D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Zorku]

Your both arguing hypotheticals. I don't think you have the high ground to tell him his hypothetical is less realistic that yours.

I was more subtle with his, but saying that this is about realism seems like an awfully blatant scarecrow fallacy.

I posed a hypothetical. He presented quotes saying that my proposal was impossible according to the rules. At no point in this exchange has he presented anything as a hypothetical for me to assess the realism of.
This exchange was the start of an argument about the rules as written, so your criticism makes no sense in regard to it.

 

[Noctem]

I was more subtle with his, but saying that this is about realism seems like an awfully blatant scarecrow fallacy.

I posed a hypothetical. He presented quotes saying that my proposal was impossible according to the rules. At no point in this exchange has he presented anything as a hypothetical for me to assess the realism of.
This exchange was the start of an argument about the rules as written, so your criticism makes no sense in regard to it.

+1 for Zorku

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was more subtle with his, but saying that this is about realism seems like an awfully blatant scarecrow fallacy.

I posed a hypothetical. He presented quotes saying that my proposal was impossible according to the rules. At no point in this exchange has he presented anything as a hypothetical for me to assess the realism of.
This exchange was the start of an argument about the rules as written, so your criticism makes no sense in regard to it.

Well, you introduced a new set of 'maybe it really works like this and that would mean...' and Arial responded with 'no, maybe it works like this and that would mean....' Both were entirely conjecture. I just made my comment that you don't have the rhetorical high ground to dismiss his conjecture while pushing yours -- both are unfounded in the rules.

As for what Arial posted (recently), that seemed to follow the rules pretty well and ask 'what happens here.' Granted, he provided his own answer, which I'm not sold on, but I think he did a good job of presenting the breakdown and question up to the point he provided his own answer.

 

[Arial Black]

What you've quoted does not say what you are claiming it says. For what you're claiming you would need a quote that talks about actions being indivisible snapshots; that other actions cannot happen in the middle, but rather before or after, and at this point we know there is no such text in the book. It seems to me that you're trying to argue this as though I've said that you don't need to have started one of the VSM components until you've already shot off two lasers. If that's the case this is a lovely then this is a lovely little scarecrow fallacy, and if that's not the case then you're sorely lacking in the kinds of quotes you would need to support your interpretation of spell casting.

In that case, what on Earth are you talking about?

It's a cause-effect relationship. Casting the spell (the VSM components) causes the spell to come into effect. The cause comes before the effect; it literally cannot be another way.

Until the casting process has been completed successfully, it has not caused the effect yet, because the required components have not been executed yet.

I know what I mean, what do you mean? What do you think the sequence of events is? Where do you disagree, exactly?

 

[seebs]

Actually what it means is that the magic of an instantaneous spell will never last for more than an instant, so if you ever rule that it does, you made a mistake somewhere and need to review your reasoning. As I said before, if you interpret "instant" as "less than a round" then it resolves any inconsistencies around this matter and the rules make perfect sense as written.

I don't think that's right, though, because the readied action rules clearly produce an exception. Between your readying and the point at which your trigger completes and you use your reaction, you're concentrating on a spell which has been fully cast and is being held.

 

[Zorku]

Well, you introduced a new set of 'maybe it really works like this and that would mean...' and Arial responded with 'no, maybe it works like this and that would mean....' Both were entirely conjecture. I just made my comment that you don't have the rhetorical high ground to dismiss his conjecture while pushing yours -- both are unfounded in the rules.

As for what Arial posted (recently), that seemed to follow the rules pretty well and ask 'what happens here.' Granted, he provided his own answer, which I'm not sold on, but I think he did a good job of presenting the breakdown and question up to the point he provided his own answer.

I've bolded the part that's factually wrong, and thinking about it you're overstepping a bit by saying that I was only posing a hypothetical.

I will restate the order of events to clarify.
1. Ariel Black is complaining about not being able to dispel Eldritch blast because he's damn sure that seeing what your first beam does and then using that in your decision for the next target is not instantaneous.
2. I respond with an expanded form of "you haven't covered all of the possibilities here," except more entertaining because the example I came up with resonated with me.
3. He immediately retorts by citing the PHB and then continuing as if he had quoted different text.
4. I call him on that.
5. You say this is all hypotheticals.
I suspect that hideous quote chains back to the source would have helped you here, but this forum thankfully doesn't default to that sort of layout travesty.

