To downvoters: I appreciate any constructive suggestions for improving my answer.

I downvoted specifically because this "unless some other feature specifically says otherwise" comes into direct conflict with the fact that dissonant whispers specifically uses your reaction to forcibly move you. It's a direct contradiction between your answer and the stated effect. The rest of the answer indicates a personal ruling on what constitutes special movement, something not supported in the rules in any way. There is simply movement on your turn, and forced movement. Dissonant undeniably falls under forced movement as it's not voluntary. - That's my take on it.

@LinoFrankCiaralli forced movement can and does use your movement in many clear cases. Why do you think it wouldn't? I'm pretty confused where in the rules you found support for this idea. Some examples of forced movement specifically call out using movement to carry them out.

I'll provide one of the examples in question. Example: Fear 5e - "While frightened by this spell, a creature must take the Dash action and move away from you..." Ignoring that this spell is completely different, the important bit here is that it specifies you take the Dash action as well as moving away on your turn. The rest I already addressed in my former comment and don't need to reiterate here.

@LinoFrankCiaralli I really don't see how that example at all proves your point that all forced movement inherently does not consume movement. If anything that example supports my answer quite well actually. Being that it says "move" that means that, if done on their turn it would definitely consume movement.

The two spells don't equate though. I mean I could cut and paste my former comment to reiterate what I said, but I don't need to, it's right there. Fear specifies that YOU must use the Dash action AND move away from the target. Dissonant does not. It says you use your reaction to move away from the creature. Which means you still have your Action, Bonus Action, Movement and Interact with an Object. All you've burned is your reaction. Nothing in the spell specifies you have to use your movement, only your reaction.

Let me try this another way: If the spell is used on you outside of your turn, your speed is not affected. The spell allows you to move using your reaction.

This has no ill effect on your speed, it doesn't affect it in any way. Which means, if it happens on your turn instead, it doesn't matter. It's still a reaction using movement, and has nothing to do with movement

I think the core conflict here is that I don't think you consider movement to be something you get on your turn, and the rules very clearly indicate its one of the 2 things you do get

I agree with you up until your second to last message

The effect happening in your turn changes how it acts.

The spell doesn't say that

It says you use your reaction

It says you "move"

No, it says, TO MOVE

not, AND MOVE

Using a reaction does not preclude also using movement.

Same thing

Agreed. Now lets look at Fear. Dash action AND move.

Moving is moving and all movement on your turn costs movement

Where do the rules support that?

My second quote

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.

It doesn't say anything about excluding moment caused by other actions such as reactions

It also doesn't say anything about excluding movement from spell such as Misty Step, yet we both understand specific overrides general right?

Misty step is not movement, it is teleportation

Different mechanics entirely

I agree. Just like a spell mechanic is different from a general rule like base movement

As is a class feature

Any time anything says you "move" and it is your turn you must spend movement to do so. That is what the rules say.

There may be specific effects that override that, but this spell is not one of them

Yes, that is the general rule. I'm not disputing that. This is a specific rule overriding that. You may as well be arguing that I can't dual wield a non-light weapon despite having the Dual Wield feat.

You are assuming that because the movement is using a reaction it cannot also be using movement correct?

In this specific instance, yes. It depends on the wording of what specific override is occurring

Yes, the spell says move in it. It also says, "You use your reaction to move..."

Ok well I disagree with that. The rules say that it costs a reaction AND movement because it never says it doesn't cost movement.

It doesn't say we can't cook and eat your dog either

You know how that goes

The rules say what you can do, not what you can't

In order for something to override the rules it must specifically do so.

Exactly and they don't say you can ignore the rules for movement.

Sure, so when it says "You use yoru reaction to move," and not, "You move away from," it's pretty clear that it is not using your movement, it's using your reaction

Just like bonus action dash on a rogue doesnt use your movement

Or the dash action

It's using both.

Dash never uses movement because that's not how it works

When you use the Dash Action, you gain EXTRA MOVEMENT for the current turn

Literally in the description

Dash increases the amount of movement you have to use. You still have to move to spend it

No you don't. You don't have to use your movement at all to use dash

Your speed just can't be zero

Aactually it can, but then dash would just be wasted

Right that's what I just said

Ok, so you acknowledge that movement is separate from actions and bonus actions

Dash only increases your ability to move, it doesn't move you anywhere though

Stay with me here

@LinoFrankCiaralli I do not.

