No one is saying that charmed movement “is not movement.” You’re the one that keeps saying that, but it is a straw man.
Your point boils down to “willing isn’t talking about state of mind, it’s talking about whether you’re using your own body to move or being thrown.” Unfortunately, the plain English meaning of “willing” begs to differ.
Your whole point requires starting from a conclusion (BB and OA have the same trigger), and then working backwards to reject or bend over backwards to redefine any wording suggesting otherwise. Read side by side, they’re clearly different.
Your whole point requires starting from a conclusion (BB and OA have the same trigger), and then working backwards to reject or bend over backwards to redefine any wording suggesting otherwise. Read side by side, they’re clearly different.
No, CC, that is what you are doing. "Willing" is not defined anywhere in the rules. You are working backwards from your own conclusion to define what is not written as supporting that conclusion.
I am starting from what is actually written about movement, looking for distinctions of movement that are also actually written, and drawing an inferred conclusion from that evidence. The only written distinction of movement that does not count as movement, for the purposes of triggering movement-related riders, is movement that does not require the creature to use their own action(s). This is a sound logical base.
You are also not addressing the fact that the idiomatic English definition of "willing" still supports the technical argument that movement using a creature's own action(s) is the only discernible distinction. The common definition of "willing" includes "of or relating to the will or power of choosing: volitional; a choice or decision made". Any effect that alters the character's state of mind leads them to willingly take the actions which that altered state of mind dictates. A creature that flees in terror has done so "willingly" because that is what their state of mind dictates their best course of action to be. The only type of movement that can be considered "unwilling" is that which forcibly changes the position of the creature without the use of the creature's own actions(s).
Turn Undead causes an affected creature to willingly run away from the source. If that creature is under the effect of Booming Blade, the secondary effect is triggered when they use their movement.
Being pushed back by Eldritch Blast via the Repelling Blast Invocation forcibly changes the creature's position without the use of their own action(s). This is not willing movement, and does not trigger secondary effects.
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.
Your whole point requires starting from a conclusion (BB and OA have the same trigger), and then working backwards to reject or bend over backwards to redefine any wording suggesting otherwise. Read side by side, they’re clearly different.
No, CC, that is what you are doing. "Willing" is not defined anywhere in the rules. You are working backwards from your own conclusion to define what is not written as supporting that conclusion.
I am starting from what is actually written about movement, looking for distinctions of movement that are also actually written, and drawing an inferred conclusion from that evidence.
The problem is in the last step. You are looking at rules that use completely different terminology and assuming they are the same. It is possible that they are intended to be the same, but it's certainly not obvious.
Sigred, quit writing about "movement that does not count as movement, for the purposes of triggering movement-related riders," because:
Nothing anyone is saying about BB and OA having different triggers requires us to recognize a class of "movement that does not count as movement"
There is no reason to create a super category of abilities with "movement-related riders" that all must work the same off of the same trigger, when the actual spells and abilities that you're trying to lump together have made no attempt to reference each other or use common language.
In Chapter 9, Movement is defined as "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed." "Move" is never really clearly defined as an action type, but there are headings that call it "your move," and I don't think the hair splitting over whether Move is one of the four action types or is instead an untyped thing you can do is really at question here, so let's move on.
Later in Chapter 9, we learn that OAs are something you can take "when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." If that's all it said, a reader might be confused about whether we're talking about the "your move" stuff above or just any old time that a body is in motion through space and time... so the rules helpfully add that no OA is provoked "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." That is all crystal clear, again I don't think that the way that OAs work or what their triggers are is in question: it's whenever a creature transitions from a square within your reach to a square outside your reach using (1) its "your movement" action to move its speed, (2) its action, (3) its reaction, [and (4) probably also its bonus action, because bonus actions are often just called "action" unfortunately], in a way that doesn't involve teleportation.
