I have a fighter (EK) who cast Booming Blade on a shadow who was then successfully turned by the party cleric. I was thinking the fighter couldn't willingly end the Booming Blade effect (since it isn't a concentration spell) so as soon as it tries to run from the Turn Undead, the Turn Undead will end. I just want to make sure I am being fair here.
Is there anything that says spells without concentration duration, but also not instantaneous, can be willfully ended out of turn?
The fighter cannot willingly end booming blade once it is activated on the target, so you're right about that one. But a turned undead is compelled to move away from the cleric, so I'm not sure if that would trigger the spell's "willing movement requirement. The wording of turn undead makes it seem like the creature has some say in the route it takes away from the cleric, but it also says, "A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can," which is pretty much the opposite definition from willing movement.
The way you tell forced movement from "forced" movement is if the target uses its own speed to move. A blast effect would move the target but wouldn't trigger any move effects, same with being grappled and dragged, or a spell like infestation that forces a move instantly but doesn't burn a reaction for them to do so. Fear effects that require you to spend your turn running away do trigger those movement effects, being irrationally afraid and running away recklessly is not the same as being pushed.
The way you tell forced movement from "forced" movement is if the target uses its own speed to move.
This is exactly the clarification was looking for. Can you tell me what page you saw that on?
There is a semi related Sage Advice that talks about opportunity attacks here (second question). The same essential rules apply to the movement that triggers booming blade's damage (in regards to willingness).
Would you say this is relevant? Or do you feel that dissonant whispers is different enough that the same would not apply to turn undead?
That is contrary to other (more recent) rulings and didn't make it into the SAC (which contains all the advice they decided to keep official and the rest are just unofficial suggestions).
I don't think this is entirely clear, but I would differentiate at least three categories of movement to help clarify these situations:
Willing - you choose to use your movement, action, or reaction to move. These provoke opportunity attacks (and similarly worded abilities) and effects that require willing movement.
Unwilling - you use your movement, action, or reaction to move as required by some other effect such as dissonant whispers. These provoke opportunity attacks but not effects requiring willing movement.
Forced/teleport effects - you move without using any of those actions from effects such as thorn whip. These provoke neither opportunity attacks or effects that require willing movement.
There is no definition of "willing" in the rules, so I'd say that if you're not given a choice then you aren't willing. I realize that this is not the language that the PHB uses, but the use of words like "willing" in some effects and not in others indicates that there is a difference. As a reasonable human being I'd have difficulty calling movement that you are required to take as willing.
Edit: added teleportation effects.
Edit 2: I guess teleportation effect are similar enough to forced movement effects.
That is contrary to other (more recent) rulings and didn't make it into the SAC (which contains all the advice they decided to keep official and the rest are just unofficial suggestions).
I want to be clear that I'm not saying you are wrong because I cannot point to RAW to say I'm right. That being said, this is a hard sell for me for four reasons:
RAW is ambiguous on willing movement. The discussion about using speed to move might settle it, but I'm still looking for where that is defined as willing.
I take you point in your OA example, but without diverting too far into OA, nothing about OA depends on the will of the creature moving--only that it moves rather than being moved.
To each DM their own ruling. I prefer to keep it simple:
Willing: creature moves itself using movement, action, reaction, etc. Fear, or effects that coerce this movement don't matter. Triggers Opportunity attacks, booming blade, etc.
Unwilling: creature is moved by an effect. Push and teleport effects, etc. Does not trigger opportunity attacks or booming blade.
So the distinction comes down to whether moving under your own power equals willing movement. I really don't have an answer for that one, other than I never thought of it that way.
It is interesting to note perhaps that attacks of opportunity and booming blade have different wording.
In an attack of opportunity, all that is required to trigger the attack is that the creature move using its own movement. The rules say nothing about whether that movement is willing or not only that it uses its movement and is not moved by some other means.
"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 interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."
