D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

See my previous posts, I've already explained that immediately after the trigger might not mean what you claim here. The rules all refer to the "trigger", even though the trigger can be an action / movement / speaking / etc.. They can't use action instead of trigger, not because it represents how to resolve the readied action itself but because not all triggers are actions. So it's not proof of either interpretation being correct or incorrect.

There is not a single instance of the conflation of 'trigger' with 'action'. You're assuming things not in evidence to confuse the issue. The only way you'd be right is if the trigger stated is the same as an action. Actions can be triggers, but triggers do not have to be actions. If the trigger is part of an action, it doesn't stand that the reaction must wait for the action to complete when it's utterly unconcerned with whatever action created the trigger -- only the trigger matters.

It's you that arguing from a lack of evidence -- you're inventing words and reasoning not necessary to read the rules and then claiming that because the rules don't address your reasoning, they must therefore allow it. You have no evidence to support your choices, and, in fact, your choice rests entirely on attempting to read 'immediately' as somehow not immediate, but instead some time later, such that the reaction no longer makes any sense. You're insisting that the rule was written in a way such to require tortured reading of plain English AND that it be so randomly ineffective in it's stated intent that it becomes useless (waiting until the action is over will, quite often, invalidate the stated reaction to the trigger).

Seriously, your entire argument boils down to "well, immediately might not mean immediately the way we'd normally use it, but probably might mean sometime after, but not long after, you know, more of a 'shortly after' not, like, 'right after'." Are you seriously hanging your hat on that hook?

 

[Noctem]

There is not a single instance of the conflation of 'trigger' with 'action'. You're assuming things not in evidence to confuse the issue. The only way you'd be right is if the trigger stated is the same as an action. Actions can be triggers, but triggers do not have to be actions. If the trigger is part of an action, it doesn't stand that the reaction must wait for the action to complete when it's utterly unconcerned with whatever action created the trigger -- only the trigger matters.

It's you that arguing from a lack of evidence -- you're inventing words and reasoning not necessary to read the rules and then claiming that because the rules don't address your reasoning, they must therefore allow it. You have no evidence to support your choices, and, in fact, your choice rests entirely on attempting to read 'immediately' as somehow not immediate, but instead some time later, such that the reaction no longer makes any sense. You're insisting that the rule was written in a way such to require tortured reading of plain English AND that it be so randomly ineffective in it's stated intent that it becomes useless (waiting until the action is over will, quite often, invalidate the stated reaction to the trigger).

Well agree to disagree I guess. Which words have I invented exactly? What reasoning have I invented? I've submitted a few forms of evidence and there's even a quote from Sage Advice. Though from Mearls as I pointed out earlier, it's still Sage Advice. A readied action is inherently ineffective because you have almost no guarantee that your trigger will go off. Readying an action isn't a guarantee that you will get to do what you want, especially if you pick triggers that aren't necessarily going to happen. So out of the millions of triggers you could possibly choose, including some that you can almost guarantee like "When my ally says go I do x", you would claim that most would not work simply because I say that it's a legal interpretation to wait for the trigger to resolved before taking your readied action? Unless specifically stated otherwise of course, like shield and OA's.. So yeah agree to disagree.

Seriously, your entire argument boils down to "well, immediately might not mean immediately the way we'd normally use it, but probably might mean sometime after, but not long after, you know, more of a 'shortly after' not, like, 'right after'." Are you seriously hanging your hat on that hook?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well agree to disagree I guess. Which words have I invented exactly? What reasoning have I invented? I've submitted a few forms of evidence and there's even a quote from Sage Advice. Though from Mearls as I pointed out earlier, it's still Sage Advice. A readied action is inherently ineffective because you have almost no guarantee that your trigger will go off.

This is a real strawman, no one has advanced an argument otherwise.

Readying an action isn't a guarantee that you will get to do what you want, especially if you pick triggers that aren't necessarily going to happen.

This is a real strawman, no one has advance an argument otherwise.

