The movement continues unless the person who took the opportunity attack is using the Sentinel feat (or other similar ability) - and only because it specifically says it drops their speed to 0 for the turn.
The character whose movement provoked the attack of opportunity always has the option to stop their movement voluntarily, but they're only forced to stop if the attacker has Sentinel, as Emmber says.
Well, not only if they have sentinel. Any condition they may get from the attack that drops speed to 0 also stops them. But it is all in the same vein of answers.
If the attack is successful does the movement continue or is it stopped
The creature being attacked can always stop moving after being hit if they choose. They're only forced to if the attacker has an ability like Sentinel or Hold The Line that says the target's movement speed drops to 0 if they're hit with an Opportunity Attack. So for example if you have the War Caster feat and someone walks away from you, you decide to use your reaction to cast Booming Blade. If it hits, the target can stop moving and avoid the secondary damage if they choose to. Of course, if they're suffering the effect of an ability that requires them to keep using their movement, like an undead who's been turned, then things are gonna suck for them :)
The creature being attacked can always stop moving after being hit if they choose. They're only forced to if the attacker has an ability like Sentinel or Hold The Line that says the target's movement speed drops to 0 if they're hit with an Opportunity Attack. So for example if you have the War Caster feat and someone walks away from you, you decide to use your reaction to cast Booming Blade. If it hits, the target can stop moving and avoid the secondary damage if they choose to. Of course, if they're suffering the effect of an ability that requires them to keep using their movement, like an undead who's been turned, then things are gonna suck for them :)
Booming Blade requires willing movement, so a turned undead would not trigger the secondary effect if compelled to move. To keep this in the context of the OP, an opportunity attack does not require willing movement--only movement under one's own power, so a turned undead would definitely trigger an OA by being compelled to walk away, but they would keep on moving afterwards unless there was something in that process that took away their movement, as has been explained above.
The creature being attacked can always stop moving after being hit if they choose. They're only forced to if the attacker has an ability like Sentinel or Hold The Line that says the target's movement speed drops to 0 if they're hit with an Opportunity Attack. So for example if you have the War Caster feat and someone walks away from you, you decide to use your reaction to cast Booming Blade. If it hits, the target can stop moving and avoid the secondary damage if they choose to. Of course, if they're suffering the effect of an ability that requires them to keep using their movement, like an undead who's been turned, then things are gonna suck for them :)
Booming Blade requires willing movement, so a turned undead would not trigger the secondary effect if compelled to move. To keep this in the context of the OP, an opportunity attack does not require willing movement--only movement under one's own power, so a turned undead would definitely trigger an OA by being compelled to walk away, but they would keep on moving afterwards unless there was something in that process that took away their movement, as has been explained above.
Not true. The secondary of Booming Blade follows the same rules as Opportunity Attacks, and it does proc off of Turn Undead.
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. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.
This is what "willing movement" is referring to. "Forced movement" is anything not requiring the creature use their own movement, action, or reaction to physically change location. Being forced to change location as a result of something like Shove, Thunderwave, Repelling Blast Invocation, etc do not trigger anything. A creature being compelled to use their move/action/reaction as a consequence of things like Turn Undead, Dissonant Whispers, Turn the Unholy, etc do trigger OAs/secondary effects when the creature moves.
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.
Uh... PHB? The only thing that has ever been referred to as "forced movement" is movement that does not require the use of the creature's movement, action, or reaction to accomplish.
Movement that does require the creature to use their own move/action/reaction, whether compelled to do so or not, is willful movement. I should be asking for a source that indicates there's any plausible reason to think otherwise.
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.
Uh... PHB? The only thing that has ever been referred to as "forced movement" is movement that does not require the use of the creature's movement, action, or reaction to accomplish.
Movement that does require the creature to use their own move/action/reaction, whether compelled to do so or not, is willful movement. I should be asking for a source that indicates there's any plausible reason to think otherwise.
Apparently, forced movement is not the opposite of willing movement. So there are 3 types of movement: being moved by something else, moving yourself because something made you, and moving yourself because you wanted to. And of course "you" refers to the player/DM. Just because the creature wanted to to move because it is afraid, enchanted, turned, or covered in bugs doesn't mean it was "willing."
Does this mean a summoned or companion creature can't proc booming blade because it only moves the way its master tells it to and is not "willing"? Maybe.
