Booming Blade and Warcaster Interaction Question [Archive]

SteelArcana

2018-10-17, 12:55 AM

A quick question about the interactions between booming blade and the warcaster feat. Let’s say that I'm hitting a target with booming blade every turn. There is sage advice out there from Jeremy Crawford that says, "A target hit by an opportunity attack mid-move is in control of its movement, unless somehow compelled". Keeping that in mind, does the following hold true?

1) The target already has the previous booming blade condition under effect. As soon as it starts to leave my range it willingly moves. It therefore takes the thunder damage from the booming blade.

2) I have the warcaster feat, so then I make an opportunity attack with booming blade. As per the sage advice, the target can decide to either stop or continue moving. If it continues to move, it takes the extra thunder damage.

Thanks in advance.

Lord Vukodlak

2018-10-17, 01:16 AM

Laserlight

2018-10-17, 02:54 AM

It may help to think of it as:
1. It has to move from the center to the edge of the 5ft square it's in, triggering BB #1;
2. It then moves at the edge of its square, about to leave your reach...provoking OA, so you apply BB #2.

Keravath

2018-10-17, 11:38 AM

Man_Over_Game

2018-10-17, 11:48 AM

Does the second booming blade apply in the hex they started or the hex they move into?

For example, they start adjacent, decide to move away, leaving your reach generates an opportunity attack. At this point, are they 10' away and subject to a second booming blade if they continue moving? Or are they at 5' since the OA booming blade lands while they are still within your reach and thus moving to 10' will trigger the second booming blade?

This is actually incredibly difficult to determine, surprisingly enough.

If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.

The attack interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.

When booming blade refers to moving, it means movement in the game's normal sense: moving X feet. #DnD

I would assume that, in order to be considered "moving", some actual movement has to occur. They are currently "right before they leave your reach". If they did do any kind of movement, they'd be in the new hex.

They would take the thunder damage after they have moved into the new hex.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 12:21 PM

This is actually incredibly difficult to determine, surprisingly enough.

I would assume that, in order to be considered "moving" the movement actually has to occur. They are currently "right before they leave your reach", so to be considered "moving", they'd have to perform some sort of actual distance. If they did do any kind of movement, they'd be in the new hex.

They would take the thunder damage after they have moved into the new hex.

Jeremy has stated that no, you can not use the movement based effect of booming blade on someone that was already under booming blade.

He is completely wrong about it and I personally pointed it out to him, but both he and Mike have far too much of an ego to admit their ruiling is wrong.

He stated it does not work because booming blade mentions that the person can not be under the effect of booming blade already.
I pointed out that the previous booming blade is alredy over when the second casting of BB happens, so they are not under its effects anymore.
He did not care and just said no it does not work anyway.

tieren

2018-10-17, 12:36 PM

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 12:55 PM

I would not allow it.

The movement effect of the first booming blade doesn't take effect if they don't leave the square. If they start to leave the square and you hit them with an AoO they haven't left the square yet and are still under the effect. If after you hit them with the AoO they decide not to continue trying to leave, they stay put and take no movement booming blade damage.

That is not what the spell says, the spell says, if they move on their turn, not if they leave there square.
war caster takes effect when they move out of your reach.
Those are 2 completely different things.

Process should go like this.

Your turn:
You cast Booming Blade, and hit the enemy. They now have the booming blade effect on them until the end of their turn.

Their turn:
They choose to move, as soon as they use their movement and move at all booming blade triggers causeing the appropriate amount of damage for its level.
THEN.
When they leave the reach of your weapon, warcaster triggers giving you an opportunity attack you can cast a cantrip with, which you can use booming blade for.
The enemy is not under the effect of booming blade at the time so there is no conflict. So, assuming that you hit, the effect can happen again.

The spell should say it can only happen once a turn.

Jeremy has ruled otherwise, but he is wrong.

ciarannihill

2018-10-17, 01:14 PM

That is not what the spell says, the spell says, if they move on their turn, not if they leave there square.
war caster takes effect when they move out of your reach.
Those are 2 completely different things.

Process should go like this.

Your turn:
You cast Booming Blade, and hit the enemy. They now have the booming blade effect on them until the end of their turn.

Their turn:
They choose to move, as soon as they use their movement and move at all booming blade triggers causeing the appropriate amount of damage for its level.
THEN.
When they leave the reach of your weapon, warcaster triggers giving you an opportunity attack you can cast a cantrip with, which you can use booming blade for.
The enemy is not under the effect of booming blade at the time so there is no conflict. So, assuming that you hit, the effect can happen again.

The spell should say it can only happen once a turn.

Jeremy has ruled otherwise, but he is wrong.

The problem is you're changing the order of events to allow the first BB to have resolved before the AoO, which it wouldn't have, because it only triggers after movement while the Attack of Opportunity occurs explicitly before they move (the same reason Sentinel prevents them from moving, it lowers their speed to 0 before the movement can actually occur). I hate to rain on your "talk **** about JC" parade, but you're actually wrong here RAW. Now, if a DM chooses to they can allow it, but I wouldn't. Not like BB needs to be even stronger.

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
Emphasis mine.

Willie the Duck

2018-10-17, 01:27 PM

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 01:30 PM

The problem is you're changing the order of events to allow the first BB to have resolved before the AoO, which it wouldn't have, because it only triggers after movement while the Attack of Opportunity occurs explicitly before they move (the same reason Sentinel prevents them from moving, it lowers their speed to 0 before the movement can actually occur). I hate to rain on your "talk **** about JC" parade, but you're actually wrong here RAW. Now, if a DM chooses to they can allow it, but I wouldn't. Not like BB needs to be even stronger.

Emphasis mine.

You are point out rules that reinforce my arguement not refute it.

Opportunity attack does not happen before they move, it happens before they leave a square you threaten.
BB happens when they move, your threatened square has no effect.

A person could move around you through 3 squares and never provoke an opportunity attack because they are still in your threat range, or they could try to step directly away from you.
In 3.5 and such moving out a square you threatened provoken an OA, however in 5e it has to be leaving your reach.

Leaving your reach, leaving a square, and moving in general are all 3 completley different things.

If they move at all, reguardless of distance, or direction, BB activates.
THEN
If they leave your reach doing it, an OA happens.

123
4O5
678

If you are O and the enemy is in square 2 and you hit them with booming blade, they could move to square 1 or 3 and the BB would activate as soon as they used any of their movement, however it would not provoke an OA because they are still in your reach.
They could travel from 2>3>5>8>7>6>4 walking all around you and never provoke an OA.

If they were in 2 and decided to just walk directly away from you, as soon as they chose to use their movement BB would activeate, when they used 5 feet of their movement and left your range, THEN your OA will have a chance to activate.

Same way that sentinel and mage slayer completely useless against casters who are smart.

Wizard/sorcerer are in square 2, you have both mage slayer and sentinel.
They cast shocking grasp and more than likely hit.
Oh well, you do not get to use a reaction anymore and the spell completely has effect first so you get nothing and they walk off.
They cast misty step, D-Door, teleport or any other travel spell.
Sorry they are not in your range anymore and did not "spend movement" so you get nothing, and they just escaped.
They cast invisibility on themself or blind on you.
Sorry, you can no longer see the enemy so you get no OA, they just walk away.

ciarannihill

2018-10-17, 01:56 PM

I'm not sure the case is inarguable. I think Man_Over_Game's position that the movement order is, "actually incredibly difficult to determine" is spot on.

However, if the case is arguable, than having the opposing position isn't wrong, so much as finding the opposing argument more compelling. That suggesting that maybe we shouldn't be calling other people wrong and refusing to admit it just might be a reckless and foolhardy endeavor.

I actually disagree that it's arguable in the specific case that OP outlined in which the movement attempt that provokes the AoO is the same movement that would trigger BB, as Man_Over_Game mentions in the second half of his post here:

I would assume that, in order to be considered "moving", some actual movement has to occur. They are currently "right before they leave your reach". If they did do any kind of movement, they'd be in the new hex.

They would take the thunder damage after they have moved into the new hex.

Which is also what JC has described as RAW. In the event that the BB is triggered by a square of movement before an AoO would trigger it can absolutely be used, but if the enemy is taking a direct retreat out of range then one (AoO) happens before the movement (and is stated as such explicitly in it's description) and one (BB trigger) happens after there is a clear conflict.

Like I said you can decide to run it however you want at your table, and certainly the language could stand to be more clear (movement in layman's terms could refer to moving an arm, while mechanically it means moving an increment of space equaling 5 ft), but when the sequence is clear with close reading and that sequence is confirmed by the writer of the rules it makes it pretty unambiguous with regards to RAW. The only way to make it otherwise is to add ambiguity somewhere by altering the meaning of a word like "movement" from a mechanical perspective.

@Dudewithknives: You spent a huge amount of that post outlining a potential scenario that we aren't talking about. Obviously if they trigger independently in the way you describe there's no conflict, but that's not in any way the scenario being discussed by anyone else...
The meaningful scenario is what happens if the same attempt at moving would trigger both. As far as the that is concerned, the only thing you said about it is that you make a distinction between leaving a square and use of movement in combat, but there isn't one. The only means to measure movement in combat is in those increments, adding that in certainly makes your perspective more compelling, but it's not a distinction made in the rules. You can justify your ruling by making that distinction, but that doesn't make JC's ruling "wrong" at all.

Tanarii

2018-10-17, 02:02 PM

You guys keep talking about squares like thats a thing built into 5e base rules ...

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 02:02 PM

I actually disagree that it's arguable in the specific case that OP outlined in which the movement attempt that provokes the AoO is the same movement that would trigger BB, as Man_Over_Game mentions in the second half of his post here:

Which is also what JC has described as RAW. In the event that the BB is triggered by a square of movement before an AoO would trigger it can absolutely be used, but if the enemy is taking a direct retreat out of range then one (AoO) happens before the movement (and is stated as such explicitly in it's description) and one (BB trigger) happens after there is a clear conflict.

