D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

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!

Well, to be fair, you were incorrect about readied action timings in regards to this, so I don't think it's unreasonable that someone might think you don't have a completely correct grasp of the matter. I happen to think you're right, but I got there not because you spent 45 pages somewhere I don't read, but because it made me review the rules myself. Your generally dismissive attitude is a barrier to acceptance of your positions, especially when it's somewhat clear (given evidence of your error on readied actions and your insistence on avoiding that issue with me) that it's not entirely warranted.

 

[seebs]

Some spells say "each target that you designate" or something similar, and in those cases I assume you pick your set of targets, then resolve effects. Eldritch Blast is making attacks, and it's clearly parallel to the Extra Attack feature, so I'm inclined to let the player choose a target, resolve that attack, then repeat. So I'd give you your 10 foot knockback per-beam.

 

[Noctem]

@Arial Black

No no, you don't understand. I've already met the burden of proof for what I've claimed. Now you're claiming something, a positive, so go get your proof and we can see what response you get. The question about magic missile answers all of your claims. IF it's the only spell that resolves simultaneously, you have no argument left for anything you've claimed here (simultaneous attacks, dispel magic affecting instantaneous spells, your custom definition of instantaneous, etc..). IF it isn't, we can ask which other spells also resolve simultaneously. Stop trying to muddy the waters by mixing questions together to make it super complicated. Go ask the question instead of continuing all this posturing. Get evidence for your claim. Ask the question.

 

[seebs]

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.

I see two problems with this. The first is that speculation as to other people's motives is nearly always a really bad thing for the tone of a discussion, and non-productive.

The second is that it leaves open the question of, if you think this is such an important step to take in order to improve the discussion, why you haven't done it. I mean, as you've said, it's easy. So why haven't you done it, if you care about it, and think it's a really important thing? Why have you spent 46 pages not-doing-this-thing?

I mean, I have reasons to not do it (I don't much like using twitter and I don't really care that much), and your inability to think of reasons for which someone might do a thing that aren't negative enough is more your problem than theirs, I think. But if you think this would be important, why not just go do it, instead of trying to make drama over someone else not doing it?

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]

No no, you don't understand. I've already met the burden of proof. Now you're claiming something, a positive, so go get your proof and we can see what response you get. The question about magic missile answers all of your claims. IF it's the only spell that resolves simultaneously, you have no argument left. IF it isn't, we can ask which other spells also resolve simultaneously. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Go ask the question instead of continuing all this posturing. Get evidence for your claim.

It's funny that you're insisting that someone else go ask a question you devised. It's your question, you ask it, don't assign people homework.

This is a social pet peeve of mine -- insisting that it's others responsibility to go get answers while you insist on being the one that frames the questions.

 

[Arial Black]

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 trouble is that the spell says, "A beam of energy streaks toward a creature within range". It does not say that it instantly creates beams of force that can be thrown later, that continue to exist after the instantaneous spell has expired. These beams are made of force. If they are created and then remain after the spell duration, what happens to them? Do they litter the battlefield? Can they be picked up and thrown back? Is that a ranged weapon attack or a ranged spell attack.

The spell does not instantly create objects that can be used after the spell duration expires. The effect of casting the spell is that 'beam(s) of energy streak toward' target(s).

 

[seebs]

No no, you don't understand. I've already met the burden of proof for what I've claimed.

That's not really how discussions work. There is no universal objective "burden of proof" that everyone is morally obligated to agree to. You have posted things which persuaded you, but apparently they didn't persuade someone else. They have posted things which persuaded them, but apparently they didn't persuade you. Okay. So neither of you has convinced the other. Neither of you is obliged to agree that the other has "won". If you want to persuade other people, you have to find out what it would take to persuade them.

Now you're claiming something, a positive, so go get your proof and we can see what response you get. The question about magic missile answers all of your claims. IF it's the only spell that resolves simultaneously, you have no argument left. IF it isn't, we can ask which other spells also resolve simultaneously. Stop trying to muddy the waters by mixing questions together and multiple claims you've made. Go ask the question instead of continuing all this posturing. Get evidence for your claim. Ask the question.

That you are so convinced that asking this question would be dispositive, but haven't done it, is very strange.

 

[Noctem]

It's funny that you're insisting that someone else go ask a question you devised. It's your question, you ask it, don't assign people homework.

This is a social pet peeve of mine -- insisting that it's others responsibility to go get answers while you insist on being the one that frames the questions.

If I ask the question, he just invents some new way to dismiss the answer like he's done to the previous 3 other tweet answers. If he asks the question himself, he can't do that and it might also get him to ask further questions. Asking the question myself resolves absolutely nothing as he's proven multiple times now. And asking for someone to prove that what they claim is true (ie the burden of proof) is a basic requirement for any intelligent discussion.

The question he would send would only muddy the waters. The question I've suggested (among 6 others I might add) is answered by yes or no and resolves the entire discussion. It's either that MM is the ONLY spell that has simultaneous attacks or it isn't. If it isn't, we can explore which spells also work that way. If it is, his claim is shown to be incorrect. Simple and direct.

 

[Noctem]

That's not really how discussions work. There is no universal objective "burden of proof" that everyone is morally obligated to agree to. You have posted things which persuaded you, but apparently they didn't persuade someone else. They have posted things which persuaded them, but apparently they didn't persuade you. Okay. So neither of you has convinced the other. Neither of you is obliged to agree that the other has "won". If you want to persuade other people, you have to find out what it would take to persuade them.



That you are so convinced that asking this question would be dispositive, but haven't done it, is very strange.

Listen, I've spent 46 pages on this with Arial Black. I've posted quotes from lead devs, rules, explanations, examples, spell descriptions, term descriptions and probably more to back up the claim I've presented. I've met the burden of proof. All I'm asking is that someone who's going to call me crazy in an online forum at the very least actually asks a lead dev (as I and others have done) a question to answer this 46+ page discussion. Instead, all I'm getting is posturing. And as I answered Ovinomancer, me asking the question will solve nothing because the previous 3 times that someone has done that, ARial Black has simply dismissed the answer with more posturing. Me asking the question solves nothing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The trouble is that the spell says, "A beam of energy streaks toward a creature within range". It does not say that it instantly creates beams of force that can be thrown later, that continue to exist after the instantaneous spell has expired. These beams are made of force. If they are created and then remain after the spell duration, what happens to them? Do they litter the battlefield? Can they be picked up and thrown back? Is that a ranged weapon attack or a ranged spell attack.

The spell does not instantly create objects that can be used after the spell duration expires. The effect of casting the spell is that 'beam(s) of energy streak toward' target(s).

Of course it doesn't generate a permanent beam that can be picked up and used later. It does generate the ability for the caster to shoot X beams of energy at people immediately after casting the spell. Unless you think that Ray of Frost creates a cold field that slows creatures down that can be picked up and used later? The spell give the ability to make X number of spell attacks immediately after the spell concludes.

Again, the caveat to this is that if you ready an action to attack when a spell is cast, that readied action will occur prior to the effect of ALL instantaneous spells. Fireball? RA before the bead shoots out. Ray of Frost? RA before the spell attack occurs. Etc. I think that's an interesting enough effect to roll with.