So out of the millions of triggers you could possibly choose, including some that you can almost guarantee like "When my ally says go I do x", you would claim that most would not work simply because I say that it's a legal interpretation to wait for the trigger to resolved before taking your readied action?

Unless specifically stated otherwise of course, like shield and OA's..

.
Wow, that's a HUGE strawman, because I 100% agree, and have multiple posts stating such, that the reaction part of the RA occurs after the trigger resolves.

The issue is that you insist that it must occur after the action that contains the trigger also resolves, despite there being no such language; and I also say that immediately means what it means in plain English, where you claim is means after the action that contains the trigger is complete.





View attachment 72328[/QUOTE]

Oh, come on, man, do I need to quote you, again? Okay, I need to quote you again. Here's you arguing that immediate means something other than immediate:

I've already explained that immediately after the trigger might not mean what you claim here

Given that I have consistently said that 'immediately' means no more or less that 'immediately', and you're arguing that it might mean some undefined time later, yeah, I have you correct.

 

[Noctem]

But you're also implying that the word immediately allows you interrupt actions in between attacks and other things. You're not just restricting yourself to what the definition of the word is in the dictionary. Which is why I pointed out that the context your using immediately in might not be the intended way readied actions resolve. I've also never said anything about "sometime later" you're inventing this to argue against. Anyone who can read can see this for themselves in my previous posts. And calling out STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN by splitting up my posts doesn't make you right. You just split up my argument and the supporting evidence and then called strawman on each split up point. like el oh el. And you're not answering questions. You claim I'm inventing words and reasoning, I ask what exactly and you ignore / don't reply...

Anyway, I think it's better to just agree to disagree because having to re-explain over and over isn't productive and honestly feels like a chore since you're not reading are obviously happy with just spewing rhetoric and false accusations. Until we get an answer from the tweet Seebs sent out, there's no progress to be made.

 

[Inglorin]

I am not a native speaker, so I go to definitions a lot.

I think EVERY hit with Eldritch Blast can push the target back 10 ft.
Why? Because it says so: "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast..." There is no "once per round" or something like this.

I think you CAN select the next target after resolving the first attack.
Why? Because that is how attacks work. pg. 195 has a very easy summary.

I think you CAN trigger of "When the Warlock hits with a Eldritch Blast". You reaction then happens between the first and second beam.
Why? Because we have a precedent, that you can trigger off of anything. Even, for example, a simple move. That's not even an action but might happen within an action if the fighter moves between his extra attacks. If your DM allows the trigger, it works. Normally (with exception clearly written in the rules) the reaction happens AFTER the triggering event. In this case: The first hit with the Eldritch Blast.
On the other hand: This is a very risky trigger. If the Warlock cast any other spell your action is lost. So better go for an easier trigger?

I think the Eldritch Blast CAN'T be countered by Dispell Magic, even if the Dispell is prepared as a Readied Action.
Why? Because Eldritch Blast is categorized as "Instantious". And the definition of Instantious from pg. 203 says you can't dispell these.
It doesn't matter that if is "time" between the blasts or not. Time is nothing the rules care about at this point. We are inside a combat round. Everything is an abstraction at this point.


All that is left is transform these rulings into narrative. The Eldritch Blast in MY world is something more akin to a rapid fire pistol or something like this. Maybe it is even like three very fast spells after another. Like "Bam!", "Bam!", "Bam!". None of these can be easily dispelled, as they exist for only an instant. Each of these is a single attack. Each hit lets the target stagger back 10 ft. I sure hope there is no abyss behind him.

 

[Noctem]

I am not a native speaker, so I go to definitions a lot.

I think EVERY hit with Eldritch Blast can push the target back 10 ft.
Why? Because it says so: "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast..." There is no "once per round" or something like this.

I think you CAN select the next target after resolving the first attack.
Why? Because that is how attacks work. pg. 195 has a very easy summary.