I have, at all points in this series of events, been shooting down claims that he made. His options were not exhaustive, and his quotes did not say what he claimed they said. Supporting my hypothetical structure for a high level eldritch blast only matters in as much as I am supporting the first refutation.

In that case, what on Earth are you talking about?

It's a cause-effect relationship. Casting the spell (the VSM components) causes the spell to come into effect. The cause comes before the effect; it literally cannot be another way.

Until the casting process has been completed successfully, it has not caused the effect yet, because the required components have not been executed yet.

I know what I mean, what do you mean? What do you think the sequence of events is? Where do you disagree, exactly?

You were acting like there were only these few options and I've told you no, there's another that's compatible.
Maybe what I'm suggesting will be clearer if I change how I'm referring to the spell.
We have level 1 EB, Level 2 EB, Level 3 EB and Level 4 EB.
Casting level 2 EB is exactly the same as casting level 1 EB, but maybe you move a little more skillfully (faster, more efficient) so that you can tack on some flourishes at the end. Speak another word into your FusRoDah. Level 3 EB is just like level 2 EB but with more verbal and somatic stuff happening after you're already through the first two stages. I will leave iteration up to level 4 EB to the reader.

This is one spell. You weave the weave and all that one time, it just so happens that the lower level variations of the spell fit into the higher level one, sort of like how a 4 arrow quiver is just like a 3 arrow quiver, except that after those 3 arrows there's a 4th one, or like how a 4d10 firebolt is just like a 3d10 firebolt, but with a 4th die after the third.
If by some means that we've all yet to agree on over the course of this thread, you're made to stop waving your hands or talking or casting a spell at all, then you went through all the motions to cast a lesser level of EB, and since you didn't shoot 4 lasers it would seem that you didn't cast that version so much as one of the lesser ones.

Now, I don't have any special need to convince anyone that it definitely works like this. This is just an option that really really doesn't mesh with your idea that your cast spell action breaks down into a discrete components stage and then a magical effects stage after that.

As for what I think- I don't think that there is a sequence of events. From the table perspective the DM rules on how slight of a thing you can react to ("I wanna ready an action to cut off his pinky finger the second to last time he undulates it before the spell goes off." "You're not a mage, you don't know anything like that much detail about the somatic components of the spell he's casting, and just do it now instead of readying an action you pain in the ass.") and if that's on any scale smaller than the book has explained then the DM works out how that works. This has only ever been an issue at a table if somebody here has actively tried to make it into one, so of course the rules don't waste time re-explaining that instantaneous spells are instantaneous.

Aaaand it's fallacious to ask for me to solve this. I'm only making the claim that your explanation was lacking, there's no burden of proof here to force me to propose a working solution.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've bolded the part that's factually wrong, and thinking about it you're overstepping a bit by saying that I was only posing a hypothetical.

Well, firstly, it's not factually wrong. It's my interpretation, and it jives very well with how I read the exchange.

You presented a hypothetical 'maybe this is how casting EB works. We seem to be in agreement you did this, and that you agree it was 'entertaining'. It certainly had no basis in the rules, it was just conjecture.

Then Arial responded with his own conjecture, namely that the components must be completed before the spell can be cast. How you complete components, I'm not sure, that sounds a bit hypothetical to me. At this point, the two of you are arguing conjectures of how things work that are both expansions of the rules and not in the rules. Which is what I said. I also said that you should maybe not try to whack down his conjecture what standing on your own, because both are equally shifty platforms without much support.

I will restate the order of events to clarify.
1. Ariel Black is complaining about not being able to dispel Eldritch blast because he's damn sure that seeing what your first beam does and then using that in your decision for the next target is not instantaneous.
2. I respond with an expanded form of "you haven't covered all of the possibilities here," except more entertaining because the example I came up with resonated with me.
3. He immediately retorts by citing the PHB and then continuing as if he had quoted different text.
4. I call him on that.
5. You say this is all hypotheticals.
I suspect that hideous quote chains back to the source would have helped you here, but this forum thankfully doesn't default to that sort of layout travesty.

