D&D 5E Using booming blade on a reaction attack with sanctuary question

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Well unless you have forced movement on that AO then they can stop or move right back where they started utilizing the same movement. The rules for AOs are about the attempt not resolution of movement. Its worded like crap yes but editing is a nightmare throughout 5e. It's the shield spell paradox all over.
They cannot stop, because they have already left reach. The trigger for the AOO is, "moves out of reach," not "is about to leave reach." The attack happens right as the enemy is leaving, but that attack is not triggered until the enemy is out of reach. It interrupts the movement only to allow the attack, not to allow the enemy to change it's mind. Essentially the enemy is in mid step when it gets hit and then the step completes and it is in the new square. At that point the enemy can walk back or do whatever.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Also the Devs say Booming Blade works with War Caster


And explains their reasoning here

Jeremy Crawford is just a man, giving his interpretation of the rules. This can help us understand what the design intent may have been (for whatever that’s worth given that he has demonstrated design intent is subject to change), but it doesn’t mean that’s the only valid reading of rules written in natural language.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No the Opportunity Attack trigger is when it moves out but occur before it.
Not by RAW.

"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."

That is the trigger. The attack timing is not the trigger.

Otherwise dying from it or being otherwise unable to move after it would invalidate the trigger.
No it wouldn't. The creature would die 5 feet away from you as it's momentum places it in the square it moved to, and Sentinel just renders the rest of the creature's movement 0, stopping it 5 feet away. Or if you have a generous DM, specific can beat general and stop it before it leaves the square, but it's still a specific exception.

What DOES invalidate the trigger is the creature deciding not to leave reach, since leaving reach is the RAW trigger.
 

Yeah, logically AOOs should be triggered by entering the reach of a target with a longer weapon (say, reach > two-handed > versatile > any other melee weapon). But would that lead to better gameplay?
I use something similar and I would say 100% it's better. It makes charging at each other risky.

*Basically of you want to enter the reach of someone with a melee weapon you either eat an AO or cut speed in half to cover your approach. Moving within reach will also trigger AOs for certain classes unless they treat that space as DT. Moving away doesn't besides for barbarians who can basically follow them and smack them with an AO.
An additional rule with this is of you can flank a target you can bypass most of this.
So melee combat is about more than soaking hits. It's denial and control without just slapping magic on it.**
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
Jeremy Crawford is just a man, giving his interpretation of the rules. This can help us understand what the design intent may have been (for whatever that’s worth given that he has demonstrated design intent is subject to change), but it doesn’t mean that’s the only valid reading of rules written in natural language.
Correct its just an interpretation from the Devs, which i based to make my own. People are free to rule how they want.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Correct its just an interpretation from the Devs, which i based to make my own. People are free to rule how they want.
I don't give Crawford much weight. The man literally said that See Invisibility which says, "For the duration, you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible" doesn't stop the disadvantage when attacking that invisible person and doesn't really let you see the creature clearly.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
The problem here is that the wording on opportunity attacks suggests that the attack happens before the thing that triggers it. You can make an opportunity attack when the creature leaves your reach but the attack occurs just before the creature leaves your reach. That means either the attack must occur retroactively, just before the event that (will) trigger it, or the trigger must actually be the announcement of intent to move to a position that is outside your reach, rather than the actual movement itself. In the latter case, we must consider what happens if the results of the opportunity attack change circumstances such that the target no longer wishes to resolve the announced movement. A DM could either rule that the target must complete the announced movement, or that they can decide not to do so; the rules don’t indicate a preference for either approach as far as I can tell.
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
Not by RAW.

"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."

That is the trigger. The attack timing is not the trigger.
Its exactly what i said ''the Opportunity Attack trigger is when it moves out but occur before it.''

What you said was that the trigger was '''has left reach''. It's not


But it can only happen if the creature actually leaves reach. You don't have the AOO if the creature doesn't leave reach. Only the attack happens before the creature leaves reach, not the trigger. The trigger is "has left reach." No leave reach, no trigger.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I use something similar and I would say 100% it's better. It makes charging at each other risky.

*Basically of you want to enter the reach of someone with a melee weapon you either eat an AO or cut speed in half to cover your approach. Moving within reach will also trigger AOs for certain classes unless they treat that space as DT. Moving away doesn't besides for barbarians who can basically follow them and smack them with an AO.
An additional rule with this is of you can flank a target you can bypass most of this.
So melee combat is about more than soaking hits. It's denial and control without just slapping magic on it.**
Ooh! I love the addition that flanking allows you to approach without provoking an OA! That makes flanking a relevant concern again, without being as overpowered as granting advantage!
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Its exactly what i said ''the Opportunity Attack trigger is when it moves out but occur before it.''

What you said was that the trigger was '''has left reach''. It's not
Then I'm not sure what the issue is. The trigger is when it moves out of reach. That is the one and only trigger. That you attack before it leaves does not keep that trigger from happening. The trigger must occur in order for the AOO to happen. The enemy "moves out of reach."
 

