Loving how you say you don't care about mental states or deus ex machinas right after using contrived mental states as justification to your subjective answers.
A creature moves. Booming Blade checks: did they choose to move, or were they mechanically required to move by a spell or ability?
This is not something the spell is capable of doing. The spell is not a mind-reading device. The spell does not detect intentionality. It's an Evocation spell, not Divination. It checks whether you put one foot in front of the other, and blows your ass up as a result. This is all that it does.
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.
Loving how you say you don't care about mental states or deus ex machinas right after using contrived mental states as justification to your subjective answers.
I have no idea what you're trying to say or what you're referring to, man, sorry.
You have no source for saying that a magic spell doesn't interact with exactly what it says it interacts with (whether the movement was "willing"), or that is not "capable" of detecting that, I'm done asking for sources because again and again you've demonstrated that you aren't reading rules here you're writing them. You are assuming a lot about how schools of magic work, the nature of charming and evocation and divination magic and free will yada yada yada.... and there's (1) nothing in the rule text that supports those opinions you hold, (2) it all seems too complicated to me to be honest, and (3) you're using them not only as justification for disregarding plain use of the word "willing", but seem to feel that anyone who doesn't share your opinion or willingness to houserule the spell is somehow missing something glaringly obvious.
It's a game. Games have rule systems. One rule system in this game, which we are all very familiar with and use commonly in combat, encompasses that certain actions "can/may" be taken, while others "must" be taken when subject to certain spells and abilities. Booming Blade is a spell that triggers based on that system. It doesn't ask us to have deep discussions about fate, nature versus nurture, or the illusion of free will... it just asks whether an action was chosen (creature had a choice between A, B, doing nothing, etc. but chose A), or mechanically compelled (creature did A because it was required to do A with no alternative to doing A).
Look, I get that my bright line I draw about how to arbitrate "willing" isn't in the rule book either, it's just how it makes sense to me to not go careening down a slippery slope of arguing about creatures' hidden desires. The bonus is though, my reading is completely compatable with the rules on movement, Opportunity Attacks, various spells and abilities like a succubus kiss, etc etc. While yours says "there's no such thing as "willing movement," they shouldn't have even written that, it should read the same as Opportunity Attack." Readers are free to pick your approach if they feel they need to, but it asks for a lot more homebrewing than just understanding that some things you're allowed to choose and some you're mechanically forced to do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Willing movement" is defined exactly how movement is defined by the very simple existing rules: moving using your own action(s).
That's it. No homebrewing at all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
"Willing movement" is defined exactly how movement is defined by the very simple existing rules: moving using your own action(s).
That's it. No homebrewing at all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The homebrew is sentence 1. Willing movement is undefined in the text (it is actually impossible to resolve what the power does without house ruling. There is nothing especially wrong with your choice of definition, but that doesn't make it not a house rule)
It's a game. Games have rule systems. One rule system in this game, which we are all very familiar with and use commonly in combat, encompasses that certain actions "can/may" be taken, while others "must" be taken when subject to certain spells and abilities. Booming Blade is a spell that triggers based on that system. It doesn't ask us to have deep discussions about fate, nature versus nurture, or the illusion of free will...it just asks whether an action was chosen (creature had a choice between A, B, doing nothing, etc. but chose A), or mechanically compelled (creature did A because it was required to do A with no alternative to doing A).
Just this bolded sentence here. The latter part first, after the ellipsis:
It most certainly does not do that. Neither the spell text nor the rules text draws the distinction that you do. You're reading the word "willing" and inserting your interpretation. I'm doing that too! I'm just not pretending that I'm not doing that.
And now, before the ellipsis:
Your argument rests entirely upon the illusion (or reality) of free will. The counterargument does not.
Your argument is that the state of mind of the spell's target is what decides the spell's effect. The counterargument is that it does not.
You somehow turn that on its head, saying that the counterargument relies on intent and state of mind and that, by relying on that foundation, it's invalid. Repeat: it's the foundation of your argument that you're claiming is an invalid foundation. At best, your claim invalidates both sides of this discussion.