Like I said you can decide to run it however you want at your table, and certainly the language could stand to be more clear (movement in layman's terms could refer to moving an arm, while mechanically it means moving an increment of space equaling 5 ft), but when the sequence is clear with close reading and that sequence is confirmed by the writer of the rules it makes it pretty unambiguous with regards to RAW. The only way to make it otherwise is to add ambiguity somewhere by altering the meaning of a word like "movement" from a mechanical perspective.

@Dudewithknives: You spent a huge amount of that post outlining a potential scenario that we aren't talking about...Obviously if they trigger independently in the way to describe there's no conflict, but that's not in any way the scenario being discussed by anyone else...
The meaningful scenario is what happens if the same attempt at moving would trigger both. As far as the that is concerned, the only thing you said about it is that you make a distinction between leaving a square and use of movement in combat, but there isn't one. The only means to measure movement in combat is in those increments, adding that in certainly makes your perspective more compelling, but it's not a distinction made in the rules. You can justify your ruling by making that distinction, but that doesn't make JC's ruling "wrong" at all.

The issue is that there are more ways of measuring movement.

Moving, as in at all, or as in using your movement.
Moving X distance.
Moving out of certain squares.
Moving out of x range.

Booming blade activates, when you move. It does not specify how much, what direction, if threatened, or anything. It is simply moving.
OA, specifically says that happend when they leave your threatened range. That means it has to be after moving at least 5feet.

When you move at all, even one foot, because they do not measure in less than whole feet. The effects of booming blade go off.
When you have moved enough to leave the square that is threatened by another person, then you may trigger an OA.

Booming blade will ALWAYS go off first, no exceptions.

So yes, his ruling is completely wrong.

P.S. to Tanarii, it is even easier if you just you ranges and not squares.

Did you move? yes? then booming blade goes off.
Did you move far enough to leave threat range which is at least 5 feet? Yes, the OA happens.

You can not move out of someones threat range without first moving, that simple.

OldTrees1

2018-10-17, 02:24 PM

The issue is that there are more ways of measuring movement.
P.S. to Tanarii, it is even easier if you just you ranges and not squares.

Did you move? yes? then booming blade goes off.
Did you move far enough to leave threat range which is at least 5 feet? Yes, the OA happens.

You can not move out of someones threat range without first moving, that simple.

If they start at 5+dx ft then there is no OA and booming blade does happen
If they start at 5-dx ft then there is an OA but booming blade happens dt before the OA
If they start at exactly 5 ft then there is an OA but booming blade happens dt after the OA

Is this the case you are making? Moving happens before Moved. Booming happens after dx Movement. OA happens dt before leaving 5 ft.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 02:29 PM

If they start at 5+dx ft then there is no OA and booming blade does happen
If they start at 5-dx ft then there is an OA but booming blade happens dt before the OA
If they start at 5 ft then there is an OA but booming blade happens dt after the OA

Is this the case you are making?

Close.

Even if they started at exactly the edge of your range, the BB would happen first because they used their movement.
It is only after they have chosen to move a distance that would take them outside your threatened range, that the OA occurs.

There is no way for the OA to happen first.

You are either in range or you are not.
If you move at all you get BB.
If that movement would take you out of range, you get an OA then you try.

tieren

2018-10-17, 02:30 PM

OldTrees1

2018-10-17, 02:33 PM

Close.

Even if they started at exactly the edge of your range, the BB would happen first because they used their movement.
It is only after they have chosen to move a distance that would take them outside your threatened range, that the OA occurs.

There is no way for the OA to happen first.

You are either in range or you are not.
If you move at all you get BB.
If that movement would take you out of range, you get an OA then you try.

If the movement that causes you to leave the range is dx and takes dt time, then "immediately before leaving" is at t=dt-dt=0 and "immediately after starting moving" happens at t=0+dt=dt.

Moving happens before Moved. Booming happens immediately after dx Movement (aka they started Moving). OA happens dt before leaving 5 ft.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 02:36 PM

The Attack of Opportunity happens before the movement, as has been quoted.

If it helps, think of the triggering event as lowering your guard just before you move away (as opposed to disengaging where you would keep your guard up to avoid the AoO)

Yes, and it was quoted incorrectly.

It does not say it happens before the movement.

It says when their movement provokes an OA. for Warcaster.
BB just says when they move, not when they move x feet.

Did they move, then the already standing effect of BB pops. Take the damage.
Now, did that movement move you out of their threat range, is so OA.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 02:44 PM

If the movement that causes you to leave the range is dx and takes dt time, then "immediately before leaving" is at t=dt-dt=0 and "immediately after starting moving" happens at t=0+dt=dt.

Moving happens before Moved. Booming happens immediately after dx Movement (aka they started Moving). OA happens dt before leaving 5 ft.

That is not how the order of actions happens in 5e.

It would be thus:

1. Enemy - I am going to move away from the guy who just hit me with BB.
2. DM - that movement activates the BB damage.
3. You moved outide their threat range, they get a OA.
4. the person who it with BB has Warcaster so they choose to use BB for the OA.

Now it is debatable whether the person his now has the option to stand still when they are hit with it.
Could they go, "Oh crap, he had warcaster, I will stop moving when he hits me"
or
would it be, DM - "You are still moving and take BB damage from the second one.

UrielAwakened

2018-10-17, 02:45 PM

If they start next to you, move one square next to you, then move out of your reach, they would take two BBs.

If they start next to you and then move out of your reach they would only take one BB.

OldTrees1

2018-10-17, 02:51 PM

That is not how the order of actions happens in 5e.

It would be thus:

1. Enemy - I am going to move away from the guy who just hit me with BB.
2. DM - that movement activates the BB damage.
3. You moved outide their threat range, they get a OA.
4. the person who it with BB has Warcaster so they choose to use BB for the OA.

Now it is debatable whether the person his now has the option to stand still when they are hit with it.
Could they go, "Oh crap, he had warcaster, I will stop moving when he hits me"
or
would it be, DM - "You are still moving and take BB damage from the second one.

So you are having Booming Blade happen before dx ft movement? Aka you are having Booming Blade happen at 0ft movement? The description of Booming Blade does not have any mention of a "immediately before", it only mentions condition satisfied -> immediately do X. OAs at least mention an "immediately before" so having it resolve dt (and thus dx ft) before the trigger makes sense.

I understand Booming Blade would trigger before 1ft of movement or even 1e-99999999999999999 ft of movement. However claiming it happens before dx ft of movement means that it triggers at 0ft of movement which makes even a stationary person trigger Booming Blade.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 03:01 PM

So you are having Booming Blade happen before dx ft movement? Aka you are having Booming Blade happen at 0ft movement? The description of Booming Blade does not have any mention of a "immediately before", it only mentions condition satisfied -> immediately do X. OAs at least mention an "immediately before" so having it resolve dt (and thus dx ft) before the trigger makes sense.

I understand Booming Blade would trigger before 1ft of movement or even 1e-99999999999999999 ft of movement. However claiming it happens before dx ft of movement means that it triggers at 0ft of movement which makes even a stationary person trigger Booming Blade.

Your argument uses terms and measurement not used in the game, also it is impossible to happen.

Is your pc/npc breaking out a measuring stick to make sure they are standing at exactly distance x?

Since that is not possible then they have to use game terms.
Those terms are movement, leave threatened range, or x feet.

If you play it your way I would expect to get free OA s every once in a while when people estimate their range wrong.

stoutstien

2018-10-17, 03:08 PM

Raw or Rai aside, which rulling is in line damage output/ control wise?
Compared to other at-will warcaster combos it's about on par with Eldritch blast (if you allow it past lv 5).
At my table I just added a save to avoid the damage caused by movement from BB.

OldTrees1

2018-10-17, 03:19 PM

Your argument uses terms and measurement not used in the game, also it is impossible to happen.

Is your pc/npc breaking out a measuring stick to make sure they are standing at exactly distance x?

Since that is not possible then they have to use game terms.
Those terms are movement, leave threatened range, or x feet.

If you play it your way I would expect to get free OA s every once in a while when people estimate their range wrong.

The issue is that there are more ways of measuring movement.
P.S. to Tanarii, it is even easier if you just you ranges and not squares.

You were the one that claimed forgoing squares made your conclusion easier to see. This terminology (dx, 5-dx, exactly 5, and 5+dx) is merely the consequence of examining the edge cases in the format you mentioned.

Obviously in 5E grid you are considered as starting at exactly 5ft away. But the logic of measuring movement by literal precise distance only applies to the non grid model so I cannot draw a conclusion about grid from the edge case of non grid.

PS: I like using edge cases to see if there is consistency between the argument of a person and the claims of the person. If their model and their claims match then it might be a reasoned model. If they contradict at the edge case then it might be a rationalized model. Obviously this litmus test is not precise.

Arkhios

2018-10-17, 03:23 PM

You guys keep talking about squares like thats a thing built into 5e base rules ...

Old habits die hard, I suppose.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-17, 03:30 PM

Jeremy has stated that no, you can not use the movement based effect of booming blade on someone that was already under booming blade.

i can't find this, specifically the booming blade while under booming blade. anyone point me to it?

You guys keep talking about squares like thats a thing built into 5e base rules ...
good point.

Man_Over_Game

2018-10-17, 03:46 PM

For some reference to some movement related concerns, "Movement" is directly related to your position on the battlefield. Spending movement (as by standing up from being prone) does not count as actual movement, and doesn't qualify for Booming Blade.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/659436991956799488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/663030224154562561

Which actually makes things a lot more complicated in trying to explain how this thing works in reality. Jumping up and down doesn't do anything, being pushed doesn't do anything, someone forcing you to run doesn't do anything, but choosing to crawl on the ground at half speed causes it to explode.

