D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Largely that, while I think you have the timing issues okay (in the sense of when something can happen in the order, not necessarily on exact timing), the issue is that the rules clearly say that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. I appreciate the logic that went into your argument, and the thought behind it, but I don't think that it rises sufficiently high to counter that rule, even if the rule doesn't make perfect sense (which ones do?).

All of that said, I'm making that statement on the basis of what I think the rules say. At my table, though, it would work pretty much like you describe. I'm not going to offer it to the players as an option, but if one asks if he can do it, I'll say yes.

 

[devincutler]

Deleted Post

Saw this was addressed previously in this thread.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[pdegan2814]

For those of you allowing repelling blast to work with EACH bolt in sequence...I assume if the target is at the edge of the range of the blast then after the first one hits and knocks him back the rest miss because they are out of range....right?

Someone asked Crawford about that very thing back in June, his answer was yes.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/?s=repelling+blast

 

[ryan92084]

For those of you allowing repelling blast to work with EACH bolt in sequence...I assume if the target is at the edge of the range of the blast then after the first one hits and knocks him back the rest miss because they are out of range....right?

that basically how it works, yes. They don't miss though the creature is just no longer a valid target because it is out of range. Note: the caster can choose to have the bolts push or not so this would only occur on their own error.

 

[Noctem]

For those of you allowing repelling blast to work with EACH bolt in sequence...I assume if the target is at the edge of the range of the blast then after the first one hits and knocks him back the rest miss because they are out of range....right?

If you read the rules for making attacks you'll see that you select the target of your attack when you make the attack. Not when you cast the spell. So it would go like:

Attack 1:
Select target
Determine modifiers
Make the attack and resolve effects (including repelling blast)

After the first attack, the target is now out of the range of the next attack. This means it is no longer a valid target and you must pick a different target as part of Attack 2 or, if there are no legal targets, the rest of the attacks simply fizzle basically. You never pick targets ahead of time or all at the same time when making multiple attacks from either the Attack Action + Extra Attack or Spells like Eldritch Blast. That's completely wrong unless there's a specific exception to the general rules for how attacks work and are resolved.

EDIT: Oop, saw your now edited post after this was posted. No worries then

 

[Umbran]

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???

Hey! Where do you get off treating people like this? That's a rhetorical question, with an answer of, "Off these boards, if you continue."

You are expected to *SHOW RESPECT* for other posters, even if you disagree with them. If you find you cannot show respect, then we expect you to not respond to them.

If you cannot exercise a touch of self-restraint, then restraint will be put upon you.

 

[seebs]

Largely that, while I think you have the timing issues okay (in the sense of when something can happen in the order, not necessarily on exact timing), the issue is that the rules clearly say that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled. I appreciate the logic that went into your argument, and the thought behind it, but I don't think that it rises sufficiently high to counter that rule, even if the rule doesn't make perfect sense (which ones do?).

All of that said, I'm making that statement on the basis of what I think the rules say. At my table, though, it would work pretty much like you describe. I'm not going to offer it to the players as an option, but if one asks if he can do it, I'll say yes.

I think there's a couple of questions to be had about that.

Huh. Actually, re-reading:

"Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant."

This doesn't say that the spell can't be dispelled, exactly. It says that the spell "harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled". Which is not the same thing as "the spell itself cannot be dispelled".

One way of viewing this is "these spells cannot be affected by dispel magic, period, and this is why". The other is "these spells generally aren't subject to dispel magic, for the following reasons; if those reasons didn't apply, things might be different."

Consider, if you will, the hypothetical alternative rules text: "Spells with an instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled." No further qualifiers or explanations. Would that be clear enough? Sure. So what's the purpose of the explanation? In 5e, I tend to think that if a rule presents a justification, it's there as guidance for rulings. The goal is to tell you why the rule is there, so you know when it will or won't apply.

Also, consider context and history. People frequently come up with the idea that they can dispel a magical effect, and then they look at a magical effect that has taken place, and they suggest dispelling it. This language tells you that instantnaneous spells don't work that way.

Now, here's a thing to consider. Can you dispel call lightning? Of course you can. It's a spell with a duration. But would that dispel the damage done by it? Of course not. The key here is not whether or not the spell is instantaneous, but whether the "harm, heal, create, or alter" effect is instantaneous. And even though call lightning does not explicitly state that, we understand the intent to be that the lightning bolts do damage which is instantaneous, while the spell continues for its duration. Dispelling the spell won't undo the lightning strikes that have already occurred.

(That said, I totally thought I remembered other wording that was closer to "you can't dispel instantaneous spells", but I can't find it at the moment.)

 

[Zorku]

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.



Correct. You cannot target the casting of a spell (the VSM components) with dispel magic because chanting words and gesturing are not magical effects, and the spell effect does not begin until the casting is finished, by which time it is too late to prevent the effect from starting (the duration beginning).