Even if you want to go back to the unbolded portion of the quote - can/may/must are all appeals to the state of mind/intent argument.
It seems clear to me that "willing" is meant to differentiate between the target's brain/nervous system/thoughts (even compelled!) causing locomotion versus a shove/force/gust of wind causing physical ejection from a space without locomotion. This would require no inquiry into the target's state of mind or intent.
I'm not pretending anything, please see the sentence immediately after you stopped quoting me?
I'm not asking about state of mind, I DON"T CARE ABOUT STATE OF MIND. ALL I care about is, when the DM moves the orc... did the DM mechanically have any ability to not move the orc? How do we keep coming back around to the orc's state of mind or the existence of free will??? Holy smokes this is frustrating.
Okay. "Willing" has a meaning in the English language, that these rules are written in. Merriam-Webster gives us four choices:
Inclined or favorably disposed in mind : READY ; willing and eager to help
prompt to act or respond ; lending a willing hand
done, borne, or accepted by choice or without reluctance ; a willing sacrifice
of or relating to the will or power of choosing : VOLITIONAL
You, me, Sigred, everyone seems to agree that the correct way to read "willingly move" is the fourth use, 'volitional.' Yes? And yet, all of Sigred's hand wringing seems to come down to how it isn't possible to read a creature's state of mind about how it feels about its movement (meanings 1-3). Goal posts: moved. You don't care about 1-3, I don't care about 1-3, its is very very unlikely that the authors cared about 1-3, because I think we can all agree that that would be so vague as to be unworkable.
Yes? Can we agree that "willing movement" is "volitional movement"? If not, is there another general definition of "willing" that you would like to suggest instead? If yes, then we have two suggestions that have been made for how to adjudicate "willing (volitional) movement" (though I'm happy to hear someone, ANYONE, else jump in with a third if I'm missing something):
Sigred's suggestion: Volitional movement is conscious movement. If a creature moves under its own power (uses its move speed, its action, its bonus action, or its reaction to move), then that is willing (volitional) movement. Although "willing movement" is never used anywhere in Chapter 9 to describe movement, nor does it appear in the section on Opportunity Attacks, read this way "willing movement" is 100% identical with OAs description of using "using your movement, action, or reaction." They are precisely the same thing, described two very different ways.
My suggestion: Volitional movement is movement where a creature chooses to move. Every round creatures choose whether to use their Action to do one of many different possible actions (or, to do nothing at all), and the same with their bonus, reaction, move, etc. Mechanically, these are choices that the players and DM all understand that these creatures/players are making, and often they are described as "creature may/can x". Some spells and abilities remove this ability to make choices, and instead compel a single course of action; such abilities are often described as "creature must x." Read this way, "willing movement" is different than "using your movement, action, or reaction," and it was not a mistake for the authors to write different language in the OA section than the Booming Blade section.
I'll say it again in case you doubt I realize it, nothing in the rules explicitly lays either of these out. However, "willing ___" is used a lot in the rules, and all of the other uses seem to mirror my understanding of "willing" involving a choice. A creature either chooses to be "willing" and travel with a Thunder Step, or they choose to stay behind. A creature either chooses to be "willing" and accept a Polymorph, or they choose to resist it and roll a save. A creature either chooses to be "willing" to be kissed by a Succubus, or the Succubus has to mind-control them with her special charm ability to force them to submit. Again and again and again we see "willing" used in situations involving choice, and never do we see "willing" as a stand in for "conscious" or "using your own body" or however you want to paraphrase Sigred's thing. Under my interpretation, BB and OA have different mechanical triggers, because their triggers are phrased differently. Under Sigred's interpretation, BB and OA have the same trigger, despite their triggers having very little shared language. Under my interpretation, "willing" wasn't an extra wasted word in BB, and in fact was the best word to describe its triger. Under Sigred's interpretation, "willing" was either entirely unnecessary, or we would have been better served by some alternate wording ("uses its movement" for example, or the same line we have in OA, whatehaveyou).