I can think of two explainable reasons how this works:

It's some kind of curse-bomb that triggers upon your willing movement, relying on intent.
It's some kind of vortex trap that's vulnerable to interference from the outside (which is why Infestation and other abilities don't set it off).

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-17, 03:52 PM

PS: I like using edge cases to see if there is consistency between the argument of a person and the claims of the person. If their model and their claims match then it might be a reasoned model. If they contradict at the edge case then it might be a rationalized model. Obviously this litmus test is not precise.

Let's say DudeWithKnives admitted that he didn't know if BB would take effect less than 1ft of movement. Does that mean that his interpretation is wrong?

Aett_Thorn

2018-10-17, 04:50 PM

I think that this is a case where if you’re playing on a grid and using squares it makes it a lot more difficult and complicated.

If you’re playing theatre of the mind, or just using abstract movement, then movement of even 1’ would trigger the first booming blade and it wouldn’t matter if a second one was applied at the 5’ range.

But using squares, movement usually only occurs in 5’ increments, and so someone moving from one square to another is the only thing that really triggers what a movement is. Before leaving the square, the first booming blade damage doesn’t go off since no movement has occurred (even though you need to move 1’ before moving 5’), so applying a second booming blade before the enemy moves out of range effectively stacks it and so only one would go off.

Personally, if I were the DM, I would probably need to see what the effects are both ways and see what makes the most sense before coming up with a decision.

SteelArcana

2018-10-17, 06:16 PM

As others in the thread have mentioned, the booming blade spell description does not mention how far you need to move in order to trigger the effect. For the sake of clarity, I am not suggesting there is going to be two booming blade effects on a target at the same time. Jeremy Crawford has previously ruled that this cannot happen.

The logic would be that the target activates the booming blade effect after they begin moving but before they leave the 5ft melee range that is required to take an attack of opportunity. When they take the opportunity attack leaving the 5ft melee range, there is currently no booming blade effect on them. It is therefore fine to apply another effect with an attack of opportunity.

Logically speaking, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to apply another booming blade effect on the target in this situation. The only scenario where I think this would make sense is if the target has to move >=5ft in order to meaningfully move. In other words, a target can only move in 5ft increments. I suppose this would make sense, however, it is definitely not intuitive to me.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-17, 06:23 PM

The only other option would be that any movement counts because there's no limiting principle. And that removes the condition on the extra damage entirely.

For all such effects, the only consistently sane reading of move is "uses its own movement or a reaction to occupy a different combat space than it previously did." And by that reading, the OA happens first (otherwise sentinel wouldn't work right).

bid

2018-10-17, 06:25 PM

He is completely wrong about it and I personally pointed it out to him, but both he and Mike have far too much of an ego to admit their ruiling is wrong.
Right...:smallyuk:

Aett_Thorn

2018-10-17, 06:27 PM

Just out of curiosity, if you hit a mounted opponent with Booming Blade, and they use the mount’s movement, would that trigger the damage?

Dudewithknives

2018-10-17, 06:47 PM

Just out of curiosity, if you hit a mounted opponent with Booming Blade, and they use the mount’s movement, would that trigger the damage?

One moment checking something

SteelArcana

2018-10-17, 06:52 PM

-snip-

For all such effects, the only consistently sane reading of move is "uses its own movement or a reaction to occupy a different combat space than it previously did." And by that reading, the OA happens first (otherwise sentinel wouldn't work right).

This makes sense for the sake of consistency.

OldTrees1

2018-10-17, 07:31 PM

Let's say DudeWithKnives admitted that he didn't know if BB would take effect less than 1ft of movement. Does that mean that his interpretation is wrong?

No, you would not be able to draw that conclusion from my litmus test. The litmus test in my PS does not measure correctness. It measures reasoned/rationalized and does so imprecisely.

Also please give DudeWithKnives more credit than that. I went to a 3 partition extreme edge case (with a precision of infinitesimal distances).

Tanarii

2018-10-17, 07:57 PM

P.S. to Tanarii, it is even easier if you just you ranges and not squares.

Did you move? yes? then booming blade goes off.
Did you move far enough to leave threat range which is at least 5 feet? Yes, the OA happens.

You can not move out of someones threat range without first moving, that simple.
Depends if OAs are triggered by starting to leave a threatened area, or fully leaving it.

We know Oas occur before the movement. We just don't know which part of the movement they occur before.

If OAs are triggered by fulling leaving the threatened area, then yes, you are right. The order of operations is:
1) start to move out of area
2) resolve booming blade after start of movement
3) leave threatened area fully
4) retroactively resolve Oa just before leaving threatened area fully

Personally I suspect this is the correct way to do it. You can have someone actually move out of a space, but must be able to hit them with the 'earned' OA while they are still in reach.

Also because the retroactive nature of OAs is just there to handle 5e not requiring a declaration of intent, followed by all resolutions, and reach of attacks not actually extending beyond reach.

But I can see people thinking the order of operations of someone right at the edge of threatened area, with OAs being triggered by starting to leave a threatened area, being:
1) start to leave area
2) triggered OA is resolved before you start to leave (ie before any movement)
3) resolve booming blade after start of movement.

Edit: the latter being what OldTrees1 is posting about.

Keravath

2018-10-17, 09:50 PM

I am wondering if it is important to keep in mind that in 5e playing on a 5' grid of either squares or hexes is a variant rule.

Under the variant rule it says: "Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by square on the grid." (PHB 192)

This means that in the standard, base, 5e theater of the mind rules, movement is resolved "foot by foot".

In that case, in order to be "moving" a creature would need to move 1' ... a move of 1' would trigger booming blade. This should be independent of whether you choose to play on a grid or theater of the mind. Moving is defined above by moving at least one foot since it isn't resolved in smaller units.

To make things simple, creatures can be assumed to be at the center of the space they occupy on a grid (or in theatre of the mind). This means it is 2.5' to the boundary of the region they currently occupy (assuming a medium creature who occupies a space 5' in size). Standard reach is 5' and extends for 5' beyond the 5' occupied/controlled by the creature. This means that reach extends 7.5' from the center of the creature.

"A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide." (PHB 191)

An adjacent creature occupies 5' next to the other creature. It needs to move 2.5' to exit the boundary of the region controlled by the creatures reach. However, a movement of 1' is considered moving in theater of the mind since movement is resolved on a foot by foot basis. This means that booming blade would trigger when the creature has moved a foot from its initial location and the opportunity attack would occur when they have moved 2.5 feet from their starting point just before or as they exit the reach of the character with the op attack. At this point the character would be subject to a second booming blade. However, since the character has up to 1' of movement past the reach boundary without triggering booming blade, they would be considered to be in the next square or hex on the grid and not still in the square or area within the reach of the character who executed the op attack.

So ... looking at the basic 5e rules in which movement is resolved "foot by foot".

1) The initial booming blade is triggered by the creature moving at least 1 foot (thus standing up, jumping in place and various other movement does not trigger booming blade)
2) When the creature attempts to leave the reach of an adjacent creature it has to move 2.5 feet to do so. So the first booming blade triggers after 1' of movement and the opportunity attack may be taken after 2.5' of movement.
3) If the opportunity attack hits it can inflict booming blade again. However, since the character still has 1' of movement it can take without triggering booming blade it will be out of the reach of the character who took the opportunity attack.
4) If you map this onto a 5' grid ... declaring movement triggers the booming blade, hitting the boundary of the square triggers the op attack and second booming blade and the target will be outside the reach of the attacking character (i.e. in the next square) and not still within the reach of the character who took the op attack.

RAW I think that is what would happen based on theater of the mind since the 5' grid is a variant rule that only approximates the movement that should be resolved on a "foot by foot" basis.

tieren

2018-10-17, 10:07 PM

OldTrees1

2018-10-17, 10:09 PM

But I can see people thinking the order of operations of someone right at the edge of threatened area, with OAs being triggered by starting to leave a threatened area, being:
1) start to leave area
2) triggered OA is resolved before you start to leave (ie before any movement)
3) resolve booming blade after start of movement.

Edit: the latter being what OldTrees1 is posting about.

Yeah, I was checking the edge case where any amount of movement would lead you outside and thus "before leaving" would be before moving in that edge case.

In the 5ft grid system the minimum distance traveled is large enough that we could see this a lot.
In the foot by foot method (see Keravath's post) we would see this less often but would still see it (see tieren's post).
In the fully continuous system the minimum distance is dx and thus it is nearly impossible to end up at this edge case.

Outside of the edge case I see DudeWithKnives's position. If they have to move before they get the opportunity to start to leave the range, then obvious the first Booming Blade triggers before the OA. We can see some universal agreement about this if the person runs some laps (screaming "woo woo" :smallbiggrin:) around the Warcaster before leaving the 5ft range.

And as always: Of course we would all make rulings that make sense in the context of the situation at our own tables.

bid

2018-10-17, 11:39 PM

Under the variant rule it says: "Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by square on the grid." (PHB 192)

This means that in the standard, base, 5e theater of the mind rules, movement is resolved "foot by foot".

In that case, in order to be "moving" a creature would need to move 1' ... a move of 1' would trigger booming blade. This should be independent of whether you choose to play on a grid or theater of the mind. Moving is defined above by moving at least one foot since it isn't resolved in smaller units.
Nice reasoning, well grounded and fact-based.

Tanarii

2018-10-18, 08:22 AM

To make things simple, creatures can be assumed to be at the center of the space they occupy on a grid (or in theatre of the mind). This means it is 2.5' to the boundary of the region they currently occupy (assuming a medium creature who occupies a space 5' in size). Standard reach is 5' and extends for 5' beyond the 5' occupied/controlled by the creature. This means that reach extends 7.5' from the center of the creature. That's not simple, that's a change in the rules. A creature 'occupies' a 5ft space, and their reach extends 5ft from their space. So they can reach an area 15ft in diameter.