I think the confusion lies in the notion that being compelled to move is not voluntary; it is. It is also incorrect to say the distinction between willing/forced movement lies in the intention of a different creature; it doesn't.
If you are under a magical effect that makes you want to run away from a target, in your own mind, that is what you have determined to be the most important course of action. You willfully put one foot in front of the other, and run away. The same can be said about successfully intimidating a creature into moving away. Whether the rationale for making such a decision is metaphysically true or false is irrelevant--the creature believes it's true, and has made a corresponding decision on how to respond.
The only distinction between whether a creature has willingly moved or not is whether the creature has moved under its own locomotive power. If you are thrown clear of a blast, that is not willing movement. If you are physically carried by another creature (such as while grappled), that is not willing movement. If you are shoved off a cliff, that is not willing movement.
If you run away from a creature that you think is the devil, whether it's true or not, that is willing movement. If you walk of a cliff, whether you realize you'll fall or not, that is willing movement.
As you've noted, how would a spell effect even distinguish something that meta? It can't, and it doesn't. A creature that manually moves using their own movement/action/reaction has done so willingly. A creature that moves, but does not use their own movement/action/reaction to do so, has not willingly moved.
Effect that moves a creature without their movement/action/reaction: unwilling movement
Effect that moves a creature with their movement/action/reaction: willing movement
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 that that's where the line should be drawn, the two different abilities should use the same trigger. But they don't.
Opportunity Attack triggers:
When something "moves out of your reach," no matter how/why.
Exception: a creature does not "provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction."
Booming Blade triggers:
"If the target willingly moves before then..."
Opportunity Attack never used "willing," and doesn't care one way or the other how or why someone is moving. Booming Blade doesn't talk about using your movement, action, or reaction. The two use entirely different vocabulary and in no way indicates that they are attempting to reference or emulate the same rules. There is no "confusion," it is just that reading them to be the same is not supported by any text, although it would have been better design/editing to cut down on these nuanced one-off triggers and use more general concepts.
On the original question, effects other than Sentinel that might stop movement:
Being reduced to 0 hp.
An attack that reduces your speed to less than the amount you've already spent (e.g. ray of frost)
An attack that applies Grappled, Incapacitated, Paralyzed, Petrified, Restrained, Stunned, or Unconscious.
An attack that applies Prone will require the victim to either crawl or spend half their (base) movement to stand up, which they may be unable to do. A flying creature that cannot hover will first be forced to change movement type, which may trigger (2).
An attack that moves the target to a location where further motion is impossible.
An attack that applies Frightened will prevent moving closer to the target of your fear (unlikely, but possible for, say, a battlemaster fighter with polearm mastery using menacing attack).
I agree that that's where the line should be drawn, the two different abilities should use the same trigger. But they don't.
Opportunity Attack never used "willing," and doesn't care one way or the other how or why someone is moving. Booming Blade doesn't talk about using your movement, action, or reaction. The two use entirely different vocabulary and in no way indicates that they are attempting to reference or emulate the same rules. Reading them to be the same is not supported by any text, although it would have been better design/editing to cut down on these nuanced one-off triggers and use more general concepts.
Yes, they do. In all of the various places throughout the basic rules (General movement, movement in combat) there is never a distinction made.The one and only time that movement is explicitly defined as not triggering movement-related rider effects is Opportunity Attacks. It's here because OA is going to account for the vast majority of instances in which it matters, and we do have a clear definition of what it means to be "unwillingly moved": when you are moved without using your own movement, action, or reaction.
If you move, you move. If moving, using your own movement/action/reaction, does not count as movement when under the effect of mind control/persuasion, then that distinction would absolutely need to be defined explicitly within the basic rules. It doesn't, because it would be absurd. This is not what "willing" refers to. This system does not distinguish physical interactions based on what is or is not running through your (or your character's) head when the physical interaction happens. This cannot be parsed. Trying to attach unique mental uncertainties to whether a mechanical effect works or not is ludicrous, and it's superbly metagaming. "Oh, I guess my spell didn't trigger on the guy that just ran 30 feet away from me because, deep down, he didn't really want to do the thing that he just did." Bullshit.
Willing movement uses your own movement/action/reaction. It is movement from an internal force. You move yourself, no matter what your rationale for moving may be.
