D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[seebs]

AAh I see, you want to turn this into a pissing contest because you're going to dredge up previous mistakes I made, and apologized for, in the past?

No, I'm pointing out that you have a history of turning things into pissing contests, and being smug and insulting about how well you understand the rules, when you have completely invented the rules that you're discussing.

I'm suggesting that maybe you should, you know, stop doing that. Stop telling people to "just read the rules" when there's no evidence on the table that you're in a good position to be critical.

If I wanted pointless insults from people who weren't bothering to read the rules or listen to other people's posts, I'd be on the Paizo Pathfinder Rules forum.

 

[Noctem]

It would matter because it would tell us something about how the rules work. I am not sure it is within my power to help with the understanding aspect of this, but it seems to me that you might find it enlightening to change your approach. Instead of viewing "I do not understand why someone thinks X is relevant" as proof that it is irrelevant, why not view it as proof that there's something other people are perceiving or thinking about or discussing that you haven't understood yet?



No, I'm saying it's not a good question because I don't consider your argumentation about what the answers would mean to be remotely convincing. I have some background in rules interpretation and requests for clarification, and that question is completely useless to someone trying to understand the rules.

Yep, ok. Gl hf buddy!

 

[seebs]

... in which the most persuasive argument I've yet seen for Arial Black's position in this thread is advanced by Noctem. I love the Internet.

 

[Noctem]

No, I'm pointing out that you have a history of turning things into pissing contests, and being smug and insulting about how well you understand the rules, when you have completely invented the rules that you're discussing.

I'm suggesting that maybe you should, you know, stop doing that. Stop telling people to "just read the rules" when there's no evidence on the table that you're in a good position to be critical.

If I wanted pointless insults from people who weren't bothering to read the rules or listen to other people's posts, I'd be on the Paizo Pathfinder Rules forum.

But I'm not bringing up your past mistakes as an argument for why you're not convincing now am I? That's you, you just decided to dig up my post history to bring up previous stuff irrelevant to this current discussion in an effort to dismiss what I'm currently saying about THIS subject. You're attempting to turn this into a pissing contest... to make this personal... over a small mistake about a rule I paraphrased in a thread around a week ago? I even apologized for that mistake once it was brought to my attention.

I've also responded to every single one of your posts here directly and in detail spending the last several hours doing so. Your suggestion that I'm not reading your posts or reading the rules (when I've quoted them in multiple ways and also spent time breaking them down for you) is dishonest in the extreme. This indicates to me that you're a waste of time.

You have a good one. I'm now ignoring you.

 

[Noctem]

That's just flat wrong. It's not his fault you couldn't understand his responses.

'preciate the backup on that one.

 

[seebs]

But I'm not bringing up your past mistakes as an argument for why you're not convincing now am I? That's you, you just decided to dig up my post history to bring up previous stuff irrelevant to this current discussion in an effort to dismiss what I'm currently saying about THIS subject.

No, in an effort to communicate to you why it is that being smug and rude about how you don't think other people have read the rules is completely non-productive.

I've also responded to every single one of your posts directly and in detail spending the last several hours doing so.

Yes, but you haven't shown any signs of listening. You gleefully declare that how things worked in prior editions isn't relevant, but you don't stop to consider why I might think an example from that was relevant to the discussion. You aren't making any effort to think about what I am communicating, just to look for things in it you can use to declare it wrong so you can declare victory.

You're suggestion that I'm not reading your posts or reading the rules (when I've quoted them in multiple ways and also spent time breaking them down for you) is dishonest in the extreme. This indicates to me that you're a waste of time.

I didn't say you weren't reading my posts. I said that I have evidence that you have a history of telling other people to read the rules when you clearly haven't, and that you weren't listening to other people's posts. Reading and listening-to are not the same thing; "listening to" implies an effort to comprehend the intent of the communication, not just looking for the first thing you can find to attack.

You have a good one. I'm now ignoring you.

Hooray.

I still think the magic missile question is at best tangentially or indirectly relevant. More useful would be to identify specific points of dispute about the structure or intent of the rules, and ask those questions -- and there's more than one. The most obvious point appears to be the assertion by AB that "instantaneous" spells must occur all-at-once, and thus prohibit a target-resolve-target-resolve cycle. That's a claim which I don't think is supported by the rules. But the question about magic missile is only sort of related to that; after all, it could well be that many spells have a target-resolve-target-resolve cycle, and many don't. There's lots of spells which are clearly intended to pick all targets, then resolve effects against all targets, rather than doing the cycle. There's also at least some which I think are clearnly intended to have a cycle. But if I were going to guess, I'd guess first that the rule is that a spell which requires attacks will let you cycle through the attack sequence normally, and a spell which hits automatically (whether or not it is subject to saving throws) will generally require you to pick all targets before resolving any spell effects. I don't think the magic missile question helps us much on that; if the answer really is "yes", then everyone I know has played most of the spells wrong in 5e, and probably in previous editions too. If it's "no", then we're back to having no idea at all what the rule would be, or whether there's any general pattern, and we haven't actually resolved much of anything, because we still have most of the problem space open, and asking about magic missile told us almost nothing. (The "yes" answer would at least indirectly tell us that eldritch blast, not being magic missile, does not require simultaneous resolution. The "no" answer does not tell us whether or not eldritch blast is intended to require separate resolution.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's just flat wrong. It's not his fault you couldn't understand his responses.

