The problem is: Just because some other spell descriptions make reference to "a willing creature", that doesn't mean that the same version of the word "willing" is being used in the phrase "willing movement". After all, can movement itself really be "willing" in the same sense that a creature can be? One thing refers to a conscious being and the other thing doesn't, so assuming that the same form of the adjective is being used in both cases is pretty much just that -- an assumption. In my opinion it's perfectly valid either way. Once the DM decides which way it is for their game world, hopefully they'll remember to stay consistent about it throughout the rest of the campaign.
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.
But you can. You can refuse to move. If the area is obviously dangerous or harmful you don't have to go there.
"The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit."
That tells us everything we need to know. Your character is trying to get away from the wracking pain. Temporarily out of your, the player's, control. But still at their own faculties. They're aware enough and capable enough to not walk into anything dangerous. So clearly still in charge of the movement. What's being taken away isn't their choice, but 'your' choice (the player). The movement is their choice. You the player just don't get to decide if they make this choice.
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.
But you can. You can refuse to move. If the area is obviously dangerous or harmful you don't have to go there.
It boils down to "either it doesn't work because the movement is unwilling, or it doesn't work because the target doesn't move". The way abilities such as Dissonant Whispers are worded is kinda problematic.
In the absence of evidence otherwise, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Willing movement is movement under your own power that you choose to do. Unwilling/compelled movement is movement under your own power that you don't have the option of not doing. Forced movement is something that moves you.
But you can. You can refuse to move. If the area is obviously dangerous or harmful you don't have to go there.
"The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit."
This is a build-in exception, but otherwise the target can't refuse to use it's reaction and move otherwise no one would do so.
You the player can't choose not to. The character is choosing to because of the pain. You as a player don't get to decide if the character chooses to or not, that's what the save decided. The character decides to do it because they're floundering around in pain. Like a reflexive reaction to extreme pain.
There seems to be a persistent problem distinguishing between player choice and character choice. They're often synonymous but not always. Here they're not. You lost control of your character but your character is still in control of themself. It is like a reflexive reaction to pain is all. Like if you touch a stovetop and it burns and you yank your hand back and slam your elbow into the counter. Your reflexive movement was willing, it was just a reflexive reaction. It wasn't your goal when you woke up that morning or anything but it was still you in charge of it.
There is two categories. Forced movement and willing movement under your own power. There isn't some middle category. It is a yes or no. Is it forced movement? If yes, then unwilling. If no, then willing.
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.
You the player can't choose not to. The character is choosing to because of the pain.
If the character is rational enough to avoid threats, they're rational enough to avoid moving at all if doing so is a bad idea -- for example, if your movement would trigger an opportunity attack -- and the easy way to decide whether something is a bad idea is whether the character chooses to do so. As such, the spell is just either incoherent (you can avoid some types of hazard, with no clear rule for what's permitted) or poorly designed (you can move your target... as long as doing so is useless).
You the player can't choose not to. The character is choosing to because of the pain.
If the character is rational enough to avoid threats, they're rational enough to avoid moving at all if doing so is a bad idea -- for example, if your movement would trigger an opportunity attack -- and the easy way to decide whether something is a bad idea is whether the character chooses to do so. As such, the spell is just either incoherent (you can avoid some types of hazard, with no clear rule for what's permitted) or poorly designed (you can move your target... as long as doing so is useless).
"Obviously" dangerous is the key. Provoking an opportunity attack isn't obviously dangerous. In fact it might not even be dangerous. They may not take it. They may miss. There isn't even a garentee that a danger exists let alone how obvious it is if there was one.
But like, a raging inferno, or a cliff, plenty obvious. So is being wrapped in a field of exploding energy. Those are dangers, and they're plainly obvious.
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.
On the contrary provoking an Opportinuty Attack is dangerous because there's always the danger that you can be attacked if taken, and possibly hit and damaged.
You the player can't choose not to. The character is choosing to because of the pain.
What you are describing is not a choice. You are describing a course of action imposed by the result of a failed saving throw. I don't see anything in the spell description for dissonant whispers, nor in the general rules for saving throws that indicates a failed saving throw represents the character choosing the result of that save. RAW doesn't support your conclusion, and RAI specifically contradicts it.
Guys, sorry to get off topic a little bit, but do you believe that psi-leap generates an attack of opportunity?
I ask because this skill as well as teleport and other race skills do not consume any action, movement or reaction, being possible to use them freely before or after the leap.
Guys, sorry to get off topic a little bit, but do you believe that psi-leap generates an attack of opportunity?
I ask because this skill as well as teleport and other race skills do not consume any action, movement or reaction, being possible to use them freely before or after the leap.
