D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Noctem]

RAW, no, you can't dispel a spell if its duration is instantaneous, even if it has lingering effects. The rules state: "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." PHB p. 203.

Thanks for posting, it's nice to see I'm not the only one who understands this point

 

[Arial Black]

So heck, I will answer it. (I am away from books, but I *think* I can remember everything well enough)
Yes. I do believe you can ready an action that triggers 'between' EB bolts. I see no reason why not. The attacks are obviously not simultaneous, so the first one could trigger a reaction.

No. This does not mean Dispel Magic will work. Dispel Magic dispels the 'effects' of a spell, not the *casting* of the spell. If you could dispel EB between blasts, then you could dispel it before the first blast... and you can't. Counterspell is used to stop the casting of a spell. Dispel Magic would only work on the actual bolt....but that only lasts 'an instant' and thus can't be Dispelled.

The 'casting' of a spell is the act of bringing a spell into being. It requires the caster to provide the V, S and/or M components, and expend the actions detailed in the spell's 'casting time'. Until ALL of that has been fully completed, there is no spell, yet.

If and when those things have been completed, the spell comes into existence, and persists for its 'duration'.

Counterspell can only be used while a spell is being 'cast'; it has no effect on spells once they have been cast and now exist.

Dispel magic can only be used to target a spell if that spell exists at the time it is dispelled. You can't dispel a spell during the casting time because the spell doesn't exist yet. You can't dispel a spell that has already come and gone if its duration has expired.

In the case of consecutive beams, if the first beam has been resolved then we know that the casting has already been completed, because the spell effects cannot exist before the casting is complete and the beam is an effect of the spell. Therefore, counterspell cannot now work against it.

We also know that dispel magic can only target a spell during the time that the target spell exists; it cannot target a spell that has not been cast yet, nor can it target a spell whose duration has expired.

If the beams are consecutive, then the duration of the spell begins as soon as the spell is cast (and the first bolt resolved) and persists until the final beam is resolved. Why do we know this?

A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists.

Therefore, any readied dispel whose trigger is the first beam can target the eldritch blast because we know the spell exists at that point, and will continue to exist until the final beam is resolved.

If the beams are consecutive, then the 'instantaneous' duration (as all durations) is the 'length of time the spell persists'. The spell allows the warlock to shoot a number of beams. Those beams must be within the duration of the spell, because it is only the spell that allows the warlock to shoot beams, so if the spell is no longer there, the warlock's ability to shoot those beams is no longer there.

Lest we forget;-

The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because it's magic exists only for an instant.

If the beams are consecutive they can be dispelled by a readied dispel magic because the eldritch blast must exist at that point. 'Instantaneous' spells cannot be dispelled, a spell with consecutive beams can be dispelled, therefore a spell with consecutive beams cannot be 'instantaneous', AND an 'instantaneous' spell cannot have consecutive beams. Therefore, the beams must be simultaneous.

 

[Arial Black]

[MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION]: I'm not on Twitter.

From Tweets to JC that have been posted on this forum, and the replies given, it is obvious that Twitter is an ineffective means of asking a complex question or receiving a complex answer.

To lay out a case, like I did in my last post, takes a lot more than 140 characters (or whatever the limit is; are 'spaces' 'characters'?). It would also take more than 140 characters to properly answer all the points of a given case. Twitter is not the place to do that. I've seen some of his replies leaving us just as divided as we were before his answer.

The best place to explore these questions is one where we have space to develop our point, and even to debate points back and forth. Like...this forum, for example.

If JC were a poster here, he could explain his reasoning and even defend it against counter arguments. To be fair, he may not want to do that!

There is a possibility that hasn't been considered in this thread so far, but it's going to take more than 140 characters to explain it.

In game design there are two desired outcomes: realism and playability. The trouble is that these two aims frequently conflict. The more realistic the rule, the more complex (and therefore less playable) it needs to be. The more playable (and thus simple), the less realistic and less satisfying. Tossing a coin is very 'playable', but how much fun would it be for the DM to say, "Heads you win the campaign, tails you lose!"

So, balance between the two must be sought. Exactly where the balance lies varies from system to system. One of the reasons I disliked 4E was that it seemed as though whenever there was a question of whether to solve a problem realistically but with complexity, or with playability but totally unrealistically, they chose the latter.

We know of at least one rule in 5E which is totally unrealistic and impossible. I'm not just talking about 'armour makes you harder to hit', I'm talking totally bonkers: non-lethal damage.

In previous editions there have been various attempts to model 'subdual damage', having a separate track of 'non-lethal damage' running alongside regular hit points, etc. 5E has made it very simple: ALL damage is lethal, but if you kill a baddy with a melee weapon, you can retro-actively declare that the last hit wasn't lethal after all! How do we feel about that? I feel that it's totally unrealistic....but, y'know what? I'm actually okay with this bit of playability trumping this bit of unreality.

