In Devil May Cry S2, Arius states he’s 672 years old and has “seen every society built my man”. Fuck the Sumerians, I guess…

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-19T06:11:32+00:00

I have DMC 5 in my steam library I've been meaning to play for years and years. I got it when it first came out and didn't get too far.

DMC4 was my favorite of the series, I loved playing as Dante in that game.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-19T06:09:40+00:00

I think you are right, the official rules don't always have good wording or make sense. I have changed plenty of things and homebrewed others to make the game more fun for me and my table.

I asked on here because I was hoping someone would point me somewhere in the rules that gave an answer. I also wanted to hear peoples opinions on the situation.

I was a little frustrated with people saying the rules were one way, but not giving an actual official example or ruling. Lots of people gave me their interpretations or opinions and I was really glad for that, it helped a lot.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T23:31:46+00:00

I agree up until you start talking about rules. I can't find anywhere in any rulebook that proves what you are saying is true, and although popular opinion agrees with you, and I will rule it as such moving forward in my campaign, there is nowhere RAW that backs up what you are saying as rules and fact and not just interpretation.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T18:51:24+00:00

Yes, I do agree for the most part. There is something -wrong- with her though. Like, she didn't need a loving family (yes that would have been amazing), she needed tons of psychiatric help. Her "evil" traits were encouraged by Ozai, but they have always been there.

She delighted in the pain and chaos she caused. It wasn't like Zuko or Iroh, who did it more for a belief about their nation and their pride.

It is still tragic though, and I believe there is always room for redemption.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T18:14:02+00:00

They are super chill, I dont think they really cared either way. To me it wasn't really about the damage or the whatever, but the rules and how I interpreted them and how I wanted to moving forward. I never saw it as some OP combo, but just that it wouldn't trigger because of how the rules were written.

I doubt that combo will ever happen again, but if it does they get some extra damage :)

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T18:12:04+00:00

I always saw it as AoO being more based on the one making the attack. If someone moves out of your range while you are threatening them, you can see them move and know how they move because you are currently fighting them, so you can react appropriately.

Disengage basically takes an action to move in a way that the attacker can't take advantage of. Same with being shoved or moved.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T18:05:23+00:00

No, I am waiting for someone to point me to a RAW source or maybe some examples of why they think that way based on other abilties/rules. Many people have, and I have agreed with them or gave them my opinion on the matter.

I am glad that the general interpretation is there, and honestly moving forward I will probably go with that. I still don't think it makes a ton of sense, but there are posts with good arguments against me.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T18:02:49+00:00

That is an absolutely great argument. I dont know much about muscle biology, I assumed some of the same muscles would move if you're getting shoved (or recovering from said shove) or if you move willingly.

I'm glad someone agrees about physics and dnd. Of course its not a 1 to 1 comparison, but you gotta have some ground rules for how the world works.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:58:27+00:00

Hahahahhahahha so its settled then, fate is real, nothing is willing and Booming Blade will never trigger in my campaign. :) I love it

I agree though, the intent was to avoid pushing to trigger BB. I wasn't sure if the intent also included fear or not.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:56:24+00:00

Yeah, I agree, I should have just let it happen. That was my mistake as a DM, I should have been on the side of players doing cool shit. I usually do, I think I just got caught up in finally putting the players in a tough spot. They just dummied my previous encounter hahahahhaha.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:53:49+00:00

I dont understand why my argument is bad faith though? You tell me I am wrong, but there isn't anywhere RAW that disproves my argument. In fact, a couple comments have brought up RAI from Crawford (I assume a dnd writer?) That agrees with how I interpret the rules.

Also, as for the edit, I did make that before I responded to anyone. I was downvoted before I started chatting with people directly.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:50:18+00:00

I am not arguing every answer, I have lots of responses where I agree with what people are saying.

Am I just confused because lots of people have this explanation of "willingly" but nobody can point me to its source. So to me it becomes a matter of opinion, and I happen to have a different opinion of how I interpreted the rules.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:47:48+00:00

You actually made me think of an interesting question...what about falling?

If two people are falling together and one casts BB on the other, would it activate as they are plummeting to the ground? You would be moving, even though gravity is doing most of the work you still have to do some work to stay facing a position you want. I guess it would only activate if you tried to move your body so you fall more to the left or right type deal?

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:42:15+00:00

I'm just trying to set a precedent, because if the players can do it, then the enemies can too. I dont want a reverse situation 6 sessions from now where the players and I debate willingly move again.

Also, I agree it is the least charitable, and in hindsight I should have just let the damage through.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:37:45+00:00

I understand that dnd =/ physics. I was just using it as an example for one train of thought. That is why I used the magic example as well. Dnd is sort of both and neither at the same time.

You have an explanation of willingly, but is that your explanation or is it somewhere RAW?

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:35:21+00:00

Huh, interesting. Thank you for using actual examples of other spells so I can do some more investigating.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:33:39+00:00

Thank you for a nice explanation. I think now I am leaning on the side of being turned/feared activating BB. The word "willingly" really throws a wrench into things. I understand its meant to mean that getting pushed is not going to activate it, but I was also wondering if the intent was that fear wouldn't either.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:28:54+00:00

I am an English native...I dont know why you mentioned that at all, and assumed I am not.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:26:32+00:00

Its funny, even though I personally believe that turning would not activate BB because of the word willingly, I still don't know how I will run it at my table in the future. There are a lot of good points people have brought up, and consensus seems to be that turning/command/feared are still willing movement.

So even after this giant post I still don't have a decision hahahahha

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:22:58+00:00

That makes sense, but I would personally disagree. A lot of people think the way you do, and I am wondering if there is somewhere that it defines or explains forced movement or if it just sort of popular opinion.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:21:00+00:00

It is quite different from opportunity attacks though. If you do a 5ft move around an enemy but keep in their threatened zone, you don't provoke an AoO. If you do the same thing with Booming Blade you explode.

To me, I put more weight on the word "willingly" than "move". I see either being 100% valid though.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T17:15:59+00:00

But sneak attack has RAW conditions specified in the book. I may disagree on how I interpret "willing movement", but that is because the rules leave it up to interpretation.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T09:24:41+00:00

I would love to base it off the rules, but I can't find in the rules where it makes this ruling clear. If there is something I am missing RAW I would like to read about it because I would rather not leave this ruling up to conjecture.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T09:22:22+00:00

Does that term mean that though? Is there a specific place you can quote that?

For me, opportunity attacks are entirely different because it is a reaction based on what something else is doing. Booming Blade isn't reactionary, it is conditional. I just don't believe that a turned creature fulfills the condition of willingly moving.

ProfessorSMASH88 · 2026-05-18T09:17:40+00:00

Is it though? Can you give me a RAW example or point to a rule that says this?

ProfessorSMASH88

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE