D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[psychophipps]

If you read the points of contention, you'd see that it's not quite that simple.

Correction: It actually is that simple, but there are people that disagree with the ruling. This is fine (as has been mentioned ad nauseum), but the points of contention are simply differing options for someone to consider for their individual table/game, not official rulings provided as requested of the D&D development group.

I see valid points from the dissents, but I also find that the DMs in question and I have far differing opinions in the realm of the roleplaying aspect of their "broken player combinations" that have been mentioned. It is indeed a valid point in their one game, but such a situation wouldn't have ever been allowed in a game I was personally running.

 

[seebs]

I have not seen clarifications on specific questions like interrupting eldritch blast attacks with dispel, readied attacks, mage slayer attacks of opportunity, or anything else. Just a claim that you can pick new targets.

 

[psychophipps]

I have not seen clarifications on specific questions like interrupting eldritch blast attacks with dispel, readied attacks, mage slayer attacks of opportunity, or anything else. Just a claim that you can pick new targets.

As a former Magic: The Gathering player, I don't have an issue with the concept of "interrupting" actions. I figure it's just like Counterspell or similar effects in the card game which basically means that unless the effect specifically states that it's stopping another effect as it happens, the best you can hope for is to make them pay a price for triggering the held action.

Thus, "If the Warlock casts a spell, I'm going to shoot them with an arrow" means that as the Warlock casts a spell, the arrow is loosed and potentially hits the Warlock right after their spell goes off. This not only keeps players from making 75%+ of all their actions as some attempt to keep the "bad guys" from completing their own actions, but also points out the fact that action usually beats reaction, IRL and including arrow flight times, spell casting taking time to loose even when it's being readied, etc. The most common held action in my games is, "If a 'bad guy' enters the hallway on the right, I'm going to crank off <insert random effect here> at them" which is far more simple to deal with than trying to deal with squeezing triggering effects in between individual Eldrich Blasts and other similar wankery.

 

[seebs]

Sure. But intuitively, it seems to me that it is plausible to imagine that enough time to pick a new target implies enough time for a readied reaction to go off. We know that works for movement, and for multiple attacks with weapons, and it's not immediately obvious that it shouldn't work for multiple separate attacks made as part of a spell.

I could see people ruling it either way. I don't much care which, but I'm curious because it would tell us a lot about the intent of the system.

 

[spectacle]

Sure. But intuitively, it seems to me that it is plausible to imagine that enough time to pick a new target implies enough time for a readied reaction to go off. We know that works for movement, and for multiple attacks with weapons, and it's not immediately obvious that it shouldn't work for multiple separate attacks made as part of a spell.

I could see people ruling it either way. I don't much care which, but I'm curious because it would tell us a lot about the intent of the system.

The rules are not very restrictive about what you can choose as a trigger, so it sounds like it should be possible to do readied actions like "if he launches an eldritch blast, then I shoot him" to interrupt after the first EB of a multi blast, or "if he lifts his sword, I shoot him" to interrupt a melee attack before the actual strike.

Neither of these readied actions would be particularly troublesome to resolve in game, so I suspect it is intentional that the Ready Action rules specify that the readied action goes off after the trigger rather than the triggering action.

This still doesn't let you dispel an instantaneous spell like Eldritch Blast or Fireball by readying Dispel Magic with a trigger that happens halfway through the spellcasting process, since instantaneous spells explicitly cannot be dispelled.

 

[Noctem]

The rules are not very restrictive about what you can choose as a trigger, so it sounds like it should be possible to do readied actions like "if he launches an eldritch blast, then I shoot him" to interrupt after the first EB of a multi blast, or "if he lifts his sword, I shoot him" to interrupt a melee attack before the actual strike.

Neither of these readied actions would be particularly troublesome to resolve in game, so I suspect it is intentional that the Ready Action rules specify that the readied action goes off after the trigger rather than the triggering action.

This still doesn't let you dispel an instantaneous spell like Eldritch Blast or Fireball by readying Dispel Magic with a trigger that happens halfway through the spellcasting process, since instantaneous spells explicitly cannot be dispelled.