I can't point to a specific line on a specific page that says "No Sigred, you're wrong." He can't do that for me either. It's up to the reader to decide what the most likely meaning of "willingly" was when BB was written. I think I've made a good case that my interpretation is more straightforward. I've tried to do so without falling back to running to JC for support because I feel that players are equipped to make their own interpretations as well as he can, but for those of you who care, there's also that.
No, opportunity attack by RAW requires willing movement, "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." Chapter nine Basic Rules
After reviewing what I said over three years ago, I stand by my original statement. Opportunity attacks do not require willing movement--only that you move under your own power. Dissonant whispers is an example of compelled (unwilling) movement that provokes an OA.
After reviewing what I said over three years ago, I stand by my original statement. Opportunity attacks do not require willing movement--only that you move under your own power. Dissonant whispers is an example of compelled (unwilling) movement that provokes an OA.
Old thread but just to note "when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction". Dissonant whispers uses your reaction to move and is thus explicitly included in the list of things that would trigger an opportunity attack.
Compare this to repelling blast "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line." or thorn whip "if the creature is Large or smaller, you pull the creature up to 10 feet closer to you." These movement effects move another creature without using their movement, action or reaction and as such don't trigger opportunity attacks.
It doesn't have to do with "willing" movement - it has to do with movement that uses the targets movement, action or reaction - those trigger op attacks, other effects that move a target creature without using any of these will not trigger an op attack.
I agree Opportunity Attack doesn't require you to be willing specifically but you usually are when using your movement, action, or reaction.
While a target of Dissonant whispers would provoke an Opportunity Attack, it wouldn't trigger booming blade 's effect though.
Disagree. After your character failed their save their movement is absolutely willing to them. Not willing to you the player, but that's not important. The character is willingly moving. They are wracked with terrible pain and trying to flee.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It's an interesting juxtaposition to consider that a character cannot willingly fail a saving throw, but if they fail, it means the character willingly takes the course of action dictated by that failure. I'm not sure that I buy it.
It's an interesting juxtaposition to consider that a character cannot willingly fail a saving throw, but if they fail, it means the character willingly takes the course of action dictated by that failure. I'm not sure that I buy it.
It doesn't says they need to happily move away. Just willingly. If they're moving under their own power, it is willing. As contrasted by forced movement. Which it is not.
Again, you the player might not want your character to move. But the character is willing, and does so.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Disagree. After your character failed their save their movement is absolutely willing to them. Not willing to you the player, but that's not important. The character is willingly moving. They are wracked with terrible pain and trying to flee.
I generally define "willing" as "an action chosen by the character, as opposed to some external effect". Dissonant Whispers is phrased as "must", not "may", so being willing is not a factor.
An edge case is spells like geas, where the character has the option of not taking the action, they just suffer for their decision.
Disagree. After your character failed their save their movement is absolutely willing to them. Not willing to you the player, but that's not important. The character is willingly moving. They are wracked with terrible pain and trying to flee.
I generally define "willing" as "an action chosen by the character, as opposed to some external effect". Dissonant Whispers is phrased as "must", not "may", so being willing is not a factor.
An edge case is spells like geas, where the character has the option of not taking the action, they just suffer for their decision.
That's fair I just don't think that's accounting for how things get worded to indicate when you, the player, aren't in control of the situation. The rules sometimes play a little fast and loose with the distinction or lack of distinction between controlling person vs the character they're controlling.
If we look further into the spell effect we find some interesting hints about exactly what is going on.
"The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit."
This suggests that you're still very much in control. If your only route is into somethibg dangeous you can just... not.
So choice absolutely still exists there and the movement the character takes is for sure willing, for them, in that moment, while wracked with pain.
The real interesting interaction here, though, is because they're sheathed in an energy field that detonates if they move, does that quote above prevent the movement altogether since they're moving is obviously harmful. I'd argue that is true as well.
So the correct ruling is DW causes them to willingly move, but since moving is obviously harmful they just don't. They end up staying put.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I agree Opportunity Attack doesn't require you to be willing specifically but you usually are when using your movement, action, or reaction.
