10

Spurred from another similar question:

The Eldritch Invocation, One with Shadows states (emphasis mine)

When you are in an area of dim light or darkness, you can use your action to become invisible until you move or take an action or a reaction.

On my turn, I find a dark spot and turn invisible there as my action and end my turn. (I am not technically hidden if it matters)

If after this, an enemy were to successfully shove, eldritch repelling blast, and/or thorn whip me and I survive the attack, am I still invisible?

In each case I have been shoved, pushed, and/or pulled in any of these situations where I end up on a different "square" than I started prior to being affected by their attack.

Additionally, should I be affected by a spell such as Command "Approach", is there any reason I would not be considered as moving when I'm forced to take the move action toward the creature I'm being commanded by?

Seems a simple answer, (no) but in some cases there is room for debate it seems where I am somehow still invisible based on the term/definition of "move".

Nobody the Hobgoblin
  • 112,387
  • 14
  • 326
  • 684
Danger Lake
  • 1,061
  • 3
  • 14
  • I'm struggling to find this as a duplicate, but there are many questions regarding forced movement. If you search "forced movement [dnd-5e]", are you able to find any other questions that help you out? For example, related at Can I trigger an Opportunity Attack by forcing an opponent to move out of my reach? (This doesn't answer your question specifically, since the answer sites specific rules for opportunity attacks) – TheLittlePeace Jul 07 '23 at 18:03
  • Indeed, but it's not so much the forced movement alone, and it answers the case of someone compelling me to move on my turn. The answer to this includes the line "when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction" which is the exact situation I'm looking to account for. I've heard that "if it's not your turn, you aren't moving" as well as "you can only 'move' if you are expending movement" which was explained that you didn't "move", but "was moved", or are being pulled, or being pushed, which to me... all of them I would think to break invisibility. – Danger Lake Jul 07 '23 at 18:24
  • https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/207123/does-teleportation-count-as-movement-for-the-sake-of-one-with-shadows-invocation/207124 Here's the question that inspired this question. I figured this was a more direct way to address the definition on when I'm considered to "move" or "not move" – Danger Lake Jul 07 '23 at 18:28
  • @DangerLake I was going to ask whether the second part of Mattheiu's answer at that reference answers your question...but then I read your comments. It doesn't seem from there that you really need to ask this question here, since you have already decided what the answer is at your table? – Kirt Jul 07 '23 at 19:08
  • The second part of that answer is the crux of the issue, it's an assertion. I've now seen multiple definitions of "move" from various contexts, some during your turn, others not, in which conditions of willfulness/etc are required, but not always. The first comment of that answer sums up my point of view. If you've changed locations, you have moved, in which during said process, you move. There is no phase state where the past/present doesn't occur to arrive to the eventual future, that you have moved. It's splitting of hairs and so far my counter-points seem to stand ignored/unaddressed. – Danger Lake Jul 10 '23 at 21:34

1 Answers1

2

Movement requires you to expend speed or act

The Movement and Position rules explain it this way (p. 190 PHB):

On your turn,you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here. Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you’re moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving.

So the defining criterium for your movement generally is that you are spending speed. If some effect compels you to spend your speed (say, a command spell), you are moving. If some effect changes your position without you spending speed (or taking actions or reactions to move, see below) you are not moving, you are being moved.

So for your One with Shadows invisible warlock, being commanded to move would turn you visible, being shoved or pulled by a thorn whip or blasted with a thunderwave would not make you visible.

This interpretation is also supported by a wordy Sage Advice Compendium entry:

Does Polearm Master let me make an opportunity attack against a target that is being forced to approach me?
A creature doesn’t provoke an opportunity attack if it is moved without the use of its movement, its action, or its reaction. For example, the effect of the antipathy/sympathy spell requires the target to use its movement, meaning that it would provoke opportunity attacks when it does so. Similarly, dissonant whispers requires the target to move using its reaction (if available), so that activity also provokes opportunity attacks. In contrast, a creature that’s pushed by a gust of wind spell does not provoke opportunity attacks.

This explains the "generally" rider above: some actions, bonus actions or reactions allow you to move without spending speed, like for example a barbarians Instinctive Pounce or casting misty step. They require an action or bonus action from you, so you are actively moving, you are not being moved, and so they would end your Invisibility.

This caveat also resolves the contradiction one would otherwise face if movement was defined only by paying speed, because the PHB says on p. 191:

To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation.

So you move when you use teleportation to change your location, even though this does not expend your movement, in contradiction to the first quote above. (Note that you would not be susceptible to an opportunity attack here, as those don't work on teleportation). You don't move, if someone else teleports you — again, you are being moved in that case.