In this case the only requirement is movement and whether or not the creature is moving willingly does not matter as long as it is the creature that is moving. As a result, movement due to dissonant whispers, a fear spell, being turned or any number of other effects would trigger an opportunity attack.
However, the booming blade cantrip is worded differently.
"If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
Unfortunately, "willingly" is not defined.
Looking at the text of turn undead.
"A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can't willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you."
Saying that an undead can't willingly move within 30 feet of you could imply that moving anywhere else is considered "willing" movement. The undead just wants to get as far away as possible from the creature who turned it. They very much "willingly" want to do so :). The only thing they won't willingly do is move within 30 feet of the person who turned them.
Is a creature under the effect of a charm spell willingly assisting you? At the point in time when they are helping you they certainly consider themselves willing even if later they realize they were being influenced to assist you. On the other hand, looking at it from an outside perspective, either the undead or the charmed person are acting under duress being influenced by a magical effect which affects the actions that they choose to willingly take.
If you hit a dominated creature with booming blade and they decide to move? Is it willing? Certainly the dominated creature is being forced to move against their will but the intelligence in charge is willingly moving.
In the end, I think there is a good case to be made, that when under the effect of a magic spell that alters how the creature sees the world around them, then they are still making their own decisions and willingly taking the resulting actions even if the magic has altered their choices from what they would normally take (i.e. trying to flee instead of attacking).
However, if a DM decided that since the creature is under the effect of a spell, then their actions aren't willing, then that could be justified as well though in that case, a dominated creature would be immune to booming blade's movement effects since their movement would never be willing under that interpretation.
To each DM their own ruling. I prefer to keep it simple:
Willing: creature moves itself using movement, action, reaction, etc. Fear, or effects that coerce this movement don't matter. Triggers Opportunity attacks, booming blade, etc.
Unwilling: creature is moved by an effect. Push and teleport effects, etc. Does not trigger opportunity attacks or booming blade.
Yeah, that definition of willing doesn't sit well with me. I mean, we are talking about a game after all, but you can't do something willingly if you are coerced or incapable of objecting. That definition sounds too much like "she didn't say no."
If the movement of a turned undead creature was willing, then any turned undead creature 20 feet or closer to a cleric would be unable to move at all, since even moving away from the cleric would put it within 30 feet of the cleric, which the rules specifically say it cannot do willingly. If it can't move at all, then it doesn't have to worry about booming blade :) The obvious solution here is to say that this movement is compelled and therefore not willing.
If the movement of a turned undead creature was willing, then any turned undead creature 20 feet or closer to a cleric would be unable to move at all, since even moving away from the cleric would put it within 30 feet of the cleric, which the rules specifically say it cannot do willingly. If it can't move at all, then it doesn't have to worry about booming blade :) The obvious solution here is to say that this movement is compelled and therefore not willing.
(and no, I'm not serious about this. Well, I mean it does support my position, but no. Just no)
Dude the wording clearly means it cant end its move closer than 30ft of the cleric.
Since there is no direct definition of unwilling movement in the books, the only instance that fits the description is forced movement. 5th edition is all about simplifying the rules and you are here trying to make things more complicated than they have to be. Spells have specific writing in them to assume wither or not the movement they cause has additional consequences, if it says they dont you can safely assume its unwilling movement. It also reduces the use case for many spells that only have an affect when the target moves if you subdivide the effects that compel movement using an unwritten rule.
While Crawford is a window into RAI, if it has been years and no movement on errata then you could probably assume he sat down with the team and decided against his definition. Unearthed Arcana is also a window into these things but often get changed or abandoned without being published.
Yeah, that definition of willing doesn't sit well with me. I mean, we are talking about a game after all, but you can't do something willingly if you are coerced or incapable of objecting. That definition sounds too much like "she didn't say no."
As for this, it is such a bad faith argument to equate non-consensual sex to the other side of a discussion that has nothing to do with it. Its a slimy way to get people to agree with you by subconsciously associating one side of an argument with something repugnant.
