Once a creature chooses to move out of reach, provoking an opportunity attack, they must accept the consequence of that attack whether it hits or misses before finishing their move. The effect of booming blade is one of those consequences. Since the creature has already decided to move out of reach they cannot take it back. If they could they negate not only the effect of booming blade, but the entire opportunity attack as well. Not knowing that an opponent can use booming blade on you that way intil they do it is part of the game. Taking back your move after the consequence is revealed is meta gaming.
Once a creature chooses to move out of reach, provoking an opportunity attack, they must accept the consequence of that attack whether it hits or misses before finishing their move. The effect of booming blade is one of those consequences. Since the creature has already decided to move out of reach they cannot take it back. If they could they negate not only the effect of booming blade, but the entire opportunity attack as well. Not knowing that an opponent can use booming blade on you that way intil they do it is part of the game. Taking back your move after the consequence is revealed is meta gaming.
By that logic the sentinel feat negates itself.
The state of the of the game has changed. The creature can't undo the opportunity attack (or spell in this case), but it can change the decisions it made before the attack based on new information. It isn't metagaming or avoiding consequences, it already got hit by the spell and can't change that, but it can change what it hasn't done yet (move). It doesn't become locked in to taking extra damage from an effect it wasn't under when it first decided to move.
Once a creature chooses to move out of reach, provoking an opportunity attack, they must accept the consequence of that attack whether it hits or misses before finishing their move. The effect of booming blade is one of those consequences. Since the creature has already decided to move out of reach they cannot take it back. If they could they negate not only the effect of booming blade, but the entire opportunity attack as well. Not knowing that an opponent can use booming blade on you that way intil they do it is part of the game. Taking back your move after the consequence is revealed is meta gaming.
By that logic the sentinel feat negates itself.
The state of the of the game has changed. The creature can't undo the opportunity attack (or spell in this case), but it can change the decisions it made before the attack based on new information. It isn't metagaming or avoiding consequences, it already got hit by the spell and can't change that, but it can change what it hasn't done yet (move). It doesn't become locked in to taking extra damage from an effect it wasn't under when it first decided to move.
I see your point of view, but disagree. Sentinel has a very specific rule forcing the opponent to stop. It would be meta for the opponent to say "oh, you have sentinel? I change my mind." But, that's my 2c and also why there is a such thing as house rules. The house rule I compare this to is removing your hand from your chess piece, constituting a decision.In dnd, which frequently has no pieces, the same rule can be applied once consequences start appearing. DM's choice in PvE how to do this, but in PvP better to have the house rule clearly stated before battle.
It would be meta for the opponent to say "oh, you have sentinel? I change my mind." But, that's my 2c and also why there is a such thing as house rules. The house rule I compare this to is removing your hand from your chess piece, constituting a decision.In dnd, which frequently has no pieces, the same rule can be applied once consequences start appearing. DM's choice in PvE how to do this, but in PvP better to have the house rule clearly stated before battle.
I agree, that is metagaming if you try to change your decisions to undo consequences already incurred. But it is not metagaming to change actions you haven't taken yet to prevent further consequences that have not occurred yet.
The consequences that have already happened are you took damage from an attack and are now under the effect of booming blade, and you cant undo these. But you have not yet taken the booming blade damage from moving, so you can change your future actions to prevent future consequences. The rules don't say you can't do this, and is why I chose this answer after starting this thread.
The secondary affect of booming blade happens after willing movement. "...and it [target] becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
booming blade lands
target decides to move
target immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage.
This is the core set of events that give meaning to "willingly moves" within the context of the spell and not:
target decides to move
booming blade lands
target has no choice but to continue moving
target immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage
The condition to trigger the secondary effect is willingmovement after the spell has laded. If the argument is that the target is forced to continue onto the next square, that is that the target has no choice but to continue to the next square before she can decide to stop moving, then that is not willingmovement.
Either, the target must have the option of stopping in the current square, or the target is not willingly moving into the next square.
So: a or b
a) the target can choose to stop.
b) the target moves, had no choice but to continue to the next square, and the secondary effect is not triggered.