Keravath

2018-10-18, 08:33 AM

The one foot thing doesn't work. If he is deemed to be 2.5 feet in his square then you must be deemed 2.5 feet in your square, meaning you start at the very edge of your reach and any movement at all will trigger the AoO.

Actually no ...

The creatures SIZE is considered 5' ... it is in control of a 5' diameter or square area and can prevent other creatures from entering that area. However, its REACH extends 5' beyond that in any direction. Thus if the creature is considered to be at the middle of the 5' diameter area it controls then it is 2.5' from the edge of the region and its reach extends to 7.5' from the center of its location.

An adjacent creature also controls a 5' region and the 5' regions are next to each other which puts the centers of the creatures 5' apart and within each others reach.

Moving 1' away from the other creature puts you 6' from their center location ... their reach extends to 7.5' from the center ... and is sufficient to trigger booming blade. Continuing to move past 7.5' and you will leave the other creatures reach and be subject to an opportunity attack. However, you will have left their reach and on a grid would be considered to be in the next square/hex. However, if the character continued to move more than 1' (or another square) it should trigger the second booming blade.

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 08:38 AM

Actually no ...

The creatures SIZE is considered 5' ... it is in control of a 5' diameter or square area and can prevent other creatures from entering that area. However, its REACH extends 5' beyond that in any direction. Thus if the creature is considered to be at the middle of the 5' diameter area it controls then it is 2.5' from the edge of the region and its reach extends to 7.5' from the center of its location.

An adjacent creature also controls a 5' region and the 5' regions are next to each other which puts the centers of the creatures 5' apart and within each others reach.

Moving 1' away from the other creature puts you 6' from their center location ... their reach extends to 7.5' from the center ... and is sufficient to trigger booming blade. Continuing to move past 7.5' and you will leave the other creatures reach and be subject to an opportunity attack. However, you will have left their reach and on a grid would be considered to be in the next square/hex. However, if the character continued to move more than 1' (or another square) it should trigger the second booming blade.

Except that melee attacks are defined as having a 5 foot reach, not a 7.5 foot reach.

Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
Emphasis mine.

So even in foot by foot movement, moving enough to trigger BB triggers the AoO first, because by moving to 6 feet away you've left their range.

Keravath

2018-10-18, 08:39 AM

That's not simple, that's a change in the rules. A creature 'occupies' a 5ft space, and their reach extends 5ft from their space. So they can reach an area 15ft in diameter.

Ok. I agree completely with what you said since it is EXACTLY what I said. So I am confused.

A 15' diameter area has a 7.5' radius ... the reach extends 7.5' out from the creature. An adjacent creature in the middle of their square is 5' from the center of the square of the first creature. They have to move 2.5' to exit the reach of the first creature. However, they only have to move one foot (based on movement in theater of the mind being resolved foot by foot) to trigger booming blade.

Keravath

2018-10-18, 08:45 AM

Except that melee attacks are defined as having a 5 foot reach, not a 7.5 foot reach.

Emphasis mine.

So even in foot by foot movement, moving enough to trigger BB triggers the AoO first, because by moving to 6 feet away you've left their range.

They are defined as having a 5' reach from the SPACE occupied by the creature. The quote above says a creature occupies a 5' area and the reach extends from the AREA and not from the center. A creatures reach is a 15' diameter area (7.5' radius) around the center of their location ... and that does not change the rules at all.

"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack."

"SPACE A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide."

A creature occupies and controls a space 5' in size. They can reach 5' beyond the area they occupy ... not 5' from the center of the space they occupy.

They can attack targets within 5' of them ... and "them" is the space they occupy not the point at the center of the space they occupy. (At least that is how I would interpret it)

jas61292

2018-10-18, 08:50 AM

Out of curiosity, what reason is there to believe movement of less than 5 feet activates it? People keep talking about 1 foot increments, as if that means something, but, as far as I know, nothing in the rules calls out 1 foot as significant. We know "movement" without actually "moving,", such as falling prone or standing up, attacking, speaking, spellcasting, or dancing in place does not activate it. And a number of these things that don't activate it involve significant movement. What is the difference between these things and shuffling your feet a bit such that incidentally moves you 1 foot?

The fact that 1 is the first integer? I don't see what that has to do with anything. If I'm missing a rule, please point it out. But as far as I can remember, there is nothing defining how much movement is needed to count as "movement." And in the absence of such info, we can only use the data we do have, which says that tiny quantities of movement do not count, while 5 feet of movement does. Where the line falls has to be somewhere in between, but without any further info it should suggest that this is an area of DM interpretation.

Personally, I usually use a grid, and even when I do not, I tend to talk about movements and ranges as if we were using a grid, to stay consistent. If this situation came up for me, I would rule that the OA comes before movement has been taken, and this the effects would overlap and not work. Other interpretations are fine, but in my opinion that would drastically improve the power of that combination, when it really does not need any such boost.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 09:01 AM

The issue I have with the "1 foot is enough" camp is that it doesn't work with the assumption that people are continuously moving within their 5' spaces. There's also no limiting principle--if motion is continuous, then any trivial motion (1/12"!) might be enough. Where do we draw the line? The only consistent way of doing it (and this works for all movement-related things) is to say that a character moves (game term) when they leave the 5' space they controlled and use their movement to enter another 5' space of control.

Is it artificial? Sure. So's just about everything. Going to a continuous movement scale is more natural but causes problems with the rest of the abstractions. Just like most appeals to "realism" do. Combat in D&D is abstracted by nature--trying to play games with the abstraction level to get power is mere munchkinism.

Tanarii

2018-10-18, 09:09 AM

Ok. I agree completely with what you said since it is EXACTLY what I said. So I am confused.Hey look at that. So it is. nm, carry on, nothing to see here :smallbiggrin:

Out of curiosity, what reason is there to believe movement of less than 5 feet activates it? People keep talking about 1 foot increments, as if that means something, but, as far as I know, nothing in the rules calls out 1 foot as significant. Keravath provided that.

Under the variant rule it says: "Speed. Rather than moving foot by foot, move square by square on the grid." (PHB 192)

OTOH that's under a variant rule. So while it certainly can be considered the exception that proves the rule, especially given it's wording, it's not a direct rule.

Laserlight

2018-10-18, 10:47 AM

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 10:48 AM

Otherwise you get Sentinel preventing the move which had to happen to trigger Sentinel.

This is precisely what Sentinel is intended to do, prevent the attempt at moving away.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 10:50 AM

It would make more sense if it worked as "I'm about to leave your space, I provoke OA/trigger BB as I cross the boundary, now I'm in the next space". Otherwise you get Sentinel preventing the move which had to happen to trigger Sentinel.

That's exactly how Sentinel does work. You trigger an OA by starting to move out of reach; the OA interrupts the movement. If successful, Sentinel sets speed to 0, canceling the move.

The order of operations is
* Begin movement
* Trigger any AOs
* Actually move (if any movement is left and if you chose to)
* Trigger BB

Anything else causes lots and lots of issues with other spells and abilities.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 11:42 AM

That's exactly how Sentinel does work. You trigger an OA by starting to move out of reach; the OA interrupts the movement. If successful, Sentinel sets speed to 0, canceling the move.

The order of operations is
* Begin movement
* Trigger any AOs
* Actually move (if any movement is left and if you chose to)
* Trigger BB

Anything else causes lots and lots of issues with other spells and abilities.

There are more steps than that:

1. Declare using movement or modifiers to it like dash, or disengage.
2. You start to move in the desired direction.
3. When you move, a triger based on simple movement activates, like Booming Blade.
-3a. If that movement takes you out of their range, check for OA
-3b. If those OA have a rider like Sentinel, they take effect if you hit.

tieren

2018-10-18, 11:53 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 12:08 PM

There are more steps than that:

1. Declare using movement or modifiers to it like dash, or disengage.
2. You start to move in the desired direction.
3. When you move, a triger based on simple movement activates, like Booming Blade.
-3a. If that movement takes you out of their range, check for OA
-3b. If those OA have a rider like Sentinel, they take effect if you hit.

OAs are checked for on a foot-by-foot basis. True.
OAs only trigger after you move more than 5 feet. False (as far as I can believe). You already start at the extent of a (5') reach if you're adjacent.

That first step back away (in a direction that would trigger an OA) is the trigger, and the OA happens before the movement. Thus, in the "backing straight up" case, the OA comes first and BB does not stack. To say otherwise is to say that a single foot of movement is enough to count 2x for BB or that BB stacks with itself. Which it can't.

If you move around the opponent (without leaving their reach) and then move away, BB triggers (because the OA hasn't happened yet) and then the OA/warcaster triggers and they can possibly take the movement damage from BB twice.

So if the first instance of movement would trigger an OA, no (double) dice. If it wouldn't but a later instance of movement might.

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 12:11 PM

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 12:13 PM

I disagree with your position.

SO in your situation, lets say the PC has access to Booming Blade and Sentinel, and the target is already under the effect of BB. If it decides to move back 5 feet, you would apply the movement damage from BB, then let the PC hit it with another BB as a AoO, and then apply sentinel effect to stop it from leaving the space leaving it exactly where it started (+/- 1')?

Very close yes.
To put it in more detail.

1. you have hit the target with booming blade.
2. on their turn the enemy decides to move, maybe they even decide to use disengage because they do not know you have sentinel.
3. they attempt to move X feet
4. as soon as they move BB goes off and the damage is applied.
5. if that movement would take them out of your threatened range then sentinel has a chance to activate.
6. you also have warcaster so you can hit them with booming blade again assuming you hit.
7. however if you hit their movement becomes 0 so they cant continue moving so the second effect of booming blade is not going to happen.