To each DM their own ruling. I prefer to keep it simple:
Willing: creature moves itself using movement, action, reaction, etc. Fear, or effects that coerce this movement don't matter. Triggers Opportunity attacks, booming blade, etc.
Unwilling: creature is moved by an effect. Push and teleport effects, etc. Does not trigger opportunity attacks or booming blade.
Yeah, that definition of willing doesn't sit well with me. I mean, we are talking about a game after all, but you can't do something willingly if you are coerced or incapable of objecting. That definition sounds too much like "she didn't say no."
Well we are talking about game rules not laws. They are supposed to have clearly defined logical restrictions (most of which have to be determined by the DMs since the devs couldn't be bothered), and not have to worry about semantics and grey areas.
And it isn't a "they didn't say no" justification, it is more of a "they said yes at the time" justification. Which still isn't the best in law, but in a game rule situation where moving willingly means taking damage and the target thinks they are moving willingly even if they are being influenced, then they take damage, because the spell doesn't care about semantics and grey areas.
Well we are talking about game rules not laws. They are supposed to have clearly defined logical restrictions (most of which have to be determined by the DMs since the devs couldn't be bothered), and not have to worry about semantics and grey areas.
And it isn't a "they didn't say no" justification, it is more of a "they said yes at the time" justification. Which still isn't the best in law, but in a game rule situation where moving willingly means taking damage and the target thinks they are moving willingly even if they are being influenced, then they take damage, because the spell doesn't care about semantics and grey areas.
Your argument has mechanical merit, and especially considering the point that David42 brought up -- long term enchantment or control effects. It certainly simplifies things. I just would again point out the difference in the wording that triggers booming blade vs opportunity attacks: movement vs willing movement. If the books (or even SA) came out and said that using any of your available actions to move is considered willing movement, then this discussion would be over. The books leave it unclear.
I would say any effects that don't necessarily mention movement might be treated as willing movement under your "at the time" argument (because the creature still has the freedom to at least decide whether or not to move), but any effect that requires your movement would still be treated as unwilling (no choice on movement = not willing movement). I would also say that a long term control effect certainly does preclude certain types of consent.
Dude the wording clearly means it cant end its move closer than 30ft of the cleric.
The rules use the phrase "cannot end its movement..." in other places in the rules when talking about where a creature can end its movement (as opposed to where it can pass when it moves). A turned undead that starts 30' away cannot move 25' away to go around a wall, even if it continues moving to end 35' away.
As for this, it is such a bad faith argument to equate non-consensual sex to the other side of a discussion that has nothing to do with it. Its a slimy way to get people to agree with you by subconsciously associating one side of an argument with something repugnant.
If we are talking about coerced actions then by definition they are without consent. Arguing that anyone incapable of consent is still willing is repugnant -- no matter why. Most enchantment magic can turn quite repugnant very quickly. Maybe it was a poor choice of examples, but I still wouldn't say one can sign a contract willingly with a gun to their head, or any other number of examples of coercion.
I'd interpret willing here same way as for opportunity attacks - making the distinction between the creature moving using its movement, and the creature being shoved, pulled, or blown by an explosion. It's the difference between "moving" and "being moved"
The need for this wording comes from the fact that in D&D, being pushed, pulled, or thrown tends to use the same verb "move", so you need to distinguish moving under the creature's own power vs something else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a fighter (EK) who cast Booming Blade on a shadow who was then successfully turned by the party cleric. I was thinking the fighter couldn't willingly end the Booming Blade effect (since it isn't a concentration spell) so as soon as it tries to run from the Turn Undead, the Turn Undead will end. I just want to make sure I am being fair here.
Is there anything that says spells without concentration duration, but also not instantaneous, can be willfully ended out of turn?
That ruling sounds fair. It is unfortunate for the party, but they should have coordinated better.