I would have no problem with either interpretation but my preference would be "a)" because the target would need to decide between either continue to move, the act of the decision being the necessary precondition for willingmovement, or to stop within range. An interesting game is comprised of an interesting sequence of choices and consequences.
The target can be a PC. Imagine a PC at your table, one who has invested in war caster and booming blade, who decided to move out of range and allows an OA. She is hit with a booming blade, now tell her she has no choice but to continue to move out of the square and she must also take the secondary damage. She does understand exactly what has taken place, she is not a low INT naive NPC who is not competent to make an informed choice.
Babe Bladesinger: "I am moving out" and she start to move her miniature.
DM: "you have provoked an opportunity attack" --- roles for nasty NPC wizard --- "a hit. You are sheathed in a booming energy field. You take 4 points of slashing damage."
Babe Bladesinger: "oh shit .... I guess it's my turn to be on the receiving end. ... must I continue moving to the next square?"
DM: "That's your choice."
or
DM: "Yes you must [roles 1d8] take 7 thunder damage" ...
This player has invested heavily in a set of skills and should have both the opportunity to benefit when using her investment for offense and when she is the recipient of the same. I certainly don't want to spend half an hour discussing whether or not she willingly moved to the next square after she was hit by what she clearly understands was a Booming Blade. Not at the table. Option "a)" let's her decide between two consequences.
EDIT to add content: It's very straightforward. The weapon presumably has 5' reach. If you are over 5' away, then weapon cannot reach you. Therefore, the attack comes while you are in the process of moving away, but before you are out of reach. Since the attack happens before you actually move away, you can change your mind after the attack and decide you don't want to move away after all.
Whether you have the presence of mind to stop or whether your mind gives you any reason to stop is another question entirely.
EDIT to add content: It's very straightforward. The weapon presumably has 5' reach. If you are over 5' away, then weapon cannot reach you. Therefore, the attack comes while you are in the process of moving away, but before you are out of reach. Since the attack happens before you actually move away, you can change your mind after the attack and decide you don't want to move away after all.
Whether you have the presence of mind to stop or whether your mind gives you any reason to stop is another question entirely.
I've come around to the idea of not being forced to continue moving after being hit by an OA, yet this is the question that still troubles me. An affected creature does not inherently know everything about magical effects that are affecting them. They know about things as they occur. They might know they're being affected by something, but not that they've been hit by Booming Blade, nor would they inherently know that they will be damaged by moving (the trigger). They need to make a skill check, already know the spell, or some other plausible condition to identify that level of detail. Without that, a creature would know they are still under a magical effect, but with no indication about what the effect is, or what triggers it.
That gets to one underlying issue in this thread: believable roleplaying. As a DM, the combat decisions your creatures make should be based on what is believable for the creature. A martial spellcasting creature knowing exactly what BB is & does is believable. Having that creature choose to not continue moving after being hit is believable; they would reasonably know what would happen if they did. A small band of bandits might have that knowledge, or might be more likely to understand when they see it. A panoply of monstrous races, beasts, low-intelligence humanoids, etc are unlikely to have that information, and even less likely to alter their decisions based on it.
If a creature has already made a calculated decision to incur an OA in exchange for getting away from a character, they've inherently decided that risking damage is worth the benefit of moving away, and there needs to be a high bar for altering that decision post-OA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I agree entirely. I'm just saying the possibility to stop exists. Whether a creature would realize they need to is another thing entirely--and probably pretty unlikely most of the time. I also agree that it's the job of a responsible DM (or player) to play this in a way that suits the situation and the parties involved.
A goblin who decided to run and gets whacked by an OA in the process might be twice as likely to run away, thereby triggering the spell's secondary effect. An enemy spellcaster who also uses booming blade might be more likely to be familiar with the spell's secondary effects and might decide they don't want the additional damage. A creature who was thinking bout repositioning themself on the battlefield might get hit and say, "You know what, screw this guy I'm gonna stay here and kick his ass!" and decide against moving away without ever even knowing what booming blade is.
EDIT to add content: It's very straightforward. The weapon presumably has 5' reach. If you are over 5' away, then weapon cannot reach you. Therefore, the attack comes while you are in the process of moving away, but before you are out of reach. Since the attack happens before you actually move away, you can change your mind after the attack and decide you don't want to move away after all.