Unwilling movement does not use your own movement/action/reaction. It is movement from an external force. You are moved by something else.
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.
There's also no distinction made anywhere in the rules between Fireball and Fire bolt... other than the fact that they're different spells, which use different terms to describe their effects???? Sure they both involve flinging fire at someone, but is that a reason to assume they're the same thing?
OA's apply to any movement that uses a creature's action, reaction, move, [or bonus action presumably, but that's just because the rules often refer to bonus actions as actions, in a quite unhelpful manner]. There's plenty of movement that uses those that isn't willing, such as being under the effect of a spell which forces you to use your reaction or a subsequent turn to move.
Booming Blade applies to "willing movement," not "movement." Nobody is asking you to rule that using your movement/action/reaction under duress or compulsion is not movement, that's a straw man argument. Unfortunately, "willing movement" isn't defined, so we're left doing a common sense reading of the spell! Trying to find examples of movement that is willing which doesn't use any actions (riding atop an uncontrolled mount maybe?) are hard, but even if all examples of "willing movement" involve "movement that uses a creature's action, reaction, or move" that isn't to say that the reverse is true. If A then B doesn't mean if B then A, that isn't splitting hairs, lots of things work that way in the rules.
"Willing movement" is definitely a fuzzy concept, which is why JC felt the need to tweet, but movement which is plainly not willing (like being magically compelled) doesn't pass even the basic plain language sniff test. I'm all for drawing a line to stop us from needing to have metaphysical discussions about the inner intentions and hopes of D&D monsters, but "movement that's magically compelled where the target cannot choose not to move" is pretty plainly "not willing."
CC, you keep deflecting from the one thing I'm actually arguing: "willing" does not refer to intentional/compelled/voluntary movement. It is impossible for a game system to parse that without it having been explicitly defined in the base rules. It is way too meta to presume that as a mechanic without any way to adjudicate edge cases.
I am asserting that "willing" refers to the physical impetus for the movement. That is something for which there are methods of adjudication. The PHB rules on movement in combat all refer to movement requiring the use of a creature's action(s) to physically put one foot in front of the other, flapping your wings, thrashing limbs in the water, etc. The creature is the impetus for their own movement. It is reasonable to consider this the baseline for movement, and to now look for a type of movement which contrasts with this baseline.
The only description of a type of movement which contrasts with the baseline is in the rules for Opportunity Attacks. That section correlates with the baseline definition of movement, and provides the contrast of a type of movement which does not qualify--movement which does not use a creature's action(s). This is a reasonable inference of what "willing" and "unwilling" movements are. This is a distinction that can be adjudicated.
Trying to figure out whether a creature really wants to do the thing that they factually do is not a reasonable inference. If the intent was that movement while subject to any effect like charm, mind control, magical compulsion, persuasion, intimidation, voice in your head, etc do not actually count as movement then it would have to be written in the PHB. That is way too broad with way too many cross-implications to be a reasonable inference. The mental state of the player does not matter in this equation. That's the whole point of compulsory effects. Going further, anyone under these types of effects implicitly believes that whatever action they're being compelled to take is the best idea in the world. The character voluntarily moves, no matter the source of their mental state. If we are to presume that "willing"="voluntary", then the distinction of movement using the creature's action(s) is still accurate. It's what they want to do, regardless of whether or not it's what you want to do.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If the attack is successful does the movement continue or is it stopped
The movement continues unless the person who took the opportunity attack is using the Sentinel feat (or other similar ability) - and only because it specifically says it drops their speed to 0 for the turn.
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).
The character whose movement provoked the attack of opportunity always has the option to stop their movement voluntarily, but they're only forced to stop if the attacker has Sentinel, as Emmber says.
Well, not only if they have sentinel. Any condition they may get from the attack that drops speed to 0 also stops them. But it is all in the same vein of answers.
The creature being attacked can always stop moving after being hit if they choose. They're only forced to if the attacker has an ability like Sentinel or Hold The Line that says the target's movement speed drops to 0 if they're hit with an Opportunity Attack. So for example if you have the War Caster feat and someone walks away from you, you decide to use your reaction to cast Booming Blade. If it hits, the target can stop moving and avoid the secondary damage if they choose to. Of course, if they're suffering the effect of an ability that requires them to keep using their movement, like an undead who's been turned, then things are gonna suck for them :)
Booming Blade requires willing movement, so a turned undead would not trigger the secondary effect if compelled to move. To keep this in the context of the OP, an opportunity attack does not require willing movement--only movement under one's own power, so a turned undead would definitely trigger an OA by being compelled to walk away, but they would keep on moving afterwards unless there was something in that process that took away their movement, as has been explained above.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Not true. The secondary of Booming Blade follows the same rules as Opportunity Attacks, and it does proc off of Turn Undead.