I think you CAN trigger of "When the Warlock hits with a Eldritch Blast". You reaction then happens between the first and second beam.
Why? Because we have a precedent, that you can trigger off of anything. Even, for example, a simple move. That's not even an action but might happen within an action if the fighter moves between his extra attacks. If your DM allows the trigger, it works. Normally (with exception clearly written in the rules) the reaction happens AFTER the triggering event. In this case: The first hit with the Eldritch Blast.
On the other hand: This is a very risky trigger. If the Warlock cast any other spell your action is lost. So better go for an easier trigger?

I think the Eldritch Blast CAN'T be countered by Dispell Magic, even if the Dispell is prepared as a Readied Action.
Why? Because Eldritch Blast is categorized as "Instantious". And the definition of Instantious from pg. 203 says you can't dispell these.
It doesn't matter that if is "time" between the blasts or not. Time is nothing the rules care about at this point. We are inside a combat round. Everything is an abstraction at this point.


All that is left is transform these rulings into narrative. The Eldritch Blast in MY world is something more akin to a rapid fire pistol or something like this. Maybe it is even like three very fast spells after another. Like "Bam!", "Bam!", "Bam!". None of these can be easily dispelled, as they exist for only an instant. Each of these is a single attack. Each hit lets the target stagger back 10 ft. I sure hope there is no abyss behind him.

I agree with you on paragraph 1, 2, 4 and feel that the 3rd is possible. So yay for agreements And you're expressing yourself very well so don't worry

 

[Ovinomancer]

But you're also implying that the word immediately allows you interrupt actions in between attacks and other things.

Yes, exactly, but 'immediately after the trigger' means exactly that, not 'wait for more stuff to happen. Also, there's nothing about not interrupting actions at all in the rules for reactions or readied actions.

You're not just restricting yourself to what the definition of the word is in the dictionary.

How so? Immediately in the dictionary is 1) at once, instantly, and 2) without any intervening time or space. That's exactly how I'm using it.

Which is why I pointed out that the context your using immediately in might not be the intended way readied actions resolve.

Why? There's no reason to assume that the devs didn't know the definition of 'immediately' or meant something else by using that word that they decided to not tell us.

I've also never said anything about "sometime later" you're inventing this to argue against.

Yes, you did. If you argue that something can occur after the trigger but before the RA reaction, then you're explicitly saying that the reaction does not occur immediately after the trigger, but instead some time later. The reaction comes 'immediately' after the trigger. If anything else happens between the trigger and the reaction, then it's not 'immediately' but rather 'sometime later'.

Anyone who can read can see this for themselves in my previous posts.

I doubt that the average person wouldn't see you trying to define 'immediately' as something other than 'immediately', yes.

And calling out STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN by splitting up my posts doesn't make you right.

Of course it doesn't, and this is another strawman because I never said that you making strawman arguments made me right.

You just split up my argument and the supporting evidence and then called strawman on each split up point.

Yes, because you were presenting those points as if I disagreed with them. I didn't, and, in fact, they were core to my arguments.

like el oh el.

LOL, indeed.

And you're not answering questions.

Yes? Which ones?

You claim I'm inventing words and reasoning, I ask what exactly and you ignore / don't reply...

Ah, yes, I took those as rhetorical. Very well, if you're asking, then you're inventing the word 'action' into the rules for RAs, as well as reasoning that they couldn't mean interrupting actions because... well, I don't know why, that's the problem. Also you seem to have invented a weird definition of 'immediately' that doesn't mean 'immediately'.

Anyway, I think it's better to just agree to disagree because having to re-explain over and over isn't productive and honestly feels like a chore since you're not reading are obviously happy with just spewing rhetoric and false accusations.

Oh, pot. I mean, did you have a straight face, here? You've been arguing by macro, a highly insulting and intellectually dishonest method of interacting, and yet you have the gall to accuse me of leveling false accusations and spewing rhetoric? I'm seriously beginning to think you're either a teenager or incapable of self-examination.

Until we get an answer from the tweet Seebs sent out, there's no progress to be made.

Oh, agreed, let's wait for the authorities to speak. You can't articulate a coherent position here, so that seems reasonable.