We know that this is the rule; there is no debate. The RAW is clear and unambiguous.

The reason I bring this up is that JC, in his infinite wisdom, may be doing a similar thing with instantaneous spells! He may very well intend casters of scorching ray to shoot the rays consecutively, having time to see the results of each ray before deciding who to target with the next, even though the spell is 'instantaneous'. To do so, he would have to make a conscious and deliberate change to the same spell which specified 'all bolts must be aimed...and fired simultaneously'. He could not make such a decision based on realism (because of what 'instantaneous' means), but he could, in theory at least, make an unrealistic decision for the sake of playability.

Was that more than 140 characters?

 

[Noctem]

@Arial Black

Make an account, it's super easy. And IIRC you've stated on the wizard forums that you had sent tweets so I'm surprised to see you saying this now. But either way it's not like it's hard to make an account right?

Contact the lead designer on twitter to ask some questions and see what he responds. You've refused to listen to anything else. Maybe these questions would help put this debate to rest:

Oh as an added note, here's some example questions you could ask:

Are multiattack spell attacks, like Eldritch Blast, resolved simultaneously like Magic Missile?

Is Magic Missile the only spell in 5e that has its attacks resolved simultaneously as per the spell?

Does the instantaneous duration mean that the spell attacks are resolved simultaneously?

Can Dispel be used against an instantaneous spell in between multiple attacks?

Can you ready Dispel Magic and then release it against an instantaneous spell?

Can Dispel be used against an instantaneous spell at all?


I'm sure more could be suggested. These would be a great place to start though.

Go ahead, we can wait. This discussion won't move forward any further. We're deadlocked. You won't let go of your custom definition for a word that you seem to favor over the rules of 5e. I won't agree that your definition has more weight than the rules of 5e. Ask Jeremy Crawford on twitter any of the above and if he agrees with you I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. Go ahead.

 

[Arial Black]

@Arial Black

Make an account, it's super easy. And IIRC you've stated on the wizard forums that you had sent tweets so I'm surprised to see you saying this now. But either way it's not like it's hard to make an account right?

Contact the lead designer on twitter to ask some questions and see what he responds. You've refused to listen to anything else. Maybe these questions would help put this debate to rest.

You're mistaken: I've never sent a Tweet in my life.

I've also just explained why using Twitter is a poor way to resolve complex questions such as this. Urging me to use a bad medium doesn't help.

What is a good medium is this forum. You can advance your case just as much as anyone else; you can develop your point and have it stand up to scrutiny, just like everyone else can and just like JC could if he were here, and do so much more effectively than if using Twitter.

The trouble is that you are refusing to do so. You could explain to us why (or why not) consecutive beams could be interrupted by a readied action, or a readied dispel, and what implications that would have on the case.

How skilfully you do that counts. If you reply with tangential stuff that no-one disagrees about but which doesn't make a difference to the case (like the 3 attack steps), then you haven't made a case to answer. If you do manage to advance a piece of evidence that may or may not be pertinent, then others can examine that point for flaws (like using p203 as the 'definition' of 'instantaneous', then us finding that you must ignore half of that very definition in order for it to support your interpretation).

It isn't just you; ALL of us have the same environment on this forum; it's not unfair to you or your 'side' of the debate.

When you refuse to take part in the debate (by saying "Ask JC then, not me!"), it comes across that you say this because your interpretation cannot be supported by the rules, because if the rules gave you that ammunition to use against us, you would! It sounds like you are admitting defeat, in debate terms.

Imagine a high school debate where a speaker stood up and said, "If you don't believe me, then ask someone else!", and then sat down again. He hasn't done his job; he hasn't advanced the debate for or against his 'side', and the only logical conclusion that the audience could reach is that he cannot support his own argument, indicating that the argument is unsupportable.

In the meantime, you or anyone else is free to try to 'square the circle' of how spells which cannot be dispelled 'because the magic exists only for an instant' can support consecutive beams which certainly do last long enough to be targeted with a readied dispel magic. I don't want to prevent people from answering, I want them to try to debunk it, because I believe that this circle cannot be squared and the lack of a coherent rebuttal demonstrates the truth about 'instantaneous' must equal 'simultaneous beams'.

 

[Noctem]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]

I'm pretty sure asking the question:

Is Magic Missile the only spell that would have its attacks resolved simultaneously?

Would pretty much solve the whole thing. If the answer is yes, then we know that no other spell will have its attacks resolve simultaneously as you've been claiming. If the answer is no, JC can easily list example spells that would work the way you suggest. And you can always just reply and ask for further clarification if needed.

