D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Noctem]

[MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION]
@ryan92084

But seebs, this is a specific vs general ruleset. You need to provide a rule that says that the general rule for Instantaneous spells, that they can't be dispelled, no longer applies to a spell being held. You don't get to just invent rules changes because you want them to exist. Furthermore, there is no rule that says it works differently as I pointed out already. So:

You can ask on twitter for what the RAI is from JC, or you can look at his previous response that says that instantaneous spells can't be dispelled and that COUNTERSPELL is what needs to be used, or finally you can look at the RAW and see that there isn't a single line of text that backs up the notion that you can dispel magic someone readying a spell of any kind. The reason for this as Ryan pointed out is that dispel magic is targeting the effect of a spell. There is no effect of the spell to target because the spell is being held as you yourself said! You cast the spell and hold the effects which you release with a reaction. Until you release the spell THERE IS NO EFFECT IN PLAY. Nothing that dispel magic could target or affect itself. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Noctem]

Folks,

Does a question of exactly who said what, and who was technically correct on what, 20 pages ago really matter now? Your current pursuit of that issue is getting people to report you on the basis that you're making it difficult to discuss the rules. Leave the personal grievances (or grievances on behalf of another) out of it and let the thread move on, please.

More than happy to do so!

 

[Noctem]

You have misunderstood. I'm not talking about a readied dispel. I'm talking about an ordinary, non-readied, dispel being cast while someone else has readied a spell.

If you ready a magic missile, and I attack you before your reaction trigger happens, you have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. Normally, a melee attack can't interrupt an instantaneous spell, but if you're holding it as a readied action, it seems like it now can.

So that tweet is unrelated to my question.

Actually it's directly related. Who readies what is irrelevant. The end result is the same. You can't ready dispel to affect an instantaneous spell. You can't affect someone who has a readied instantaneous spell with dispel either. OR in fact ANY SPELL DURATION because until released the spell HAS NO EFFECTS TO TARGET WITH DISPEL MAGIC (they are held, as per the readied action rules). Anyway, you're trying to affect an instantaneous spell with dispel magic... again! God this feels like broken record over and over with you people. Every 4 pages there's a post about how dispel magic must be able to affect an instantaneous spell because of x scenario and it's almost always to do with readied actions. Just let it go already. Unless you can show a specific rule which says that dispel in x scenario dispel magic can affect an instantaneous spell YOU CAN'T DO IT.

 

[ryan92084]

The fact that you'd only use a readied action when there's nothing useful to do with your action is why I consider the cost "high"; it has to offer some kind of real advantage to be an option that you'd ever use.

Because you might want to ready an action for "if the other party attacks us".

Could you point me to a single instance previously in the thread of anyone talking about the state of an "instantaneous" spell which has been readied, and thus which is subject to being prevented from going off by attacks? If you don't ready a spell, there's no way for an attack to break your concentration on an instantaneous spell, because there's no concentration involved in casting an instantaneous spell.

Yes, that is because I was curious about a thing which I had not yet seen any discussion of. I am not only here to discuss your specific points, but rather, to discuss the topic in general.

That's a good point; it's clearly generally the intent that the mage slayer attack happens after the spell has been cast, and that this would include the initial spell effects (such as people making saves, targets being selected, and so on). However, I think you're mistaken about the necessity of distinguishing between casting and resolution, because the rules for readied actions clearly make that distinction.

I never said JC did that. See readied actions, page 193. "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs." We have a distinction here where you have cast the spell, but are now "holding its energy", which means that you're done casting but are using concentration to keep the spell ready for a reaction.

And even has special rules for readying a spell, which change the way the "cast a spell" action works when you use ready to cast a spell.

Well, that's the interesting question. You're allowed to target a "magical effect". Is a spell someone is concentrating on a "magical effect"? It seems to me that it might be considered one.

I still don't understand your disagreement with me about the opportunity cost of using the ready action when there is nothing else available to do with your action. If there is "nothing effective" to do with your action besides take the ready action then the cost of taking the ready action is "nothing effective" and I don't rate that as high. If you/your DM allows ready actions outside of combat, which generally would be the case for a"if the other party attacks us" scenario, then the cost is still "nothing effective" since there isn't an action economy outside of combat.

My mistake, I misread that you were attempting the target the actual concentration of the spell caster with your dispel. But I did address it later as you've found. I would not say concentration itself counts as a magical effect under the current rules.

We were discussing the viability of breaking down the cast a spell action into casts a spell and resolution to which you replied

We already have the dev confirmation that you can see the results of the first beam before targeting the second, that did break the casting of spells into discreet steps.

therefore I don't think my response was off base.