If you are using squares, your character is always assumed to be in the center of a square, you have to move your center of your characater/figure past the border of the square you are in to be considered leaving a threat range. However, Booming blade does not require that much movement, it only requires that you move, so at the point you move your character, but before the center of it passes the line for the next square you have activated booming blade. Only after that has happened and you continue to cross the border of the square adjacent to you, do you trigger Sentinel.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 12:18 PM

AoO explicitly happen before the movement occurs. It's in the rules for it. You're moving it with regards to priority to below things that occur after movement, which makes no sense. Step 3 should read more like this:

3. A movement is being attempted.
-3a. If they movement would prompt an AoO it does so.
-3b. Upon a successful AoO an additional effects, such as Sentinel, occur
-3c. If creature is still capable of movement it moves, triggering effects based on movement, such as BB.

That is the problem, people keep saying that, but that is not what the rules say.

Straight from the book...

O p p o r t u n i t y A t t a c k s
In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for enemies
to drop their guard. You can rarely move heedlessly past
your foes without putting yourself in danger; doing so
provokes an opportunity attack.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile
creature that you can see moves out o f your reach. To
make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction
to make one melee attack against the provoking
creature. The attack interrupts the provoking creature’s
movement, occurring right before the creature
leaves your reach.
You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by
taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an
opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone
or something moves you without using your movement,
action, or reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an
opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out o f a foe’s
reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

It does not stop the movement from ever happening, it does not happen when they start to move at all, it happens as soon as you have moved enough to leave their threatened range.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 12:19 PM

If you are using squares, your character is always assumed to be in the center of a square, you have to move your center of your characater/figure past the border of the square you are in to be considered leaving a threat range. However, Booming blade does not require that much movement, it only requires that you move, so at the point you move your character, but before the center of it passes the line for the next square you have activated booming blade. Only after that has happened and you continue to cross the border of the square adjacent to you, do you trigger Sentinel.

You can't flip back and forth between squares and not. If you're using squares, you've only Moved (game term) and possibly triggered an OA when you have left one square and entered another. There is no smaller resolution, no sub-square resolution available.

If you're not using squares, then you've triggered the OA when you first start to move away (on the first 1' increment) because you're going from 5' away to 6' away. You're trying to have it both ways. Chose one.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 12:23 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 12:26 PM

Actualy yes, you can have both.
Movement is not only broken into 5 foot hunks.
Using squares was just the description I used because it makes it easier to visualize for most people.

Again look at my post above, movement does not trigger OA, leaving a threat range does.
Threat range is always at least 5 feet, so that distance you moved before you get to the 5 foot mark, is movement.

No, the rule is that if you're using squares then you only count 5' movement. You don't occupy a particular point in your square, you occupy (control) your entire square.

When two creatures are adjacent they are already 5' away (on center) from each other. So any movement away triggers an OA (in the default case). You don't start less than 5' away--you control 5' and they control 5' and those cannot overlap. So the on-center distance is 5'. Going from 5' to 6' is moving out of reach, so it triggers.

The only way to have both BBs take effect is for the opponent to move laterally first (not triggering the OA but triggering BB) and then move away. So back them into a corner where they have to move around you to be able to get away.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 12:36 PM

No, the rule is that if you're using squares then you only count 5' movement. You don't occupy a particular point in your square, you occupy (control) your entire square.

When two creatures are adjacent they are already 5' away (on center) from each other. So any movement away triggers an OA (in the default case). You don't start less than 5' away--you control 5' and they control 5' and those cannot overlap. So the on-center distance is 5'. Going from 5' to 6' is moving out of reach, so it triggers.

The only way to have both BBs take effect is for the opponent to move laterally first (not triggering the OA but triggering BB) and then move away. So back them into a corner where they have to move around you to be able to get away.

That is not how it works.

You control the 5x5 square you are in, the squares you occupy can not overlap, and your character's body is assumed to be at the center of that square, however you threaten 5 feet around that, kind of like on a tic-tac-toe board if you are in the center you threaten the 8 squares around you, those can easily overlap.

OA only happen when someone tries to leave one of those 8 squares, assuming you are not using a weapon with reach, then it would only happen when they leave even more squares out.

People always keep saying that movement provokes OA, but it doesnt, it is only when that ovement moves you out of their threatened area.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 12:40 PM

That is not how it works.

You control the 5x5 square you are in, the squares you occupy can not overlap, and your character's body is assumed to be at the center of that square, however you threaten 5 feet around that, kind of like on a tic-tac-toe board if you are in the center you threaten the 8 squares around you, those can easily overlap.

OA only happen when someone tries to leave one of those 8 squares, assuming you are not using a weapon with reach, then it would only happen when they leave even more squares out.

People always keep saying that movement provokes OA, but it doesnt, it is only when that ovement moves you out of their threatened area.

You're doing it again. Either

a) movement happens square by square, anything less than that doesn't count.
OR
b) there are no squares and you control a 5' circle and adjacent enemies (those whose zones of control are bordering) start 5' away from you so any radial movement provokes. This can be trivially shown by using 1" bases and putting them adjacent. If you are in the center, another medium creature is exactly 5' away from you, at the edge of your reach. If the bases are not touching, you cannot reach the creature. There's no radial movement that does not separate the bases.

There is no c.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 12:57 PM

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 01:00 PM

That is not how it works.

You control the 5x5 square you are in, the squares you occupy can not overlap, and your character's body is assumed to be at the center of that square, however you threaten 5 feet around that, kind of like on a tic-tac-toe board if you are in the center you threaten the 8 squares around you, those can easily overlap.

OA only happen when someone tries to leave one of those 8 squares, assuming you are not using a weapon with reach, then it would only happen when they leave even more squares out.

People always keep saying that movement provokes OA, but it doesnt, it is only when that ovement moves you out of their threatened area.

Melee attacks are 5 feet range attacks, period. If a creature is in melee range (an adjacent 5 foot square, for example) and they move even an inch out of that range, let alone a foot or 5 feet, it would trigger an AoO.

Regardless of the minimum unit of motion (1 foot or 5 foot or anything else), creatures that are adjacent are at the maximum of melee range by default because otherwise they would be overlapping their respective occupied space. Any attempt to move beyond that range would trigger an AoO before BB damage occurs.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 01:04 PM

Phoenix, are you saying that:
on a 5'ft grid or hex: OA occurs before the BB is triggered.
on a smaller grid, TotM, or similar: BB is triggered then OA occurs?

No. There are 2 cases.

5' Grid: OA occurs before the triggering movement, so if

XXX
XAB
XXX

becomes

XXX
XAXB
XXX

An OA is (potentially, assuming no disengage or mobile or whatever) triggered before B counts as having moved for any other effect. So if A hits B with Sentinel, A and B are adjacent and B did not move.

So OA then BB (movement damage).

Gridless (whether TotM or not, I use a blank whiteboard with measured distances): Medium creatures that are adjacent are exactly 5' away. So any radial movement is an OA trigger (and the OA happens before the movement occurs). There's no room to move away without leaving reach and triggering the OA.

So OA then BB (movement damage).

The two cases are consistent--A single instance of movement cannot trigger multiple BB extra damage.

The only other case is where there is lateral movement (within reach) before the provoking movement. Then there are multiple instances of movement (some non-triggering and some triggering) and so you can have multiple BB activations.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 01:04 PM

You're doing it again. Either

a) movement happens square by square, anything less than that doesn't count.
OR
b) there are no squares and you control a 5' circle and adjacent enemies (those whose zones of control are bordering) start 5' away from you so any radial movement provokes. This can be trivially shown by using 1" bases and putting them adjacent. If you are in the center, another medium creature is exactly 5' away from you, at the edge of your reach. If the bases are not touching, you cannot reach the creature. There's no radial movement that does not separate the bases.

There is no c.

Both of those are wrong.

A: Movement is not broken into 5 foot segments.
B: Your threatened area is not just the 5 foot area you occupy, it is 5 feet in every direction from the edge of your controlled square.

You occupy an area with a diameter of 5 feet with you in the cener of it, you THREATEN an area that 15 feet in diameter.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 01:08 PM

Medium creatures that are adjacent are exactly 5' away..

Is this rule explicitly in the books?
Because there are common rules that appear to violate that: aka shoving and grappling, unarmed combat, touch attacks.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 01:13 PM

Both of those are wrong.

A: Movement is not broken into 5 foot segments.
B: Your threatened area is not just the 5 foot area you occupy, it is 5 feet in every direction from the edge of your controlled square.

You occupy an area with a diameter of 5 feet with you in the cener of it, you THREATEN an area that 15 feet in diameter.

A: IF AND ONLY IF you're gridless. On a grid there's no sub-5' resolution for movement so it is 5' segments.
B: Incorrect.

On a grid:
You threaten the adjacent squares. But since you can't move part of a square, any radial movement provokes.

Gridless:
You threaten creatures whose zones of control border yours. If you think of them as spheres of radius 5', only spheres whose edges touch are within a 5' reach. Any radial movement moves out of that threatened region and thus provokes.

Note that the two are consistent--there is no radial motion possible for adjacent creatures that does not constitute leaving reach. There's no area where you can back up.

If you think of minis with circular bases, any movement that results in the separation of adjacent bases provokes an AO. Any other interpretation is inconsistent with itself and with other effects and is pure cheese.

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 01:14 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 01:15 PM

Is this rule explicitly in the books?
Because there are common rules that appear to violate that: aka shoving and grappling, unarmed combat, touch attacks.

How? None of those have issues with a 5' spacing. But if you put anyone closer, your zones of control overlap and that's forbidden (occupying the same space in combat). If they're any further, you're out of reach.

Shoving: reach 5'.
Grappling: reach 5'
Unarmed combat: reach 5'
touch attacks: reach 5'

And for the record, here's the rules text (PHB 195, emphasis in original):

Most creatures have 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack...
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach...The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.

Your reach is 5'. That's 5' from you, not 5' from your square (which is an abstraction that may or may not exist). The OA happens before they leave your reach.