Whether you have the presence of mind to stop or whether your mind gives you any reason to stop is another question entirely.
I've come around to the idea of not being forced to continue moving after being hit by an OA, yet this is the question that still troubles me. An affected creature does not inherently know everything about magical effects that are affecting them. They know about things as they occur. They might know they're being affected by something, but not that they've been hit by Booming Blade, nor would they inherently know that they will be damaged by moving (the trigger). They need to make a skill check, already know the spell, or some other plausible condition to identify that level of detail. Without that, a creature would know they are still under a magical effect, but with no indication about what the effect is, or what triggers it.
That gets to one underlying issue in this thread: believable roleplaying. As a DM, the combat decisions your creatures make should be based on what is believable for the creature. A martial spellcasting creature knowing exactly what BB is & does is believable. Having that creature choose to not continue moving after being hit is believable; they would reasonably know what would happen if they did. A small band of bandits might have that knowledge, or might be more likely to understand when they see it. A panoply of monstrous races, beasts, low-intelligence humanoids, etc are unlikely to have that information, and even less likely to alter their decisions based on it.
If a creature has already made a calculated decision to incur an OA in exchange for getting away from a character, they've inherently decided that risking damage is worth the benefit of moving away, and there needs to be a high bar for altering that decision post-OA.
I don't think the question (on this thread) is whether a target (character or NPC or monster) knows about the booming blade lightning sheathe and whether they know to move or not. (I actually told my DM that the target is sheathed in lightning, not telling him anything else then ran away. He decided to chase me and took damage.. now the DM 'knows' -- haven't used since though). Obviously, the intellect of a target and their arcana knowledge would affect if they know the spell off the bat or whether it's the 3rd time that it got hit with it and now even the stupid goblin/wolf now knows better..
I think the ENTIRE 5 stupid pages in this thread is whether a monster who allows an OA attack on them and instead of a regular mace whack, gets sheathed in lightning instead, can the monster NOW choose to stop moving, whether he knows about the spell or not...
Based on the rules of 5e, yes, there is no 'momentum' rules but it is PURE metagaming AND a paradox if you decide not to continue moving. You triggered an OA, BY MOVING IN THE FIRST PLACE, according to the RULES of a turn, it ALL happens SIMULTANEOUSLY. If you decide NOT to move then you wouldn't trigger the OA OR the booming blade in the first place either. You can decide to stop using all of your movement AFTER the initial 5' space but if you don't move to trigger the aftereffect than that means you *shouldn't* even trigger the initial one in the first place because you DIDN'T move! (changing your mind isn't a move!!)
You can move without triggering the secondary effect. That has been abundantly established. It's only triggered when you change locations.
And for the record, I don't think these have been five stupid pages at all. I think this has been a pretty interesting discussion of the nature of the mechanics involved in the process.
EDIT to add content: It's very straightforward. The weapon presumably has 5' reach. If you are over 5' away, then weapon cannot reach you. Therefore, the attack comes while you are in the process of moving away, but before you are out of reach. Since the attack happens before you actually move away, you can change your mind after the attack and decide you don't want to move away after all.
Whether you have the presence of mind to stop or whether your mind gives you any reason to stop is another question entirely.
I've come around to the idea of not being forced to continue moving after being hit by an OA, yet this is the question that still troubles me. An affected creature does not inherently know everything about magical effects that are affecting them. They know about things as they occur. They might know they're being affected by something, but not that they've been hit by Booming Blade, nor would they inherently know that they will be damaged by moving (the trigger). They need to make a skill check, already know the spell, or some other plausible condition to identify that level of detail. Without that, a creature would know they are still under a magical effect, but with no indication about what the effect is, or what triggers it.
That gets to one underlying issue in this thread: believable roleplaying. As a DM, the combat decisions your creatures make should be based on what is believable for the creature. A martial spellcasting creature knowing exactly what BB is & does is believable. Having that creature choose to not continue moving after being hit is believable; they would reasonably know what would happen if they did. A small band of bandits might have that knowledge, or might be more likely to understand when they see it. A panoply of monstrous races, beasts, low-intelligence humanoids, etc are unlikely to have that information, and even less likely to alter their decisions based on it.