While a target of Dissonant whispers would provoke an Opportunity Attack, it wouldn't trigger booming blade 's effect though.
Disagree. After your character failed their save their movement is absolutely willing to them. Not willing to you the player, but that's not important. The character is willingly moving. They are wracked with terrible pain and trying to flee.
I disagree. Dissonant whispers say you "must immediately use its reaction, if available, to move" so you evidently cannot refuse to do so and therefore it's not willing but the opposite, you're basically forced to.
It should be obvious that there are two different but completely valid interpretations of the phrase "willing movement" that could be used in everyday English. One has to do with the cause of the actual movement. "Willing myself to move", moving by "my own internal force of will", moving via "my own willpower", etc. Literally creating the force that causes the muscles to move which causes a displacement of position. The other interpretation has more to do with "agreeing" or "choosing" or 'consenting" to move or be moved. "I am willing to go there" "I will go there", etc. It's almost like these are two different words, but they are spelled and pronounced the same way and can both be used in the phrase "willing movement" as part of a valid thought in English. It's unclear if the rules ever further specify or define which one was meant.
There are 4 cases which relate to "willing movement", only one of which definitely doesn't apply and only one of which definitely does apply:
1) An external force physically moves me to another location without my consent and/or I am actively resisting the movement. Example, I am attempting to walk east but a gust of wind picks me up and hurls me to the west. Definitely not willing movement.
2) I cause my own movement without coercion. Example, I successfully walk to the east under typical circumstances. Definitely willing movement.
3) I give my consent to allow an external force to move me to a different location. Example, I hire a driver and sit inside a carriage that is pulled by horses and controlled by someone else. Willing movement? Unclear.
4) I physically control my own body to move in a manner that was coerced. Example, I am interested in walking east but an enemy put a gun to my head and demanded that I walk to the west and therefore I decided to walk to the west. Willing movement? Unclear.
Your ruling for cases 3 and 4 will depend on which version of the word "willing" you choose to use within your interpretation of "willing movement". The rules do not seem to further clarify this.
Like many other situations, your DM will have to decide on which interpretation will become the reality for their game world.
The concept of "willing" movement or action is often used as a shorthand for describing what does and doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks, but the PHB is clear in stating the only way to provoke an Opportunity Attack is to move (willingly or otherwise) using ones Action, Reaction, or Movement. So spells such as Command (which forces a creature to use their Action) or Dissonant Whispers (which forces a creature to use their reaction, if available) both allow characters a way to force an enemy to provoke an Opportunity Attack.
Now the real point of contention is the wording in Booming Blade, because "willing" isn't strictly defined anywhere in the rules. I typically see two schools of thought in-game:
Follow the same rules as opportunity attacks, ignoring any philosophical/ethical contradictions.
Define "willing" as whether or not the source of the behavior comes as the result of an attack roll, opposed ability check*, or saving throw.
* I would make exception for things like Persuasion and Deception checks provided the opposing creature isn't also under the effects of any kind of charm condition. I would argue action coerced through intimidation is unwilling, however.
I tend to prefer #2 because it's the most supported by the rules. If we look at a spell like Plane Shift, for example, it can transport you and eight willing creatures. You can also use it to banish an unwilling creature using a melee spell attack.
Spells like Charm Person, Suggestion, and Dominate Person muddy these waters a bit. Though I would still consider all action under these effects as unwilling. It doesn't make any sense to say "They're willing because I forced them to be." If the character was under the effects of a spell or ability that gave them the chance to choose to fail the save and did so, then it would be willing.
So for the purposes of Dissonant Whispers, Opportunity Attacks, and Booming Blade, following these guidelines Dissonant Whispers does provoke and opportunity attack (that's just RAW) but it doesn't trigger the secondary damage of Booming Blade.
Loving how you say you don't care about mental states or deus ex machinas right after using contrived mental states as justification to your subjective answers.
This is not something the spell is capable of doing. The spell is not a mind-reading device. The spell does not detect intentionality. It's an Evocation spell, not Divination. It checks whether you put one foot in front of the other, and blows your ass up as a result. This is all that it does.
