D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

Jeremy Crawford has already directly stated that attacks are not simultaneous. Please read the thread.



Furthermore, instantaneous spells can't be dispelled because the rules specifically say that they can't be. Your silly extrapolations aside, what you're saying is complete nonsense. You're blinding yourself from what the rules say in favor of your invented claim. Anyway, the above quote from JC clearly shows that:

1. You don't pick all targets at the same time
2. Multi attack spells are done in sequence, one attack after the other.
3. Attacks like these are not simultaneous.

This pretty much removes any possible doubt that what you're saying isn't factual no matter how much you want it to be or you think your personal definition of a word is more important than the definition used in the edition itself. Stop trying to spread misinformation.

So you're in agreement with me and Arial that a readied action can occur between blasts. Excellent, progress! I'd be interested in see what you have to say about Ariel's contention that you could use dispel magic as a readied action to chop off the remaining bolts.

 

[Noctem]

Don't put words in my mouth, this is the second time I've asked you not to do that.

Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled, period. The fluff reasoning you choose to attach to that rule is irrelevant to this discussion. They can't be dispelled.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Don't put words in my mouth, this is the second time I've asked you not to do that.

Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled, period.

What words? That you agree that you can use a readied action between the blasts? Sorry, I thought you had conceded that, I see on review you haven't. So, what, then, is your position on readied actions? Is it still that they cannot interrupt actions? If so, please explain the examples on PHB 193 under readied actions.

If you have changed your mind, then the question Ariel poses is valid, because if you read the text referring to instantaneous spells, is says they can't be dispelled because the magic has already come and gone. That would mean that they can't be dispelled after the fact. That's a clear reading of the rules, and we're in complete agreement. But if they spell isn't over yet, is should be able to be dispelled while the magic is currently still here, yes? That wouldn't violate the text regarding instantaneous spells at all.

 

[Noctem]

What words? That you agree that you can use a readied action between the blasts? Sorry, I thought you had conceded that, I see on review you haven't. So, what, then, is your position on readied actions? Is it still that they cannot interrupt actions? If so, please explain the examples on PHB 193 under readied actions.

If you have changed your mind, then the question Ariel poses is valid, because if you read the text referring to instantaneous spells, is says they can't be dispelled because the magic has already come and gone. That would mean that they can't be dispelled after the fact. That's a clear reading of the rules, and we're in complete agreement. But if they spell isn't over yet, is should be able to be dispelled while the magic is currently still here, yes? That wouldn't violate the text regarding instantaneous spells at all.

Buying into what Arial is claiming despite all the evidence that shows it's incorrect is your choice. It should be obvious by now that I will not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Interestingly, it occurs to me that you could say that once the spell is cast, it's done, and it just provides you with X number of pew-pews for you to throw around for the next few moments. You could then say that the spell has completed, it has come and gone, and cannot be dispelled because it's not here any more -- the only things left are the pew-pews, which can't be dispelled because their physical? Eh, breaks down a bit, but still, I could see that. The spell's cast, nothing left to dispel, but the warlock still has a handful of pew-pews to toss around.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Your choice to buy into what Arial is claiming despite all the evidence that show it's incorrect is your choice. It should be obvious by now that I will not.

I'll ask again, directly and clearly: what is your opinion on readied actions occurring between bolts from an eldritch blast? Nothing else, just that. Can you ready an action to attack a caster (provided all other conditions are met) between the bolts of an eldritch blast or scorching ray? You've deftly avoided commenting since your first foray into saying that actions cannot be interrupted, and new information has been provided, so I'm keenly interested in hearing what you think.

Also, I thought Arial brought up an interesting question. Being dismissive of it isn't the same thing as addressing it.

 

[Arial Black]

What words? That you agree that you can use a readied action between the blasts? Sorry, I thought you had conceded that, I see on review you haven't. So, what, then, is your position on readied actions? Is it still that they cannot interrupt actions? If so, please explain the examples on PHB 193 under readied actions.

