said!
As for the "Full Damage Now" side, the concept of where you are is loosely defined in this game (somewhere within a five foot square on a grid), but suddenly precise locations matter and we're Johnny-on-the-spot with those locations? Character A is near the "back" of his square and attacks Character B, who deftly dodges to the "back" of her square. There's nearly 10 foot of space between them, yet when Character A turns to flee suddenly that gap is only 5 foot?
Or Character A pushes in close to Character B to strike, landing a glancing blow. Character B finds herself back 4 ft after trying to unsuccessfully dodge, but recovers in time to strike at the fleeing Character A. If Character B is at the "Back" of her square and character A is at the front of his and he almost leaves her reach by stepping back a foot, you are saying that Character A has to keep traveling 4 more feet because he started moving away (this is the extreme anti-momentum argument)?
Further, if we're going to strictly read Booming Blade, any voluntary movement would trigger the damage. This would include attacking, casting a spell, dexterity saves, several strength saves (if not all), dodging, blocking attacks, and probably several other things. The spell says nothing about a distance, the understanding that it's actual movement is RAI.
Finally, there is nothing specific about the timing of when the sheathing effect takes place. It's after the attack clearly. It's before the end of the caster's turn, since the target could be the next turn. Therefore, there is nothing RAW that says that the OA triggers, the caster casts Booming Blade, the target takes the initial effects of the spell and the weapon attack, finishes moving into the next square (since the spell somehow only triggers by leaving a 5 ft square) just before the sheathing effect takes root (and assuming that you must finish moving into the next square for arguments sake).
There are enough problems with the entire scenario that I find it hard for anyone to say with any certainty that their view is RAW as long as the known parameters are followed.
This spell is also smart enough to be able to determine that you moved as opposed to being shoved, repelling blasted, thorn whipped, thrown about because of an explosion, and quite possibly because you sneezed. And it looks at what your intent was before it was even cast?
+1
So much this.
Especially that it is fair for the DM to do this too.
Ideally this is exactly the sort of thing the player discusses with the DM before hand.
How a Cantip causes so much concern I'll never know, though.
I mean heck, it's in an add-on book that could be disallowed just as easily as a feat or multi-class could.
The attack of opportunity occurs before the movement. There is no rule that says the creature can’t change their mind once they’ve suffered the AoO. The gymnastics are built into the rules, because AoOs are weird.
It’s not unexpected that you may have difficulty with it. AoOs explicitly break causality. You’re trying to argue that, after the AoO is resolved, the creature must keep moving because if they don’t they can’t have provoked the AoO to begin with. But that argument relies on a real-world understanding of causality, which the rules explicitly disobey, so it doesn’t hold any water. If it were true, Sentinel couldn’t work at all, because it removes the creature’s choice to keep moving without including any sort of provision like “but it can still have provoked the AoO despot not actually leaving your reach.”
You are arguing that you don't take the BB secondary because you stayed put..
But you want to take the rest of the damage anyway?
I'm saying you just shouldn't take any damage at all because YOU DIDN'T MOVE!
It's really easy. I don't get the loopty loop.
Move> Damage, Dice willing.
Don't move>No damage
Why is everyone trying to take partial damage for no reason?
Because that’s what the rules say.
"I'm not doing anything but, here have a OA for no reason."
I missed the part in the rules that required you give out OA's for standing still.
At the point in time at which the AoO occurs, no movement has happened. This is said explicitly in the rules.
The intent of the rule is clear: it’s not moving that triggers an AoO, but rather “making as if to move.” But instead, the rules express themselves with time travel, which means that, yes, once the reaction has been resolved, an opportunity for the trigger to not occur is now available. Like I said, AoOs are weird, and it’s not surprising that people here don’t understand them. I’m not defending how the rule is written, but it is what it is.
You don't need to defend the rules.
Semantics are important in 'rules as written' though.
At the time the OA occurs no movement has occurred yet.
It is a thing that was happening, it happens unless something stops it from happening.
Then the turn carries on.
A falling rock doesn't just randomly decide it isn't falling because hitting the ground might hurt.
You fireball doesn't randomly decide that it would rather be a light cantrip, chaos magic not withstanding. Hah.
We weren't arguing "rules as intended".
There is nothing weird about opportunity attacks.
They very clearly state what causes them and what they do as a result.
People just keep trying to find a creative way to circumvent an effect that is spelled out plainly instead of just admitting they were hoping the OA would miss any they want to stay put because it didn't.
AKA meta-gaming.
To note, if we were arguing RAI
I agree that the intent is that you do not take the secondary effect from moving to the next tile as you were already in motion.
It should trigger from moving an addition tile after that.
The standard spell timing suggests the creature should be aware of the affect, even if not aware of what that effect does, before they choose to move or not.
As for what I personally find fun, outside of the obvious bickering hah..
Would be letting the damage happen and then having the noise draw in reinforcements while rocks fall on the party that was trying to sneak into somewhere. And maybe the creature they hit turns out to be someone they were supposed to rescue.
Yes, exactly: "unless something stops it from happening," like the actor choosing to no longer act based on the new information that Booming Blade has been cast on them.
I'm gonna be honest, I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here.
A character making an in-game decision based on in-game information is definitively not metagaming. The purpose of Booming Blade is to disincentivize movement. It's a tank spell whose goal is to make moving away an unattractive proposition. And if you don't think it's weird that attacks of opportunity explicitly travel backward in time and in so doing allow their trigger to not occur, I dunno what to tell you. At this point it feels like you only think it isn't weird because you refuse to actually read the text, so all I can really do is shrug.
Our disparity seems to be that I'm arguing RAW, and you are arguing RAI.
Which RAI I agree with you entirely.
Game mechanics do game mechanic things for game mechanic reasons.
I personally feel that the OA is done in a very intuitive way given the mechanics it is interacting with.
It is important to keep in mind that 5E rules were designed to be used with a grid and miniatures primarily.
Theater of the mind only requires a little tweaking to work fine.
The "in game decision" was "I know I might be attacked if I move, but I'm moving anyway" and then they do move and they do get hit.
If the possibility of being hit with a booming blade was a thing they would/could give consideration to before deciding to move, they already did that when they said they wanted to move.
Fainting any action for the sake of seeking a positive outcome and retracting it when the effect is undesired is exactly meta-gaming.
I’m absolutely arguing from RAW. Please point to the rule that says a creature can’t decide not to move once they’ve been attacked.
Your understanding of metagaming is incorrect. Metagaming is when you make an in-character decision based on out-of-character information that you as a player have access to but your character does not. Choosing to do something and then changing your mind once new information becomes available is just a natural thing that people, both real and fictional, do all the time.
Are we playing this game now?
Ok, show me in the rules where it says you are entitled to undo any action that has an unfavorable result.
I'll wait.
Actually, I'm exhausted from the endless barrage of "nuh-uh, I took it back".
I'll consider checking back in a few months when maybe someone puts more effort into a counter argument or provides some actual evidence.
Until then I'll stand on my stated RAW/RAI positions.
The great thing about the game is anyone can home rule as they want and it is all good.
I sincerely hope you all enjoy your own games in the way you find fun.
There's no undoing of anything. Opportunity attacks take place right before the target leaves the threatened space according to the rules and creatures can start or stop their movement as they wish during their turns. They are not obligated to move in 5 foot increments, that just how the combat rules track space for ease of miniature combat. That's how the rules are written and how the developers have said it works.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!