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 have no idea what you're trying to say or what you're referring to, man, sorry.
You have no source for saying that a magic spell doesn't interact with exactly what it says it interacts with (whether the movement was "willing"), or that is not "capable" of detecting that, I'm done asking for sources because again and again you've demonstrated that you aren't reading rules here you're writing them. You are assuming a lot about how schools of magic work, the nature of charming and evocation and divination magic and free will yada yada yada.... and there's (1) nothing in the rule text that supports those opinions you hold, (2) it all seems too complicated to me to be honest, and (3) you're using them not only as justification for disregarding plain use of the word "willing", but seem to feel that anyone who doesn't share your opinion or willingness to houserule the spell is somehow missing something glaringly obvious.
It's a game. Games have rule systems. One rule system in this game, which we are all very familiar with and use commonly in combat, encompasses that certain actions "can/may" be taken, while others "must" be taken when subject to certain spells and abilities. Booming Blade is a spell that triggers based on that system. It doesn't ask us to have deep discussions about fate, nature versus nurture, or the illusion of free will... it just asks whether an action was chosen (creature had a choice between A, B, doing nothing, etc. but chose A), or mechanically compelled (creature did A because it was required to do A with no alternative to doing A).
Look, I get that my bright line I draw about how to arbitrate "willing" isn't in the rule book either, it's just how it makes sense to me to not go careening down a slippery slope of arguing about creatures' hidden desires. The bonus is though, my reading is completely compatable with the rules on movement, Opportunity Attacks, various spells and abilities like a succubus kiss, etc etc. While yours says "there's no such thing as "willing movement," they shouldn't have even written that, it should read the same as Opportunity Attack." Readers are free to pick your approach if they feel they need to, but it asks for a lot more homebrewing than just understanding that some things you're allowed to choose and some you're mechanically forced to do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"Willing movement" is defined exactly how movement is defined by the very simple existing rules: moving using your own action(s).
That's it. No homebrewing at all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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 homebrew is sentence 1. Willing movement is undefined in the text (it is actually impossible to resolve what the power does without house ruling. There is nothing especially wrong with your choice of definition, but that doesn't make it not a house rule)
Just this bolded sentence here. The latter part first, after the ellipsis:
It most certainly does not do that. Neither the spell text nor the rules text draws the distinction that you do. You're reading the word "willing" and inserting your interpretation. I'm doing that too! I'm just not pretending that I'm not doing that.
And now, before the ellipsis:
Your argument rests entirely upon the illusion (or reality) of free will. The counterargument does not.
Your argument is that the state of mind of the spell's target is what decides the spell's effect. The counterargument is that it does not.
You somehow turn that on its head, saying that the counterargument relies on intent and state of mind and that, by relying on that foundation, it's invalid. Repeat: it's the foundation of your argument that you're claiming is an invalid foundation. At best, your claim invalidates both sides of this discussion.
Even if you want to go back to the unbolded portion of the quote - can/may/must are all appeals to the state of mind/intent argument.
It seems clear to me that "willing" is meant to differentiate between the target's brain/nervous system/thoughts (even compelled!) causing locomotion versus a shove/force/gust of wind causing physical ejection from a space without locomotion. This would require no inquiry into the target's state of mind or intent.
I'm not pretending anything, please see the sentence immediately after you stopped quoting me?
I'm not asking about state of mind, I DON"T CARE ABOUT STATE OF MIND. ALL I care about is, when the DM moves the orc... did the DM mechanically have any ability to not move the orc? How do we keep coming back around to the orc's state of mind or the existence of free will??? Holy smokes this is frustrating.
Okay. "Willing" has a meaning in the English language, that these rules are written in. Merriam-Webster gives us four choices:
You, me, Sigred, everyone seems to agree that the correct way to read "willingly move" is the fourth use, 'volitional.' Yes? And yet, all of Sigred's hand wringing seems to come down to how it isn't possible to read a creature's state of mind about how it feels about its movement (meanings 1-3). Goal posts: moved. You don't care about 1-3, I don't care about 1-3, its is very very unlikely that the authors cared about 1-3, because I think we can all agree that that would be so vague as to be unworkable.
