D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Arial Black]

That's a valid chain of reasoning. I'm not sure I agree, but I appreciate you taking the time to present it for consideration.

Thanks for that.

It would advance the debate if you could point out where you think my argument is wrong. It would be strange if you could find no flaw in it, but still disagree. Why would you disagree with an argument you find flawless?

If there is a flaw, tell us what it is so that it may be considered.

 

[seebs]

I would not accept an argument which produced an answer I knew was wrong regardless of whether or not I could find the flaw in it.

There's a lovely proof I saw once that all angles are equal to the right angle. It took hours to find a point where the proof contained an error, and it was a really subtle error, but I could reject the conclusion immediately because it couldn't possibly be correct.

Personally, I think the flaw is in the assumption that the wizard's ability to choose targets and other people's ability to interrupt the spell are both contingent on the passage of time, and thus that if there's enough time for one there must be enough time for the other. I think it's quite possible that the wizard's ability to choose targets is a result of a general principle of how the rules are intended to work and the question of how much time that takes is being ignored because this is fundamentally a set of game rules, not a simulation of physics.

 

[seebs]

If the caster has enough time to:-

*shoot first beam
*observe the effect of the damage caused by that beam
*decide, based on whether or not the first target falls, who to target with the next beam
*repeat this whole process two more times!

Then the readied dispeller must have enough time to:-

*observe the first beam being shot
*release his already cast dispel magic, without even waiting to see what effect the first beam's damage had on its target

There cannot be enough time for the caster to target after seeing the results of a beam, without also giving enough time for it to be dispelled by a readied spell.

I understand the argument, but I don't think it's persuasive because it assumes that everything is being judged from the simulation of amounts of time passing, not from game balance or game design perspectives.

 

[ryan92084]

In your own game you can do what you want, but as part of a rules debate, why would you have us believe that 'duration' (which is defined as the period of time the entire spell effect exists) means something totally different for eldritch blast? This is not four spells, each with an instantaneous duration! It is a single spell whose duration covers all four beams.
snip...

Not quite, duration is described as "the length of time the spell persists". It does not specify that it is the entire spell effect much fit this description. The magic beam or alternatively the magical effect of each beam persists for only an instant.

If you, understandably, don't like that interpretation then there is the fallback argument (that also doesn't involve Crawford disagreeing with Crawford) of 'instant as commonly used doesn't necessarily mean a length of time approaching nil' and instead means the magic doesn't persist beyond this action.

Either/both work for me and since they don't involve Crawford contradicting himself/the book repeatedly I'm satisfied with them.

 

[Arial Black]

I would not accept an argument which produced an answer I knew was wrong regardless of whether or not I could find the flaw in it.

Perhaps, but this is not a helpful position in a debate.

There's a lovely proof I saw once that all angles are equal to the right angle. It took hours to find a point where the proof contained an error, and it was a really subtle error, but I could reject the conclusion immediately because it couldn't possibly be correct.

But there is a triangle where all three of its internal angles are each right angles. Clue: its non-Euclidian.

Personally, I think the flaw is in the assumption that the wizard's ability to choose targets and other people's ability to interrupt the spell are both contingent on the passage of time, and thus that if there's enough time for one there must be enough time for the other. I think it's quite possible that the wizard's ability to choose targets is a result of a general principle of how the rules are intended to work and the question of how much time that takes is being ignored because this is fundamentally a set of game rules, not a simulation of physics.

Its not the ability to choose targets that is the problem. I have no problem with a wizard simultaneously and instantaneously choosing four different targets, one for each beam.

The problem is that time must pass if he is to observe the effect the damage of one beam has, and only target the next beam after that observation.

Observing the result of you spell is not part of the casting process; its a mundane action that can be done for any observer, and takes the same amount of time (however long that is) for any observer, including the caster.

There is no suggestion that the caster of a spell can see into the future to divine the effects of beams he hasn't shot yet.

The game is not a simulation of physics, true, but is a simulation of an artificial reality of a game world. Things still have to make sense in that world. If not, it ceases to be an RPG and just becomes an arbitrary board game. You could certainly make up a rule that says, 'Wearing the colour purple gives +2 to your AC versus attacks from your left flank', with the 'justification' that 'the rules say so, because I just made up the rule that says so!'. But would that rule be satisfactory? If nonsensical rules abound, doesn't that take away from your immersion in the game?

Why have rules which don't make sense when you could just as easily have rules which do make sense? Why rule that time works differently for the caster of a spell when you can just as easily rule that time works the same for all?

 

[Noctem]

Again though you keep trying to bring in that instantaneous = simultaneous, the notion of time in 5e for spell resolution.. Meaning that the attacks are done simultaneously because it has the instantaneous duration. Basically, regardless of all the discussion that's been had on this subject: rule quotes, dev responses, RAI, etc.. You STILL haven't even budged from your starting position. You're stuck in an echo chamber and you have a confirmation bias. You will never be willing to change your point of view. You chirp about seebs not having a helpful position in this debate, take a long solid look in the mirror! You want to push a simulationist ideal on everyone else like if it's the rules of the game. It is not and never will be.

