D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

I've stated that they are like extra attacks, and seem to be clearly intended to parallel the number of attacks a fighter of the same level would get.

Then my apologies to Zorku.

The term "appeal to authority", as a logical fallacy, refers specifically to using "but someone important said so" as a replacement for an argument. But it's not a fallacy in the case where the authority genuinely has authority to answer the question. If you're not Catholic, you might consider it a fallacious appeal to authority for someone to say "the Pope says..." on a moral issue... But it's not a fallacy to point to what the Pope says when talking about Catholic doctrine. If Jeremy Crawford does indeed make a statement about the intent of the rules, then it's a valid authority to cite to. But as of yet, I've seen nothing from him on the specific questions I think are meaningfully disputed.

Amusingly, I went back and looked for what I said, and while I recall starting an appeal to authority call, I can't find it, which means I decided against it, likely because it didn't fit. All I can find are my calls of strawmanning.

Also, thinking more about the AMF thing, it seems to me that "a trap which is described as going off immediately when triggered" is a better way to think about the timing questions of the eldritch blast ways, but useless for discussing readied actions, as traps aren't readied actions.

Yup, wasn't addressing the timing so much as the fact that, if said timing occurred, it would work.

 

[Xvartslayer]

Then my apologies to Zorku.


Amusingly, I went back and looked for what I said, and while I recall starting an appeal to authority call, I can't find it, which means I decided against it, likely because it didn't fit. All I can find are my calls of strawmanning.


Yup, wasn't addressing the timing so much as the fact that, if said timing occurred, it would work.

Post #343.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wow, you're being pedantic here...I'm sure you don't mean to be, but have you looked at your participation in this thread and are you proud of it? With no personal attack at all, I think you may be going to weird places through the way you're choosing to participate in the thread and they may not be where you want to go.

For what it's worth, while I can see how Noctem can come off as a little dismissive, I also think he's shown a lot of patience for people who seem intent on misconstruing things he's taken the time to type out meticulously.

Nope, completely mean to be pedantic. Noctem is refusing to accept the dictionary definition of immediately, instead insisting that it might, in this case, without any indication that would be so, might instead mean something different. Noctem is insisting that other people have to ask his question, which they've clearly said they think isn't useful and why that is so, because it's the only way for other people to stop disagreeing with him. Noctem has been repeatedly insulting and dismissive of people that make reasoned arguments that disagree with his. And I'm being called out as pedantic while he's getting a pass as 'a little dismissive?'

Or are you saying that I didn't also show a lot of patience for Noctum while he seems intent on misconstruing things that I've taken the time to type out meticulously? Every single time I've listed the rules and assumptions and outcomes, he's ignored it and returned to insisting either 'immediately doesn't mean immediately' or 'we'll just have to wait for Crawford.'

Or is it that you think my disagreement with his is over anything but the ability for RAs to interrupt actions after their trigger has occurred? If you agree with Noctem, please, oh very please, explain the logic there, because I'm not getting anything but intransigence from Noctem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Post #343.

Yeah, that was my failed attempt to recall my previously aborted argument without going to look at it. It's wrong. I was talking about before that post.

 

[Noctem]

uh-huh.

 

[Xvartslayer]

SNIP. Noctem is refusing to accept the dictionary definition of immediately, instead insisting that it might, in this case, without any indication that would be so, might instead mean something different. SNIP

This is sometimes called an "appeal to definition" if you want to add it to your list of logical fallacies.

 

[Ovinomancer]

uh-huh.

[MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION]

Respectfully, do you have any comment on [MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION] dropping snark in response to a free admission of an error?

 

[Xvartslayer]

Yeah, that was my failed attempt to recall my previously aborted argument without going to look at it. It's wrong. I was talking about before that post.

So #319, then?

Are you saying "I didn't claim an appeal to authority except for the two times that I did?"

EDIT: Typo

 

[Noctem]

So #319, then?

Are you saying "I didn't claim an appeal to authority except for the two times that I did?"

EDIT: Typo

This is why, along with the post right before the one you quoted, I replied with "uh-huh". Just so we're clear.

 

[Noctem]

This is sometimes called an "appeal to definition" if you want to add it to your list of logical fallacies.

Thank you, I was just going to post this myself. To be clear:

Appeal to Definition
The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y. Therefore, Y must not be part of X.

Or more detailed:

Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined through argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.

Dictionary meanings are usually concise, and lack the depth found in an encyclopedia; therefore, terms found in dictionaries are often incomplete when it comes to helping people to gain a full understanding of the term. Or in this context, what the term means in the context of 5th edition DnD vs what it means outside of that context.

This is a very common fallacy, Arial Black demonstrated it earlier in the thread and continues to do so because he believes that the definition from the dictionary of the word instantaneous is more important and/or negates the definition of the term in the context of 5e. But you know, maybe once we get questions out over twitter we can resolve the discussion once and for all. Hint hint nudge nudge Arial Black.