Yes? Can we agree that "willing movement" is "volitional movement"? If not, is there another general definition of "willing" that you would like to suggest instead? If yes, then we have two suggestions that have been made for how to adjudicate "willing (volitional) movement" (though I'm happy to hear someone, ANYONE, else jump in with a third if I'm missing something):
I'll say it again in case you doubt I realize it, nothing in the rules explicitly lays either of these out. However, "willing ___" is used a lot in the rules, and all of the other uses seem to mirror my understanding of "willing" involving a choice. A creature either chooses to be "willing" and travel with a Thunder Step, or they choose to stay behind. A creature either chooses to be "willing" and accept a Polymorph, or they choose to resist it and roll a save. A creature either chooses to be "willing" to be kissed by a Succubus, or the Succubus has to mind-control them with her special charm ability to force them to submit. Again and again and again we see "willing" used in situations involving choice, and never do we see "willing" as a stand in for "conscious" or "using your own body" or however you want to paraphrase Sigred's thing. Under my interpretation, BB and OA have different mechanical triggers, because their triggers are phrased differently. Under Sigred's interpretation, BB and OA have the same trigger, despite their triggers having very little shared language. Under my interpretation, "willing" wasn't an extra wasted word in BB, and in fact was the best word to describe its triger. Under Sigred's interpretation, "willing" was either entirely unnecessary, or we would have been better served by some alternate wording ("uses its movement" for example, or the same line we have in OA, whatehaveyou).
I can't point to a specific line on a specific page that says "No Sigred, you're wrong." He can't do that for me either. It's up to the reader to decide what the most likely meaning of "willingly" was when BB was written. I think I've made a good case that my interpretation is more straightforward. I've tried to do so without falling back to running to JC for support because I feel that players are equipped to make their own interpretations as well as he can, but for those of you who care, there's also that.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No, opportunity attack by RAW requires willing movement, "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." Chapter nine Basic Rules
After reviewing what I said over three years ago, I stand by my original statement. Opportunity attacks do not require willing movement--only that you move under your own power. Dissonant whispers is an example of compelled (unwilling) movement that provokes an OA.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Old thread but just to note "when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction". Dissonant whispers uses your reaction to move and is thus explicitly included in the list of things that would trigger an opportunity attack.
Compare this to repelling blast "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line." or thorn whip "if the creature is Large or smaller, you pull the creature up to 10 feet closer to you." These movement effects move another creature without using their movement, action or reaction and as such don't trigger opportunity attacks.
It doesn't have to do with "willing" movement - it has to do with movement that uses the targets movement, action or reaction - those trigger op attacks, other effects that move a target creature without using any of these will not trigger an op attack.
Dude said that what I said three years ago was incorrect. I don't believe it was.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I agree Opportunity Attack doesn't require you to be willing specifically but you usually are when using your movement, action, or reaction.
While a target of Dissonant whispers would provoke an Opportunity Attack, it wouldn't trigger booming blade 's effect though.
Disagree. After your character failed their save their movement is absolutely willing to them. Not willing to you the player, but that's not important. The character is willingly moving. They are wracked with terrible pain and trying to flee.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It's an interesting juxtaposition to consider that a character cannot willingly fail a saving throw, but if they fail, it means the character willingly takes the course of action dictated by that failure. I'm not sure that I buy it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It doesn't says they need to happily move away. Just willingly. If they're moving under their own power, it is willing. As contrasted by forced movement. Which it is not.
Again, you the player might not want your character to move. But the character is willing, and does so.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I generally define "willing" as "an action chosen by the character, as opposed to some external effect". Dissonant Whispers is phrased as "must", not "may", so being willing is not a factor.
An edge case is spells like geas, where the character has the option of not taking the action, they just suffer for their decision.