And the quote on space (PHB 191):

...you can't willingly end your move in [another creature's] space...
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide...

There is no indication that you are in the center of that space, just somewhere inside. At any instant you might be near one edge (grappling someone), near the other edge (letting an ally pass through), or anywhere in between.

Keravath

2018-10-18, 01:22 PM

OAs are checked for on a foot-by-foot basis. True.
OAs only trigger after you move more than 5 feet. False (as far as I can believe). You already start at the extent of a (5') reach if you're adjacent.

That first step back away (in a direction that would trigger an OA) is the trigger, and the OA happens before the movement. Thus, in the "backing straight up" case, the OA comes first and BB does not stack. To say otherwise is to say that a single foot of movement is enough to count 2x for BB or that BB stacks with itself. Which it can't.

If you move around the opponent (without leaving their reach) and then move away, BB triggers (because the OA hasn't happened yet) and then the OA/warcaster triggers and they can possibly take the movement damage from BB twice.

So if the first instance of movement would trigger an OA, no (double) dice. If it wouldn't but a later instance of movement might.

As far as I know the bolded statement isn't in the rules. Reach says it extends 5' from the character ... not the center of the character or the center of the square they occupy. A creature is stated to take up a 5' area even if they don't physically fill that area. 5' from THEM would then be a 5' reach from the edge of the 5' diameter region they occupy. So when two creatures start adjacent they are NOT at the edge of the reach. The reach extends to the edge of the grid or hex and the creature is at the center of the grid or hex or at 5' from the other creature.

As a result, reach extends to a region of 15' diameter around the character (7.5' radius). So a 3x3 grid. 15' in theater of the mind or the six hexes adjacent on a hex map. Opportunity attacks don't trigger until the character moves out of the reach which is 7.5' from the other creature or at the boundary of the square or hex they occupy.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 01:25 PM

How? None of those have issues with a 5' spacing. But if you put anyone closer, your zones of control overlap and that's forbidden (occupying the same space in combat). If they're any further, you're out of reach.

Shoving: reach 5'.
Grappling: reach 5'
Unarmed combat: reach 5'
touch attacks: reach 5'

you did not point to an explicit rule in the books.

the case that I laid out are cases where you have to be within arms (or legs) length to perform the action.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 01:25 PM

As far as I know the bolded statement isn't in the rules. Reach says it extends 5' from the character ... not the center of the character or the center of the square they occupy. A creature is stated to take up a 5' area even if they don't physically fill that area. 5' from THEM would then be a 5' reach from the edge of the 5' diameter region they occupy. So when two creatures start adjacent they are NOT at the edge of the reach. The reach extends to the edge of the grid or hex and the creature is at the center of the grid or hex or at 5' from the other creature.

As a result, reach extends to a region of 15' diameter around the character (7.5' radius). So a 3x3 grid. 15' in theater of the mind or the six hexes adjacent on a hex map. Opportunity attacks don't trigger until the character moves out of the reach which is 7.5' from the other creature or at the boundary of the square or hex they occupy.

No. See the quote I just edited in above. That's 5' from you, meaning you can hit anything whose space is adjacent to your space. Period. Sub-space resolution is not a thing, and you are not at a well-defined point in your space. Movement within your space is not considered at all for anything, it's below the resolution of the system.

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 01:25 PM

Is this rule explicitly in the books?
Because there are common rules that appear to violate that: aka shoving and grappling, unarmed combat, touch attacks.

Actually, yes:

Space

A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5-foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.

A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.

Melee range is a 5 foot radius around a creature and creatures control 5 feet of space. Attempting to move at all away from this radius would immediately trigger an AoO before the movement occurs and therefore before BB can be triggered.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 01:28 PM

you did not point to an explicit rule in the books.

the case that I laid out are cases where you have to be within arms (or legs) length to perform the action.

That's not a thing in 5e. All melee attacks (and shoving, grappling, unarmed attacks, and touch attacks are by definition melee) default to 5' reach. Read the rules text. It's right there. Anything else is outside the resolution of the combat system and is ill-defined.

Physically, when you're grappling someone you're at one edge of your space and they're at the near edge of their space. For game terms, you're 5' apart (your spaces do not overlap and are 5'-radius spheres.)

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 01:32 PM

Actually, yes:

actually, no?
Phoenix's quote was: "Medium creatures that are adjacent are exactly 5' away.."

the text you quoted did not say 2 creatures are exactly 5' away.
if you are able to physically grapple a creature you are less than 5' away. (i believe you would be 0ft away cuz physical contact)

WOTC has explicitly playtested that you can push someone in non 5'ft increments. (UA giant soul sorceror)

Keravath

2018-10-18, 01:35 PM

You can't flip back and forth between squares and not. If you're using squares, you've only Moved (game term) and possibly triggered an OA when you have left one square and entered another. There is no smaller resolution, no sub-square resolution available.

If you're not using squares, then you've triggered the OA when you first start to move away (on the first 1' increment) because you're going from 5' away to 6' away. You're trying to have it both ways. Chose one.

I disagree with the first sentence ... the rules and spell effects should ideally be the same whether a person chooses to play on in theater of the mind or on a grid. Even on a grid, a character can move less than a full square, perhaps they are at the edge of the square to interact with a door or other object. It is up to the DM to figure what exactly happens. However, to me, it doesn't seem reasonable that spells behave differently depending on how you decide to represent the movement.

Which actually gets back to the fundamental issue behind this discussion :)

What is considered MOVEMENT for triggering effects?

Logically, and reading and interpreting the rules as english. Movement is moving ... changing your position by a non-negligible amount. It isn't "You have to change your position by a minimum of 5' to move because you are using a grid and miniatures to represent the movement". Some of the rules text seems to indicate that dealing with movement on a "foot by foot" basis is a reasonable approach and on that basis movement would seem to be defined as movement of at least 1'.

Anyway, ultimately, it is up to the DM and players to decide how it works and how they want to play it. In general, I don't think having booming blade act twice is overpowered in the circumstances described by the OP and I think RAW can support that interpretation.

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 01:42 PM

actually, no?
Phoenix's quote was: "Medium creatures that are adjacent are exactly 5' away.."

the text you quoted did not say 2 creatures are exactly 5' away.
if you are able to physically grapple a creature you are less than 5' away. (i believe you would be 0ft away cuz physical contact)

WOTC has explicitly playtested that you can push someone in non 5'ft increments. (UA giant soul sorceror)

So there are 3 separate things in this post that you're conflating as a single thing:

Medium creatures control a 5' x 5' space, these spaces cannot overlap within the game:

Creature Size

Each creature takes up a different amount of space. The Size Categories table shows how much space a creature of a particular size controls in combat. Objects sometimes use the same size categories.

Size Space

Tiny 2 ½ by 2 ½ ft.
Small 5 by 5 ft.
Medium 5 by 5 ft.
Large 10 by 10 ft.
Huge 15 by 15 ft.
Gargantuan 20 by 20 ft. or larger

If a Medium hobgoblin stands in a 5-foot-wide doorway, other creatures can't get through unless the hobgoblin lets them.

If a creature is within melee range they are within 5' by definition because melee range is 5':

Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.

Movement can be done in increments smaller than 5' (assuming not on a grid, of course), but that's not relevant to the fact that you can't be in my 5' controlled space and you can't be more than 5' away and be considered melee. X (the distance between 2 creatures within melee range of eachother) cannot be > 5' and X cannot be < 5' means X = 5'.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 01:42 PM

The text does not say we are exactly 5' apart.
It does talk about abstract concepts like reach, and creature's space. and it talked about movement.

PhoenixPhyre and ciarannihill have reasonable interpretations based on those terms.
Dudewithknives has reasonable interpretations based on interpreting movement rules.

edit: everyone (including me) is making jumps from the text to support their point. (ie, if the text you quote does not literally say word for word what you said)
at this point, we are just shouting "wrong, cuz my interpretation is better than yours"

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 01:57 PM

The text does not say we are exactly 5' apart.
If X !> 5' (melee range is 5') and X !< 5' (creatures cannot occupy the same space and PCs control 5' of space) means X = 5'

It does talk about abstract concepts like reach, and creature's space.
These are mechanical terms within the game with clear definitions, not "abstract concepts".

PhoenixPhyre and ciarannihill have reasonable interpretations based on those terms.
We are literally just reciting the rules of the game, not interpreting them.

Dudewithknives has reasonable interpretations based on interpreting movement rules.
No, he doesn't. He's applying differing movement rules to the two mechanics, so long as you apply the same rules to them it results in the same result, the actual result. A creature in melee range is 5' away, if they attempt to move away an AoO occurs before movement while BB triggers after.

at this point, we are just shouting "wrong, cuz my interpretation is better than yours"

No, we're restating the rules, then getting challenged on the rules we reference as givens, which we then reference to which we get a reply about the first rules again. It's like argument kiting.

Keravath

2018-10-18, 01:59 PM

A: IF AND ONLY IF you're gridless. On a grid there's no sub-5' resolution for movement so it is 5' segments.
B: Incorrect.

On a grid:
You threaten the adjacent squares. But since you can't move part of a square, any radial movement provokes.

Gridless:
You threaten creatures whose zones of control border yours. If you think of them as spheres of radius 5', only spheres whose edges touch are within a 5' reach. Any radial movement moves out of that threatened region and thus provokes.

Note that the two are consistent--there is no radial motion possible for adjacent creatures that does not constitute leaving reach. There's no area where you can back up.

If you think of minis with circular bases, any movement that results in the separation of adjacent bases provokes an AO. Any other interpretation is inconsistent with itself and with other effects and is pure cheese.

No. The bolded part is incorrect. The creature OCCUPIES a space of 5' diameter.

"A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide." PHB191

The creature occupies a space of 5' diameter. EACH creature occupies a space of 5' diameter.

