D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Zorku]

Going further back, post
#212 has a quote of an earlier post from Noctem, saying:

"As stated before, actions in 5e CANNOT interrupt each other outside of specific examples like the spell Shield. You cannot use a readied action to interrupt another action. You cannot interrupt the Attack Action of a level 5 fighter in between his first and second attack with a readied action unless that readied action specifically states (like shield) that you can."

Since the examples given of readied actions clearly make sense only if your action can take place during part of someone else's action or move, he's then said also that the examples given of typical triggers are not examples of triggers the designers clearly intend players to be able to specify and react to, but rather, are examples of things a DM can rule either way on, with no implied suggestion that they ought to work as intended.

The "but it's a DM ruling" thing is a way to dodge around the actual original claim, which is that it is absolutely impossible for a readied action to occur between, say, the multiple attacks granted by the extra attack action.

I asked if they were arguing. Whether it was dodged or not that seems particularly past tense after so many pages.

With that much written down I've got an opinion on what the correct reading is, but necromancing that argument at this time feels inappropriate.

 

[seebs]

The assertion that you absolutely can't interrupt another creature's action with a readied action was made, and the point was never conceded, so as far as I can tell it's still the position on the table. I don't think it's a remotely defensible position, but it is the position of one of the participants, I believe.

 

[Zorku]

The assertion that you absolutely can't interrupt another creature's action with a readied action was made, and the point was never conceded, so as far as I can tell it's still the position on the table. I don't think it's a remotely defensible position, but it is the position of one of the participants, I believe.

The last mention of it from them concedes it, just not thoroughly enough for your tastes.

 

[seebs]

Maybe I missed that. I never saw an actual acknowledgement that the rule they were claiming existed does not actually exist.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The last mention of it from them concedes it, just not thoroughly enough for your tastes.

Oh, link, please?

 

[Zorku]

You called it a cop out or some such.

 

[ryan92084]

In case there was anyone left still unsure about the RAI of Sequential versus Simultaneous targeting of Eldritch Blast.

Multi-Atk spells (Scorching Ray, Eldritch Blast): Fire 1, see result, fire next? Or choose tgts b4 atk rolls?

The intent is that you choose the targets consecutively, not simultaneously. #DnD

As for the more current ready action between spell attacks discussion I'm unsure if I'm included "they"/"them" but I'm still on the side of no. My reasons, in order of importance, are the Mage slayer feat not allowing it, the general reaction rules about timing, and lack of general rules addressing being attacked mid spell cast.
However, I have fully acknowledged the validity of a ready action trigger is left to the DM to decide as the rules are mostly example based.

 

[Zorku]

In case there was anyone left still unsure about the RAI of Sequential versus Simultaneous targeting of Eldritch Blast.



As for the more current ready action between spell attacks discussion I'm unsure if I'm included "they"/"them" but I'm still on the side of no. My reasons, in order of importance, are the Mage slayer feat not allowing it, the general reaction rules about timing, and lack of general rules addressing being attacked mid spell cast.
However, I have fully acknowledged the validity of a ready action trigger is left to the DM to decide as the rules are mostly example based.

So much for not starting that up again.

Why would the mage slayer feat talk about this at all?

 

[ryan92084]

So much for not starting that up again.

Why would the mage slayer feat talk about this at all?

The targeting timing is a recurring question/discussion. As it was one of the main topics for 4/5 of this thread anyone searching for an answer might find their way here.

As I said way back in post #407 when the thread was civil for a time "If a feat largely based around a character trained to take advantage of a caster's distraction can't get a reaction between rays I wouldn't allow any one else to either". This, as stated, is my personal position.

 

[seebs]

There's not enough spells where it would be applicable to justify a paragraph of complicated timing wording trying to express the idea that you can attack between rays (even though doing so doesn't prevent the other rays from going off). Mage slayer isn't supposed to completely prevent casting, it's supposed to make casting more dangerous and protect you from casters.

But to be clear, I don't think attacking between rays is "attacking mid spell cast". The spell has-been-cast at that point, you're in the resolution phase. Nothing will change the fact that the spell was successfully cast.

Also, I think readied actions are a higher cost than a feat. A feat gives you passive buffs at no additional cost. Readied action eats your combat turn. I'd let readied actions do things that feats generally can't.