D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

I've already broken down the steps for casting spells in an earlier post:

This is an example in steps:

1. Declare I use Eldritch Blast
2. Use up the action type associated with Casting a Spell and Eldritch Blast (my action)
3. Use any material costs associated to casting the spell I have chosen and perform any other requirements for casting the spell.
4. Finish casting the spell (this is the last step where the spell can be counterspelled because after this you are resolving the effects of having successfully cast the spell)
5. Resolve the effects of the spell (in this case making x number of attacks as described in the spell effect section, say 2 attacks for this example)

Making an Attack
1. Declare target of attack 1
2. Figure out the modifiers if any for the attack
3. Resolve the attack (including damage and effects like forced movement for example)

1 Declare target of attack 2
2. Figure out the modifiers if any for the attack
3. Resolve the attack (including damage and effects like forced movement for example)


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473235-Warlock-and-Repelling-Blast/page8#ixzz3tGjARyK7

To be clear again, the fluff reasoning that you decide to use to explain why an instantaneous spell can't be dispelled is irrelevant.. all that matters is the rules say they can't be dispelled. They could have said "... because the moon is yellow." and it still wouldn't matter or change anything for how the rule works in practice. You can't use dispel, either in readied and held form or whatever against an instantaneous spell. However, you can use counterspell against them just fine.

Great, and thanks for that again. But I'd like an answer to this question, which is directly related to the above (and, in fact, takes the above as absolutely correct):

I'll ask again, directly and clearly: what is your opinion on readied actions occurring between bolts from an eldritch blast?

 

[Noctem]

Ask Jeremy Crawford. I think at this point it's clear that you're not going to listen to anything I have to say. Go ask the designer of the edition.

 

[Arial Black]

Right well I guess it's more that I just don't see the value in putting more stock into a definition you've randomly found online

You mean...in a dictionary...?

which is unsupported by every piece of evidence presented in this thread, vs the definition 5e actually uses for what the game element means

The very definition which you yourself are ignoring when you dismiss the part which says the reason instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled is because the 'magic exists only for an instant'.

You insist we ignore what the word means in real life and only admit what the RAW says it means, and then you ignore even that so you can deliberately take 'cannot be dispelled' out of context.

Call me crazy right?

I'm not a qualified psychiatrist. However, I have noted that your posts show a disconnect with reality. I'm not qualified to turn that observation into a diagnosis.

 

[Noctem]

You mean...in a dictionary...?



The very definition which you yourself are ignoring when you dismiss the part which says the reason instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled is because the 'magic exists only for an instant'.

You insist we ignore what the word means in real life and only admit what the RAW says it means, and then you ignore even that so you can deliberately take 'cannot be dispelled' out of context.



I'm not a qualified psychiatrist. However, I have noted that your posts show a disconnect with reality. I'm not qualified to turn that observation into a diagnosis.

Ask Jeremy Crawford. Provide a tweet response that says you're right. Go ahead, I'll wait. If you can provide me a response from JC that says any of the following I'll admit I'm incorrect:

1. Eldritch Blast attacks are simultaneous
2. All instantaneous spells with multiple attacks are resolved simultaneously
3. Your half definition is the way it's supposed to be read instead of the definition for the game element in the 5e player's handbook.
4. Dispel can be used against an instantaneous spell in between the attacks
5. Any other claim you've made here.

Provide a clear statement from JC that shows any of these things is correct, and I'll admit I was wrong.

edited for clarity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ask Jeremy Crawford. I think at this point it's clear that you're not going to listen to anything I have to say. Go ask the designer of the edition.

I'm sorry, is this in response to me? I can't tell.

 

[Arial Black]

Ask Jeremy Crawford. I think at this point it's clear that you're not going to listen to anything I have to say. Go ask the designer of the edition.

The reason we can safely ignore what you have to say is because you're not actually saying anything.

You are not attempting to counter the arguments put forward which show that the bolts must be simultaneous if they are to obey what p203 says about the instantaneous duration. You quote half the sentence you say is the definition, then use that quote to define the term in a way which is contrary to the other half of the sentence that defines it.

You cannot even bring yourself to address the point about a Readied dispel, because you know that your argument is unsupportable.

Right now, your detractors have no case to answer because you haven't advanced a coherent case, nor are you willing to defend your position other than saying "You're wrong", which is in marked contrast to the actual evidence in support of the opposite view.

The only 'evidence' you put forward is irrelevant because we don't even disagree with those parts; it's just that those quotes do not contradict our case in any way. For example, saying each attack must be made in order of steps 123 in no way goes against the idea that several attacks may occur simultaneously, because each simultaneous attack also uses those steps in the same order for each attack. The rule you quote is about how to resolve each attack, and says absolutely nothing about how to arrange multiple attacks, so that evidence doesn't show that simultaneous attacks cannot exist.

Now that you've thrown the towel in, the thread will benefit.

 

[Noctem]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]

Ask Jeremy Crawford. Provide a tweet response that says you're right. Go ahead, I'll wait. If you can provide me a response from JC that says any of the following I'll admit I'm incorrect:

1. Eldritch Blast attacks are simultaneous
2. All instantaneous spells with multiple attacks are resolved simultaneously
3. Your half definition is the way it's supposed to be read instead of the definition for the game element in the 5e player's handbook.
4. Dispel can be used against an instantaneous spell in between the attacks
5. Any other claim you've made here.

Provide a clear statement from JC that shows any of these things is correct, and I'll admit I was wrong.

edited for clarity.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]

Thanks for clarifying. Do you intend to respond to me directly? I have to say, the appearance that you'll quote Ariel but consistently refuse to quote me is baffling.

 

[Noctem]

Now that you've thrown the towel in, the thread will benefit.

Just like in the wizards forum, you've proven incapable of understanding what I and others who disagree with you post in regards to your claim. So rather than continue this fruitless back and forth, I've decided it's more productive to get you in contact with a lead designer of 5e so you can get your answers directly from him. Hopefully that works out for you. I've even openly said I would admit being incorrect if you can prove anything you're saying via any discussion you have with the lead designer in question. All I'm asking is that you provide clear evidence that doesn't rely on itself. If you're unwilling to do that, then honestly there's nothing left to say. I or others have provided multiple quotes from Jeremy Crawford, the very least you can do is give us the same courtesy I think.

 

[Noctem]

Oh as an added note, here's some example questions you could ask:

Are multiattack spell attacks, like Eldritch Blast, resolved simultaneously like Magic Missile?

Is Magic Missile the only spell in 5e that has its attacks resolved simultaneously as per the spell?

Does the instantaneous duration mean that the spell attacks are resolved simultaneously?

Can Dispel be used against an instantaneous spell in between multiple attacks?

Can you ready Dispel Magic and then release it against an instantaneous spell?

Can Dispel be used against an instantaneous spell at all?


I'm sure more could be suggested. These would be a great place to start though.