If you have changed your mind, then the question Ariel poses is valid, because if you read the text referring to instantaneous spells, is says they can't be dispelled because the magic has already come and gone. That would mean that they can't be dispelled after the fact. That's a clear reading of the rules, and we're in complete agreement. But if they spell isn't over yet, is should be able to be dispelled while the magic is currently still here, yes? That wouldn't violate the text regarding instantaneous spells at all.

Noctem is not only pretending that 'instantaneous' has no meaning at all in 5E outside of the so-called 'definition' of it on p203, Noctem is also now pretending that the line he pretends is the definition should only be half read, because the other half of the sentence shows that instantaneous spells must happen...instantaneously.

How can JC ever be wrong about the game he wrote? Simple: if he defines the same thing in mutually exclusive ways; one way in RAW and another, mutually exclusive way in a Tweet.

 

[Noctem]

I've already broken down the steps for casting spells in an earlier post:

This is an example in steps:

1. Declare I use Eldritch Blast
2. Use up the action type associated with Casting a Spell and Eldritch Blast (my action)
3. Use any material costs associated to casting the spell I have chosen and perform any other requirements for casting the spell.
4. Finish casting the spell (this is the last step where the spell can be counterspelled because after this you are resolving the effects of having successfully cast the spell)
5. Resolve the effects of the spell (in this case making x number of attacks as described in the spell effect section, say 2 attacks for this example)

Making an Attack
1. Declare target of attack 1
2. Figure out the modifiers if any for the attack
3. Resolve the attack (including damage and effects like forced movement for example)

1 Declare target of attack 2
2. Figure out the modifiers if any for the attack
3. Resolve the attack (including damage and effects like forced movement for example)


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473235-Warlock-and-Repelling-Blast/page8#ixzz3tGjARyK7

To be clear again, the fluff reasoning that you decide to use to explain why an instantaneous spell can't be dispelled is irrelevant.. all that matters is the rules say they can't be dispelled. They could have said "... because the moon is yellow." and it still wouldn't matter or change anything for how the rule works in practice. You can't use dispel, either in readied and held form or whatever against an instantaneous spell. However, you can use counterspell against them just fine.

 

[Arial Black]

To be clear again, the fluff reasoning that you decide to use to explain why an instantaneous spell can't be dispelled is irrelevant.

It's not him/her that used that 'fluff' to explain why they can't be dispelled; RAW uses it.

all that matters is the rules say they can't be dispelled. They could have said "... because the moon is yellow." and it still wouldn't matter or change anything for how the rule works in practice. You can't use dispel, either in readied and held form or whatever against an instantaneous spell.

If RAW said that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled because the moon is yellow, then if we turned the moon green then at that point, RAW, those spells could be dispelled.

You are holding up notes about the consequences of a spell being instantaneous as if it were the definition of 'instantaneous' in the rules, and then ignoring that 'definition'!

If, in the 5E rules set, 'instantaneous' did not mean 'the magic exists only for an instant' and instead only meant 'cannot be dispelled', then why would the quality of being 'un-dispellable':

a.) be listed under 'Duration', which is about the span of time a spell exists, and

b.) why would they use a word (instantaneous) which refers to a span of time, when the quality these spells allegedly have has nothing to do with time-span and only to do with being un-dispellable?

If the game worked as you claim, these spells would be noted as 'un-dispellable' (or another such word which means that), and this quality would have no business being listed under 'Duration' since it has nothing to do with time-span.

 

[Noctem]

Noctem is not only pretending that 'instantaneous' has no meaning at all in 5E outside of the so-called 'definition' of it on p203, Noctem is also now pretending that the line he pretends is the definition should only be half read, because the other half of the sentence shows that instantaneous spells must happen...instantaneously.

How can JC ever be wrong about the game he wrote? Simple: if he defines the same thing in mutually exclusive ways; one way in RAW and another, mutually exclusive way in a Tweet.

Right well I guess it's more that I just don't see the value in putting more stock into a definition (which you don't even use in full btw) you've randomly found online, which is unsupported by every piece of evidence presented in this thread, vs the definition 5e actually uses for what the game element means which is supported by everything including JC in multiple quotes. Call me crazy right?