If a creature has already made a calculated decision to incur an OA in exchange for getting away from a character, they've inherently decided that risking damage is worth the benefit of moving away, and there needs to be a high bar for altering that decision post-OA.
I don't think the question (on this thread) is whether a target (character or NPC or monster) knows about the booming blade lightning sheathe and whether they know to move or not. (I actually told my DM that the target is sheathed in lightning, not telling him anything else then ran away. He decided to chase me and took damage.. now the DM 'knows' -- haven't used since though). Obviously, the intellect of a target and their arcana knowledge would affect if they know the spell off the bat or whether it's the 3rd time that it got hit with it and now even the stupid goblin/wolf now knows better..
I think the ENTIRE 5 stupid pages in this thread is whether a monster who allows an OA attack on them and instead of a regular mace whack, gets sheathed in lightning instead, can the monster NOW choose to stop moving, whether he knows about the spell or not...
Based on the rules of 5e, yes, there is no 'momentum' rules but it is PURE metagaming AND a paradox if you decide not to continue moving. You triggered an OA, BY MOVING IN THE FIRST PLACE, according to the RULES of a turn, it ALL happens SIMULTANEOUSLY. If you decide NOT to move then you wouldn't trigger the OA OR the booming blade in the first place either. You can decide to stop using all of your movement AFTER the initial 5' space but if you don't move to trigger the aftereffect than that means you *shouldn't* even trigger the initial one in the first place because you DIDN'T move! (changing your mind isn't a move!!)
Pretty sure we've hammered out how it is not, to my own initial dismay, a paradox. The OA itself is, for all intents and purposes, provoked before the creature actually crosses the 5ft line. An Opportunity Attack is a special kind of reaction which resolves itself before the creature finishes their triggering action, rather than immediately after as most reaction abilities dictate. It's perfectly reasonable to envision a scenario in which a creature turns its back to run away, gets hit with an attack as a result of opening their guard, and then decides to stay engaged in the same square. I just think there should be a high bar for such a scenario to be believable. Otherwise, yeah, it's meta AF.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If a creature has already made a calculated decision to incur an OA in exchange for getting away from a character, they've inherently decided that risking damage is worth the benefit of moving away, and there needs to be a high bar for altering that decision post-OA.
Just wanted to address this bit, since I otherwise agree with your post. Taking into consideration we're talking about a spell, if the caster is not a "gish", but is rather a "pure" caster, it is entirely reasonable to move away, incurring an OA, thinking the attack will be insignificant (pure casters are not generally known for being good at hitting things with weapons), but to then rethink your decision when the OA turns out to be somewhat less than insignificant. That would certainly be compounded by recognizing Booming Blade, but even if you didn't, taking one or more d8's in damage on top of the expected d4 or d6 (assuming dagger or quarterstaff as the "traditional" pure caster weapons) is probably enough to re-consider your decision.
If a creature has already made a calculated decision to incur an OA in exchange for getting away from a character, they've inherently decided that risking damage is worth the benefit of moving away, and there needs to be a high bar for altering that decision post-OA.
Just wanted to address this bit, since I otherwise agree with your post. Taking into consideration we're talking about a spell, if the caster is not a "gish", but is rather a "pure" caster, it is entirely reasonable to move away, incurring an OA, thinking the attack will be insignificant (pure casters are not generally known for being good at hitting things with weapons), but to then rethink your decision when the OA turns out to be somewhat less than insignificant. That would certainly be compounded by recognizing Booming Blade, but even if you didn't, taking one or more d8's in damage on top of the expected d4 or d6 (assuming dagger or quarterstaff as the "traditional" pure caster weapons) is probably enough to re-consider your decision.
Yup, and that's where the bar is--would it be reasonable for this creature to reevaluate the decision-making process they've already evaluated prior to the OA? Without knowing for a fact that they are now under the effect of BB, or having seen & understood exactly what happened when another creature moved after being affected by the same "unknown" spell effect, I'd lean toward it probably not being reasonable. Without that info, for all the creature knows, they might think they'll take more damage if they don't keep moving away.