Now we turn to Booming Blade. It triggers "If the target willingly moves." It doesn't say "if the target moves in a way which provokes an Opportunity Attack." It doesn't say "if the target moves using its movement, action, or reaction." It doesn't say anything about "if the target moves in a way which uses its speed." It doesn't say ANYTHING that in any way references OAs, or which suggests that it is attempting to reference any and all movement described in Chapter 9. Instead it has a very specific special trigger: "willingly moves." No, we don't get an entire paragraph laying out what this one-off special trigger's precise boundaries are, so we are left having to use common sense and plain language to define "willingly," but interpreting "willingly" to mean "everything in Chapter 9 talking about movement up to your speed was really defining something called "willing movement" even though it never used those words" is not counted among the reasonable definitions that one might land on. Your suggestion that "willingly " means "of or relating to the power of choosing; a choice or decision made" seems much more reasonable to me. Also, one might use the dndbeyond search feature to look up other instances of the word "willing" in the written rules....
A Nightmare can transport "willing" creatures with it when it enters the ethereal. In combat, would it make sense that a "willing" creature is one that has not been magically compelled to go with the Nightmare, and who chooses to go with?
An Rod of Security can teleport many "willing" creatures along with the user. In your games, would it makes sense that "willing" creature is one that has not been magically compelled to go with the user, and chooses to go with?
Spells like Catnap, Fly, etc. allow you to provide a magical effect on a "willing" creature. Would it make sense that a "willing" creature is one that has not been magically compelled to allow the spell to take effect, and chooses to accept the affect?
Spells like Polymorph provide the opportunity for an "unwilling" target to save against the spell. Would it make sense that an "unwilling" target is one who chooses to resist, and an "willing" target is by contrast one who chooses to accept the effect, meaning that "willing" is referring to choice?
A Succubus has a kiss which distinguishes between "a creature charmed by it or a willing creature," while its charm compels its target to "obey the fiend's verbal or telepathic commands." Does it make sense that this is providing an example that "willing" is different than "magically compelled"?
Spells like Command can force a creature to move or act in certain ways, instead of providing that they "can" or "may" take that action. Would it make sense that these involuntary behaviors are not "willing"?
the Frightened states that a frightened target "can't willingly move closer" to the object of their fear. Would it make sense that if a creature under the effect of Command is forced to approach the thing that they are afraid of, that such movement would not be made "willingly"?
There are ample examples of "willing" meaning the same thing over and over again: a creature is provided a choice. When a creature does not have a choice, such as under the effect of Command, their actions are not "willing." However, their actions in most scenarios will still use up speed per Chapter 9, unless it's your position that you can Command a creature to Flee and they'll run further than their Speed would allow them to willingly move?
There's just no reason to read "willing" as meaning "movement using speed." It's illogical, it isn't suggested anywhere in the text, and the only real temptation to do it would be to make BB and OA's have the same trigger... which they never suggest they do.
There are ample examples of "willing" meaning the same thing over and over again: a creature is provided a choice. When a creature does not have a choice, such as under the effect of Command, their actions are not "willing."
You continue to completely avoid the fact that when a creature is subject to a mind-altering effect, they wholeheartedly believe whatever they've been compelled to do is a choice that they made. They are, in every sense of the word, willingly doing what the compulsion tells them. The only choice that has been taken away is the player's, and the players decision-making process means absolutely nothing. That is the entire point of compelled actions.
This is literally what I keep saying. It's the same thing. There are only two kinds ways that a creature moves from point A to point B. A creature using their action(s) to move, and a creature being moved by another creature's action(s). No matter the rationale for doing it, a creature that moves using their own action(s) is doing so willingly.
A Nightmare can transport "willing" creatures with it when it enters the ethereal. In combat, would it make sense that a "willing" creature is one that has not been magically compelled to go with the Nightmare, and who chooses to go with? So is a magically compelled creature. "Yes, sir, I would very much like to go with you." Done.
An Rod of Security can teleport many "willing" creatures along with the user. In your games, would it makes sense that "willing" creature is one that has not been magically compelled to go with the user, and chooses to go with? So is a magically compelled creature. "Yes, sir, I would very much like to go with you." Done.
Spells like Catnap, Fly, etc. allow you to provide a magical effect on a "willing" creature. Would it make sense that a "willing" creature is one that has not been magically compelled to allow the spell to take effect, and chooses to accept the affect? So is a magically compelled creature. "Yes, sir, I would very much like to accept that benefit." Done.