 

[seebs]

FWIW, the question I asked:

"Can a readied action occur *during* someone else's triggering action (like, between their first and second attacks)?"

That should be clear enough, yes? I avoided the term "interrupt" because that has the connotation of either "happen before the thing triggering it" or "unconditionally, no matter what, force the thing it interrupts to cease", and neither of those is part of the question.

 

[Zorku]

The language to resolve this is in the general making attacks and casting spells sections folks. "A spell is... a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse." Page 201
Flip back a few more and we find the lovely phrase "Whether you're (using weapons or) making an attack roll as part of a spell," Page 193, and we know that the attack action and the cast a spell action are distinct actions, Page 192, so all of the verbage treats your extra attack style cantrip growth as if these are single castings of spells, but with amplified effects. In most cases these are larger globs of -whatever- but with eldritch blast it's a larger number of lasers. They all come from a single cast spell with verbal and somatic components, so the Warlock in question is stuck in place chanting and waving their hands around, just the duration of this is less than a full turn. Also, notice that we lack any language telling us that the way cantrips grow is the same thing as extra attacks; we can look at the numbers and deduce that the damaging cantrips grow like this to match the basic melee attack options, but they aren't an extra attack class feature because they are never called out with that language.

That clause about dispel not being able to affect instantaneous spells is pretty simple too: dispel magic is not counter spell. It's for removing lasting effects, not halting a spell that is currently being cast. If you want to be petulant and complain that some wizard has a reaction time quick enough to do their similar chanting and hand waving fast enough to catch a beam of light mid flight (or a firebolt, since you all of this trigger talk could just as easily specify when the other spell caster was x words away from completing their chanting and organizing flailing such that your 1 action involved spell concluding right in sync with their 1 action spell going off,) then you're kind of missing the point of what dispel magic is written to accomplish, but hey, if you can find a DM willing to attach some skill roll for the magical equivalent of "I shoot their crossbow bolt out of the sky with my arrow" then more power to you.

Rules as written, and with the specific beats general clause, Eldritch blast is several laser attacks in one spell cast action that go off in quick succession, and repelling blast applies to each hit.
Rules as intended appear to be the same damn thing. Homebrew if you don't like it.

-calls of fallacy-

You're kind of bad at fallacies mate. You've read the definitions sure but you're kind of trigger happy about flinging them about without the important "oops, the grammar seems to work but the logic broke somewhere along the way" condition having been met. Moreover we're not in debate club here so try using normal language to explain problems; any time to pull the finger gun trigger on some fallacy and the other person doesn't immediately agree with you there's obviously some disagreement about what the fallacy means, so you wield zero power when you bandy about those labels and there's no agreed upon judge present to arbitrate disagreements... or rather, the only power that gives you is the power to -poop- up the place by getting a bunch of people to take sides on definitions where they probably don't have any special expertise.

 

[seebs]

I don't think any of this adds new information. Yes, we know that the cast-a-spell action and the make-an-attack action are different, but we also know that spell attacks continue to follow the rules for making attacks; most importantly, we have nothing telling us that they don't share basic rule traits.

And again, I'm aware that dispel magic isn't counterspell. You can't use it to interrupt spellcasting. But once the spell is cast, there's no spellcasting to interrupt, and no one has suggested that a dispel magic allows you to undo the already-present effects of an instantaneous spell.

But think about, say, an antimagic field. Imagine that you have a trap which says "if anything damages the idol, an antimagic field is immediately created". If someone damages the idol with the first attack of an eldritch blast, does the antimagic field come into being? Of course. And if the warlock is in the space of that field, can they continue blasting? No.

An antimagic field doesn't undo the effects of instantaneous spells, but that's not what's at issue here, and I think this one's parallel. I could see it being ruled either way; it hardly matters, given how unlikely the condition of it happening is.

(And I agree with your criticism of the "fallacy" calls, but then, there have been a lot of those, and nearly all of them have been irrelevant or wrong, and it seems odd to criticize only one of the people doing that.)