D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Arial Black]

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.

The problem with your question is that it hides the very issue we want him to answer. My question is complex in order to clearly lay out what the question is about: the game implications of the 'instantaneous' duration, which would be true whether or not redundant words appear in the description of certain spells.

Your question can result in a list of spells which include the words 'simultaneous attacks', but ignore those occasions where 'simultaneous' is simply a consequence of 'instantaneous' and therefore is assumed in every single spell with the instantaneous duration. If JC answered either 'yes' or 'no', that would still leave the main question unanswered.

In contrast, my question cannot be answered with yes/no, meaning he has to explain what's going on with the 'instantaneous' duration and its implications for game play.

The point of asking the question would be to get a useful answer, one that leaves us thinking 'Oh, so that's how he intends it to work!', leaving us to use his ruling or not in our own games. If the answer just leaves us thinking 'What does he mean by that?', or 'that doesn't really answer the underlying question about the implications of instantaneous durations' then it wasn't a good question.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I'm actually a bit staggered by this. You're essentially saying that if Arial asked their own questions that would just make it more difficult for Ariel to agree with you, so Ariel shouldn't be allowed to do that. Instead, Arial should accept your framing of the argument and ask your preferred questions, because that's the only way that Ariel can see that you're right.

Let's just put aside the fact that Arial already doesn't agree with your framing, so that's a non-starter, but how do you think that the question about magic missile resolves Ariel's dispel magic question? It doesn't even address it (and, in fact, could reinforce it). Insisting that you're the only one capable of properly framing a question to answer whether your interpretation is right or not is begging the question -- you're asserting that you're the only one capable of being right in the argument when that exact fact is what's in question.

 

[Noctem]

The problem with your question is that it hides the very issue we want him to answer. My question is complex in order to clearly lay out what the question is about: the game implications of the 'instantaneous' duration, which would be true whether or not redundant words appear in the description of certain spells.

Your question is complex because you don't realize that your entire argument hinges on more than just one spell, Magic Missile, being resolved as simultaneous attacks. Also see below.

Your question can result in a list of spells which include the words 'simultaneous attacks', but ignore those occasions where 'simultaneous' is simply a consequence of 'instantaneous' and therefore is assumed in every single spell with the instantaneous duration. If JC answered either 'yes' or 'no', that would still leave the main question unanswered.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SPELL WHICH SAYS YOU RESOLVE ITS ATTACKS SIMULTANEOUSLY: MAGIC MISSILE. THIS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT OVER 20 TIMES NOW! And by the way, if he says that Magic Missile is the only spell that has its attacks resolved simultaneously then we ALSO know that your link between instantaneous duration and simultaneous attacks is also incorrect. that's 2 answers to 2 different claims you've proposed. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!

In contrast, my question cannot be answered with yes/no, meaning he has to explain what's going on with the 'instantaneous' duration and its implications for game play.

It's implications can easily be read by anyone under the duration description the PHB, but really this isn't about what's written. This is about your extrapolation of meaning which my question will clearly answer, as noted above.

The point of asking the question would be to get a useful answer, one that leaves us thinking 'Oh, so that's how he intends it to work!', leaving us to use his ruling or not in our own games. If the answer just leaves us thinking 'What does he mean by that?', or 'that doesn't really answer the underlying question about the implications of instantaneous durations' then it wasn't a good question.

Yes or No to my question will either solidify or destroy your claim. Stop with the incessant posturing.

Replies in bold

 

[seebs]

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.

This is not how persuasion works. I don't think anyone in this conversation has yet presented an argument that I find strong enough to be convinced that they are definitely right. You've posted quotes from lead devs, but your interpretation of those quotes is not necessarily the same as someone else's.

Okay so taking a step back:

Imagine that you are trying to give someone directions to a location. The first thing you'd do in order to accomplish this is to find out where they are coming from, because if you don't know that, you cannot give them instructions that will get them to the right location.