Spells like Polymorph provide the opportunity for an "unwilling" target to save against the spell. Would it make sense that an "unwilling" target is one who chooses to resist, and an "willing" target is by contrast one who chooses to accept the effect, meaning that "willing" is referring to choice? If you've been compelled to not resist, you don't resist. How are you not getting this?
A Succubus has a kiss which distinguishes between "a creature charmed by it or a willing creature," while its charm compels its target to "obey the fiend's verbal or telepathic commands." Does it make sense that this is providing an example that "willing" is different than "magically compelled"? Nice try. This reference to a creature charmed by it is in place because the Succubus has a specific charm ability, which can only be applied to one creature at a time. Any other compulsion still applies. "Yes, I would very much like to let you drain me." Done.
Spells like Command can force a creature to move or act in certain ways, instead of providing that they "can" or "may" take that action. Would it make sense that these involuntary behaviors are not "willing"? They are willing. They do the thing.
the Frightened states that a frightened target "can't willingly move closer" to the object of their fear. Would it make sense that if a creature under the effect of Command is forced to approach the thing that they are afraid of, that such movement would not be made "willingly"? Specific > general. Command is overriding/subduing the effect of frightened.
The case I have made is simple and clear. Have fun psycho-analyzing whether every creature really wants to do the things that they factually 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.
You continue to completely avoid the fact that when a creature is subject to a mind-altering effect, they wholeheartedly believe whatever they've been compelled to do is a choice that they made.They are, in every sense of the word, willingly doing what the compulsion tells them. The only choice that has been taken away is the player's, and the players decision-making process means absolutely nothing. That is the entire point of compelled actions.
Citation to that bold claim? Or, to the premise that their beliefs in some way influence whether or not the action was "willing"?
That aside (I know you can't come back with a source for that, because there is none, its just your personal interpretation of what it means to be magically compelled), I think that the lines are fairly well drawn for other readers now. You can't be persuaded, so I'll stop trying to change your mind.
You continue to completely avoid the fact that when a creature is subject to a mind-altering effect, they wholeheartedly believe whatever they've been compelled to do is a choice that they made.They are, in every sense of the word, willingly doing what the compulsion tells them. The only choice that has been taken away is the player's, and the players decision-making process means absolutely nothing. That is the entire point of compelled actions.
Citation to that bold claim? Or, to the premise that their beliefs in some way influence whether or not the action was "willing"?
That aside (I know you can't come back with a source for that, because there is none, its just your personal interpretation of what it means to be magically compelled), I think that the lines are fairly well drawn for other readers now. You can't be persuaded, so I'll stop trying to change your mind.
Common sense... seriously, that's the whole point of mind-altering effects. The only effects that a creature is aware of having been affected by are those which state it in the description of the root ability. Friends is an example of a spell that makes the creature aware it was affected, yet that only occurs after the spell has ended. You want the root definition of "willing" to lie in the beliefs of the affected creature, but you only want those beliefs to matter when they align with the player's beliefs? Do you not see how that's what you've been arguing? Do you not see how a mechanical trigger cannot reasonably rely upon something that is so subjective? It's absurd.
The lines are drawn clearly.
Objective definition of willing movement: a creature moving (non-teleport) from point A to point B using their action/bonus/movement/reaction to do so.
Subjective definition of willing movement: a creature moving (non-teleport) from point A to point B using their action/bonus/movement/reaction to do so, but only when deep down, that's what they really wanted 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.
I think you can look at this in a very basic, mechanical way that makes a lot more sense without getting into a target's state of mind. Just imagine it from the opportunity-attacker's perspective.
Uncompelled, voluntary movement - from the attacker's perspective, the enemy is just walking or running away. We all agree this creates an opening for an opportunity attack.
Compelled movement - from the attacker's perspective, the enemy is just walking or running away. Why would an attacker behave differently than scenario #1? To an attacker, it's exactly the same situation.
Changing location due to outside physical or magical force - from the attacker's perspective, the enemy just got blasted away (Thunderwave, whatever). This doesn't provide decision-making time for "Should I smack this guy before he leaves?". The enemy is just instantly gone from that space.
I think you can look at this in a very basic, mechanical way that makes a lot more sense without getting into a target's state of mind.