Then I'm not sure what the issue is. The trigger is when it moves out of reach. That is the one and only trigger. That you attack before it leaves does not keep that trigger from happening. The trigger must occur in order for the AOO to happen. The enemy "moves out of reach."
See the shield spell. An attack hitting is the trigger and the reaction states it applies to the triggering attack. If it turns a hit into a miss the trigger didn't happen. Sometimes the RaWs are stupid and form logic circles DMs have to deal with.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
See the shield spell. An attack hitting is the trigger and the reaction states it applies to the triggering attack. If it turns a hit into a miss the trigger didn't happen. Sometimes the RaWs are stupid and form logic circles DMs have to deal with.
Examples of specific beats general don't help your position. Shield is a specific exception.
 

Irlo

Hero
[IMO] Moving out of reach is a process with a duration, not a quantum event. That is, there's time for the triggered OA to occur during that process. The rules are not logically rigorous or internally consistent. It's only as hard to resolve these things in-game as the DM wants to make it.
 

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
I'm not precisely understand what you mean by interrupt. If you mean it in a general English word sense, I think I agree with you.

If they have moved out of range to trigger an OA (which happens right before they move out of range), they have done that. The OA still triggers. If, after that, since they technically have not yet moved out of range they wish to not continue moving so they stay in the same square, that's fine. They have moved "just shy" of 5 feet, so I would count that part of movement used in case they decide to move later int he round, or do something late requires movement like if they were proned in the OA.

A different example is a creature that declares it's moving across an area that's they don't know has been hit with Spike Growth - they can stop moving, reverse their movement, or do anything - they aren't bound by the declaration of their original destination, each square is it's own choice.
Yes, that's what I meant. We are in agreement.
 

Examples of specific beats general don't help your position. Shield is a specific exception.
That's not how specific rules work. Specific rules can contradict general rules but those special rules still have to work with at least themselves. Shield says you must be hit to trigger the reaction bit the reaction can prevent the trigger. It doesn't include a clause to exempt that attack from fulfilling the requirements so you just have to go with the RAI/RTMS.

Any reaction that somehow retroactively occurs before the trigger is already in trouble and if they can potentially prevent the trigger they are asking for confusion.
When next was in playtest reactions were different and as they moved forward it got lost in the shuffle. The good news with AOs is the general reaction rules still apply which allows the target to continue their turn with the knowledge the reaction occured at that point in time. I.e. they can stop moving even if it retroactively prevents the trigger. It says "can"continue not "must".
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That's not how specific rules work. Specific rules can contradict general rules but those special rules still have to work with at least themselves. Shield says you must be hit to trigger the reaction bit the reaction can prevent the trigger. It doesn't include a clause to exempt that attack from fulfilling the requirements so you just have to go with the RAI/RTMS.
It does.

"An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile."

It specifically includes the triggering attack as also having to overcome the increase in AC, which can turn the hit into a miss. There is no such language in the AOO from moving out of reach. Nothing there says or implies that the AOO can unwind the trigger the way the Shield spell does.

Any reaction that somehow retroactively occurs before the trigger is already in trouble and if they can potentially prevent the trigger they are asking for confusion.
There is no such potential to unwind the trigger in the movement AOO. It simply happens as the creature steps 5 feet away.
The good news with AOs is the general reaction rules still apply which allows the target to continue their turn with the knowledge the reaction occured at that point in time. I.e. they can stop moving even if it retroactively prevents the trigger. It says "can"continue not "must".
If it has the option not to continue, then the trigger never happened and therefore the AOO never happened. There is no specific language in either the general reaction rules or in the movement AOO that allows the AOO to prevent the trigger from happening, yet still occur.
 

Irlo

Hero
There is no specific language in either the general reaction rules or in the movement AOO that allows the AOO to prevent the trigger from happening, yet still occur.
Can you cite the general reaction rule that says an event that triggers an interrupting reaction must be completed following resolution of the reaction? I find precious few general rules about reactions. I may be overlooking something.
 

It does.

"An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack, and you take no damage from magic missile."

It specifically includes the triggering attack as also having to overcome the increase in AC, which can turn the hit into a miss. There is no such language in the AOO from moving out of reach. Nothing there says or implies that the AOO can unwind the trigger the way the Shield spell does.


There is no such potential to unwind the trigger in the movement AOO. It simply happens as the creature steps 5 feet away.

If it has the option not to continue, then the trigger never happened and therefore the AOO never happened. There is no specific language in either the general reaction rules or in the movement AOO that allows the AOO to prevent the trigger from happening, yet still occur.
Your logic on why shield work is exactly why AOs can trigger even if the "out of range" criteria isn't met retroactively.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Can you cite the general reaction rule that says an event that triggers an interrupting reaction must be completed following resolution of the reaction? I find precious few general rules about reactions. I may be overlooking something.
Triggers as a general rule must complete before the reaction can happen. A very few allow you to interrupt the trigger. No rule says that the interruption stops the trigger, so it defaults to completion. To stop the trigger, while still getting the reaction triggered by that trigger, you would need specific language saying so. Shield specifies that it the AC can affect the "hit" that triggered it. Sentinel specifies that it drops the speed to 0 when it is triggered.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top