"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack."

It is not within 5' of the point at the center of the space they occupy. It is 5' from them. It is 5' from the 5' diameter area they are considered to occupy. Thus reach is a 15' diameter area which they can threaten extending 7.5' from the center of the area the creature occupies in each direction.

Your interpretation relies on assuming that reach only extends to 5' from the center of the creature instead of 5' from "them" and your interpretation relies on "them" being a point in space rather than the area they occupy.

Two creatures adjacent are 5' apart when looking at the centers of the region they occupy and each can threaten targets within 7.5' ... they are both within each others reach and movement of 1' does not trigger an OA.

On a grid, an OA is not triggered until the creature crosses the boundary of the hex or square on the grid. However, the creature CAN move less than a square which could trigger spell effects.

----------

The fundamental difference in your interpretation and the one presented here is that you are measuring reach from the center of the creature instead of from the area the creature occupies and controls.

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 02:06 PM

No. The bolded part is incorrect. The creature OCCUPIES a space of 5' diameter.

"A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide." PHB191

The creature occupies a space of 5' diameter. EACH creature occupies a space of 5' diameter.

"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack."

It is not within 5' of the point at the center of the space they occupy. It is 5' from them. It is 5' from the 5' diameter area they are considered to occupy. Thus reach is a 15' diameter area which they can threaten extending 7.5' from the center of the area the creature occupies in each direction.

Your interpretation relies on assuming that reach only extends to 5' from the center of the creature instead of 5' from "them" and your interpretation relies on "them" being a point in space rather than the area they occupy.

Two creatures adjacent are 5' apart when looking at the centers of the region they occupy and each can threaten targets within 7.5' ... they are both within each others reach and movement of 1' does not trigger an OA.

On a grid, an OA is not triggered until the creature crosses the boundary of the hex or square on the grid. However, the creature CAN move less than a square which could trigger spell effects.

----------

The fundamental difference in your interpretation and the one presented here is that you are measuring reach from the center of the creature instead of from the area the creature occupies and controls.

No, the fundamental difference is that you're making up a figure of 7.5' as their "threatened" (once again, not a mechanic in this edition) range even though it's explicitly stated in the rules that melee attacks have a 5' range. Creatures control a 5 foot radius, not a 5' diameter, and the 5' melee range is that same 5' radius, not an additional 5' beyond their (non-existent) 5' diameter.

You've decided to shrink the PC's controlled/occupied area and extended their range in your estimations, which obviously results in what you want. It's just a flawed argument to it's core assumptions.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 02:07 PM

"We are literally just reciting the rules of the game, not interpreting them."
From the thread "What is RAW"

All non-trivial text requires interpretation.[snip] The rules are a toolkit, a shared default framework for discussion. The only rules that matter are those agreed-upon by the table and implemented. The text doesn't matter. The designers' intent doesn't matter. Unless, of course, those are persuasive to the people who do matter, the players (including the DM).

edit: addressed another glitch
"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets >>>within<<< 5 feet of them when making a melee attack."

within - with·in
/wəˈT͟Hin,wəˈTHin/Submit
preposition
1.
inside (something).
"the spread of fire within the building"
synonyms: inside, in, enclosed by, surrounded by; More

i disagree with your equations based on the quoted text.

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 02:11 PM

"We are literally just reciting the rules of the game, not interpreting them."

Yes, when in actual play at the table the DM's ruling is correct, this is rule 0.

That doesn't mean you can pretend the rules aren't written the way they are in conversation about RAW. 5' doesn't become 7.5' because "Well, the rules are interpretable". The rules say 5', so it's 5' unless you make an explicit ruling to change that in the context of playing the game, which is the DM's prerogative, but that doesn't make it an accurate reading of RAW.

edit: addressed another glitch
"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack."

Yes, so to be in melee range a creature cannot be more than 5' away. They also cannot be closer than 5' because creatures cannot occupy the same controlled radius. Yes, in real life they can, but mechanically they cannot. If you can't be more than 5' away, but also cannot be less than 5' away then where are you? Exactly 5' away.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 02:13 PM

Yes, when in actual play at the table the DM's ruling is correct, this is rule 0.

That doesn't mean you can pretend the rules aren't written the way they are in conversation about RAW. 5' doesn't become 7.5' because "Well, the rules are interpretable". The rules say 5', so it's 5' unless you make an explicit ruling to change that in the context of playing the game, which is the DM's prerogative, but that doesn't make it an accurate reading of RAW.

again your partner has something to say on the matter.
From the thread "What is RAW"

Exactly. RAW is not a well-defined or useful term. It's merely an appeal to illusory authority (the supposed authority of the text) to convince someone to do what you want.

Reading and understanding the text is important. But it's only the first step to understanding and using the rules. Same way with the actual legal code--the text is important. But applying it in a literal, magic-words fashion and hunting for loopholes in the exact wording is a good way to get slapped down by a court. Because courts don't work that way. They consider intent, equity, prior decisions, circumstances, etc.

RAW as used on the forums is its own specialized interpretive method that has very little to do with the actual game. It claims to be "just the text" but then interprets it in ways that ignore context (sometimes considering partial phrases in isolation) and english syntax, all for a results-oriented goal.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 02:19 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 02:21 PM

The fundamental difference in your interpretation and the one presented here is that you are measuring reach from the center of the creature instead of from the area the creature occupies and controls.

The only valid interpretation of the rules is to judge on-center from the center of the zones of control of the creatures (for medium creatures). Your reach is 5' (directly stated in the rules). You do not occupy your entire space (directly stated in the rules). Spaces cannot overlap (directly stated in the rules). Thus, the centers of two adjacent spaces (with edges in contact) are 5' apart, and two creatures in those spaces can reach each other. If the edges are not in contact, they cannot reach each other and thus an AO must be checked for. Full stop. Any sub-space resolution is not according to the rules.

During combat you move around your space (dodging, coming in for a bind, lunging away/back, etc). This is not Movement (for purposes of game effects). The only thing that counts is changing the relative positions (relative to a space-fixed coordinate system) of the spaces occupied by the creatures. Movement within a space is meaningless, and the spaces are not instantaneously centered on the creature. Any other interpretation causes inconsistencies within the system and is thus invalid.

An exception occurs with large creatures--there you can count from the center of any of the (nominally 5') spaces occupied.

Your interpretation would allow creature A to hit creature C (since the edge of their space is within 5' of the edge of creature A's space), which is the definition of 10' reach:

XXX
ABC
XXX

ciarannihill

2018-10-18, 02:23 PM

again your partner has something to say on the matter.

Except taking a post from another context and inserting into an entirely different conversation is basically the least useful rhetorical tool. We're having a conversation about RAW. Quoting something that claims such things to be less than practical in the course of actual play is irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand. I've said it multiple times, but I feel like I need to once again point out:

YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT AT YOUR TABLE REGARDING THIS SCENARIO, NO ONE WHO ISN'T AT THE TABLE HAS ANY BUSINESS QUESTIONING THAT.

But there's a major difference between deciding "the rules say X, but I'm electing to do Y because it's better for my table" and stating that the rules are wrong, the people who wrote them are wrong and those that choose to follow them regarding this scenario are wrong. Than justifying your stance by using factually inaccurate readings of the rules, using rules from previous editions that no longer exist in 5E or willfully ignoring points made against your view.

Whether or not it's a good rule, a helpful rule or one someone should obey is not the topic of discussion, it's whether RAW does or does not allow this angle-shooting (which is precisely what this is, by the way). Stating how unuseful RAW is in actual play isn't pertinent to the discussion.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 02:24 PM

Your REACH is everything within 5 feet of [your space].

That's not what those words mean. There's nothing in there that says your reach extends from the edge of the space.

Not to mention that your interpretation causes inconsistencies with every other "movement" effect in the game.

Keravath

2018-10-18, 02:28 PM

No, the fundamental difference is that you're making up a figure of 7.5' as their "threatened" (once again, not a mechanic in this edition) range even though it's explicitly stated in the rules that melee attacks have a 5' range. Creatures control a 5 foot radius, not a 5' diameter, and the 5' melee range is that same 5' radius, not an additional 5' beyond their (non-existent) 5' diameter.

You've decided to shrink the PC's controlled/occupied area and extended their range in your estimations, which obviously results in what you want. It's just a flawed argument to it's core assumptions.

Wow. Weird. I am just quoting the rules from the book over and over. I am not making anything up. I am just reading what it says and obviously getting a different answer from you. The following are the QUOTES from the PHB.

"A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn't 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide." PHB191

"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack." PHB195

Do you disagree with either of these lines quoted directly from the players hand book?

A creature occupies an area that is 5' wide (5' dimeter and NOT 10' diameter). PHB191 ... Agree or disagree?
A creature can attack targets within 5' of THEM PHB195 ... Agree or disagree?

THEM is the 5' wide area the creature occupies ... this is my interpretation

THEM is the point at the center of the area occupied by the creature ... this seems to be your interpretation.

I disagree with your definition of THEM as the point at the center of their location giving them a reach of a 10' diameter.
You disagree with my definition of THEM as the area they occupy giving them a reach of 15' diameter.

I have neither "You've decided to shrink the PC's controlled/occupied area and extended their range in your estimations".

5' WIDE does not mean 10' WIDE ... it means 5' ... it means the creature occupies ONE 5' square or an area of 5' diameter. If anyone is changing the rules here it is you by trying to say the area controlled by the creature is 10' wide when it clearly states 5' wide.

A creatures reach extends 5' from THEM ... I am interpreting this as 5' beyond the area occupied by the creature.