Um, huh? He was clearly wrong when he said that readied actions cannot interrupt actions. Readied actions can interrupt actions, they can't interrupt their trigger. If the trigger is 'attacks me' then the RA goes right after that attack resolves, but before anything else can happen, including another attack from the same attack action. If you doubt, go read the examples of readied actions on P193 of the PHB and explain how those work if you can't interrupt actions.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But I'm not bringing up your past mistakes as an argument for why you're not convincing now am I? That's you, you just decided to dig up my post history to bring up previous stuff irrelevant to this current discussion in an effort to dismiss what I'm currently saying about THIS subject. You're attempting to turn this into a pissing contest... to make this personal... over a small mistake about a rule I paraphrased in a thread around a week ago? I even apologized for that mistake once it was brought to my attention.

I've also responded to every single one of your posts here directly and in detail spending the last several hours doing so. Your suggestion that I'm not reading your posts or reading the rules (when I've quoted them in multiple ways and also spent time breaking them down for you) is dishonest in the extreme. This indicates to me that you're a waste of time.

You have a good one. I'm now ignoring you.

Dude, you were wrong about readied actions in this thread, including making a long post about it. Specifically, it's the post that cmad1977 is talking about (you can get there by following the quotes back). So he doesn't even have to go to a different thread to show that you have an overly condescending attitude to people that you really should dial back because it's not warranted -- you seem to make as many mistakes as everyone else. That's not a bad thing, and I don't care to rub your nose in it (neither does seebs, as I read him), but it's very relevant to asking for you to back off of the superior tone when you don't have grounds to use it.

 

[seebs]

Um, huh? He was clearly wrong when he said that readied actions cannot interrupt actions. Readied actions can interrupt actions, they can't interrupt their trigger. If the trigger is 'attacks me' then the RA goes right after that attack resolves, but before anything else can happen, including another attack from the same attack action. If you doubt, go read the examples of readied actions on P193 of the PHB and explain how those work if you can't interrupt actions.

I think the term "interrupt actions" may be ambiguous. Does the shield spell "interrupt" an action? If you are hit by an attack (and it actually has to hit you to trigger the spell), and you cast shield, your AC is increased by five points including against the trigger. Which may then not hit you. I'd consider that to be "interrupting" an action; it is possible for it to prevent the action from completing.

In 5E, "readied actions" can't do that, so far as I can tell; they go off only after their trigger is resolved. If you ready a response for "if I am attacked", you get attacked, and the attack is resolved, and then your response happens.

That said, consider the hypothetical trigger "if someone hits me". If you are hit by someone who has the Extra Attack feature, and you ready a response to run away if they hit you, it seems to me that your response happens between their attack which hits you and any further attacks they might make. Which could prevent them from making those attacks on you.

With the examples they give, where the triggers are movement, it does seem clear that the reaction happens as soon as the other party has moved to the stated location, even if they have additional movement remaining. (Someone could pedantically argue that movement is "not an action", but let's say maybe the enemy first moved towards you, then took the Dash action in order to move further, and had movement remaining in their Dash action.)

But readied actions can't "interrupt" a specific event (like an attack) the way the Shield spell can, and this is a change from the 3.x model, where readied actions were assumed to happen before their triggers (which produced serious chronological problems).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think the term "interrupt actions" may be ambiguous. Does the shield spell "interrupt" an action? If you are hit by an attack (and it actually has to hit you to trigger the spell), and you cast shield, your AC is increased by five points including against the trigger. Which may then not hit you. I'd consider that to be "interrupting" an action; it is possible for it to prevent the action from completing.

In 5E, "readied actions" can't do that, so far as I can tell; they go off only after their trigger is resolved. If you ready a response for "if I am attacked", you get attacked, and the attack is resolved, and then your response happens.

That said, consider the hypothetical trigger "if someone hits me". If you are hit by someone who has the Extra Attack feature, and you ready a response to run away if they hit you, it seems to me that your response happens between their attack which hits you and any further attacks they might make. Which could prevent them from making those attacks on you.

With the examples they give, where the triggers are movement, it does seem clear that the reaction happens as soon as the other party has moved to the stated location, even if they have additional movement remaining. (Someone could pedantically argue that movement is "not an action", but let's say maybe the enemy first moved towards you, then took the Dash action in order to move further, and had movement remaining in their Dash action.)

But readied actions can't "interrupt" a specific event (like an attack) the way the Shield spell can, and this is a change from the 3.x model, where readied actions were assumed to happen before their triggers (which produced serious chronological problems).

The only place we have even minor disagreement is in being careful to use 'trigger' instead of 'action' throughout. Otherwise, yeah, 100%.