In this conversation, it seems pretty clear to me that you guys (and I do mean both sides) do not understand each others' positions. And because of that, you are presenting arguments which would persuade someone who held some other position, but not someone who holds the position the people on the other side of the debate are actually trying to argue.

If you really want to resolve this, there's a much simpler tactic you could use: Switch sides. Yes, really. If you each try to argue the other side's perspective, you will understand it better. If you can present their argument well enough that they think you are doing a good job, that will give you a much better understanding. Right now, I'm pretty sure that if you posted your understanding of the other side's argument, they wouldn't be convinced by it either, and vice versa.

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.

I don't think it's at all obvious that the question would have that effect.

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.

Okay, you are clearly missing something very fundamental about how persuasion works.

The reason people are more persuaded when they get the answers to their questions than when you get the answers to yours isn't "because it was posted in response to them posting the question". It's because the question they asked is the one they think is relevant.

Someone else asking a question you think is relevant is not going to persuade them, because they don't actually agree with your original analysis in the first place. I can't imagine any likely answer to that question persuading me of anything about this topic, because that question is irrelevant to how I'm thinking about the topic.

This is cargo-cult persuasion. "When people get answers to the questions they ask, they are convinced. If I can force my opponent to ask my question, then when they get the answer they will be persuaded." That's not how it works at all!

 

[Noctem]

I'm actually a bit staggered by this. You're essentially saying that if Arial asked their own questions that would just make it more difficult for Ariel to agree with you, so Ariel shouldn't be allowed to do that. Instead, Arial should accept your framing of the argument and ask your preferred questions, because that's the only way that Ariel can see that you're right.

Let's just put aside the fact that Arial already doesn't agree with your framing, so that's a non-starter, but how do you think that the question about magic missile resolves Ariel's dispel magic question? It doesn't even address it (and, in fact, could reinforce it). Insisting that you're the only one capable of properly framing a question to answer whether your interpretation is right or not is begging the question -- you're asserting that you're the only one capable of being right in the argument when that exact fact is what's in question.

What I'm saying is that mixing 3 different claims into a single question is confusing and increases the chances of him being able to dismiss the answer. My question on the other hand is a yes or no answer. Simple and direct. He's dismissed or twisted EVERY SINGLE other quote from JC in regards to this discussion. Agreeing to asking the question as he's phrased it, on twitter with a character limit, isn't productive in the least. Not to mention that his most recent post is just nonsense and more posturing. What he's saying doesn't even make sense lmao. I would like you to actually read what he's posting instead of just nodding your head!

I've never said I'm the only one capable of framing the question! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. 3rd time I have to ask you. Consider yourself on ignore.

 

[Arial Black]

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..

Some spells are instantaneous but have lasting effects, like damage, being stunned, or your move speed being reduced by 10 feet for 1 round; those effects are not dispellable. The damage caused by those beams is not dispellable.

The ability to shoot beams on an ongoing basis is an ongoing magical effect. Call lightning has a duration of up to 10 minutes, during which you can call another bolt on your turn as an action. You can dispel call lightning while it is active. If eldritch blast really gave you the ability to shoot several beams over a certain duration, then the spell would have that duration.

Call lightning is not an instantaneous spell which gives you an ongoing magical ability to call bolts of lightning for 10 minutes, and eldritch blast is not an instantaneous spell which gives you an ongoing magical ability to shoot beams for your entire action. The beams are the spell effect, and spell effects exist entirely within the duration.

Being coated with ice may slow your movement for a few seconds, and being stunned by an instantaneous slap might be the result of magic, but not magical in itself. But the ability to shoot beams of force is definitely magical; you can only do it because the magic exists, and when the magic stops existing then you have no magical ability to do so.

 

[seebs]

What I'm saying is that mixing 3 different claims into a single question is confusing and increases the chances of him being able to dismiss the answer. My question on the other hand is a yes or no answer. Simple and direct.

But not particularly persuasive on the topic at all. Yes or no answers are in general the least persuasive when it comes to complicated models of how a system works, because they don't give you any explanation of how you got there. It may be that "mixing claims" is a problem, but your question does something dramatically worse, which is omit relevant questions and claims, leaving it impossible to find anything out about how the system works.