Ok, then we arent speaking the same language

It can be separate but it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive

I agree

I don't think it is mutually exclusive. It's pretty clear that it's entirely dependent on your speed. But we're talking about movement. Movement and Speed are two different things in 5e. Movement is what you can do, speed is the limit.

In general, effects aside, movement is not achieved by any action though correct.

No. Movement is one of the three inherent things you can do on your turn.

@LinoFrankCiaralli I agree

@LinoFrankCiaralli yeah that is congruent with what I just said

Well 5 things you can do but yeah I think I'm with you

Ok, lets set a defintion here so we're clear

action in D&D terms, different from action like process

It's a specific function, like Bonus Action

Yeah action means the game term only. Agreed.

OK. So there's 5 processes total you can do on your turn.

Action, Bonus, Reaction, Movement, Interact with Object

These are separate and distinct

Yup

@LinoFrankCiaralli well maybe

They're not mutually exclusive.

By default they are individual things yeah

They're distinct in that they have individual functions with specific parameters, even though they may overlap

Ok I think I'm still on board then

Ok. So why have you drawn an arbitrary line?

You understand that Action and Bonus Action can both be used to enhance Movement.

What line do you think I've drawn?

But for some reason you've drawn a line at a reaction doing the same?

Let me put it this way: if you use anything to move on your turn (action, reaction, bonus action, or UaO and obviously movement) you must consume movement to do so.

And to be clear I mean using an ability that literally says "move"

Ok, then why does it specify reaction and not your movement.?

@LinoFrankCiaralli because movement is the default rule. It always applies. It doesn't need to be stated every time.

I get that. But the spell specifies, which is the point of contention.

It doesn't say, "You move away," it says, "You use your reaction to move away..."

That's a specific override to the general rule

Otherwise I'd be right there with you

The spell specifies reaction yes, but not to the exclusion of spending movement

I mean I do see where you are coming from

I just found something that may support your argument better

But I don't see it as an override. I read it as a tag on

Yeah I thought about bringing that up as well, but I wasn't sure how best to integrate it.

This kind of implies reactions are a willing type of movement

But it's SUPER thin

They aren't willing though they just still provoke. It's weird

Here's a more specific effect from the Sympathy spell

Fwiw I think you should look at the spell compulsion

That's a different one entirely. As is command

Well sympathy is basically the same. I meant that I think it helps you a bit.

Though I just realized why

It's because these spells are made to be used on the affected creature's turn

So that is why they specify movement specifically

Yeah

Whereas DW isn't

And since it doesn't, that's where the RAW vs RAI arguments come in

Yeah it's a super edge case lol

Those are always the best though

They lead to creative discussions about spell usage

Aren't they?

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I don't see your point

Same here

Hell it could also be entirely what was intended in this scenario

Remember the Disintegrate/Relentless Endurance edge case presented to Crawford?

I'm honestly not sure which is intended. I can see it going either way. Honestly they probably never even thought about it

@LinoFrankCiaralli oh yeah. Vividly

Right? I NEVER would have expected him to rule that the target is disintegrated

@LinoFrankCiaralli yeah that was a crazy one

I mean I GET it. It's a 6th level spell vs a racial feature

But then again, a level 1 Elf is immune to level 9 sleep..... so......

Hahaha yeah there is that

With regards to this, I'm not even sure which one makes the most sense at the table. I think I'm more inclined to mine just because I think it might be easier to track one moment versus the effect and normal movement but that's pretty tenuous

Alright mate. Wonderful chat, but it's 2 in the morning for me and I have a rememberance day ceremony to get to tomorrow.

Honestly, I use maybe half the rules at my table

I houserule like crazy to allow for a lot of common sense stuff

For instance, there are no "One item interactions"

If it's logical, you can do it. If not, then it takes an action.

Same here (time wise). Good luck. Feel free to ping me if you have any epiphany. I'll sleep on it.

And I appreciated the chat thanks!

(same here wrt rulings)

Roger that. I'm pretty sure this will have to just sit with the voters. I think we both have solid arguments here. For what it's worth, I'll be pitching yours an upvote since I definitely see your point, although I still disagree mechanically, I agree in essence.

Same here :)