D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Look, I don't think I'm going to convince you. Convincing you was never actually my goal. My goal was to find a solution space that works for me, and see if it works for others as well. I have an explanation that is workable for me. I tried it out on you to see if it helped you. It didn't.

I have very little interest in opening up yet another unclear front (what constitutes legitimate 'results' of magic vs ongoing magic) in order to litigate the issue. I don't think you have any solid ground to stand on in your assertion that shooting a beam of force cannot ever be a result of magic gone, but must always be a result of ongoing magic, and I don't have any solid ground to assert otherwise. Opening such a nebulous space isn't going to provide any solid arguments for either of us, so I'm not going in.

 

[Noctem]

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!

No sir, there isn't a single other spell in the entire edition which states that the attacks made are done simultaneously. Magic Missile is unique AFAIK.

And what pray tell, are the things that people are primarily disputing?

 

[Ovinomancer]

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!

Ding. I agree that EB is sequential attacks. I'm only arguing that Noctem's choice of resolution issues arising from this is deeply flawed.

 

[seebs]

No sir, there isn't a single other spell in the entire edition which states that the attacks made are done simultaneously. Magic Missile is unique.

Is this specific to attack rolls, or do you run everything that way? e.g., if someone casts chain lightning, would you let them decide what the secondary targets are one at a time, or would you want them to pick all the targets at once? What about spells which say "each creature you select" or things like that? Do you get to see what happens to each before picking the next? For instance, Divine Word.

 

[Noctem]

Is this specific to attack rolls, or do you run everything that way? e.g., if someone casts chain lightning, would you let them decide what the secondary targets are one at a time, or would you want them to pick all the targets at once? What about spells which say "each creature you select" or things like that? Do you get to see what happens to each before picking the next? For instance, Divine Word.

The Making an Attack section does not apply to Chain Lightning because you are not making an attack. You are creating an effect which has a saving throw. The rules specify that in order to make an attack, you must make an attack roll. Fireball for example also does not follow the Making an Attack section. Picking of targets is done when you cast the spell and you can select legal targets within the effect range as detailed by the spell. For example, Fireball has the caster select a point, then details that from that point there's a range and all targets within that range are affected and must make a saving throw. Chain lightning is more specific in that the caster must first select a single target to be affected and then up to 3 secondary targets which are also affected by the same effect. It's just a different way to specify the range of the spell's effect when compared to fireball. In those cases, you follow what the spell says in the order it says. You select a single target first, then from that target select up to 3 secondary targets within range from the first, in that exact order.

Divine Word works the exact same way except that you get to pick targets and exclude others as you wish within a specific range. So gain, it's fireball but you get to pick who within the area of effect you want to affect instead of having everyone within the area of effect be affected. In this case the requirement is that a creature be able to hear you. Barring a target being deaf (either by nature, spell, etc..) this falls under DM fiat. This spell though again isn't governed by the Making an Attack rules since you're not making an attack, you're provoking a saving throw vs an effect.

Also: And what pray tell, are the things that people are primarily disputing?

 

[Bolares]

If I can post up my opinion on dispel in EB its this. Dispel is an spell that cancels the EFFECT of another spell. Eldritch Blat's effect is damage right? And that is instantaneous, hence can not be dispelled.

And this might go in to the other discussion in this tread. I consider the duration tab in the description of the spell not the duration of the casting, but the duration of the effect. An eldritch balst casts several consecutive rays that hit the target, instantaneously causing damage. being an instantaneous spell, for me, doesn't mean you instantaneously cast it, (thats the cating time tab) means it has no lasting EFFECTS.
Did I make myself clear? I hate writing in English hahaha

 

[seebs]

I don't know what everyone's specifically thinking about, but I'd say that the real question is closer to "does instantaneous logically imply simultaneous". I admit to not particularly understanding AB's side of the issue.

Okay, so on the chain lightning thing... Do you select the three secondary targets before or after resolving damage on the primary target? For that matter, do you select all three targets, then resolve damage, or can you pick a target, resolve save/damage, then pick another target, etcetera?

Do we have any example, anywhere in the rules, of an "attack" (spell or otherwise) where you determine more than one target before making attack rolls and resolving damage? Because it might be that the right question here isn't "is magic missile simultaneous, while other things aren't", but just "are attack rolls ever simultaneous"?

 

[Noctem]

I don't know what everyone's specifically thinking about, but I'd say that the real question is closer to "does instantaneous logically imply simultaneous". I admit to not particularly understanding AB's side of the issue.

Well then.. if the question is "Does instantaneous logically imply simultaneous", isn't that exactly what my earlier post says it would answer if the answer was yes? I also covered it in the no section:

YES

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.

vs

NO

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.

 

[Noctem]

Okay, so on the chain lightning thing... Do you select the three secondary targets before or after resolving damage on the primary target? For that matter, do you select all three targets, then resolve damage, or can you pick a target, resolve save/damage, then pick another target, etcetera?

Do we have any example, anywhere in the rules, of an "attack" (spell or otherwise) where you determine more than one target before making attack rolls and resolving damage? Because it might be that the right question here isn't "is magic missile simultaneous, while other things aren't", but just "are attack rolls ever simultaneous"?

Before, because you follow the order of events the spell describes... Maybe you should read the Spellcasting section of the PHB to get better acquainted with the subject you want to discuss? This is how you resolve the spell:

1. Declare you're casting Chain Lightning
2. Spend the action type required (most likely your Action for the turn)
3. Spend any material costs and/or other requirements in order to cast the spell (V, S)
4. Complete casting the spell. (last chance to use counterspell)
5. Resolve the effect(s) of the spell (the spell is now cast and it's effects are being resolved)
6. Declare legal primary target within range of the spell's effect
7. Declare legal secondary targets (up to 3 for the base spell, more with higher spell slots) within range of the spell's primary target
8. Have all declared targets roll a saving throw
9. Roll damage
10. Apply damage to all targets who failed their saving throw OR half that damage to all targets who succeeded.



Unless a spell, item or weapon attack specifically states that you resolve the attacks simultaneously you never do because you follow the Making an Attack rules. The only exception in the game is Magic Missile AFAIK which actually does specifically call out that you resolve attacks simultaneously. Which again, is exactly what Jeremy Crawford said in his earlier tweet:

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] Multi-beam spell like E-Blast: Choose all targets at once? Or can you hit with one, see result, choose next target, etc?
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford The intent is that you can choose an attack spell's targets one after another, unless the spell says otherwise. #DnD

 

[seebs]

Well then.. if the question is "Does instantaneous logically imply simultaneous", isn't that exactly what my earlier post says it would answer if the answer was yes? I also covered it in the no section:

Not really. If instantaneous implies simultaneous, then magic missile doesn't need the language saying "simultaneous". It could also have impact on how we understand future spells not yet written. Your question is a question about the current set of spells in print. It doesn't get us to the theoretical questions.