If you mean the psi warrior’s Psi-Powered Leap, all it does is give you a flying speed. You still need to spend movement to use that flying speed, and that movement provokes an attack of opportunity.
If that’s not the feature you mean, explain what you’re talking about.
"Obviously" dangerous is the key. Provoking an opportunity attack isn't obviously dangerous.
Urr.. are you saying that with a straight face? It's a highly predictable "If I do X, I'll get hurt".
Doing something that might provoke an attack if the target chooses to do so, which might hit if they do choose and roll high enough... is several levels away from being obviously dangerous. Nothing about it is guaranteed harm in any way, shape or form.
Compared to walking into a fire. You're going to burn. That's just the only outcome.
One is "obviously" harmful. The other has some risks but isn't "obviously" harmful. It might not even result in harm at all.
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.
Doing something that might provoke an attack if the target chooses to do so, which might hit if they do choose and roll high enough... is several levels away from being obviously dangerous. Nothing about it is guaranteed harm in any way, shape or form.
So you're saying that someone would walk into a swinging blade trap, because it can miss? Or a rogue with evasion would walk into a blade barrier, because evasion?
'Dangerous' does not mean 'automatically harmful', it means 'risk of harm'. If they meant harmful, they could say so.
"Obviously" dangerous is the key. Provoking an opportunity attack isn't obviously dangerous.
If there’s a monster or NPC standing next to you trying to chop your face off with an axe, or slice it off with its claws, and you know that moving away from it will provoke an attack from said creature, I would consider that to be “obviously dangerous.” Now, I’m more often than not willing to risk a single OA if it means not being in reach for Multiattack or something else similarly more dangerous than the OA, but even I know it’s still a risk.
Doing something that might provoke an attack if the target chooses to do so, which might hit if they do choose and roll high enough... is several levels away from being obviously dangerous. Nothing about it is guaranteed harm in any way, shape or form.
So you're saying that someone would walk into a swinging blade trap, because it can miss? Or a rogue with evasion would walk into a blade barrier, because evasion?
'Dangerous' does not mean 'automatically harmful', it means 'risk of harm'. If they meant harmful, they could say so.
"Obviously" dangerous is the key. Provoking an opportunity attack isn't obviously dangerous.
If there’s a monster or NPC standing next to you trying to chop your face off with an axe, or slice it off with its claws, and you know that moving away from it will provoke an attack from said creature, I would consider that to be “obviously dangerous.” Now, I’m more often than not willing to risk a single OA if it means not being in reach for Multiattack or something else similarly more dangerous than the OA, but even I know it’s still a risk.
So you guys actually rule that someone won't use their reaction to move away if an enemy is standing next to them despite being affected by dissonant whispers? Neat.
I've never seen anyone rule that way, ever. But apparently there are a number of you who do?
Come to think of it, there are actually quite a number of people who love DW specifically because it can cause enemies to trigger OP attacks. But not when you guys run games, right?
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 never said that. It’s a matter of risk assessment. If the OA seems like it’ll be worse than the alternative then they sit pat. But most of the time the OA is the lesser of the two evils, so they move.
Sure you did. We're talking about whether someone would flee if threatened when affected by dissonant whispers. I said yes, because it may or may not be harmful. You disagree, and said it absolutely IS "obviously dangerous", unequivocally. Ie. You're arguing they wouldn't move away to provoke.
It’s a matter of risk assessment. If the OA seems like it’ll be worse than the alternative then they sit pat. But most of the time the OA is the lesser of the two evils, so they move.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The problem is: Just because some other spell descriptions make reference to "a willing creature", that doesn't mean that the same version of the word "willing" is being used in the phrase "willing movement". After all, can movement itself really be "willing" in the same sense that a creature can be? One thing refers to a conscious being and the other thing doesn't, so assuming that the same form of the adjective is being used in both cases is pretty much just that -- an assumption. In my opinion it's perfectly valid either way. Once the DM decides which way it is for their game world, hopefully they'll remember to stay consistent about it throughout the rest of the campaign.
But you can. You can refuse to move. If the area is obviously dangerous or harmful you don't have to go there.
"The creature doesn’t move into obviously dangerous ground, such as a fire or a pit."
That tells us everything we need to know. Your character is trying to get away from the wracking pain. Temporarily out of your, the player's, control. But still at their own faculties. They're aware enough and capable enough to not walk into anything dangerous. So clearly still in charge of the movement. What's being taken away isn't their choice, but 'your' choice (the player). The movement is their choice. You the player just don't get to decide if they make this choice.
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 boils down to "either it doesn't work because the movement is unwilling, or it doesn't work because the target doesn't move". The way abilities such as Dissonant Whispers are worded is kinda problematic.