Ultimately, this type of situation is just going to come down to how good the DM is. A DM that metas encounters isn't any fun, yet a DM that ignores things that a creature could know isn't any fun either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If a creature has already made a calculated decision to incur an OA in exchange for getting away from a character, they've inherently decided that risking damage is worth the benefit of moving away, and there needs to be a high bar for altering that decision post-OA.
Just wanted to address this bit, since I otherwise agree with your post. Taking into consideration we're talking about a spell, if the caster is not a "gish", but is rather a "pure" caster, it is entirely reasonable to move away, incurring an OA, thinking the attack will be insignificant (pure casters are not generally known for being good at hitting things with weapons), but to then rethink your decision when the OA turns out to be somewhat less than insignificant. That would certainly be compounded by recognizing Booming Blade, but even if you didn't, taking one or more d8's in damage on top of the expected d4 or d6 (assuming dagger or quarterstaff as the "traditional" pure caster weapons) is probably enough to re-consider your decision.
Yup, and that's where the bar is--would it be reasonable for this creature to reevaluate the decision-making process they've already evaluated prior to the OA? Without knowing for a fact that they are now under the effect of BB, or having seen & understood exactly what happened when another creature moved after being affected by the same "unknown" spell effect, I'd lean toward it probably not being reasonable. Without that info, for all the creature knows, they might think they'll take more damage if they don't keep moving away.
Ultimately, this type of situation is just going to come down to how good the DM is. A DM that metas encounters isn't any fun, yet a DM that ignores things that a creature could know isn't any fun either.
Again, I agree with you, generally speaking, although I think we could come to different conclusions given a specific situation (which is certainly fine, I'm not arguing otherwise!). For example, a "dumb" creature might move away from a caster, considering them weak and not a threat, but might decide to stay and fight them if hit unexpectedly hard by an OA. I'm not saying you're wrong, mostly because I don't think you are. Just suggesting that the thought process / reasoning we both agree on can come to different conclusions.
If a creature has already made a calculated decision to incur an OA in exchange for getting away from a character, they've inherently decided that risking damage is worth the benefit of moving away, and there needs to be a high bar for altering that decision post-OA.
Just wanted to address this bit, since I otherwise agree with your post. Taking into consideration we're talking about a spell, if the caster is not a "gish", but is rather a "pure" caster, it is entirely reasonable to move away, incurring an OA, thinking the attack will be insignificant (pure casters are not generally known for being good at hitting things with weapons), but to then rethink your decision when the OA turns out to be somewhat less than insignificant. That would certainly be compounded by recognizing Booming Blade, but even if you didn't, taking one or more d8's in damage on top of the expected d4 or d6 (assuming dagger or quarterstaff as the "traditional" pure caster weapons) is probably enough to re-consider your decision.
Yup, and that's where the bar is--would it be reasonable for this creature to reevaluate the decision-making process they've already evaluated prior to the OA? Without knowing for a fact that they are now under the effect of BB, or having seen & understood exactly what happened when another creature moved after being affected by the same "unknown" spell effect, I'd lean toward it probably not being reasonable. Without that info, for all the creature knows, they might think they'll take more damage if they don't keep moving away.
Ultimately, this type of situation is just going to come down to how good the DM is. A DM that metas encounters isn't any fun, yet a DM that ignores things that a creature could know isn't any fun either.
Again, I agree with you, generally speaking, although I think we could come to different conclusions given a specific situation (which is certainly fine, I'm not arguing otherwise!). For example, a "dumb" creature might move away from a caster, considering them weak and not a threat, but might decide to stay and fight them if hit unexpectedly hard by an OA. I'm not saying you're wrong, mostly because I don't think you are. Just suggesting that the thought process / reasoning we both agree on can come to different conclusions.
I'm not saying you're wrong either. I believe we agree on the underlying concept.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Not sure if it was mentioned or not but to save my self from 5 pages of comments lol.
Say the target is already under the effects of booming blade. So its already has the damaging energy on it. the creature decides to move thus instantly setting off booming blade damage. If I have war caster right after it takes the damage because it decided to move and i use my attack of op to use booming blade again. Shouldn't it take another set of movement damage since its still moving?
Not sure if it was mentioned or not but to save my self from 5 pages of comments lol.
