D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[ryan92084]

The "until the end of your next turn" does imply that the spell is then lost if not used, but it's not clear that this was intended. Obviously, you wouldn't want to let someone keep that "readied" action forever and use it on a later turn after taking a normal action on that turn, in general. But if someone wanted to keep using their action to maintain concentration on a readied spell, I'd probably let them.

JCrawford and I also use that house rule but the RaW is that you lose the slot www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/25/how-does-readying-a-spell-work/

 

[Zorku]

Well, to be fair, I also didn't invite you to skim through and bring things back up. If you choose to do so, I think it's worthwhile to ask that you be a tad be more specific that 'I recollect', especially when assigning motives to people.

Now, if I asked you out of the blue, instead of in response to you paraphrasing my inputs, you'd have a defensible point. As it is your standing on being vague and handwavey, which is definitely your right, but doesn't lend any credence to your declarations that it's been settled. Also, a pattern with you, where you make a vague statement and then refuse to provide any clarification to it, instead preferring to insist that you were correct. Which is a bit ironic, given that you're calling noctem out on the same thing with his strawmen.

When I was unemployed and sat at home all day I had the time to read back and forth through threads like that, but now I really don't.
Simply solution for that though: Guess I was wrong. If you say that that topic isn't settled for you and you still talk about it then you kind of automatically invalidated my claim. No point in arguing it when there's clear evidence against it right in the pages everyone is currently reading.

It was you that just said that seebs misrepresented you. It's on you to show that, not insist that others go through the thread again, find the specific thing you're talking about (we don't even know what point of yours you think seebs is misrepresenting), and then guess why you think it's a misrepresentation. A question asking you to clarify is eminently reasonable.

-_- wut?

Wow, I like that a lot more than just saying "burden of proof is on you." If this change isn't just a little blip I'm kind of proud of you.
Aaaand that's all the time I had. Gotta run for the bus.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If that's all you want seebs tweet already accomplished that https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/675367833069424640
If your DM allows individual rays (attacks)to be triggers then you can go between them. What is or isn't a valid trigger largely left up to the DM, however. I'm on the no side for allowing that specific trigger (for my given reasons) others say yes.

I don't see either as a bad ruling and am not trying to convince others I'm right and they are wrong about allowing it.

Hey, did that tweet get posted earlier and I missed it?! That completely wraps up my previous issues with [MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION]. Wonder if he'll acknowledge it.

 

[ryan92084]

Hey, did that tweet get posted earlier and I missed it?! snip...

Not that I saw, I went back through those pages before I posted it. I don't know if seebs just forgot about it or what.

off topic: can we please not start that up again

 

[Umbran]

Could you, perhaps, drop the insults and yelling?

He used some capital letters for emphasis, but he made no insult. That accusation was unwarranted, and unwarranted accusations will make you look more like you have a personal axe to grind than a legitimate point about his approach to the discussion.

Who's yelling? What insults? lol!

Dude, laughing in people's faces is *not* a way to defuse a conflict. Nor does it make you look mature or reasonable.


Last warning - cut out the head-butting, both of you. Treat each other with respect, or stop responding to each other, please.

 

[Noctem]

Not that I saw, I went back through those pages before I posted it. I don't know if seebs just forgot about it or what.

off topic: can we please not start that up again

This is the first time I see the response from JC as well so thanks for posting it. So readied actions can happen in between attacks, it's a small but good thing to clarify since the rules in the PHB don't actually say one way or the other. Thanks for posting the question seebs.

and for the off topic, agreed

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is the first time I see the response from JC as well so thanks for posting it. So readied actions can happen in between attacks, it's a small but good thing to clarify since the rules in the PHB don't actually say one way or the other. Thanks for posting the question seebs.

They do say. They say exactly what JC said -- that readied actions happen immediately after their triggers.

 

[Noctem]

Mod Edit: Thank you for the feedback. In the future, though - we ask that folks with fesdback or questions about moderation take it to Private Message or e-mail, rather than discuss it in-thread. ~Umbran

 

[seebs]

Oh, hey, thanks ryan92084! I had checked Twitter to look for a response, but not seen that I got one, because apparently I don't know how to use Twitter.

That does indeed tell us unambiguously that readied actions can in fact interrupt someone else's action. So, it's not a GM judgment call, except in the sense that the GM can overrule any rule.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, hey, thanks ryan92084! I had checked Twitter to look for a response, but not seen that I got one, because apparently I don't know how to use Twitter.

That does indeed tell us unambiguously that readied actions can in fact interrupt someone else's action. So, it's not a GM judgment call, except in the sense that the GM can overrule any rule.

Well, what's a valid trigger is still a DM's call, but that tweet does lend strong support to the idea that an attack is a valid RAI trigger.