D&D 5E An Argument for Why Paladins are the Strongest Class in 5E D&D

[Ashrym]

I was thinking party wizard evoker readies fireball in respose to incoming fireball as the situational option because of the range difference between that and counterspell.

Said evoker hitting his own party and sculpting it with a higher level slot should protect his own party from the incoming fireball that way.

 

[FrogReaver]

I was thinking party wizard evoker readies fireball in respose to incoming fireball as the situational option because of the range difference between that and counterspell.

Said evoker hitting his own party and sculpting it with a higher level slot should protect his own party from the incoming fireball that way.

I seen what you were going for - I don't think it would though.

 

[Ashrym]

I seen what you were going for - I don't think it would though.

An overlapply duration of instaneous is arguable as an overlapping duration. I don't recall a RAW rule that prevents it, but I can certainly see DM's not allowing it.

Thematically I could see the slot cost the evoker is spending along with the subclass focus being able to manipulate evocations like that.

 

[FrogReaver]

An overlapply duration of instaneous is arguable as an overlapping duration. I don't recall a RAW rule that prevents it, but I can certainly see DM's not allowing it.

Thematically I could see the slot cost the evoker is spending along with the subclass focus being able to manipulate evocations like that.

Instantaneous literally means without duration.

 

[Ashrym]

Instantaneous literally means without duration.

That's why I could see a DM not allowing that oddball tactic. It turns into a debate on instaneous duration.

Fireball "instaneous" lasts long enough to see the pea-size missile and ball of fire. It's not like instananteous = infinitely fast. It clearly lasts long enough to react to it, hence options like absorb elements. "Counter-fireball" as a tactic would be using the same reaction because it's already readied.

It's also reasonable to state the speed is effectively too fast to time simultaneous instaneous durations. DM gets to make a ruling with an out-of-the-box approach like that.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's why I could see a DM not allowing that oddball tactic. It turns into a debate on instaneous duration.

Fireball "instaneous" lasts long enough to see the pea-size missile and ball of fire. It's not like instananteous = infinitely fast. It clearly lasts long enough to react to it, hence options like absorb elements. "Counter-fireball" as a tactic would be using the same reaction because it's already readied.

It's also reasonable to state the speed is effectively too fast to time simultaneous instaneous durations. DM gets to make a ruling with an out-of-the-box approach like that.

I mean rulewise, not fiction wise. In the rules if it is instantaneous then it has no duration - ruleswise.

 

[Ashrym]

I mean rulewise, not fiction wise. In the rules if it is instantaneous then it has no duration - ruleswise.

Rulewise "instantaneous" is a duration. The duration is "an instant" and the rules state this means it cannot be dispelled because the magic is done in an instant so there's no magic to dispel after that. Using the absorb elements to compare is using a reaction for another instantaneous spell that takes place in the same area at the same time as a fireball would. That's a clear precedent to reinforce the timing of using a reaction to cast fireball in the same area at the same time because of a readied action.

The only rule for instantaneous duration is that it cannot be dispelled. It's up to the DM to determine whether that also applies to overlapping magical effects at that point. What I'm saying is I can see a legitimate argument from both perspectives.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rulewise "instantaneous" is a duration. The duration is "an instant" and the rules state this means it cannot be dispelled because the magic is done in an instant so there's no magic to dispel after that. Using the absorb elements to compare is using a reaction for another instantaneous spell that takes place in the same area at the same time as a fireball would. That's a clear precedent to reinforce the timing of using a reaction to cast fireball in the same area at the same time because of a readied action.

The only rule for instantaneous duration is that it cannot be dispelled. It's up to the DM to determine whether that also applies to overlapping magical effects at that point. What I'm saying is I can see a legitimate argument from both perspectives.

I'm saying I don't see it as legitimate from a rules perspective. From a fictional perspective I could but not from the rules perspective.

Interruping and dispelling magic has nothing to do with it. Rulewise - fireball is not an effect with a duration. Instant is not a duration.

 

[Ashrym]

I'm saying I don't see it as legitimate from a rules perspective. From a fictional perspective I could but not from the rules perspective.

Interruping and dispelling magic has nothing to do with it. Rulewise - fireball is not an effect with a duration. Instant is not a duration.

What evidence do you have to back that up?

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.

An instant is an amount of time long enough to which a character can react. It's long enough so see the bead, long enough to see the fireball, long enough to cast absorb elements.

It's even listed "Duration: Instaneous" in the stat block.

Although I just reread absorb elements and that's not actually instantaneous so I might hurt my argument.

 

[Seramus]

There is no such thing as a simultaneous turn in 5e.

Monsters of the same type go at the same time, not sequentially. The DM might choose to handle their turns sequentially to keep things straight in his head, but the rules say they go at the same time.

It's a commonly overlooked thing.