Say the target is already under the effects of booming blade. So its already has the damaging energy on it. the creature decides to move thus instantly setting off booming blade damage. If I have war caster right after it takes the damage because it decided to move and i use my attack of op to use booming blade again. Shouldn't it take another set of movement damage since its still moving?
Correct.
They start moving - the old Booming Blade booms.
They leave your reach - provoking an opportunity attack - you apply Booming Blade.
They're still moving - they go boom again.
The main discussion in this thread is around point 3: Whether the enemy can choose to stop running because they know the effect will hurt if they continue to move. It's especially an issue in this instance because they've already been hurt by it once and know what to expect.
Not sure if it was mentioned or not but to save my self from 5 pages of comments lol.
Say the target is already under the effects of booming blade. So its already has the damaging energy on it. the creature decides to move thus instantly setting off booming blade damage. If I have war caster right after it takes the damage because it decided to move and i use my attack of op to use booming blade again. Shouldn't it take another set of movement damage since its still moving?
Correct.
They start moving - the old Booming Blade booms.
They leave your reach - provoking an opportunity attack - you apply Booming Blade.
They're still moving - they go boom again.
The main discussion in this thread is around point 3: Whether the enemy can choose to stop running because they know the effect will hurt if they continue to move. It's especially an issue in this instance because they've already been hurt by it once and know what to expect.
I would have to disagree. Opportunity attacks specifically occur before their trigger. The trigger is moving/using movement. The trigger for booming blade is (mostly) the same. So the order should be:
They choose/start to move out of reach
Provoke opportunity attack (sub spell or not)
They move and go boom once.
As you say, some debate on point 3 as to whether they can choose to not move after taking the attack.
Yea - I suppose that's true DxJxC. I had it in mind that opportunity attacks are reactions and therefore happen after. But no - opportunity attacks are a special case. These rules can really be a mess sometimes.
Once a creature chooses to move out of reach, provoking an opportunity attack, they must accept the consequence of that attack whether it hits or misses before finishing their move. The effect of booming blade is one of those consequences. Since the creature has already decided to move out of reach they cannot take it back. If they could they negate not only the effect of booming blade, but the entire opportunity attack as well. Not knowing that an opponent can use booming blade on you that way intil they do it is part of the game. Taking back your move after the consequence is revealed is meta gaming.
By that logic the sentinel feat negates itself.
The state of the of the game has changed. The creature can't undo the opportunity attack (or spell in this case), but it can change the decisions it made before the attack based on new information. It isn't metagaming or avoiding consequences, it already got hit by the spell and can't change that, but it can change what it hasn't done yet (move). It doesn't become locked in to taking extra damage from an effect it wasn't under when it first decided to move.
I see your point of view, but disagree. Sentinel has a very specific rule forcing the opponent to stop. It would be meta for the opponent to say "oh, you have sentinel? I change my mind." But, that's my 2c and also why there is a such thing as house rules. The house rule I compare this to is removing your hand from your chess piece, constituting a decision.In dnd, which frequently has no pieces, the same rule can be applied once consequences start appearing. DM's choice in PvE how to do this, but in PvP better to have the house rule clearly stated before battle.
I agree, that is metagaming if you try to change your decisions to undo consequences already incurred. But it is not metagaming to change actions you haven't taken yet to prevent further consequences that have not occurred yet.
The consequences that have already happened are you took damage from an attack and are now under the effect of booming blade, and you cant undo these. But you have not yet taken the booming blade damage from moving, so you can change your future actions to prevent future consequences. The rules don't say you can't do this, and is why I chose this answer after starting this thread.
The secondary affect of booming blade happens after willing movement. "...and it [target] becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
This is the core set of events that give meaning to "willingly moves" within the context of the spell and not:
The condition to trigger the secondary effect is willing movement after the spell has laded. If the argument is that the target is forced to continue onto the next square, that is that the target has no choice but to continue to the next square before she can decide to stop moving, then that is not willing movement.
Either, the target must have the option of stopping in the current square, or the target is not willingly moving into the next square.
So: a or b
a) the target can choose to stop.
b) the target moves, had no choice but to continue to the next square, and the secondary effect is not triggered.