That's fair I just don't think that's accounting for how things get worded to indicate when you, the player, aren't in control of the situation. The rules sometimes play a little fast and loose with the distinction or lack of distinction between controlling person vs the character they're controlling.
If we look further into the spell effect we find some interesting hints about exactly what is going on.
"The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit."
This suggests that you're still very much in control. If your only route is into somethibg dangeous you can just... not.
So choice absolutely still exists there and the movement the character takes is for sure willing, for them, in that moment, while wracked with pain.
The real interesting interaction here, though, is because they're sheathed in an energy field that detonates if they move, does that quote above prevent the movement altogether since they're moving is obviously harmful. I'd argue that is true as well.
So the correct ruling is DW causes them to willingly move, but since moving is obviously harmful they just don't. They end up staying put.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I disagree. Dissonant whispers say you "must immediately use its reaction, if available, to move" so you evidently cannot refuse to do so and therefore it's not willing but the opposite, you're basically forced to.
It should be obvious that there are two different but completely valid interpretations of the phrase "willing movement" that could be used in everyday English. One has to do with the cause of the actual movement. "Willing myself to move", moving by "my own internal force of will", moving via "my own willpower", etc. Literally creating the force that causes the muscles to move which causes a displacement of position. The other interpretation has more to do with "agreeing" or "choosing" or 'consenting" to move or be moved. "I am willing to go there" "I will go there", etc. It's almost like these are two different words, but they are spelled and pronounced the same way and can both be used in the phrase "willing movement" as part of a valid thought in English. It's unclear if the rules ever further specify or define which one was meant.
There are 4 cases which relate to "willing movement", only one of which definitely doesn't apply and only one of which definitely does apply:
1) An external force physically moves me to another location without my consent and/or I am actively resisting the movement. Example, I am attempting to walk east but a gust of wind picks me up and hurls me to the west. Definitely not willing movement.
2) I cause my own movement without coercion. Example, I successfully walk to the east under typical circumstances. Definitely willing movement.
3) I give my consent to allow an external force to move me to a different location. Example, I hire a driver and sit inside a carriage that is pulled by horses and controlled by someone else. Willing movement? Unclear.
4) I physically control my own body to move in a manner that was coerced. Example, I am interested in walking east but an enemy put a gun to my head and demanded that I walk to the west and therefore I decided to walk to the west. Willing movement? Unclear.
Your ruling for cases 3 and 4 will depend on which version of the word "willing" you choose to use within your interpretation of "willing movement". The rules do not seem to further clarify this.
Like many other situations, your DM will have to decide on which interpretation will become the reality for their game world.
The concept of "willing" movement or action is often used as a shorthand for describing what does and doesn't provoke Opportunity Attacks, but the PHB is clear in stating the only way to provoke an Opportunity Attack is to move (willingly or otherwise) using ones Action, Reaction, or Movement. So spells such as Command (which forces a creature to use their Action) or Dissonant Whispers (which forces a creature to use their reaction, if available) both allow characters a way to force an enemy to provoke an Opportunity Attack.
Now the real point of contention is the wording in Booming Blade, because "willing" isn't strictly defined anywhere in the rules. I typically see two schools of thought in-game:
* I would make exception for things like Persuasion and Deception checks provided the opposing creature isn't also under the effects of any kind of charm condition. I would argue action coerced through intimidation is unwilling, however.
I tend to prefer #2 because it's the most supported by the rules. If we look at a spell like Plane Shift, for example, it can transport you and eight willing creatures. You can also use it to banish an unwilling creature using a melee spell attack.
Spells like Charm Person, Suggestion, and Dominate Person muddy these waters a bit. Though I would still consider all action under these effects as unwilling. It doesn't make any sense to say "They're willing because I forced them to be." If the character was under the effects of a spell or ability that gave them the chance to choose to fail the save and did so, then it would be willing.
So for the purposes of Dissonant Whispers, Opportunity Attacks, and Booming Blade, following these guidelines Dissonant Whispers does provoke and opportunity attack (that's just RAW) but it doesn't trigger the secondary damage of Booming Blade.