The fighter cannot willingly end booming blade once it is activated on the target, so you're right about that one. But a turned undead is compelled to move away from the cleric, so I'm not sure if that would trigger the spell's "willing movement requirement. The wording of turn undead makes it seem like the creature has some say in the route it takes away from the cleric, but it also says, "A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can," which is pretty much the opposite definition from willing movement.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The way you tell forced movement from "forced" movement is if the target uses its own speed to move. A blast effect would move the target but wouldn't trigger any move effects, same with being grappled and dragged, or a spell like infestation that forces a move instantly but doesn't burn a reaction for them to do so. Fear effects that require you to spend your turn running away do trigger those movement effects, being irrationally afraid and running away recklessly is not the same as being pushed.
This is exactly the clarification was looking for. Can you tell me what page you saw that on?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is a semi related Sage Advice that talks about opportunity attacks here (second question). The same essential rules apply to the movement that triggers booming blade's damage (in regards to willingness).
Would you say this is relevant? Or do you feel that dissonant whispers is different enough that the same would not apply to turn undead?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That is contrary to other (more recent) rulings and didn't make it into the SAC (which contains all the advice they decided to keep official and the rest are just unofficial suggestions).
I don't think this is entirely clear, but I would differentiate at least three categories of movement to help clarify these situations:
There is no definition of "willing" in the rules, so I'd say that if you're not given a choice then you aren't willing. I realize that this is not the language that the PHB uses, but the use of words like "willing" in some effects and not in others indicates that there is a difference. As a reasonable human being I'd have difficulty calling movement that you are required to take as willing.
Edit: added teleportation effects.
Edit 2: I guess teleportation effect are similar enough to forced movement effects.
I want to be clear that I'm not saying you are wrong because I cannot point to RAW to say I'm right. That being said, this is a hard sell for me for four reasons:
These are the reasons I conclude that the movement of turned undead would not trigger booming blade and I feel that it's a pretty solid case.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This argument has merit on both sides, and by all means continue...this is exactly the kind of help I hope for when I come here.
Personally, at my table and just to move on with my game, I went with the SAC guidance as authority.
To each DM their own ruling. I prefer to keep it simple:
So the distinction comes down to whether moving under your own power equals willing movement. I really don't have an answer for that one, other than I never thought of it that way.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It is interesting to note perhaps that attacks of opportunity and booming blade have different wording.
In an attack of opportunity, all that is required to trigger the attack is that the creature move using its own movement. The rules say nothing about whether that movement is willing or not only that it uses its movement and is not moved by some other means.
"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 interrupts the provoking creature's movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."
In this case the only requirement is movement and whether or not the creature is moving willingly does not matter as long as it is the creature that is moving. As a result, movement due to dissonant whispers, a fear spell, being turned or any number of other effects would trigger an opportunity attack.
However, the booming blade cantrip is worded differently.
"If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends."
Unfortunately, "willingly" is not defined.
Looking at the text of turn undead.
"A turned creature must spend its turns trying to move as far away from you as it can, and it can't willingly move to a space within 30 feet of you."
Saying that an undead can't willingly move within 30 feet of you could imply that moving anywhere else is considered "willing" movement. The undead just wants to get as far away as possible from the creature who turned it. They very much "willingly" want to do so :). The only thing they won't willingly do is move within 30 feet of the person who turned them.
Is a creature under the effect of a charm spell willingly assisting you? At the point in time when they are helping you they certainly consider themselves willing even if later they realize they were being influenced to assist you. On the other hand, looking at it from an outside perspective, either the undead or the charmed person are acting under duress being influenced by a magical effect which affects the actions that they choose to willingly take.
If you hit a dominated creature with booming blade and they decide to move? Is it willing? Certainly the dominated creature is being forced to move against their will but the intelligence in charge is willingly moving.
In the end, I think there is a good case to be made, that when under the effect of a magic spell that alters how the creature sees the world around them, then they are still making their own decisions and willingly taking the resulting actions even if the magic has altered their choices from what they would normally take (i.e. trying to flee instead of attacking).