I would have no problem with either interpretation but my preference would be "a)" because the target would need to decide between either continue to move, the act of the decision being the necessary precondition for willing movement, or to stop within range. An interesting game is comprised of an interesting sequence of choices and consequences.
The target can be a PC. Imagine a PC at your table, one who has invested in war caster and booming blade, who decided to move out of range and allows an OA. She is hit with a booming blade, now tell her she has no choice but to continue to move out of the square and she must also take the secondary damage. She does understand exactly what has taken place, she is not a low INT naive NPC who is not competent to make an informed choice.
Babe Bladesinger: "I am moving out" and she start to move her miniature.
DM: "you have provoked an opportunity attack" --- roles for nasty NPC wizard --- "a hit. You are sheathed in a booming energy field. You take 4 points of slashing damage."
Babe Bladesinger: "oh shit .... I guess it's my turn to be on the receiving end. ... must I continue moving to the next square?"
DM: "That's your choice."
or
DM: "Yes you must [roles 1d8] take 7 thunder damage" ...
This player has invested heavily in a set of skills and should have both the opportunity to benefit when using her investment for offense and when she is the recipient of the same. I certainly don't want to spend half an hour discussing whether or not she willingly moved to the next square after she was hit by what she clearly understands was a Booming Blade. Not at the table. Option "a)" let's her decide between two consequences.
I want a chair at that table.
Welcome to the forums.
EDIT to add content: It's very straightforward. The weapon presumably has 5' reach. If you are over 5' away, then weapon cannot reach you. Therefore, the attack comes while you are in the process of moving away, but before you are out of reach. Since the attack happens before you actually move away, you can change your mind after the attack and decide you don't want to move away after all.
Whether you have the presence of mind to stop or whether your mind gives you any reason to stop is another question entirely.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I've come around to the idea of not being forced to continue moving after being hit by an OA, yet this is the question that still troubles me. An affected creature does not inherently know everything about magical effects that are affecting them. They know about things as they occur. They might know they're being affected by something, but not that they've been hit by Booming Blade, nor would they inherently know that they will be damaged by moving (the trigger). They need to make a skill check, already know the spell, or some other plausible condition to identify that level of detail. Without that, a creature would know they are still under a magical effect, but with no indication about what the effect is, or what triggers it.
That gets to one underlying issue in this thread: believable roleplaying. As a DM, the combat decisions your creatures make should be based on what is believable for the creature. A martial spellcasting creature knowing exactly what BB is & does is believable. Having that creature choose to not continue moving after being hit is believable; they would reasonably know what would happen if they did. A small band of bandits might have that knowledge, or might be more likely to understand when they see it. A panoply of monstrous races, beasts, low-intelligence humanoids, etc are unlikely to have that information, and even less likely to alter their decisions based on it.
If a creature has already made a calculated decision to incur an OA in exchange for getting away from a character, they've inherently decided that risking damage is worth the benefit of moving away, and there needs to be a high bar for altering that decision post-OA.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I agree entirely. I'm just saying the possibility to stop exists. Whether a creature would realize they need to is another thing entirely--and probably pretty unlikely most of the time. I also agree that it's the job of a responsible DM (or player) to play this in a way that suits the situation and the parties involved.
A goblin who decided to run and gets whacked by an OA in the process might be twice as likely to run away, thereby triggering the spell's secondary effect. An enemy spellcaster who also uses booming blade might be more likely to be familiar with the spell's secondary effects and might decide they don't want the additional damage. A creature who was thinking bout repositioning themself on the battlefield might get hit and say, "You know what, screw this guy I'm gonna stay here and kick his ass!" and decide against moving away without ever even knowing what booming blade is.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I don't think the question (on this thread) is whether a target (character or NPC or monster) knows about the booming blade lightning sheathe and whether they know to move or not. (I actually told my DM that the target is sheathed in lightning, not telling him anything else then ran away. He decided to chase me and took damage.. now the DM 'knows' -- haven't used since though). Obviously, the intellect of a target and their arcana knowledge would affect if they know the spell off the bat or whether it's the 3rd time that it got hit with it and now even the stupid goblin/wolf now knows better..
I think the ENTIRE 5 stupid pages in this thread is whether a monster who allows an OA attack on them and instead of a regular mace whack, gets sheathed in lightning instead, can the monster NOW choose to stop moving, whether he knows about the spell or not...