Nobody the Hobgoblin
  • 112,387
  • 14
  • 326
  • 684
  • 3
    An extension of this that gets brought up less often than spells causing forced movement : if you're riding on a sailing ship or some other vehicle which is moving, you won't suddenly become visible unless you are using your action to crew the vehicle. Mounts might be a bit more questionable, but I would rule you could be on a mount and remain invisible as long as you don't need to spend any sort of action to direct the mount. – RisingZan Jul 08 '23 at 00:57
  • 1
    Good answer. Some other relevant quotes can be found in comments here, here, and here – Kirt Jul 08 '23 at 06:12
  • @RisingZan Interesting choice of a sailing ship - it reminds me of the arguments made about motion in Galileo's Dialogues Concerning the two Chief World Systems. – Kirt Jul 09 '23 at 16:00
  • Movement can also losely be translated to time....you can use your movement, then do stuff, do stuff then move or any combination until you run out of movement and legitimate actions of any sort. Being shoved means you have to recover somewhat, and that burns up some time. In this case, it burns up some time by burning movement. – Escoce Jul 10 '23 at 20:58
  • In the example of moving while prone, you explain that Misty Step is considered moving because it uses an action, not because it uses speed. So if I'm not using speed, and I'm not using an action, but someone ELSE uses Their action to move me via a teleportation or shove... They are moving, but I'm not? Even though I'm the only thing in this scenario that changes locations? Is no one moving? Willingness is irrelevant. The logic falls apart when I try to apply these explanations to other scenarios. – Danger Lake Jul 10 '23 at 21:44
  • @KirtnoQA4mewhilemodsstrike Your relevant quotes are all pointing to your own comments. Your quote regarding AoO is not a restriction nor definition of Movement, but a restriction/definition of AoO. Context matters, specific beats general, and this specific does not apply to One with Shadows as AoO is not involved. Similarly, Falling and AoO are not directly related, while I agree with the answer, AoO in no way applies to spending movement in falling. It instead only results in telling you that you can't AoO a free-falling target when applied. – Danger Lake Jul 10 '23 at 21:58
  • @DangerLake The comments cited were mine, but that was the most convenient way I had of referencing the rules text. It is the quoted rules that are relevant, not my comments. Context does matter, specific does beat general. Referencing the OA and falling rules (and the rules for surprise) is for the purpose of establishing that there is a game distinction between moving and being moved - they are two different things. That is the general case, and OwS would only be a specific exception to this if it said it was, which it does not. You don't agree, which is fine - but why then the Q? – Kirt Jul 11 '23 at 17:09
  • And that's where I'm at. No where is there an explicitly explained declaration of a the words (not the action) "move" or "being moved" being different, only during specific interactions is it a concern, and in these interactions the stipulations are clearly defined. In general though, this is not the case else it would be defined as you mention. Only in these cases are "move" and "being moved" a concern. For all others, I see no difference between the two. With a lack of a specific to apply, I must resort to general. Even in the case of being on a moving ship, it is clearly defined. – Danger Lake Jul 11 '23 at 21:54
  • Question was to gather consensus, which in the originating question, I am not alone, seems a similar issue to "what is a target" in which case, sometimes it's defined well, others it's very much a RAW vs RAI, others still require the DM to make a decision on what makes sense as no hair splitting resolves the issue. I still find it strange that an effect, ended by seemingly any action or movement on the part of the caster, wouldn't be ended by being hurled off a cliff via a shove. An added, "willfully" etc would clear this up instantly. Good points raised indeed, but I don't think they apply. – Danger Lake Jul 11 '23 at 22:00
  • 1
    I'm going to have to disagree with the point you're trying to prove with your first quote, as it clearly states at the beginning "on your turn", it doesn't state anything about the nature of movement that might happen outside of your turn, which is what OP is asking about. As such, it cannot preclude the possibility of you moving without the use of movement outside of your turn. – Kryomaani Jul 15 '23 at 02:48
  • 1
    Secondly, I do not think the excerpt about opportunity attack proves the point, quite the contrary: "if it is moved without the use of its movement, its action, or its reaction" directly implies it is moving without consuming its movement. All this says is that it doesn't provoke an opportunity attack despite having moved. OP's question is not about opportunity attack but moving, which clearly has happened in this case. – Kryomaani Jul 15 '23 at 02:54
  • @Kryomaani Not sure I understand this one. "is moved" is not "has moved" — one is the passive form, the other the past. In the first, the creature does not move itself, in the second it did. Just because both use the word "moved" does not make them the same. Regarding the first comment: there are no secret rules. The rules do not preclude a lot of things, but if they do not state them, they do not state them. They only state what they do. You clearly can move out of turn though, with a Ready action. – Nobody the Hobgoblin Jul 15 '23 at 03:44