There is no need to consider state of mind in opportunity attack rules, because opportunity attack rules do not discuss state of mind. The problem is that booming blade does not state what its trigger means. It could be intended to be the same as an opportunity attack, but it might not be. For that matter, it would be generally desirable to know what 'willing' means. My suspicion is that for most powers that specify a willing subject it actually means a subject that is not resisting (thus, you can load an unconscious person on a nightmare and cart them off).
It is no harder for a DM to figure out if an NPC is willingly moving than it is for them to figure out if they are willing to be polymorphed or anything else. The player doesn’t need to know their state of mind, or beliefs, or anything, because the DM knows. If you want a neutral perspective bright line though, try this one on for size: UNwilling movement is any time the creature “must” move, with the DM powerless to instead say that they don’t move.
Under the effect of a fear spell where the creature must move away from what they are afraid of? Not willing, because the DM has no way to not move that creature. Just subject to the regular Frightened condition that doesn’t require movement away, but the creature still chooses to do so? Willing, because DM could leave them there even if it’s a bad idea or something that the creature is unlikely to choose to do.
Under the effect of Command spell, and told to “flee” or “approach”? Not willing, DM has no choice if creature failed its save. Charmed, and asked to move by a character which the creature is now magically considering to be their friend? Willling, because they can still exercise a choice not too if the DM thinks that’s reasonable.
Given the benefit of an outside commander-type ability from an ally that allows that the creature “may” move? Willing. Subject to a harmful spell where they will take damage “unless” they choose to move? willing.
Shoved, thrown, pulled, dragged, etc by an outside force? Not willing (even if creature WANTED to be shoved or asked to be), because DM/creature has no control over that movement, it’s been determined by the other actor.
We don’t need to care what creatures believe, or what they want, or whether they’re smart or brave enough to perceive alternative courses of action. All we need to know to defermine if movement is willing is “COULD the DM choose not to move the creature, even if it would be dumb?” If yes, willing, if no, not willing.
My point is that you don't need to consider anybody's state of mind, including going meta and considering the DM's options. Please look at scenarios 1 and 2 I posted above. We all agree that an attacker would likely swing at the enemy in scenario 1. Please explain why an attacker would just watch an enemy walk away in scenario 2.
My point is that you don't need to consider anybody's state of mind, including going meta and considering the DM's options. Please look at scenarios 1 and 2 I posted above. We all agree that an attacker would likely swing at the enemy in scenario 1. Please explain why an attacker would just watch an enemy walk away in scenario 2.
He wouldn't, but that remains completely irrelevant to the dispute at hand, because opportunity attacks are not triggered by willing movement. Opportunity attacks are triggered by using your movement, action, or reaction to move.
Lol yeah none of this has anything to do with OAs, those are any time you move using your move, action, reaction [or bonus]. Just trying to help Sigred understand “willing movement” for Booming Blade at this point.
That's cute. We're both arguing RAI. Simple distinction between movement with/without using your own action(s), or complex distinction between whether a creature's mentality has been compromised/their awareness of being affected/whether the action they factually take is what they really wanted to do? Have fun!
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.
There are a great many spells that interact with a creature's will, see Thunder Step, there's nothing more odd about Booming Blade than any other magic that involves decision making.
Of course there are a great many spells that interact with a creature's will. That's a very broad swath right there. Many, like Thunder Step, do make a simple friend vs. foe distinction.
I do think it's "more odd" that a cantrip would determine a creature's particular motivation for walking around, something far more complex than friend vs. foe.
Except you keep applying that flawed definition in ways that do not make any sense for a game mechanic. If I charm an enemy to fight as my ally, and try to cast Fly on it, am I able to? What about one of the other enemies trying to cast Fly on the charmed creature? Are they no longer willing to receive a benefit from their former ally, or is their allegiance at the start of combat the only thing that matters? What if they were also being compelled to fight by a charm effect from the "enemy" side? Do they then count as "unwilling" for any effects from anyone currently involved? If I charmed every enemy present except one, would that last enemy be able to use their Rod of Security to teleport themselves and their currently-hostile former friends away to paradise? You can't have things both ways.
You are intent on defining "willing" as it relates to a creature's mental state, but not if their current mental state is different from whatever deus ex machina you come up with to justify whether it works or not. It's arbitrarily metagaming away the entire point of charm effects, and it's absolutely ridiculous. You can't argue that it applies differently for beneficial effects than it does with detrimental effects either.
Booming Blade doesn't check with an affected creature to see if their decision-making process is being influenced one way or another. It checks to see whether the creature moved itself, or was moved by something else. The only things that count for the latter are forced movement effects that do not require the creature to use their own movement/action/reaction to accomplish. Using your own movement/action/reaction, whether compelled to do so or not, triggers Booming Blade; being pushed/pulled/thrown doesn't. It's really that simple.
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 I charm an enemy to fight as my ally, and try to cast Fly on it, am I able to?
Depends what spell or ability you used to charm it. Fly checks for willingness, but if you draw the line where I suggest,Charm Person doesn't rob a creature of its ability to choose between courses of action, but Command does, so that seems easy enough to arbitrate. Don't command your thrall to fly, instead ask nicely and let them choose.
What about one of the other enemies trying to cast Fly on the charmed creature? Are they no longer willing to receive a benefit from their former ally, or is their allegiance at the start of combat the only thing that matters?
Their allegiance has nothing to do with anything. Are they mechanically required to consent by a spell or ability like Command? Not willing. Were they just charmed in a way that compels their actions towards the player (something about "must obey" their commands), but not provided any limitation on how they might respond to other suggestions from others? Then they can be willing. They probably would be willing... enemy wants to give me Fly, I'll take it (just hope it isn't a trap!). I don't see what the confusion is?
What if they were also being compelled to fight by a charm effect from the "enemy" side? Do they then count as "unwilling" for any effects from anyone currently involved?
I don't know what spell you're referring to... some sort of charm that just generally causes them to view a creature as an ally, but they've had it cast on them by two different creatures that are each other's enemies? Sounds like a fun session.. but unless you start describing what the spell says they "must" do or what action you're talking about, I don't see a real question here... "fight" is a pretty open ended situation, even if you "must fight for" character x, that doesn't mean that you aren't willingly choosing to move, attack, accept or resist spells, etc. from moment to moment, unless the spell/ability is providing otherwise? Precise language helps when we're trying to discuss real interactions, obviously.
If I charmed every enemy present except one, would that last enemy be able to use their Rod of Security to teleport themselves and their currently-hostile former friends away to paradise?
Do their currently hostile friends have the ability to make a choice still? Probably (see above, even if you're compelled to see someone as your enemy it doesn't mean your ability to make decisions has been changed). Maybe those hostile friends want to teleport with him to murder him in paradise. Or maybe they choose to reject the teleportation to stay with their new allies. Plenty of room there for a DM to still exercise willing decision making on their part.
There's no deus ex machina, and I don't care about mental state. I care about mechanical effect: is a creature in a situation where they "can" or "may" do things, or where they "must" do a single thing with no ability of the DM to take any different course of action? That's not head scratchy or hard to figure out, everyone at the table should be pretty clear if themselves or any NPCs are subject to effects that restrict their decision making down to a single course of action, it's not a very gray area.
A creature moves. Booming Blade checks: did they choose to move, or were they mechanically required to move by a spell or ability? If choosed, damage. If required, no damage.
Simple. Black and white. And no headscratching about intent or state of mind required.
No one is saying that charmed movement “is not movement.” You’re the one that keeps saying that, but it is a straw man.
Your point boils down to “willing isn’t talking about state of mind, it’s talking about whether you’re using your own body to move or being thrown.” Unfortunately, the plain English meaning of “willing” begs to differ.
Your whole point requires starting from a conclusion (BB and OA have the same trigger), and then working backwards to reject or bend over backwards to redefine any wording suggesting otherwise. Read side by side, they’re clearly different.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No, CC, that is what you are doing. "Willing" is not defined anywhere in the rules. You are working backwards from your own conclusion to define what is not written as supporting that conclusion.
I am starting from what is actually written about movement, looking for distinctions of movement that are also actually written, and drawing an inferred conclusion from that evidence. The only written distinction of movement that does not count as movement, for the purposes of triggering movement-related riders, is movement that does not require the creature to use their own action(s). This is a sound logical base.
