• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

seebs

Adventurer
Come to think of it:

I genuinely have no idea what answer Noctem is expecting. I can't imagine the answer being "yes" because there's so many other spells that everyone has always treated as resolved-simultaneously. But a "no" answer would be at least consistent with AB's position.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

seebs

Adventurer
Hmm, you're right, they completely removed the counterspell usage. So I guess you're right. Your only option is to kill the target outright to prevent further beams.

So I was looking, and now I'm curious: Scorching Ray. Do people think the multiple spell attacks from that work the same way as eldritch blast, or differently? If differently, why?

What's particularly interesting to me is that my intuition is that you must specify all the targets for scorching ray in advance, even though I can't see why. I think it's because the "you may target one creature or several" sounds like a single designation-of-targets, while eldritch blast is clearly parallel to iterative attacks.
 

Noctem

Explorer
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 :)

Agreed here for the most part. I wouldn't let someone use dispel magic against an instantaneous spell, even against fireballs "lighting stuff on fire" portion. But that's just me. And I say this because plenty of people I've seen post about these interactions would say the fire is magical and/or forget that regardless instantaneous spells can't be dispelled. Or whatever other reason they decide to use I suppose. The key is posting the rules text like you did Spectacle and letting them sort it out for themselves imo.
 
Last edited:

seebs

Adventurer
Agreed here for the most part. I wouldn't let someone use dispel magic against an instantaneous spell, even against fireballs "lighting stuff on fire" portion. But that's just me.

Well, that part's obvious.

Re-reading the text again, though, it occurs to me that a spell is a kind of "magical effect". Consider what happens if you target a "magical effect" rather than a creature or object. Presumably, the effect ends (or could end if you make an ability check), even if the effect is technically not a spell. But presumably "or magical effect" implies that you are allowed to dispel a magical effect directly, and in that case, the "on the target" language is misleading.

In which case, sure, you could target an eldritch blast between blasts.

But the entire point of the instantaneous language is to clarify that things like "lighting stuff on fire" is no longer a magical effect after it has happened. So calling that out as a "that's just me" thing makes no sense whatsoever. That's probably one of the only things on which everyone would unambiguously agree.
 

Arial Black

Adventurer
This is an interesting theory, but there's nothing in the rules saying that there is such an ordering of amounts of time. It could be that the game world allows you to make multiple targeting decisions faster than enemies can react to you Just Because.

It doesn't tell us what the ordering is, but whatever the ordering is, it applies to everyone. The readied dispel has an observable trigger: as soon as I see a beam emanate from the warlock, I'll dispel the eldritch blast. Meanwhile, the warlock is saying that: as soon as I shoot the first beam, I'll wait to see what happens to the target and then use that information to decide who to target with my next beam. So, the dispeller needs only to see the beam to trigger his dispel, but the warlock not only needs to see the beam but also needs to see the results of the beam, then make a decision based on that observation. 'Seeing the beam' + 'the other stuff' cannot take less time than simply 'seeing the beam', no matter how long you think each element takes! Especially as the dispeller only has to see one beam but the warlock must go through the entire process three times between four beams.

This means that if the warlock has enough time to see the result of each beam before shooting the next, then the dispeller must have enough time to dispel the still existing eldritch blast.

Also, I don't think it matters whether or not you are still in the process of delivering your eldritch blasts; dispel magic says it can't dispel instantaneous effects, period.

Er, no it doesn't! It says that they can't be dispelled, comma, because the magic exists only for an instant.

So it may be that, while you are making your targeting decisions, there's no actual spell-to-dispel, even though you're in the process of casting it.

You might have your jargon mixed up here. None of a spell's effect exist until the 'casting' has been successfully completed. Only when the casting is finished does the duration begin, and all of the effects take place within its duration. The results of those effects are not limited to that duration, but the 'spell effect' is.

Maybe! The point of the text about them being undispellable is that, once the spell has affected a creature, the effect is not itself magical, it's just the way the world is. When you cast a spell with a non-instantaneous duration on a creature, there is magic affecting the creature imposing the continuing effect on it. You can't dispel the burns from a fireball or the damage from an eldritch blast.

Under 'Casting A Spell' on p202 of the PHB, it says:-

Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.

So, what is the 'spell effect' of eldritch blast? Is it, "Choose a target and it loses 1d10 hit points"? No. The 'spell effect' of eldritch blast is:-

A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range.

That's the 'spell effect'! The 'spell effect' is not "A beam of force instantaneously in your hand and then the spell ends. You can throw it at a target any time you like".

The 'spell effect' is that a beam or beams instantaneously streak from you to a target or targets. The streaking beams are the 'spell effect', and like all 'spell effects', like it says on p203 under 'duration', "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists".

If, for some reason, you envision these instantaneous beams as hanging around, waiting to be launched one by one with enough time between them to see what happens to one before choosing a target for the next, and this bunch of beams (which are the 'spell effect') exist entirely within the duration (which they must), then this means the duration doesn't expire until the final beam has been shot. This means that, for this 'instantaneous' spell, the magic does last long enough to be targeted by a readied dispel!

Of course, I believe that having beams hanging around is inconsistent not only with 'instantaneous' (because, among other things, if it worked that way then it could be dispelled, and since instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled because the magic exists only for an instant then the spell cannot work that way) but also with the description of the 'spell effect' which simply says that crackling energy streaks toward your targets, not that beams appear and hang around near you, waiting to be directed later. If it said that, then the duration would be 'one round' or however long the beams hang around for.

Sure it is. This is a game. The rules can be anything that the writers think is playable and fun.

You have touched on a point that I recently mentioned. The only way that JC could say that instantaneous spells could be spread out in a characters turn while readied opponents watch helplessly, unable to follow the rules about readied actions, would be if he accepts that he's left any realism behind and just wanted to rule in favour of casters without any attempt to simulate the 'reality'. We know he did this when he wrote the rule about choosing to knock your opponent unconscious after you discover that your deadly attack killed him. However, his knockout rule really does make the game more playable than other systems such as 'striking to subdue' or 'non-lethal damage'. But there is nothing more or less playable about choosing targets simultaneously or consecutively. It would be an unneeded divorce from reality for no real gain in playability.
 

Noctem

Explorer
more wall of texts that say absolutely nothing relevant. Why not go ask questions to the lead dev instead of grandstanding on the forum about how you know better than the people who designed the edition?
 

Bolares

Hero
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.

If I'm not worng at this you can only try to dispell effects right? to try to stop the casting you use counterspell
 

Noctem

Explorer
If I'm not worng at this you can only try to dispell effects right? to try to stop the casting you use counterspell

correct. And you can only do so up to the point where you start to resolve the effects of successfully casting the spell. IE if you're already rolling an attack from EB, you can't counterspell. If you're making creatures roll saves against Fireball, you can't counterspell. I showed examples of this up-thread for the curious.
 

seebs

Adventurer
If I'm not worng at this you can only try to dispell effects right? to try to stop the casting you use counterspell

Right. But what happens if you are hit by a dispel between blasts, if that's possible? I have no idea. You're not stopping the casting. At least one blast goes off.
 

seebs

Adventurer
It doesn't tell us what the ordering is, but whatever the ordering is, it applies to everyone.

But that assumes there is an ordering. There may not be.

It's quite possible that there's no particular realism intended, just that you can interrupt attacks but can't interrupt a spell. Works fine.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top