I am NOT changing any of the rules. I am reading them as written. A 5' WIDE creature is NOT 10' wide as you seem to imply. A reach of 5' extends from the creature, from THEM and not from the center of the square they occupy. I am reading the rules as written. Not making anything up and to be honest I have NO AGENDA as far as this is concerned ... it just seemed like a cool logic puzzle in the rules.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 02:29 PM

The only valid interpretation of the rules is to judge on-center from the center of the zones of control of the creatures (for medium creatures). Your reach is 5' (directly stated in the rules). You do not occupy your entire space (directly stated in the rules). Spaces cannot overlap (directly stated in the rules). Thus, the centers of two adjacent spaces (with edges in contact) are 5' apart, and two creatures in those spaces can reach each other. If the edges are not in contact, they cannot reach each other and thus an AO must be checked for. Full stop. Any sub-space resolution is not according to the rules.

During combat you move around your space (dodging, coming in for a bind, lunging away/back, etc). This is not Movement (for purposes of game effects). The only thing that counts is changing the relative positions (relative to a space-fixed coordinate system) of the spaces occupied by the creatures. Movement within a space is meaningless, and the spaces are not instantaneously centered on the creature. Any other interpretation causes inconsistencies within the system and is thus invalid.

An exception occurs with large creatures--there you can count from the center of any of the (nominally 5') spaces occupied.

Your interpretation would allow creature A to hit creature C (since the edge of their space is within 5' of the edge of creature A's space), which is the definition of 10' reach:

XXX
ABC
XXX

No. it isnt, because B IS the whole 5 feet of reach that A has.

Each letter is one foot:

AAAAABBBBBCCCCC
AAAAABBBBBCCCCC
AAAAABBBBBCCCCC
AAAAABBBBBCCCCC
AAAAABBBBBCCCCC

The creature occupying A can not reach creature C because all 5 of its feet of reach is in B.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 02:31 PM

remember when i said at this point we are just shouting?
you said, nuh uh
and then you using super big bold font..

Except taking a post from another context and inserting into an entirely different conversation is basically the least useful rhetorical tool. We're having a conversation about RAW.

the title of that thread was "What is RAW"
given that you started talking about RAW, this post is entirely relevant.
Every post from Phoenix in that thread is the RAW is subjective and interpreted.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 02:31 PM

A creature occupies an area that is 5' wide (5' dimeter and NOT 10' diameter). PHB191 ... Agree or disagree?
A creature can attack targets within 5' of THEM PHB195 ... Agree or disagree?

THEM is the 5' wide area the creature occupies ... this is my interpretation

THEM is the point at the center of the area occupied by the creature ... this seems to be your interpretation.

But the words specifically say that they are not coextensive with their space. Thus they do not occupy their entire space. They control it, and no other creature can enter without their permission or end their turn there, but they are not their space. English does not mean that. Those words cannot validly be interpreted that way.

They are themselves, and they can hit any creature whose space is adjacent to theirs. Adjacent spaces == within 5' reach. Not-adjacent spaces == not within 5' reach.

Dudewithknives

2018-10-18, 02:36 PM

But the words specifically say that they are not coextensive with their space. Thus they do not occupy their entire space. They control it, and no other creature can enter without their permission or end their turn there, but they are not their space. English does not mean that. Those words cannot validly be interpreted that way.

They are themselves, and they can hit any creature whose space is adjacent to theirs. Adjacent spaces == within 5' reach. Not-adjacent spaces == not within 5' reach.

That is only partially true.

2 creatures can not normally occupy the same space is their 5 feet diameter areas.

This is absolutely true, you are correct.

The part that is wrong is that you are counting the area that they take up as part of that reach.
Their ranged is 5 feet from the area they occupy or controll, not from the center of it.

Also it specifically states in the grid rules:

Ranges. To determine the range on a grid between two
things—whether creatures or objects—start counting squares
from a square adjacent to one of them and stop counting in
the space of the other one.

That is why ranged for grids are done in squares, they do not start in the center of the square you stand in, they start next to it.

Also this is one of only 3 places that even uses the word adjacent at all in the PHB. Nowhere else it it mentioned when refering to a characters reach, or anything like that.

Tanarii

2018-10-18, 04:07 PM

Gridless:
You threaten creatures whose zones of control border yours. If you think of them as spheres of radius 5', only spheres whose edges touch are within a 5' reach. Any radial movement moves out of that threatened region and thus provokes.
Definitely wrong. Reach extends 5ft from the edge of you, which means your controlled space, in gridless.

Edit:
If it helps you see why this must be the case: at no point is it defined where you are in your space. "You" is like one of those particle thingies you study. Probability fields. Some other science sounding words. :smallamused: But reach must be figured from the edge of the you-probability-field known as your space, because you occupy whichever edge of it you need to to make your attack.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 05:52 PM

First a quote from the SRD (pg 92):

A creature's space also reflects the area it needs to fight effectively. For that reason, there's a limit to the number of creatures that can surround another creature in combat. Assuming Medium combatants, eight creatures can fit in a 5-foot radius around another one.

So let's see what shape best fits this as well as the 5'x5' "space" description given.

Consider two ideas. In both, the dark red is the creature's space and the light red is the set of all points within 5' of a point on the edge of that space.

Idea 1: Cartesian distance.

https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/sphere-packing.png

This is what happens if we use "real" distances--everything is a sphere (circle in 2d space). Here, to follow the guidance (SRD pg 92) we need to do face-centered cubic packing, which leaves substantial gaps and puts some of them (the corner ones) much further away. The red creature can only reach (at best) a tiny fraction of the points in those corner spaces and in no case more than half of any surrounding creature's space. Thus, the creature can dance in and out of "reach" without actually leaving the confines of their space at t = 0 and while still being "within 5'" by the packing rule.

Idea 2: "Grid" distance.

https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/square-packing.png

This is what happens if you follow the grid-based rules and assume no extra distance for diagonals. Basically, all the circles become squares. Now, a 5' "radius" forms a larger square. You can easily fit 8 identical spaces within this square around the central creature; all points in each of those spaces is within 5' of a point in the central space. Thus, no matter how the people move within their "spaces", there is no space they can go that is out of reach of the center person.

To me, the 2nd idea is way more natural. My reasoning:
1) it fits the packing rules perfectly.
2) it fits the 5x5 nature of the space perfectly (a 5' circle =/= a 5x5 area)
3) it fits the optional grid rules perfectly.
4) it provides a clear, unique answer for when an OA is triggered: if any of the surrounding creatures move away even infinitesimally, there's an area of their space "out of reach" of the central person, triggering an OA.
5) in this metric, there's no difference between measuring center-to-center and measuring edge-to-corresponding-edge. Both give the same result.

The first idea fails all of these tests. YMMV.

bid

2018-10-18, 06:07 PM

The first idea fails all of these tests. YMMV.
Make a path going at 30-45 degree angle, the second idea can't handle it at all. It's only valid for ONE direction.

You need rotational symmetry or it's not a proper theater of the mind.

As for the 10' vs 15' radius, nothing states either interpretation is wrong. I'd rather use the actual real-world reach of fencing champions as the deciding factor. But to each his own.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-18, 06:14 PM

Make a path going at 30-45 degree angle, the second idea can't handle it at all. It's only valid for ONE direction.

You need rotational symmetry or it's not a proper theater of the mind.

As for the 10' vs 15' radius, nothing states either interpretation is wrong. I'd rather use the actual real-world reach of fencing champions as the deciding factor. But to each his own.

Rotate your coordinate system. The grid only exists locally, not globally. You get a manifold of metrics, but that's not a problem. In essence, a sphere is isomorphic (in this metric) to a cube, so you still do have rotational symmetry (by moving to a non-euclidean metric for distance).

I'll admit that I actually just wing it, most of the time. The system isn't designed for super-detailed measurements or for loophole-hunting. I'm much more focused on being fair to everyone and letting people do cool things. Verbiage-miners and munchkins (who seek to abuse tricky wording differences or set up carefully-designed orders of operations for personal gain) just rub me the wrong way.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-18, 06:47 PM

snip

in graph 1 you are forcing TotM to a grid then saying, see it only works on a grid.

in graph 2, you say that you have to ignore that the corners a 2 ft further away.
the PHB 192 says
"The rule for diagonal movement sacrifices realism for the sake of smooth play. The Dungeon Master’s Guide provides guidance on using a more realistic approach."
so the PHB says graph 2 is less correct, but easier

the DMG allows for hexes instead of grids.
please address how to arrange 8 attackers in hex.

Keravath

2018-10-18, 07:36 PM

First a quote from the SRD (pg 92):

So let's see what shape best fits this as well as the 5'x5' "space" description given.

Consider two ideas. In both, the dark red is the creature's space and the light red is the set of all points within 5' of a point on the edge of that space.

Idea 1: Cartesian distance.

https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/sphere-packing.png

This is what happens if we use "real" distances--everything is a sphere (circle in 2d space). Here, to follow the guidance (SRD pg 92) we need to do face-centered cubic packing, which leaves substantial gaps and puts some of them (the corner ones) much further away. The red creature can only reach (at best) a tiny fraction of the points in those corner spaces and in no case more than half of any surrounding creature's space. Thus, the creature can dance in and out of "reach" without actually leaving the confines of their space at t = 0 and while still being "within 5'" by the packing rule.

In this figure, you have drawn the light red circle 2.5' beyond the edge of the dark red circle. However, reach is 5'. Try drawing the light red circle 5' beyond the dark red circle giving a light red circle with a diameter of 15'. This brings the centers of all the squares in the grid within the light red circle (and the center of the corner squares within reach of the central square).

If reach was defined as it is in your picture, the squares on the diagonal would not be able to hit the central square.

Also, if you use the circles, the grid representation making all 8 squares that border at either sides or corners to the central square, is the closest approximation to a reach of 5' starting at the edge of the 5' area occupied by the creature giving a total area with a diameter of 15' feet and a radius of 7.5'. If reach only extended to the centers of the squares on the straight sides, the corners would not be able to reach the central square and allowing all the surrounding squares to attack the central square would not represent that.