I have, at all points in this series of events, been shooting down claims that he made. His options were not exhaustive, and his quotes did not say what he claimed they said. Supporting my hypothetical structure for a high level eldritch blast only matters in as much as I am supporting the first refutation.

Yeah, no, I clearly got that. I'm was just saying that you shouldn't use your extra-rules conjecture to shoot down his extra-rules conjecture. Maybe that didn't resonate the right way with you.

I find Ariel's position to be well argued, but not persuasive, because it relies on some assumptions that aren't clear. I've told him this. I don't need to come up with a similarly outside the rules conjecture to counter him. If you think that's the right way to go, cool. Sorry I stepped on your toes. I don't think that it's a persuasive way to go, but what do I know.

 

[Zorku]

Well, firstly, it's not factually wrong. It's my interpretation, and it jives very well with how I read the exchange.

You presented a hypothetical 'maybe this is how casting EB works. We seem to be in agreement you did this, and that you agree it was 'entertaining'. It certainly had no basis in the rules, it was just conjecture.

Then Arial responded with his own conjecture, namely that the components must be completed before the spell can be cast. How you complete components, I'm not sure, that sounds a bit hypothetical to me. At this point, the two of you are arguing conjectures of how things work that are both expansions of the rules and not in the rules. Which is what I said. I also said that you should maybe not try to whack down his conjecture what standing on your own, because both are equally shifty platforms without much support.


Yeah, no, I clearly got that. I'm was just saying that you shouldn't use your extra-rules conjecture to shoot down his extra-rules conjecture. Maybe that didn't resonate the right way with you.

I find Ariel's position to be well argued, but not persuasive, because it relies on some assumptions that aren't clear. I've told him this. I don't need to come up with a similarly outside the rules conjecture to counter him. If you think that's the right way to go, cool. Sorry I stepped on your toes. I don't think that it's a persuasive way to go, but what do I know.

No, we're not in agreement about that. It's fallacious.
Forget everything I've said about how EB could possibly work.
Still with me? Ok, now what's left is "that is a false dichotomy" leveled at Ariel. Please stop detracting from this actual point I made.

Ariel did not present that as conjecture. You are making this into a scarecrow fallacy. He presented that as RAW; he responded with a non sequitur fallacy. Please stop trying to make that into something else.

I absolutely should do the thing I did to shoot down the claim he made. Stop pretending that I think any of the conjecture bits aren't completely interchangeable with anything else you'd like to use to illustrate the underlying logic that anyone other than you is talking about in this.

And just to drive it home: I don't normally just name the fallacy I think something is. I'm only not elaborating on any of them in posts to you because you keep missing the forest for the trees.
Extra quote proofing: I redact the conjecture entirely. You can pretend that it never happened, and start paying attention to the actual points I have been making.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, we're not in agreement about that. It's fallacious.
Forget everything I've said about how EB could possibly work.
Still with me? Ok, now what's left is "that is a false dichotomy" leveled at Ariel. Please stop detracting from this actual point I made.

My interpretation that you both presented conjectures is fallacious? Not sure how you get to that, but okay.

I never said that a) you didn't say that or that b) it's not true. I didn't even address that. I addressed the fact that you were attacking him for providing what you believed to be a false conjecture immediately after you did the same thing. End of point. I'm nowhere arguing that you're wrong about Arial doing whatever, just that you should probably not claim rhetorical high ground for essentially doing the same thing immediately before he did it.

Ariel did not present that as conjecture. You are making this into a scarecrow fallacy. He presented that as RAW; he responded with a non sequitur fallacy. Please stop trying to make that into something else.

Sure he presented his conjecture as RAW. Doesn't make it not a conjecture. Certainly doesn't make my recognizing it as conjecture a strawman. I'm not arguing to defeat your point, I'm pointing out that you engaging in largely similar argumentation immediately prior to him, with your offering of an extra-RAW possibility. Also, since he did directly address your statements, it's hard to say he went non-sequitur. You might want to lay off the informal fallacies -- they haven't done anyone any good in this thread.