You are also not addressing the fact that the idiomatic English definition of "willing" still supports the technical argument that movement using a creature's own action(s) is the only discernible distinction. The common definition of "willing" includes "of or relating to the will or power of choosing: volitional; a choice or decision made". Any effect that alters the character's state of mind leads them to willingly take the actions which that altered state of mind dictates. A creature that flees in terror has done so "willingly" because that is what their state of mind dictates their best course of action to be. The only type of movement that can be considered "unwilling" is that which forcibly changes the position of the creature without the use of the creature's own actions(s).
Turn Undead causes an affected creature to willingly run away from the source. If that creature is under the effect of Booming Blade, the secondary effect is triggered when they use their movement.
Being pushed back by Eldritch Blast via the Repelling Blast Invocation forcibly changes the creature's position without the use of their own action(s). This is not willing movement, and does not trigger secondary effects.
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.
The problem is in the last step. You are looking at rules that use completely different terminology and assuming they are the same. It is possible that they are intended to be the same, but it's certainly not obvious.
Sigred, quit writing about "movement that does not count as movement, for the purposes of triggering movement-related riders," because:
In Chapter 9, Movement is defined as "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed." "Move" is never really clearly defined as an action type, but there are headings that call it "your move," and I don't think the hair splitting over whether Move is one of the four action types or is instead an untyped thing you can do is really at question here, so let's move on.
Later in Chapter 9, we learn that OAs are something you can take "when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." If that's all it said, a reader might be confused about whether we're talking about the "your move" stuff above or just any old time that a body is in motion through space and time... so the rules helpfully add that no OA is provoked "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." That is all crystal clear, again I don't think that the way that OAs work or what their triggers are is in question: it's whenever a creature transitions from a square within your reach to a square outside your reach using (1) its "your movement" action to move its speed, (2) its action, (3) its reaction, [and (4) probably also its bonus action, because bonus actions are often just called "action" unfortunately], in a way that doesn't involve teleportation.
Now we turn to Booming Blade. It triggers "If the target willingly moves." It doesn't say "if the target moves in a way which provokes an Opportunity Attack." It doesn't say "if the target moves using its movement, action, or reaction." It doesn't say anything about "if the target moves in a way which uses its speed." It doesn't say ANYTHING that in any way references OAs, or which suggests that it is attempting to reference any and all movement described in Chapter 9. Instead it has a very specific special trigger: "willingly moves." No, we don't get an entire paragraph laying out what this one-off special trigger's precise boundaries are, so we are left having to use common sense and plain language to define "willingly," but interpreting "willingly" to mean "everything in Chapter 9 talking about movement up to your speed was really defining something called "willing movement" even though it never used those words" is not counted among the reasonable definitions that one might land on. Your suggestion that "willingly " means "of or relating to the power of choosing; a choice or decision made" seems much more reasonable to me. Also, one might use the dndbeyond search feature to look up other instances of the word "willing" in the written rules....
There are ample examples of "willing" meaning the same thing over and over again: a creature is provided a choice. When a creature does not have a choice, such as under the effect of Command, their actions are not "willing." However, their actions in most scenarios will still use up speed per Chapter 9, unless it's your position that you can Command a creature to Flee and they'll run further than their Speed would allow them to willingly move?
There's just no reason to read "willing" as meaning "movement using speed." It's illogical, it isn't suggested anywhere in the text, and the only real temptation to do it would be to make BB and OA's have the same trigger... which they never suggest they do.
No.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You continue to completely avoid the fact that when a creature is subject to a mind-altering effect, they wholeheartedly believe whatever they've been compelled to do is a choice that they made. They are, in every sense of the word, willingly doing what the compulsion tells them. The only choice that has been taken away is the player's, and the players decision-making process means absolutely nothing. That is the entire point of compelled actions.
This is literally what I keep saying. It's the same thing. There are only two kinds ways that a creature moves from point A to point B. A creature using their action(s) to move, and a creature being moved by another creature's action(s). No matter the rationale for doing it, a creature that moves using their own action(s) is doing so willingly.
The case I have made is simple and clear. Have fun psycho-analyzing whether every creature really wants to do the things that they factually 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.