However, once the VSM components of eldritch blast are completed, the spell effect (four beams of crackling energy streak towards opponents) then the spell effect does exist and may be targeted by a dispel, if the spell effect's duration has not yet expired by the time the dispel goes off.

If the beams are effectively simultaneous, with no time to react until they all hit (which would be true for both caster and dispeller), then the beams have come and gone so quickly that there is nothing to dispel.

But, if there is enough time between beams for the caster to see what the first beam did before aiming the next, then there is enough time for the dispeller to release his already cast dispel magic. He has a valid target because the spell duration is still ongoing at that point; the spell duration (whether you call it 'instantaneous' or not) begins with the first beam and doesn't end until the last beam. Since it is dispelled after the first beam but before the second, EB is an existing spell at the time it is hit with the dispel.

I don't know why JC wants it to work this way, but if the spell does work this way then the consequence is that it can be dispelled, contrary to what he wrote about instantaneous spells.

I think the flaw here is in your assumption that the VSM stuff is completely over by the time any magical part of a cast spell action takes place.
After reading through the fluff about what casting a spell is in relation to the weave, I'm picturing the multiple beams thing being like some of the more input intense attacks in certain fighting games: in at least a few games your joystick waggling isn't reset when you touch any of the attack buttons that turn it into an attack, so for weird long inputs (like Ivy's Summon Suffering and Criminal Symphony throws in the soul cal games I ever played,) you can whip at the enemy a little instead of turning into a complete sitting duck while you try to mash through all the inputs.

Presuming you followed that and/or already knew about wtf I'm talking about, Eldritch blast would have some weird symmetry to it that lets a Warlock weave up for discrete lasers within the confines of casting a single cantrip- never presenting a magical effect to target other than the beams of light, which don't exist for long enough. Or the same damn thing without me referencing old videogames- "a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse" and all that doesn't seem to mean that the shape can't start doing anything until you take your grubby warlock hands off and declare it complete.

 

[Arial Black]

I think the flaw here is in your assumption that the VSM stuff is completely over by the time any magical part of a cast spell action takes place.

On p203 0f the PHB, under 'Components':-

"A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it....If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell."

This means that the spell has not been cast (i.e. doesn't exist) unless and until the components have been completed. Therefore, they must be finished before the duration begins.

You cannot have a spell effect occur by simply promising to provide the components later. If you provide some, but not all, of the components you cannot cast the spell. Therefore, if you begin chanting the magic words of a V spell but don't complete the entire verbal component, then you haven't provided the required component! If you have completed the components then the casting of the spell is over and the duration begins (unless 'paused' by readying the spell).

The VSM stuff must be completely over by the time any magical part (the 'spell effect') of a cast spell action takes place.

 

[Arial Black]

I think there's a couple of questions to be had about that.

Huh. Actually, re-reading:

"Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant."

This doesn't say that the spell can't be dispelled, exactly. It says that the spell "harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled". Which is not the same thing as "the spell itself cannot be dispelled".

One way of viewing this is "these spells cannot be affected by dispel magic, period, and this is why". The other is "these spells generally aren't subject to dispel magic, for the following reasons; if those reasons didn't apply, things might be different."

Consider, if you will, the hypothetical alternative rules text: "Spells with an instantaneous duration cannot be dispelled." No further qualifiers or explanations. Would that be clear enough? Sure. So what's the purpose of the explanation? In 5e, I tend to think that if a rule presents a justification, it's there as guidance for rulings. The goal is to tell you why the rule is there, so you know when it will or won't apply.

Also, consider context and history. People frequently come up with the idea that they can dispel a magical effect, and then they look at a magical effect that has taken place, and they suggest dispelling it. This language tells you that instantnaneous spells don't work that way.

Now, here's a thing to consider. Can you dispel call lightning? Of course you can. It's a spell with a duration. But would that dispel the damage done by it? Of course not. The key here is not whether or not the spell is instantaneous, but whether the "harm, heal, create, or alter" effect is instantaneous. And even though call lightning does not explicitly state that, we understand the intent to be that the lightning bolts do damage which is instantaneous, while the spell continues for its duration. Dispelling the spell won't undo the lightning strikes that have already occurred.

(That said, I totally thought I remembered other wording that was closer to "you can't dispel instantaneous spells", but I can't find it at the moment.)

Thank you! There are those (and Noctem shall remain nameless) who are happy to quote half of the rule, but carefully avoid quoting the part of the rule that proves their assertion is wrong.

The entire rule is, "The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant."

If the part after the 'because' doesn't apply then the part before the 'because' falls away. Meaning, that if an instantaneous spell is ruled to be in existence as it is dispelled, then it can be dispelled.