D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Zorku]

When I posted the RAW about components, and then stated that this means the the components must be completed before the spell effect begins, you disagreed with that.

Or seemed to...

Instead of me trying to guess, why don't you just tell us what you did mean?

If you agree that the components must be completed before the spell effect begins, this means that the spellcasting is over by the time the first beam is shot, therefore counterspell has no target but dispel magic does if it is readied to go off after the first beam.

If you disagree, tell us why.

Watching you shift the burden of proof like this is kind of disheartening.
Let's just skip ahead and assume that he can't justify the position he took. Do you think that would mean that you are right?

 

[Arial Black]

Watching you shift the burden of proof like this is kind of disheartening.
Let's just skip ahead and assume that he can't justify the position he took. Do you think that would mean that you are right?

I'm right whether he justifies his position or not, but in a debate people make points and support them, and reject other points and say why.

My frustration is that he seems to agree with my point (I think), but says he disagrees with my conclusion anyway, without saying where he thinks I've gone wrong.

 

[Zorku]

I'm right whether he justifies his position or not, but in a debate people make points and support them, and reject other points and say why.

My frustration is that he seems to agree with my point (I think), but says he disagrees with my conclusion anyway, without saying where he thinks I've gone wrong.

Yeah, and it is at best bad form to make points for other people, and at worst deceitful.
So, if that's your reason for asking him that question, why did you also ask me the same question? I've already established that I disagree with what you've presented, on what points, and supported that with explanations of the fallacies involved.

 

[Noctem]

Regardless of what Arial would like us to believe, we have multiple dev tweets that tells us the RAI doesn't allow for dispel magic to do what he claims. The RAW doesn't agree either. To agree with him, you have to ignore both RAI and RAW but favor his personal definition of a word which he's using to extrapolate multiple other arguments. But it all revolves around a single word.

You can't ready dispel to affect an instanteous spell. That's simply not possible. His argument requires simulation to be part of the game, time between attacks for example being a recurring theme. He uses the definition to justify that time must exist between attacks and because time exists you can do x, y, z. So again, you have to ignore RAW + RAI but favor his argument.

We also have proof via both RAI and RAW that attacks are sequential. But he claims that because the duration for these spells is instantaneous that it must mean they are simultaneous. Again, you have to ignore both RAI + RAW and favor his personal definition. He also uses this to justify other claims. If attacks aren't simultaneous, it means there's time between, so you can do x, y, z. So he tries to create a catch 22 to claim he's right no matter which way you go but the core of his claim is still faulty which makes this entire thing he's constructed faulty.

Each attack follows the Making an Attack rules and each attack follows the 3 steps. Multi attacks are only ever simultaneous if the game element in question specifically states that it is. That's how the system works.

There's really nothing more to say, especially if he's going to claim being right no matter what others post, + tries to shift the burden onto others and so on... To agree with Arial you have to abandon the RAW + RAI and favor his interpretation. I will never do that because this isn't his table where he can make houserules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When I posted the RAW about components, and then stated that this means the the components must be completed before the spell effect begins, you disagreed with that.

Or seemed to...

Instead of me trying to guess, why don't you just tell us what you did mean?

If you agree that the components must be completed before the spell effect begins, this means that the spellcasting is over by the time the first beam is shot, therefore counterspell has no target but dispel magic does if it is readied to go off after the first beam.

If you disagree, tell us why.

If you were interested in why I disagreed with you, you shouldn't have asked a different question.

But, to address your point, there's nothing in the RAW that says that components are completed before the effect. Given that the effect is applied as part of the cast a spell action, and components are consumed/used during the cast a spell action, the most you can say is that they're consumed by the end of the action, and the effect is either over (for instantaneous spells) or in place by the same. There's zero indication that the cast a spell action has internal timing such that the components must be consumed prior to the effect. There's nothing to say that they aren't.

I actually lean towards Zorku's conjecture (absent the Soul Caliber analogies) that the components are ongoing throughout the cast a spell action, including during the resolution of effects for instantaneous spells (pointing at targets for EB as part of the somatic component, frex), but I have zero RAW to back that up. You have zero RAW to back up consumption prior. All RAW says is that, to cast a spell, you have to have the components, and when you're done casting the components will have been consumed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm right whether he justifies his position or not, but in a debate people make points and support them, and reject other points and say why.

Well, that's encouraging. You're right, no matter what anyone else says? It might be time to climb down off of that ledge, friend.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Regardless of what Arial would like us to believe, we have multiple dev tweets that tells us the RAI doesn't allow for dispel magic to do what he claims. The RAW doesn't agree either. To agree with him, you have to ignore both RAI and RAW but favor his personal definition of a word which he's using to extrapolate multiple other arguments. But it all revolves around a single word.

You can't ready dispel to affect an instanteous spell. That's simply not possible. His argument requires simulation to be part of the game, time between attacks for example being a recurring theme. He uses the definition to justify that time must exist between attacks and because time exists you can do x, y, z. So again, you have to ignore RAW + RAI but favor his argument.

We also have proof via both RAI and RAW that attacks are sequential. But he claims that because the duration for these spells is instantaneous that it must mean they are simultaneous. Again, you have to ignore both RAI + RAW and favor his personal definition. He also uses this to justify other claims. If attacks aren't simultaneous, it means there's time between, so you can do x, y, z. So he tries to create a catch 22 to claim he's right no matter which way you go but the core of his claim is still faulty which makes this entire thing he's constructed faulty.

Each attack follows the Making an Attack rules and each attack follows the 3 steps. Multi attacks are only ever simultaneous if the game element in question specifically states that it is. That's how the system works.

There's really nothing more to say, especially if he's going to claim being right no matter what others post, + tries to shift the burden onto others and so on... To agree with Arial you have to abandon the RAW + RAI and favor his interpretation. I will never do that because this isn't his table where he can make houserules.

Actually, there's no dev statements that cover the exact situation being discussed. You can read the prior statements as to cover this, and that's perfectly fine, but it's a misrepresentation of the facts to say that the devs have answered this particular situation with their current responses.

I tend to agree that the Devs would respond as you put it and would say no -- it's a faster and cleaner ruling, and they seem to favor those (except when they don't, tautology FTW). But that doesn't mean that they've actually addressed this little corner case on the table.

 

[Noctem]

We've talked about multiple things and multiple things are covered by dev statements (which were linked during the thread). Not all of them, like a corner case scenario, which is why I didn't say all of them and I didn't restrict my post to what is currently being discussed and instead opted to cover the thread as a whole.

 

[Noctem]

Well, that's encouraging. You're right, no matter what anyone else says? It might be time to climb down off of that ledge, friend.

+1 that's one of the more basic discussion non-starters. It feels like this has been his point of view for this entire thread tbh.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We've talked about multiple things and multiple things are covered by dev statements (which were linked during the thread). Not all of them, like a corner case scenario, which is why I didn't say all of them and I didn't restrict my post to what is currently being discussed and instead opted to cover the thread as a whole.

If that's what you meant to say, then you should have been as strident in your first sentence. Your post, as written, includes the corner case under discussion. I'm glad you've walked that back, but if you intended to not include the most recent discussion, I'm now confused as to what you thought the point of reiterating something you've said over and over with a blanket description of 'everything Arial's said' as it's target.