D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Zorku]

The rules do not require causes to precede their effects, especially inside a single action. So it is perfectly consistent for the spell to take effect "before" the components have been provided. It breaks with our normal notions of causality, but the rules do not require that our normal notions of causality be satisfied, especially inside an individual action. There are, in fact, already rules that play with causality, like rerolling after seeing the "result" of a roll but before "effects" are applied, or the Shield spell... how does that even work, in-setting? The wizard gets to rewind time after being hit and expend a slot?

Rules aren't physics.

Plus it's, you know, ~magic~. ALL of this stuff breaks the rules of physics.

I don't really accept bit like shield happening after a magic missile spell hits though. It's using a reaction. You might say "and he hits you with magic missile for 19 damage" before somebody says they cast it, but it would be really annoying to have rules about me having to say that a dude is 'starting to magic missile you and... then it hits you for these numbers on my dice plus x,' especially when this we're not playing in a MtG tournament or whatever. The wizard was always putting their shield up just in time to stop the missiles, we just didn't know it yet on this side of the 4th wall. Same thing probably applies to all the reroll dice skills.

 

[Arial Black]

Plus it's, you know, ~magic~. ALL of this stuff breaks the rules of physics.

I don't really accept bit like shield happening after a magic missile spell hits though. It's using a reaction. You might say "and he hits you with magic missile for 19 damage" before somebody says they cast it, but it would be really annoying to have rules about me having to say that a dude is 'starting to magic missile you and... then it hits you for these numbers on my dice plus x,' especially when this we're not playing in a MtG tournament or whatever. The wizard was always putting their shield up just in time to stop the missiles, we just didn't know it yet on this side of the 4th wall. Same thing probably applies to all the reroll dice skills.

I agree with you here; shield doesn't rewind time, or let the dead caster pull the javelin that just killed him out of his head and become alive again! The game mechanics at the gaming table (when you are hit) represent, in game, casting shield just in time to prevent the javelin hitting you when it would have hit you if you didn't.

It's okay if the game mechanics at the table do not map to what is happening in the game world precisely, but the game world must have an internal consistency; the things that happen in game must make sense in game.

That's the problem with throwing out the Arrow Of Time in the cause/effect relationship. It's a universal principle, like gravity for example, that we must assume works the same in the game world as it does in real life, unless the rules say otherwise.

There is no rule that says gravity goes sideways, but pointing out the the PHB fails to mention that gravity doesn't go sideways isn't evidence that gravity works differently in D&D.

We cannot assume, without any reference to the subject at all in the rules, that cause and effect don't work in the same order. People don't die now because I'm going to stab them later!

And, while 'magic' may break physical laws, speaking, handwaving and holding objects (the VSM components) are not 'magic' in and of themselves, even if they must be provided in order for a magic spell to cast.

 

[Arial Black]

I could do such a thing, but it would be as much conjecture as your argument. And that's my point.

And my point is that it is simply not possible.

When you've ruled out the overlap as impossible, then they cannot overlap, even if it doesn't use those words. The words that are used leave cause preceding effect as the only possibility.

To prove me wrong, all you have to do is describe one sequence of events that allows an overlap without breaking the RAW about components. If even you are unable to imagine one, why would you continue to believe that there is one?

Did you claim you could do such a thing? Conjecture away, even if only to prove my assertion wrong.

 

[Arial Black]

Okay, imagine that the spell's verbal components are "I want to set someone on fire and today it's... you!"

It is entirely possible that, in normal casting, the "you!" is said as you point at the target, and then they are set on fire. And that with a readied action, you cast the spell normally, but that this actually means stopping at "it's...", and then on your reaction you suddenly say "you!" and someone is set on fire. You're still "providing" the components, because the release-of-energy is part of the normal casting process, and yes that makes some of the descriptive language be merely mostly-accurate with some exceptions... But that's really common in the 5e rules.