 

[Arial Black]

Not quite, duration is described as "the length of time the spell persists". It does not specify that it is the entire spell effect much fit this description.

It does actually. According to the spellcasting chapter, the 'spell effect' is the prose underneath the spell's stat block; the 'spell effect' is what lasts for the duration, whatever that duration is. The 'spell effect' for EB (at 17th level) is 'four beams streak toward' the targets.

If you, understandably, don't like that interpretation then there is the fallback argument (that also doesn't involve Crawford disagreeing with Crawford) of 'instant as commonly used doesn't necessarily mean a length of time approaching nil' and instead means the magic doesn't persist beyond this action.

Taking your interpretation to be true (that 'instantaneous' just means that the spell's effect doesn't persist beyond the casters action), then since the readied dispeller's reaction takes place after the first beam but before the second, then that reaction takes place during the caster's action and therefore during the duration of EB.

This means that an instantaneous spell can be dispelled, contrary to RAW. JC is still disagreeing with JC.

 

[Noctem]

This means that an instantaneous spell can be dispelled, contrary to RAW. JC is still disagreeing with JC.

lol wait so because you refuse to understand that dispel magic can't affect instantaneous spells, it MUST mean that it contradicts RAW and that Jeremy Crawford is also contradicting himself? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! OMG you're so stuck in your confirmation bias. Do you even read what you're posting???

Everyone is wrong except you, is that it? Even the people who designed the edition!

EDIT: Though it is nice that you FINALLY admit that the RAW does say you can't dispel an instantaneous spell. That at the very least, is a step forward.

 

[seebs]

Perhaps, but this is not a helpful position in a debate.

It may not be, but the point is, you don't have to be able to identify the flaw in an argument to know that it's wrong.

But there is a triangle where all three of its internal angles are each right angles. Clue: its non-Euclidian.

No, this was a "proof" that, on the Euclidian plane, all angles are equal to the right angle. And that was wrong. And it was wrong even before I could find a flaw in it.

Its not the ability to choose targets that is the problem. I have no problem with a wizard simultaneously and instantaneously choosing four different targets, one for each beam.

The problem is that time must pass if he is to observe the effect the damage of one beam has, and only target the next beam after that observation.

No, time must pass for it to make sense that he can target the beam after seeing the results of the previous beam.

Observing the result of you spell is not part of the casting process; its a mundane action that can be done for any observer, and takes the same amount of time (however long that is) for any observer, including the caster.

There is no suggestion that the caster of a spell can see into the future to divine the effects of beams he hasn't shot yet.

The game is not a simulation of physics, true, but is a simulation of an artificial reality of a game world. Things still have to make sense in that world. If not, it ceases to be an RPG and just becomes an arbitrary board game. You could certainly make up a rule that says, 'Wearing the colour purple gives +2 to your AC versus attacks from your left flank', with the 'justification' that 'the rules say so, because I just made up the rule that says so!'. But would that rule be satisfactory? If nonsensical rules abound, doesn't that take away from your immersion in the game?

"Make sense" is not a boolean. There's a lot of things in the rules that don't make sense; my favorite proof (which I came up with during a timing argument on Usenet) was the commoner railgun, which allows you to move objects significantly faster than the speed of light. The rules don't always make sense. They approximate making sense, but if you look too closely at boundary cases, you will find stuff that's nonsensical. And that just sorta happens sometimes.

Why have rules which don't make sense when you could just as easily have rules which do make sense? Why rule that time works differently for the caster of a spell when you can just as easily rule that time works the same for all?

I don't know. And I note, I'm not saying that such a ruling exists. I'm saying that it's not an unthinkable ruling, because it would make some sense to say "you can't interrupt instantaneous spells", and still say "but you get to choose targets sequentially after seeing results because that's the balanced answer for things that require multiple attack rolls."

 

[ryan92084]

It does actually. According to the spellcasting chapter, the 'spell effect' is the prose underneath the spell's stat block; the 'spell effect' is what lasts for the duration, whatever that duration is. The 'spell effect' for EB (at 17th level) is 'four beams streak toward' the targets.



Taking your interpretation to be true (that 'instantaneous' just means that the spell's effect doesn't persist beyond the casters action), then since the readied dispeller's reaction takes place after the first beam but before the second, then that reaction takes place during the caster's action and therefore during the duration of EB.

This means that an instantaneous spell can be dispelled, contrary to RAW. JC is still disagreeing with JC.

I directly quoted the duration section of the spellcasting chapter in my post. To which section are you referring?
I continue to disagree with your dispel magic ready action argument on the basis that it is not a valid target. I will not be trying to convince you otherwise I've read both sides and have nothing new to add to that particular debate.

I do, however, have a question for you. If its already been addressed I apologize. If you really wanted to use 3rd level spell, an action, and potential reaction on the ready action trigger of "if the caster casts a spell" edit: trigger would have to be "caster makes a magical attack" hoping that a spell is cast and it just so happens to be a multi attack roll spell so might be able to dispel a single beam/ray. Wouldn't this trigger after the first ray but before the second leaving only the caster/nothing as a target? That doesn't really accomplish much/anything.