However, if a DM decided that since the creature is under the effect of a spell, then their actions aren't willing, then that could be justified as well though in that case, a dominated creature would be immune to booming blade's movement effects since their movement would never be willing under that interpretation.
Yeah, that definition of willing doesn't sit well with me. I mean, we are talking about a game after all, but you can't do something willingly if you are coerced or incapable of objecting. That definition sounds too much like "she didn't say no."
If the movement of a turned undead creature was willing, then any turned undead creature 20 feet or closer to a cleric would be unable to move at all, since even moving away from the cleric would put it within 30 feet of the cleric, which the rules specifically say it cannot do willingly. If it can't move at all, then it doesn't have to worry about booming blade :) The obvious solution here is to say that this movement is compelled and therefore not willing.
Yeah that's pretty absurd, but reddit thrives on absurdity.
(and no, I'm not serious about this. Well, I mean it does support my position, but no. Just no)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Dude the wording clearly means it cant end its move closer than 30ft of the cleric.
Since there is no direct definition of unwilling movement in the books, the only instance that fits the description is forced movement. 5th edition is all about simplifying the rules and you are here trying to make things more complicated than they have to be. Spells have specific writing in them to assume wither or not the movement they cause has additional consequences, if it says they dont you can safely assume its unwilling movement. It also reduces the use case for many spells that only have an affect when the target moves if you subdivide the effects that compel movement using an unwritten rule.
While Crawford is a window into RAI, if it has been years and no movement on errata then you could probably assume he sat down with the team and decided against his definition. Unearthed Arcana is also a window into these things but often get changed or abandoned without being published.
As for this, it is such a bad faith argument to equate non-consensual sex to the other side of a discussion that has nothing to do with it. Its a slimy way to get people to agree with you by subconsciously associating one side of an argument with something repugnant.
Well we are talking about game rules not laws. They are supposed to have clearly defined logical restrictions (most of which have to be determined by the DMs since the devs couldn't be bothered), and not have to worry about semantics and grey areas.
And it isn't a "they didn't say no" justification, it is more of a "they said yes at the time" justification. Which still isn't the best in law, but in a game rule situation where moving willingly means taking damage and the target thinks they are moving willingly even if they are being influenced, then they take damage, because the spell doesn't care about semantics and grey areas.
Your argument has mechanical merit, and especially considering the point that David42 brought up -- long term enchantment or control effects. It certainly simplifies things. I just would again point out the difference in the wording that triggers booming blade vs opportunity attacks: movement vs willing movement. If the books (or even SA) came out and said that using any of your available actions to move is considered willing movement, then this discussion would be over. The books leave it unclear.
I would say any effects that don't necessarily mention movement might be treated as willing movement under your "at the time" argument (because the creature still has the freedom to at least decide whether or not to move), but any effect that requires your movement would still be treated as unwilling (no choice on movement = not willing movement). I would also say that a long term control effect certainly does preclude certain types of consent.
The rules use the phrase "cannot end its movement..." in other places in the rules when talking about where a creature can end its movement (as opposed to where it can pass when it moves). A turned undead that starts 30' away cannot move 25' away to go around a wall, even if it continues moving to end 35' away.
If we are talking about coerced actions then by definition they are without consent. Arguing that anyone incapable of consent is still willing is repugnant -- no matter why. Most enchantment magic can turn quite repugnant very quickly. Maybe it was a poor choice of examples, but I still wouldn't say one can sign a contract willingly with a gun to their head, or any other number of examples of coercion.
I'd interpret willing here same way as for opportunity attacks - making the distinction between the creature moving using its movement, and the creature being shoved, pulled, or blown by an explosion. It's the difference between "moving" and "being moved"
The need for this wording comes from the fact that in D&D, being pushed, pulled, or thrown tends to use the same verb "move", so you need to distinguish moving under the creature's own power vs something else.