This isn't a complex question at all. You only wish to make it complex so you can muddy the waters imo. Ask the question, get your answer and then post it back here. If he agrees with you, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. The only reason why you would refuse to seek clarification from JC is that you know what you're saying is incorrect and you don't want to lose face. If our positions were reversed I would ask questions, not just blindly keep claiming I'm right. I've posted questions and gotten replies before in other discussions (crossbow threads, rogue sneak attack, spell slots, etc..). This isn't difficult, you're the only one making it so. Others have posted questions and gotten replies. As linked earlier in the thread. If they hadn't, I would have. This is your burden of proof as you are claiming a positive. Go get your proof!

I've now spent over 46 PAGES (between here and WOTC forums) giving rules quotes, examples, break downs of how the rules interact, JC tweet responses, etc.. Nothing I say will make you read this stuff, I've come to the conclusion that YOU must go ask questions because you're incapable of changing your views. It doesn't matter what anyone says on this point, you're stuck. And apparently, you're also unwilling to do the slightest effort to seek more proof either for or against your claim. I mean you're even saying that I'm not participating in the debate, I'm the one who's been probably the most active participant. Quoting other people, responding to misinformation, etc.. You said I'm not in touch with reality earlier but dude, you need to look in the mirror!

Provide clear proof of your claim, and I'll admit I was wrong. All you seem to be interested in doing now is more posturing! Put your money where your mouth is!

 

[Mephista]

Provide clear proof of your claim, and I'll admit I was wrong. All you seem to be interested in doing now is more posturing! Put your money where your mouth is!

Even better, twine a picture of you eating money!

 

[Noctem]

Even better, twine a picture of you eating money!

That would just be a bonus for this whole thing

 

[Ovinomancer]

The 'casting' of a spell is the act of bringing a spell into being. It requires the caster to provide the V, S and/or M components, and expend the actions detailed in the spell's 'casting time'. Until ALL of that has been fully completed, there is no spell, yet.

If and when those things have been completed, the spell comes into existence, and persists for its 'duration'.

Counterspell can only be used while a spell is being 'cast'; it has no effect on spells once they have been cast and now exist.

Dispel magic can only be used to target a spell if that spell exists at the time it is dispelled. You can't dispel a spell during the casting time because the spell doesn't exist yet. You can't dispel a spell that has already come and gone if its duration has expired.

In the case of consecutive beams, if the first beam has been resolved then we know that the casting has already been completed, because the spell effects cannot exist before the casting is complete and the beam is an effect of the spell. Therefore, counterspell cannot now work against it.

We also know that dispel magic can only target a spell during the time that the target spell exists; it cannot target a spell that has not been cast yet, nor can it target a spell whose duration has expired.

If the beams are consecutive, then the duration of the spell begins as soon as the spell is cast (and the first bolt resolved) and persists until the final beam is resolved. Why do we know this?



Therefore, any readied dispel whose trigger is the first beam can target the eldritch blast because we know the spell exists at that point, and will continue to exist until the final beam is resolved.

If the beams are consecutive, then the 'instantaneous' duration (as all durations) is the 'length of time the spell persists'. The spell allows the warlock to shoot a number of beams. Those beams must be within the duration of the spell, because it is only the spell that allows the warlock to shoot beams, so if the spell is no longer there, the warlock's ability to shoot those beams is no longer there.

Lest we forget;-



If the beams are consecutive they can be dispelled by a readied dispel magic because the eldritch blast must exist at that point. 'Instantaneous' spells cannot be dispelled, a spell with consecutive beams can be dispelled, therefore a spell with consecutive beams cannot be 'instantaneous', AND an 'instantaneous' spell cannot have consecutive beams. Therefore, the beams must be simultaneous.

If you consider that the spell is, in fact, exactly as instantaneous as you claim and has completed is casting as you note in your order above (which I agree with), then you could claim that the spell is already complete at that point -- that there is no duration. The effect of the spell is to provide you would X number of spell attacks, and, having done so, cannot be dispelled as it is completed.

The interesting result of this ruling is that you could ready an action to shoot the caster if they cast a spell, and you would then be able to resolve your action after the caster has cast eldritch blast, but before any of the blasts could be used. The trigger of 'casts a spell' would be resolved fully before any attacks could be made.

 

[Arial Black]

I'm pretty sure asking the question:

Is Magic Missile the only spell that would have its attacks resolved simultaneously?

Would pretty much solve the whole thing. If the answer is yes, then we know that no other spell will have its attacks resolve simultaneously as you've been claiming. If the answer is no, JC can easily list example spells that would work the way you suggest. And you can always just reply and ask for further clarification if needed.

How about something like this:-

"If instantaneous spells can't be dispelled because the magic exists only for an instant, AND you can ready a dispel to trigger after the first ray but before the second, how can scorching ray have consecutive beams? Doesn't the instantaneous duration mean the rays must be simultaneous?"

You can tweet that to him, and post the question/answer on this thread.

Or we can tweak the question before we send it, as long as we agree on the question.