Citation to that bold claim? Or, to the premise that their beliefs in some way influence whether or not the action was "willing"?
That aside (I know you can't come back with a source for that, because there is none, its just your personal interpretation of what it means to be magically compelled), I think that the lines are fairly well drawn for other readers now. You can't be persuaded, so I'll stop trying to change your mind.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Common sense... seriously, that's the whole point of mind-altering effects. The only effects that a creature is aware of having been affected by are those which state it in the description of the root ability. Friends is an example of a spell that makes the creature aware it was affected, yet that only occurs after the spell has ended. You want the root definition of "willing" to lie in the beliefs of the affected creature, but you only want those beliefs to matter when they align with the player's beliefs? Do you not see how that's what you've been arguing? Do you not see how a mechanical trigger cannot reasonably rely upon something that is so subjective? It's absurd.
The lines are drawn clearly.
Objective definition of willing movement: a creature moving (non-teleport) from point A to point B using their action/bonus/movement/reaction to do so.
Subjective definition of willing movement: a creature moving (non-teleport) from point A to point B using their action/bonus/movement/reaction to do so, but only when deep down, that's what they really wanted 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.
I think you can look at this in a very basic, mechanical way that makes a lot more sense without getting into a target's state of mind. Just imagine it from the opportunity-attacker's perspective.
There is no need to consider state of mind in opportunity attack rules, because opportunity attack rules do not discuss state of mind. The problem is that booming blade does not state what its trigger means. It could be intended to be the same as an opportunity attack, but it might not be. For that matter, it would be generally desirable to know what 'willing' means. My suspicion is that for most powers that specify a willing subject it actually means a subject that is not resisting (thus, you can load an unconscious person on a nightmare and cart them off).
It is no harder for a DM to figure out if an NPC is willingly moving than it is for them to figure out if they are willing to be polymorphed or anything else. The player doesn’t need to know their state of mind, or beliefs, or anything, because the DM knows. If you want a neutral perspective bright line though, try this one on for size: UNwilling movement is any time the creature “must” move, with the DM powerless to instead say that they don’t move.
Under the effect of a fear spell where the creature must move away from what they are afraid of? Not willing, because the DM has no way to not move that creature. Just subject to the regular Frightened condition that doesn’t require movement away, but the creature still chooses to do so? Willing, because DM could leave them there even if it’s a bad idea or something that the creature is unlikely to choose to do.
Under the effect of Command spell, and told to “flee” or “approach”? Not willing, DM has no choice if creature failed its save. Charmed, and asked to move by a character which the creature is now magically considering to be their friend? Willling, because they can still exercise a choice not too if the DM thinks that’s reasonable.
Given the benefit of an outside commander-type ability from an ally that allows that the creature “may” move? Willing. Subject to a harmful spell where they will take damage “unless” they choose to move? willing.
Shoved, thrown, pulled, dragged, etc by an outside force? Not willing (even if creature WANTED to be shoved or asked to be), because DM/creature has no control over that movement, it’s been determined by the other actor.
We don’t need to care what creatures believe, or what they want, or whether they’re smart or brave enough to perceive alternative courses of action. All we need to know to defermine if movement is willing is “COULD the DM choose not to move the creature, even if it would be dumb?” If yes, willing, if no, not willing.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My point is that you don't need to consider anybody's state of mind, including going meta and considering the DM's options. Please look at scenarios 1 and 2 I posted above. We all agree that an attacker would likely swing at the enemy in scenario 1. Please explain why an attacker would just watch an enemy walk away in scenario 2.
He wouldn't, but that remains completely irrelevant to the dispute at hand, because opportunity attacks are not triggered by willing movement. Opportunity attacks are triggered by using your movement, action, or reaction to move.
Lol yeah none of this has anything to do with OAs, those are any time you move using your move, action, reaction [or bonus]. Just trying to help Sigred understand “willing movement” for Booming Blade at this point.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's cute. We're both arguing RAI. Simple distinction between movement with/without using your own action(s), or complex distinction between whether a creature's mentality has been compromised/their awareness of being affected/whether the action they factually take is what they really wanted to do? Have fun!
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.