Thank you! Glad to see others posting. And to answer your earlier question: Yes, this is still going even though we have multiple answers from a lead dev. This is what it was like on the wizard forums as well. You can give these people all the evidence in the world, they won't change their minds. I've even given them a pretty solid question to ask on twitter themselves which would refute or prove correct the core of the claims they are making and yet they refuse to even ask it. My guess: They are afraid to lose face and be proven wrong after 60+ pages of posts. Pride is the problem. To be clear, my question is:

Is Magic Missile the only spell in the game which resolves its attacks simultaneously?

I explained in detail what either a yes or no answer would give us for clarification.

 

[seebs]

The rules are not very restrictive about what you can choose as a trigger, so it sounds like it should be possible to do readied actions like "if he launches an eldritch blast, then I shoot him" to interrupt after the first EB of a multi blast, or "if he lifts his sword, I shoot him" to interrupt a melee attack before the actual strike.

Neither of these readied actions would be particularly troublesome to resolve in game, so I suspect it is intentional that the Ready Action rules specify that the readied action goes off after the trigger rather than the triggering action.

This still doesn't let you dispel an instantaneous spell like Eldritch Blast or Fireball by readying Dispel Magic with a trigger that happens halfway through the spellcasting process, since instantaneous spells explicitly cannot be dispelled.

See, I'd interpret the "instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled" as referring to attempts to dispel their effects, such as "cast dispel magic on someone who just got fireballed to unburn him", and if someone wanted to waste a third-level spell preventing the additional attacks from a cantrip, I'd probably let them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

See, I'd interpret the "instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled" as referring to attempts to dispel their effects, such as "cast dispel magic on someone who just got fireballed to unburn him", and if someone wanted to waste a third-level spell preventing the additional attacks from a cantrip, I'd probably let them.

Yup. That's such a low probability event, and not very useful, that I'd let it work because it's already punishment enough.

 

[seebs]

Thank you! Glad to see others posting. And to answer your earlier question: Yes, this is still going even though we have multiple answers from a lead dev. This is what it was like on the wizard forums as well. You can give these people all the evidence in the world, they won't change their minds. I've even given them a pretty solid question to ask on twitter themselves which would refute or prove correct the core of the claims they are making and yet they refuse to even ask it. My guess: They are afraid to lose face and be proven wrong after 60+ pages of posts. Pride is the problem. To be clear, my question is:

Is Magic Missile the only spell in the game which resolves its attacks simultaneously?

I explained in detail what either a yes or no answer would give us for clarification.

I just want to point out that, so far as I know, I actually agree with you on the ruling question, but I maintain that this is an exceptionally badly-chosen and badly-worded question.

First off, magic missile does not make any attacks at all. So the question is just plain wrong to begin with.

Secondly, there's lots of spells that everyone seems to agree resolve their effects simultaneously (such as fireball), so it's pretty obvious that a "no" answer would not tell us anything we don't know. A "yes" answer, by contrast, would reveal that we have been playing most of the spells in the game simultaneously. But that's assuming we handwave the "attacks" thing.

And if you're serious about wanting clarification, the first thing you should do is not completely muddle things by using obviously incorrect language.

 

[spectacle]

See, I'd interpret the "instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled" as referring to attempts to dispel their effects, such as "cast dispel magic on someone who just got fireballed to unburn him", and if someone wanted to waste a third-level spell preventing the additional attacks from a cantrip, I'd probably let them.

I think that will work well in game and give dispel magic a bit more utility, at a high cost since the caster not only commits a 3rd level slot but also his action. But let's look at the rules text for dispel magic:
"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within
range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends.
For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make
an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC
equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the
spell ends."

There's nothing here about targeting a spell with dispel magic, you have to target a creature, object or effect, and we already know that the effects from instantaneous spells can't be dispelled. I suppose we could rule that Eldritch Blast is a spell that affects the Warlock allowing him to launch a number of blasts so that you can end it by targeting the Warlock with dispel magic, but that is really stretching the definitions. I'd say we're well into house rule territory now, which is a perfectly fine place to be in 5E