I absolutely should do the thing I did to shoot down the claim he made. Stop pretending that I think any of the conjecture bits aren't completely interchangeable with anything else you'd like to use to illustrate the underlying logic that anyone other than you is talking about in this.

I admit it, you've beaten me. I can't even parse this.

And just to drive it home: I don't normally just name the fallacy I think something is. I'm only not elaborating on any of them in posts to you because you keep missing the forest for the trees.
Extra quote proofing: I redact the conjecture entirely. You can pretend that it never happened, and start paying attention to the actual points I have been making.

Yeah, that's probably for the best, you didn't do a very good job naming them, either.

Also, renouncing your prior conjecture doesn't work retroactively, nor does it bind me into anything -- you can't erase it from the conversation. For the record, I haven't once said that you were wrong on any of your points. I pointed out that your choice of rhetoric was maybe inadvisable given that you had just committed a similar rhetorical sin. I don't think Arial's right, either. I certainly don't buy his argument about components. I get that you're certain that I'm against you, but I'm not -- we're largely in agreement. I'm really just here defending myself against calls of being factually incorrect, fallacious, and being engaged in logical fallacies for arguments I'm not even making. Now that I think about it, it's a bit banal of me (bad pun most certainly intended).

 

[Zorku]

My interpretation that you both presented conjectures is fallacious? Not sure how you get to that, but okay.

I never said that a) you didn't say that or that b) it's not true. I didn't even address that. I addressed the fact that you were attacking him for providing what you believed to be a false conjecture immediately after you did the same thing. End of point. I'm nowhere arguing that you're wrong about Arial doing whatever, just that you should probably not claim rhetorical high ground for essentially doing the same thing immediately before he did it.



Sure he presented his conjecture as RAW. Doesn't make it not a conjecture. Certainly doesn't make my recognizing it as conjecture a strawman. I'm not arguing to defeat your point, I'm pointing out that you engaging in largely similar argumentation immediately prior to him, with your offering of an extra-RAW possibility. Also, since he did directly address your statements, it's hard to say he went non-sequitur. You might want to lay off the informal fallacies -- they haven't done anyone any good in this thread.


I admit it, you've beaten me. I can't even parse this.

Yeah, that's probably for the best, you didn't do a very good job naming them, either.

Also, renouncing your prior conjecture doesn't work retroactively, nor does it bind me into anything -- you can't erase it from the conversation. For the record, I haven't once said that you were wrong on any of your points. I pointed out that your choice of rhetoric was maybe inadvisable given that you had just committed a similar rhetorical sin. I don't think Arial's right, either. I certainly don't buy his argument about components. I get that you're certain that I'm against you, but I'm not -- we're largely in agreement. I'm really just here defending myself against calls of being factually incorrect, fallacious, and being engaged in logical fallacies for arguments I'm not even making. Now that I think about it, it's a bit banal of me (bad pun most certainly intended).

Yeah. Red Herring.

I'm not attacking him for conjecture.
I'm not attacking him for conjecture.
I'm not...

Did I ever pose a false dichotomy? If not, then I haven't done the same thing as him. I thought you liked all of these debate terms. Why are you so reluctant to recognize them now?

Yeah, that's why I didn't call it a non sequitur when I was talking to him. That's why I usually stylistically explain the problems I see instead of calling out a fallacy in a vacuum. Since it's not in the quote anymore I'll repeat this: I'm only calling fallacies like this in this weird response chain you've provoked, to give you less to get distracted by.


Ok, I'll parse it for you: There is- an argument- here. It- is about- facts- and logic. The presence- of conjecture- is- irrelevant.

I know I can't erase it. What I've done instead is stop supporting it. Consider this a victory. I offer no defense for the conjecture I made, and honestly the only degree to which I ever defended it was as an illustration of the point I was making.

Do you understand why I don't accept it when you say that I'm a hypocrite for using conjecture? It's got at least a little bit to do with me never having complained about him using conjecture. I've complained about two fallacies in two of his posts. If you're not going to talk about either of those (or after disrespecting me this thoroughly, if you're going to talk about anything from this series of posts other than those fallacies,) then I'm done talking to you.

I am actually a bit relieved that you've stopped to think about the tangled mess you've put me through. This has been an absolutely abysmal opening to my birthday.