In the absence of evidence otherwise, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Willing movement is movement under your own power that you choose to do. Unwilling/compelled movement is movement under your own power that you don't have the option of not doing. Forced movement is something that moves you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This is a build-in exception, but otherwise the target can't refuse to use it's reaction and move otherwise no one would do so.
You the player can't choose not to. The character is choosing to because of the pain. You as a player don't get to decide if the character chooses to or not, that's what the save decided. The character decides to do it because they're floundering around in pain. Like a reflexive reaction to extreme pain.
There seems to be a persistent problem distinguishing between player choice and character choice. They're often synonymous but not always. Here they're not. You lost control of your character but your character is still in control of themself. It is like a reflexive reaction to pain is all. Like if you touch a stovetop and it burns and you yank your hand back and slam your elbow into the counter. Your reflexive movement was willing, it was just a reflexive reaction. It wasn't your goal when you woke up that morning or anything but it was still you in charge of it.
There is two categories. Forced movement and willing movement under your own power. There isn't some middle category. It is a yes or no. Is it forced movement? If yes, then unwilling. If no, then willing.
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.
If the character is rational enough to avoid threats, they're rational enough to avoid moving at all if doing so is a bad idea -- for example, if your movement would trigger an opportunity attack -- and the easy way to decide whether something is a bad idea is whether the character chooses to do so. As such, the spell is just either incoherent (you can avoid some types of hazard, with no clear rule for what's permitted) or poorly designed (you can move your target... as long as doing so is useless).
"Obviously" dangerous is the key. Provoking an opportunity attack isn't obviously dangerous. In fact it might not even be dangerous. They may not take it. They may miss. There isn't even a garentee that a danger exists let alone how obvious it is if there was one.
But like, a raging inferno, or a cliff, plenty obvious. So is being wrapped in a field of exploding energy. Those are dangers, and they're plainly obvious.
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.
Player choice is irrelevant here and just add unecessary confusion , we are discussing character under the effect of spells.
Urr.. are you saying that with a straight face? It's a highly predictable "If I do X, I'll get hurt".
On the contrary provoking an Opportinuty Attack is dangerous because there's always the danger that you can be attacked if taken, and possibly hit and damaged.
What you are describing is not a choice. You are describing a course of action imposed by the result of a failed saving throw. I don't see anything in the spell description for dissonant whispers, nor in the general rules for saving throws that indicates a failed saving throw represents the character choosing the result of that save. RAW doesn't support your conclusion, and RAI specifically contradicts it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Guys, sorry to get off topic a little bit, but do you believe that psi-leap generates an attack of opportunity? I ask because this skill as well as teleport and other race skills do not consume any action, movement or reaction, being possible to use them freely before or after the leap.If you mean the psi warrior’s Psi-Powered Leap, all it does is give you a flying speed. You still need to spend movement to use that flying speed, and that movement provokes an attack of opportunity.
If that’s not the feature you mean, explain what you’re talking about.
Doing something that might provoke an attack if the target chooses to do so, which might hit if they do choose and roll high enough... is several levels away from being obviously dangerous. Nothing about it is guaranteed harm in any way, shape or form.
Compared to walking into a fire. You're going to burn. That's just the only outcome.
One is "obviously" harmful. The other has some risks but isn't "obviously" harmful. It might not even result in harm at all.
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.
So you're saying that someone would walk into a swinging blade trap, because it can miss? Or a rogue with evasion would walk into a blade barrier, because evasion?
'Dangerous' does not mean 'automatically harmful', it means 'risk of harm'. If they meant harmful, they could say so.
If there’s a monster or NPC standing next to you trying to chop your face off with an axe, or slice it off with its claws, and you know that moving away from it will provoke an attack from said creature, I would consider that to be “obviously dangerous.” Now, I’m more often than not willing to risk a single OA if it means not being in reach for Multiattack or something else similarly more dangerous than the OA, but even I know it’s still a risk.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So you guys actually rule that someone won't use their reaction to move away if an enemy is standing next to them despite being affected by dissonant whispers? Neat.
I've never seen anyone rule that way, ever. But apparently there are a number of you who do?
Come to think of it, there are actually quite a number of people who love DW specifically because it can cause enemies to trigger OP attacks. But not when you guys run games, right?
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 never said that. It’s a matter of risk assessment. If the OA seems like it’ll be worse than the alternative then they sit pat. But most of the time the OA is the lesser of the two evils, so they move.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sure you did. We're talking about whether someone would flee if threatened when affected by dissonant whispers. I said yes, because it may or may not be harmful. You disagree, and said it absolutely IS "obviously dangerous", unequivocally. Ie. You're arguing they wouldn't move away to provoke.
This has nothing to do with the question.
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.