Since the "you!" part is the final word in the verbal component, does the fireball occur before you say "you!"? It can't, because until you have said it you haven't provided the required component and the spell fails.

 

[seebs]

Since the "you!" part is the final word in the verbal component, does the fireball occur before you say "you!"? It can't, because until you have said it you haven't provided the required component and the spell fails.

And yet, the spell slot has been consumed. The spell slot wouldn't have been consumed if you hadn't finished casting the spell.

 

[Arial Black]

And yet, the spell slot has been consumed. The spell slot wouldn't have been consumed if you hadn't finished casting the spell.

The spell slot would not be consumed if you hadn't completed casting the spell.

 

[seebs]

The spell slot would not be consumed if you hadn't completed casting the spell.

But we have an absolutely definite rule: If you ready a spell, the slot is consumed the moment you finish readying it, whether or not you ever take the reaction, or lose your concentration, or whatever else.

So if there's anything that has to happen during the reaction, that thing is happening after the spell slot is consumed. All the things necessary to finish consuming the spell slot happened on your turn. By contrast, if you aren't done casting the spell (as with a spell with a casting time longer than one action), the spell slot isn't consumed.

So we have pretty clear evidence that, when you ready a spell, you finish casting it on your turn.

 

[Noctem]

The readying rules are specific beating the general spell casting rules. They cannot be used to represent how spells as a whole function outside of readying actions. That being said, you still must fully cast the spell when readying, which includes providing (in full) all of the component costs, expending a spell slot, spending the relevant action type and so on.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But we have an absolutely definite rule: If you ready a spell, the slot is consumed the moment you finish readying it, whether or not you ever take the reaction, or lose your concentration, or whatever else.

So if there's anything that has to happen during the reaction, that thing is happening after the spell slot is consumed. All the things necessary to finish consuming the spell slot happened on your turn. By contrast, if you aren't done casting the spell (as with a spell with a casting time longer than one action), the spell slot isn't consumed.

So we have pretty clear evidence that, when you ready a spell, you finish casting it on your turn.

I don't buy that the slot being spent means that you've completed casting the spell. Especially not if you go with the interpretation that Counterspell interrupts spellcasting. Because, in that case, the slot's spent even though casting was never completed.

You have to spend a slot to cast a spell. The slot being spent doesn't necessarily mean the spellcasting is complete. There's no structure or order to spellcasting to suggest that this is so. However, that's a perfectly valid ruling to make, if it suits you (general you).

 

[Ovinomancer]

And my point is that it is simply not possible.

When you've ruled out the overlap as impossible, then they cannot overlap, even if it doesn't use those words. The words that are used leave cause preceding effect as the only possibility.

To prove me wrong, all you have to do is describe one sequence of events that allows an overlap without breaking the RAW about components. If even you are unable to imagine one, why would you continue to believe that there is one?

Did you claim you could do such a thing? Conjecture away, even if only to prove my assertion wrong.

I don't rule out the overlap. I'm perfectly fine with you ruling it your way. It makes sense, I would be perfectly happy to play that way. But it's not RAW.

I also see little point in providing a different conjecture. For one, Zorku's done a fine enough job for that. You've already disagreed with that, and decided that you're right and Zorku's conjecture is a failure, but that's all based on your assumptions, not RAW. I don't really see the worth in putting out something largely similar to the work Zorku's done for you to make the same points over again. Especially since my argument here is that those points are your assumptions, and, while logically sound based on those assumptions, are not actually grounded in RAW.

So, be happy. I think you've done a wonderful job of constructing a logical argument for how you think it works. It's internally consistent and predictable, the two great hallmarks of a solid ruling. You've even managed to get your great detractor, Noctem, to argue your points. Masterfully well done. However, if you're really not going to rest until you get me to say that your ruling is anything other than a ruling, I'm afraid you've some disappointment to face. I like your ruling, but I'm not going to agree that it is 'how it's supposed to be.' Nor, particularly, would I choose it for my games.