Based on the rules of 5e, yes, there is no 'momentum' rules but it is PURE metagaming AND a paradox if you decide not to continue moving. You triggered an OA, BY MOVING IN THE FIRST PLACE, according to the RULES of a turn, it ALL happens SIMULTANEOUSLY. If you decide NOT to move then you wouldn't trigger the OA OR the booming blade in the first place either. You can decide to stop using all of your movement AFTER the initial 5' space but if you don't move to trigger the aftereffect than that means you *shouldn't* even trigger the initial one in the first place because you DIDN'T move! (changing your mind isn't a move!!)
You can move without triggering the secondary effect. That has been abundantly established. It's only triggered when you change locations.
And for the record, I don't think these have been five stupid pages at all. I think this has been a pretty interesting discussion of the nature of the mechanics involved in the process.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Pretty sure we've hammered out how it is not, to my own initial dismay, a paradox. The OA itself is, for all intents and purposes, provoked before the creature actually crosses the 5ft line. An Opportunity Attack is a special kind of reaction which resolves itself before the creature finishes their triggering action, rather than immediately after as most reaction abilities dictate. It's perfectly reasonable to envision a scenario in which a creature turns its back to run away, gets hit with an attack as a result of opening their guard, and then decides to stay engaged in the same square. I just think there should be a high bar for such a scenario to be believable. Otherwise, yeah, it's meta AF.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Just wanted to address this bit, since I otherwise agree with your post. Taking into consideration we're talking about a spell, if the caster is not a "gish", but is rather a "pure" caster, it is entirely reasonable to move away, incurring an OA, thinking the attack will be insignificant (pure casters are not generally known for being good at hitting things with weapons), but to then rethink your decision when the OA turns out to be somewhat less than insignificant. That would certainly be compounded by recognizing Booming Blade, but even if you didn't, taking one or more d8's in damage on top of the expected d4 or d6 (assuming dagger or quarterstaff as the "traditional" pure caster weapons) is probably enough to re-consider your decision.
Yup, and that's where the bar is--would it be reasonable for this creature to reevaluate the decision-making process they've already evaluated prior to the OA? Without knowing for a fact that they are now under the effect of BB, or having seen & understood exactly what happened when another creature moved after being affected by the same "unknown" spell effect, I'd lean toward it probably not being reasonable. Without that info, for all the creature knows, they might think they'll take more damage if they don't keep moving away.
Ultimately, this type of situation is just going to come down to how good the DM is. A DM that metas encounters isn't any fun, yet a DM that ignores things that a creature could know isn't any fun either.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Again, I agree with you, generally speaking, although I think we could come to different conclusions given a specific situation (which is certainly fine, I'm not arguing otherwise!). For example, a "dumb" creature might move away from a caster, considering them weak and not a threat, but might decide to stay and fight them if hit unexpectedly hard by an OA. I'm not saying you're wrong, mostly because I don't think you are. Just suggesting that the thought process / reasoning we both agree on can come to different conclusions.
I'm not saying you're wrong either. I believe we agree on the underlying concept.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Not sure if it was mentioned or not but to save my self from 5 pages of comments lol.
Say the target is already under the effects of booming blade. So its already has the damaging energy on it. the creature decides to move thus instantly setting off booming blade damage. If I have war caster right after it takes the damage because it decided to move and i use my attack of op to use booming blade again. Shouldn't it take another set of movement damage since its still moving?
Correct.
The main discussion in this thread is around point 3: Whether the enemy can choose to stop running because they know the effect will hurt if they continue to move. It's especially an issue in this instance because they've already been hurt by it once and know what to expect.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I would have to disagree. Opportunity attacks specifically occur before their trigger. The trigger is moving/using movement. The trigger for booming blade is (mostly) the same. So the order should be:
As you say, some debate on point 3 as to whether they can choose to not move after taking the attack.
It's so much easier if you just say they happen at the same time.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yea - I suppose that's true DxJxC. I had it in mind that opportunity attacks are reactions and therefore happen after. But no - opportunity attacks are a special case. These rules can really be a mess sometimes.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).