Well, I apologize for getting hung up on opportunity attacks. My bad.
I do find it weird that a cantrip could discern someone's motivation for walking around and potentially kill them in some cases but not others.
There are a great many spells that interact with a creature's will, see Thunder Step, there's nothing more odd about Booming Blade than any other magic that involves decision making.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Of course there are a great many spells that interact with a creature's will. That's a very broad swath right there. Many, like Thunder Step, do make a simple friend vs. foe distinction.
I do think it's "more odd" that a cantrip would determine a creature's particular motivation for walking around, something far more complex than friend vs. foe.
Thunder step doesn't ask for friend vs foe. It asks for a "willing creature," which is no more or less simple than "willingly moves."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Except you keep applying that flawed definition in ways that do not make any sense for a game mechanic. If I charm an enemy to fight as my ally, and try to cast Fly on it, am I able to? What about one of the other enemies trying to cast Fly on the charmed creature? Are they no longer willing to receive a benefit from their former ally, or is their allegiance at the start of combat the only thing that matters? What if they were also being compelled to fight by a charm effect from the "enemy" side? Do they then count as "unwilling" for any effects from anyone currently involved? If I charmed every enemy present except one, would that last enemy be able to use their Rod of Security to teleport themselves and their currently-hostile former friends away to paradise? You can't have things both ways.
You are intent on defining "willing" as it relates to a creature's mental state, but not if their current mental state is different from whatever deus ex machina you come up with to justify whether it works or not. It's arbitrarily metagaming away the entire point of charm effects, and it's absolutely ridiculous. You can't argue that it applies differently for beneficial effects than it does with detrimental effects either.
Booming Blade doesn't check with an affected creature to see if their decision-making process is being influenced one way or another. It checks to see whether the creature moved itself, or was moved by something else. The only things that count for the latter are forced movement effects that do not require the creature to use their own movement/action/reaction to accomplish. Using your own movement/action/reaction, whether compelled to do so or not, triggers Booming Blade; being pushed/pulled/thrown doesn't. It's really that simple.
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.
Depends what spell or ability you used to charm it. Fly checks for willingness, but if you draw the line where I suggest,Charm Person doesn't rob a creature of its ability to choose between courses of action, but Command does, so that seems easy enough to arbitrate. Don't command your thrall to fly, instead ask nicely and let them choose.
Their allegiance has nothing to do with anything. Are they mechanically required to consent by a spell or ability like Command? Not willing. Were they just charmed in a way that compels their actions towards the player (something about "must obey" their commands), but not provided any limitation on how they might respond to other suggestions from others? Then they can be willing. They probably would be willing... enemy wants to give me Fly, I'll take it (just hope it isn't a trap!). I don't see what the confusion is?
I don't know what spell you're referring to... some sort of charm that just generally causes them to view a creature as an ally, but they've had it cast on them by two different creatures that are each other's enemies? Sounds like a fun session.. but unless you start describing what the spell says they "must" do or what action you're talking about, I don't see a real question here... "fight" is a pretty open ended situation, even if you "must fight for" character x, that doesn't mean that you aren't willingly choosing to move, attack, accept or resist spells, etc. from moment to moment, unless the spell/ability is providing otherwise? Precise language helps when we're trying to discuss real interactions, obviously.
Do their currently hostile friends have the ability to make a choice still? Probably (see above, even if you're compelled to see someone as your enemy it doesn't mean your ability to make decisions has been changed). Maybe those hostile friends want to teleport with him to murder him in paradise. Or maybe they choose to reject the teleportation to stay with their new allies. Plenty of room there for a DM to still exercise willing decision making on their part.
There's no deus ex machina, and I don't care about mental state. I care about mechanical effect: is a creature in a situation where they "can" or "may" do things, or where they "must" do a single thing with no ability of the DM to take any different course of action? That's not head scratchy or hard to figure out, everyone at the table should be pretty clear if themselves or any NPCs are subject to effects that restrict their decision making down to a single course of action, it's not a very gray area.
A creature moves. Booming Blade checks: did they choose to move, or were they mechanically required to move by a spell or ability? If choosed, damage. If required, no damage.
Simple. Black and white. And no headscratching about intent or state of mind required.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.