This is what "willing movement" is referring to. "Forced movement" is anything not requiring the creature use their own movement, action, or reaction to physically change location. Being forced to change location as a result of something like Shove, Thunderwave, Repelling Blast Invocation, etc do not trigger anything. A creature being compelled to use their move/action/reaction as a consequence of things like Turn Undead, Dissonant Whispers, Turn the Unholy, etc do trigger OAs/secondary effects when the creature moves.
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.
What's your source on this?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Uh... PHB? The only thing that has ever been referred to as "forced movement" is movement that does not require the use of the creature's movement, action, or reaction to accomplish.
Movement that does require the creature to use their own move/action/reaction, whether compelled to do so or not, is willful movement. I should be asking for a source that indicates there's any plausible reason to think otherwise.
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.
While I personally disagree with it (if the target used its own movement, how does the spell know it was coerced?), here is a tweet from JC:
Apparently, forced movement is not the opposite of willing movement. So there are 3 types of movement: being moved by something else, moving yourself because something made you, and moving yourself because you wanted to. And of course "you" refers to the player/DM. Just because the creature wanted to to move because it is afraid, enchanted, turned, or covered in bugs doesn't mean it was "willing."
Does this mean a summoned or companion creature can't proc booming blade because it only moves the way its master tells it to and is not "willing"? Maybe.
Right. I agree with everything you have said about opportunity attacks.
This just seems like something that should be defined somewhere since it runs counter to the idiomatic meaning of willing, which means voluntary.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think the confusion lies in the notion that being compelled to move is not voluntary; it is. It is also incorrect to say the distinction between willing/forced movement lies in the intention of a different creature; it doesn't.
If you are under a magical effect that makes you want to run away from a target, in your own mind, that is what you have determined to be the most important course of action. You willfully put one foot in front of the other, and run away. The same can be said about successfully intimidating a creature into moving away. Whether the rationale for making such a decision is metaphysically true or false is irrelevant--the creature believes it's true, and has made a corresponding decision on how to respond.
The only distinction between whether a creature has willingly moved or not is whether the creature has moved under its own locomotive power. If you are thrown clear of a blast, that is not willing movement. If you are physically carried by another creature (such as while grappled), that is not willing movement. If you are shoved off a cliff, that is not willing movement.
If you run away from a creature that you think is the devil, whether it's true or not, that is willing movement. If you walk of a cliff, whether you realize you'll fall or not, that is willing movement.
As you've noted, how would a spell effect even distinguish something that meta? It can't, and it doesn't. A creature that manually moves using their own movement/action/reaction has done so willingly. A creature that moves, but does not use their own movement/action/reaction to do so, has not willingly moved.
Effect that moves a creature without their movement/action/reaction: unwilling movement
Effect that moves a creature with their movement/action/reaction: willing movement
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 that that's where the line should be drawn, the two different abilities should use the same trigger. But they don't.
Opportunity Attack triggers:
Booming Blade triggers:
Opportunity Attack never used "willing," and doesn't care one way or the other how or why someone is moving. Booming Blade doesn't talk about using your movement, action, or reaction. The two use entirely different vocabulary and in no way indicates that they are attempting to reference or emulate the same rules. There is no "confusion," it is just that reading them to be the same is not supported by any text, although it would have been better design/editing to cut down on these nuanced one-off triggers and use more general concepts.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
On the original question, effects other than Sentinel that might stop movement:
Yes, they do. In all of the various places throughout the basic rules (General movement, movement in combat) there is never a distinction made.The one and only time that movement is explicitly defined as not triggering movement-related rider effects is Opportunity Attacks. It's here because OA is going to account for the vast majority of instances in which it matters, and we do have a clear definition of what it means to be "unwillingly moved": when you are moved without using your own movement, action, or reaction.