Off topic: Line item quoting is going to makes this discussion difficult especially if when you comment on things that are continued later in the same quoted post. Directly quoting someone heavily implies you are responding to their points but I should have said "we/" are going off the point as it was just a phrase I was using to redirect my own post not a judgement on yours.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Snipped for clarity as this is the only thing I wanted to respond to...

I would not say concentration itself counts as a magical effect under the current rules.

What then, would you say was being concentrated on?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually it's directly related. Who readies what is irrelevant. The end result is the same. You can't ready dispel to affect an instantaneous spell. You can't affect someone who has a readied instantaneous spell with dispel either. OR in fact ANY SPELL DURATION because until released the spell HAS NO EFFECTS TO TARGET WITH DISPEL MAGIC (they are held, as per the readied action rules). Anyway, you're trying to affect an instantaneous spell with dispel magic... again! God this feels like broken record over and over with you people. Every 4 pages there's a post about how dispel magic must be able to affect an instantaneous spell because of x scenario and it's almost always to do with readied actions. Just let it go already. Unless you can show a specific rule which says that dispel in x scenario dispel magic can affect an instantaneous spell YOU CAN'T DO IT.

You know, other people are having a nice chat about the rules here. Could you, perhaps, drop the insults and yelling? We know your position, thank you, you no longer need to yell it at us.

 

[ryan92084]

Snipped for clarity as this is the only thing I wanted to respond to...



What then, would you say was being concentrated on?

The by the book reasoning for the concentration is to "hold its energy, which you release with your reaction" and "holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration". I don't feel either classifies as the "magical effect" of a spell on a target.
The ready action adds a release step to the normal casting rules tells you how that step may be interrupted, breaking concentration or letting the round go by.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The by the book reasoning for the concentration is to "hold its energy, which you release with your reaction" and "holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration". I don't feel either classifies as the "magical effect" of a spell on a target.
The ready action adds a release step to the normal casting rules tells you how that step may be interrupted, breaking concentration or letting the round go by.

See, I find that a tortured reading because it allows that there is something magical there, but it isn't really there for purposes of dispelling, but it is there if someone whacks you with a stick because then you might lose it. The middle part sticks out as odd, there.

We've already allowed that the normal instantaneous wording is suspended for a readied spell, because the magic is cast but is still around (possibly for much longer than a round, as you can continue to hold round over round if you continue to ready). I find it weird that the magic is vulnerable to sticks, which can otherwise never prevent a spell from coming to be, but isn't to the one spell designed to end magic because of a definitional reading that's already violated by the very situation under discussion.

 

[Noctem]

You know, other people are having a nice chat about the rules here. Could you, perhaps, drop the insults and yelling? We know your position, thank you, you no longer need to yell it at us.

Who's yelling? What insults? lol!

did you not see the mod post? Can you stop with the personal harassment?

 

[Noctem]

See, I find that a tortured reading because it allows that there is something magical there, but it isn't really there for purposes of dispelling, but it is there if someone whacks you with a stick because then you might lose it. The middle part sticks out as odd, there.

We've already allowed that the normal instantaneous wording is suspended for a readied spell, because the magic is cast but is still around (possibly for much longer than a round, as you can continue to hold round over round if you continue to ready). I find it weird that the magic is vulnerable to sticks, which can otherwise never prevent a spell from coming to be, but isn't to the one spell designed to end magic because of a definitional reading that's already violated by the very situation under discussion.

You're wrong on multiple counts.

1. Readying a spell does not mean it is no longer an instantaneous spell. This is a fabrication of yours to justify your position. Readying a spell does not change anything about it's effect, attributes, duration, etc.. The only thing that changes is that you can now hold the spell by concentrating and then release the spell using a readied action when your trigger happens. None of that implies or states what you just claimed.

2. You're using dispel magic like if it targets a spell or targets someone concentrating. It targets the effect, nothing more and nothing less. Stop mutating dispel magic to suit your argument. There are no effects until you release the spell. That's the entire point of readying a spell.

3. You can't hold a spell for more than a round. You're incorrect about that as well. When your next turn comes around you lose the spell you were holding and the slot you used to ready it since you spent it when you readied. It's a terrible cost but it should be noted.

4. The magic is not vulnerable to sticks, your concentration is. Just like every other game element that uses concentration...

5. Dispel magic is not the spell to end magic. It ends the effects of magic and counterspell ends a spell as it is cast. Ergo, counterspell is much closer to the "spell which ends magic". But that's neither here nor there. You're also using your argument as it's own evidence to justify it. That's circular logic.