Search results

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...

Well, as I pointed out upthread it does break the targeting of dispel magic a bit as the caster concentrating on a spell is not generally a valid target, unless the effect is on the caster. Since dispel magic has a relatively short range you could potentially save some time by going after the...

The ready action dispel on instantaneous spell twitter question has been asked before and answered http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/19/ready-a-dispel-magic/ edit:wasn't a double post afterall

Neither but the second is closest, the cost is relatively small because the only time readied a readied action is used/desirable (to the people I play with) is when there isn't something better to do with their action. I aplologize for not wording it clearly enough. Example: The enemy out of...

You might want to look at what you quoted when I replied to you, again. It was about spellcasting having not having discreet time step rules in 5e. Adding them would require more than a yes/no tweet. I assume you meant to be talking about getting a tweet response to the question of if the...

I guess I'm not part of this "we"? I'm fine with that. To make rules for breaking the casting of spells down into discreet steps when none, but a bit of fluff, currently exist would have to be quite a tweet. I don't think there is a lot of incentive/necessity for them in 5e but others disagree.

Both cost a reaction so i was always comparing the cost of a feat to an action. Maybe PCs in your experience just don't use readied actions the same way they do in mine? If there is just about anything else to use their action on they'll do that rather than take a readied so there isn't a huge...

Which is why it is the least important of my reasons. I am aware of what mage slayer is doing mechanically. They react to a spell being cast and hit after the trigger the same as the general reaction rules. I should have phrased it as mid cast a spell action I suppose but for me it doesn't...

The targeting timing is a recurring question/discussion. As it was one of the main topics for 4/5 of this thread anyone searching for an answer might find their way here. As I said way back in post #407 when the thread was civil for a time "If a feat largely based around a character trained to...

In case there was anyone left still unsure about the RAI of Sequential versus Simultaneous targeting of Eldritch Blast. As for the more current ready action between spell attacks discussion I'm unsure if I'm included "they"/"them" but I'm still on the side of no. My reasons, in order of...

"You add your intelligence modifier to the damage roll" doesn't mean the same as you apply your intelligence modifier as damage to one creature effected by an evocation spell. The same damage roll is applied to several targets in multiple instances.

We keep the single concentration limit. Outside of big hits i don't call for a con save so it is largely for the player to remember/forget.

The reasoning behind that ruling (beyond the spell text not calling out for separate rolls) is partial covered on page 196 of the phb "If a spell or effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them" Magic missile is currently the only non...

Nope, wizard multiclass doesn't get to use their book to bypass that rule. The phb errata to that section makes it more obvious. "Your Spellbook (p. 114). The spells cop- ied into a spellbook must be of a spell level the wizard can prepare."

I can see enough wiggle room there for that interpretation but iirc agonizing blast is phrased similarly and that is a per beam modifier. If that was the intention I would have expected the designers to phrase it differently. Something to the effect of "each creature hit by eldritch blast is...

I understand your position and just wanted to clarify my intent with that reply. Unfortunately I really don't have anything to add to those points that I believe would further the discussion with you or any other else hanging in the wings that hasn't been said here or in the old wotc thread.

I apologize if my post in anyway made you feel called out or that I wished to engage in the debate of those points with you. It wasn't meant to and I don't.

Yep, nothing breaks with regards to targeting if allowed. I just meant irrelevant as far it being a viable RAW/RAI trigger for readying an action.

I believe this statement to be true but also irrelevant to the discussion of reactions. I will add it to the general consensus portion.

So its largely agreed ( I think arial is the lone dissenter) that the attacks are sequential each ray can push (including out of range of the subsequent rays) dispell magic can't target spell itself just the effects of the spell the original question has been answered The only avenue of...