If you move, you move. If moving, using your own movement/action/reaction, does not count as movement when under the effect of mind control/persuasion, then that distinction would absolutely need to be defined explicitly within the basic rules. It doesn't, because it would be absurd. This is not what "willing" refers to. This system does not distinguish physical interactions based on what is or is not running through your (or your character's) head when the physical interaction happens. This cannot be parsed. Trying to attach unique mental uncertainties to whether a mechanical effect works or not is ludicrous, and it's superbly metagaming. "Oh, I guess my spell didn't trigger on the guy that just ran 30 feet away from me because, deep down, he didn't really want to do the thing that he just did." Bullshit.
Willing movement uses your own movement/action/reaction. It is movement from an internal force. You move yourself, no matter what your rationale for moving may be.
Unwilling movement does not use your own movement/action/reaction. It is movement from an external force. You are moved by something else.
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.
There's also no distinction made anywhere in the rules between Fireball and Fire bolt... other than the fact that they're different spells, which use different terms to describe their effects???? Sure they both involve flinging fire at someone, but is that a reason to assume they're the same thing?
OA's apply to any movement that uses a creature's action, reaction, move, [or bonus action presumably, but that's just because the rules often refer to bonus actions as actions, in a quite unhelpful manner]. There's plenty of movement that uses those that isn't willing, such as being under the effect of a spell which forces you to use your reaction or a subsequent turn to move.
Booming Blade applies to "willing movement," not "movement." Nobody is asking you to rule that using your movement/action/reaction under duress or compulsion is not movement, that's a straw man argument. Unfortunately, "willing movement" isn't defined, so we're left doing a common sense reading of the spell! Trying to find examples of movement that is willing which doesn't use any actions (riding atop an uncontrolled mount maybe?) are hard, but even if all examples of "willing movement" involve "movement that uses a creature's action, reaction, or move" that isn't to say that the reverse is true. If A then B doesn't mean if B then A, that isn't splitting hairs, lots of things work that way in the rules.
"Willing movement" is definitely a fuzzy concept, which is why JC felt the need to tweet, but movement which is plainly not willing (like being magically compelled) doesn't pass even the basic plain language sniff test. I'm all for drawing a line to stop us from needing to have metaphysical discussions about the inner intentions and hopes of D&D monsters, but "movement that's magically compelled where the target cannot choose not to move" is pretty plainly "not willing."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Dissonant Whispers activates OA. I’m not exactly sure that counts as willing.
Just saying.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
Yes, but as noted above, OA has no text related to being willing, and it's not clear what the intent of 'willing motion' in Booming Blade actually is.
Oh, lol, I misread it as them saying OA needs willing an BB doesn’t.
ignore me, then.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
CC, you keep deflecting from the one thing I'm actually arguing: "willing" does not refer to intentional/compelled/voluntary movement. It is impossible for a game system to parse that without it having been explicitly defined in the base rules. It is way too meta to presume that as a mechanic without any way to adjudicate edge cases.
I am asserting that "willing" refers to the physical impetus for the movement. That is something for which there are methods of adjudication. The PHB rules on movement in combat all refer to movement requiring the use of a creature's action(s) to physically put one foot in front of the other, flapping your wings, thrashing limbs in the water, etc. The creature is the impetus for their own movement. It is reasonable to consider this the baseline for movement, and to now look for a type of movement which contrasts with this baseline.
The only description of a type of movement which contrasts with the baseline is in the rules for Opportunity Attacks. That section correlates with the baseline definition of movement, and provides the contrast of a type of movement which does not qualify--movement which does not use a creature's action(s). This is a reasonable inference of what "willing" and "unwilling" movements are. This is a distinction that can be adjudicated.
Trying to figure out whether a creature really wants to do the thing that they factually do is not a reasonable inference. If the intent was that movement while subject to any effect like charm, mind control, magical compulsion, persuasion, intimidation, voice in your head, etc do not actually count as movement then it would have to be written in the PHB. That is way too broad with way too many cross-implications to be a reasonable inference. The mental state of the player does not matter in this equation. That's the whole point of compulsory effects. Going further, anyone under these types of effects implicitly believes that whatever action they're being compelled to take is the best idea in the world. The character voluntarily moves, no matter the source of their mental state. If we are to presume that "willing"="voluntary", then the distinction of movement using the creature's action(s) is still accurate. It's what they want to do, regardless of whether or not it's what you want to do.
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.