He's dismissed or twisted EVERY SINGLE other quote from JC in regards to this discussion. Agreeing to asking the question as he's phrased it, on twitter with a character limit, isn't productive in the least. Not to mention that his most recent post is just nonsense and more posturing. What he's saying doesn't even make sense lmao. I would like you to actually read what he's posting instead of just nodding your head!

I assure you, I am not "just nodding my head". I'm not saying that he's persuaded me, or that I find his arguments persuasive. I'm saying that what you're proposing is absolutely not going to lead to anyone being convinced of anything.

I've never said I'm the only one capable of framing the question! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. 3rd time I have to ask you. Consider yourself on ignore.

But you appear not to accept the questions and answers which other people have framed, and which they think support their positions... So you certainly seem strongly attached to the idea that AB should be asking your specific question, with your wording, rather than other questions. Which seems counterproductive at best.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I'm saying is that mixing 3 different claims into a single question is confusing and increases the chances of him being able to dismiss the answer. My question on the other hand is a yes or no answer. Simple and direct. He's dismissed or twisted EVERY SINGLE other quote from JC in regards to this discussion. Agreeing to asking the question as he's phrased it, on twitter with a character limit, isn't productive in the least. Not to mention that his most recent post is just nonsense and more posturing. What he's saying doesn't even make sense lmao. I would like you to actually read what he's posting instead of just nodding your head!

It's quite clear that you don't understand Arial's objections if you think the answer to your question will definitively prove you are correct. There's at least two more dimensions to Arial's position that that question doesn't even address.

Also, I'm loving the irony of you refusing to accept that Arial's proposed question would resolve anything while insisting yours will.

I've never said I'm the only one capable of framing the question! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. 3rd time I have to ask you. Consider yourself on ignore.

Again, irony, as you've made statements that you not only know what Ariel is thinking, but what Ariel will do in the future, clearly putting not just words, but thoughts and future thoughts in Ariel's 'mouth'. You're the quintessential pot.

 

[Noctem]

I've been given 1 question by Arial Black to consider, after suggesting like.. 6, and have explained exactly why I don't think it's a reliable question to ask. Good god, you talk like if I've been suggested 30 and have refused every single one. Listen to yourself.

Is Magic Missile the only spell which has its attacks resolved simultaneously?

A: Yes.

What does this mean?

1. No other spell currently published has its attacks resolve simultaneously. Arial Black's claim that Eldritch Blast does so is therefore proven incorrect. This also supports JC's earlier tweet that specifies that unless the spell itself says attacks are resolved simultaneously (like Magic Missile does) then they are not by default.

2. This also explains that just because a spell has the instantaneous duration, that its attacks are not resolved simultaneously by default and instead follow the Making an Attack rules like every other spell attack. Arial Black's claim that instantaneous duration means simultaneous attacks is therefore shown to be incorrect.

3. Further questions can be asked if needed.


IF the answer is NO:

1. That means that spell attacks don't have to specify they are resolved simultaneously.

2. It contradicts the earlier answer from JC which explained that a spell has to specify that its attacks are resolved simultaneously and opens up further discussion.

3. A list of spells which do resolve simultaneously beyond Magic Missile can then be tabled and discussed.

4. We can see if all instantaneous duration spells are resolved the same way or only some. To prove or disprove this claim from Arial Black.

5. Further questions can be asked as needed.


Now explain to me again why the question isn't good?

 

[seebs]

I guess I'd say it's not good because it's not even remotely a question about the things people are primarily disputing. But I want to call special attention to your NO/2: Are you absolutely sure that a "no" answer contradicts the earlier answer? Are there no other spells, anywhere, that specify simultaneous resolution of attacks?

Keep in mind, I currently mostly believe that it's pretty clear that the intent is that Eldritch Blast attacks are resolved sequentially, meaning you can retarget after each attack, which I think is what you are arguing for... And I still don't think this is persuasive at all!