D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Arial Black]

So I got into thinking about this more.

Why do we have the wording about being unable to dispel instantaneous spells? It's pretty obvious that you can't dispel the hit point damage done by a fireball or by a call lightning. So what's it there for?

Consider, if you will, dispel magic itself. Instantaneous. If you could "dispel" it, what would happen? Would the magic previously dispelled come back?

So I think what's missing here is that we have two separate things being discussed. One is the distinction between magic which alters the world in a permanent but non-dispellable way ("instantaneous"), and the other is individual effects that, say, do damage, which also can't be dispelled whether or not the spell producing them is dispellable.

We already have the answer as to why instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled, in the very sentence in the PHB that tells us: "Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates or alters a creature or object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant."

...meaning that the magic comes and goes so quickly that it has already gone by the time a dispeller could target it.

So, if its magic does last long enough to be targetted by a dispeller, then it can be dispelled because the reason it couldn't be dispelled no longer applies. If the beams are consecutive with a gap between each beam big enough to see what one beam does before targetting the next, then this spell is still there to be targetted with a readied dispel.

It's like, if you were immune to bullets because you are wearing a bullet-proof vest, then you can't continue to claim that you are immune to bullets when the vest is no longer worn. The reason that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled is because they come and go too quickly to be targetted with a dispel, but if they hang around long enough to be targetted, then they can no longer claim to be undispellable.

 

[Noctem]

I'm still wearing the vest because I never took it off in the first place. Instantaneous spells are still instantaneous regardless of the weird nonsense you keep posting about this topic.

 

[Arial Black]

I'm still wearing the vest because I never took it off in the first place. Instantaneous spells are still instantaneous regardless of the weird nonsense you keep posting about this topic.

Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled because the magic comes and goes before they can be targetted by a dispel. If they were to stay around for long enough to be targetted by a dispel, they would lose their reason for being undispellable, just like removing that bulletproof vest.

If the spell lasts long enough for the caster to observe the result of one beam before choosing the target for the next beam, then this means that this 'instantaneous' spell has stayed around long enough to be targetted by a (readied) dispel, therefore no longer has a reason to claim to be undispellable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled because the magic comes and goes before they can be targetted by a dispel. If they were to stay around for long enough to be targetted by a dispel, they would lose their reason for being undispellable, just like removing that bulletproof vest.

If the spell lasts long enough for the caster to observe the result of one beam before choosing the target for the next beam, then this means that this 'instantaneous' spell has stayed around long enough to be targetted by a (readied) dispel, therefore no longer has a reason to claim to be undispellable.

I agree that, with your interpretations of the spellcasting process, that's an issue. Since Noctem has agreed with your interpretations of the spellcasting process, that's something that he has to handwave away with the rule on instantaneous spells. That's a fine position for him, but it is ignoring the logical implications of the spellcasting process steps you both agree on.

If, however, you look at the spellcasting process the way seebs and I have discussed (honestly, I don't recall where seebs ended up on this, but I know he argued for it at one point) -- ie, that the process is fluid and that actual spellcasting may continue through the release of effects -- then there's less of an issue. If you allow that spellcasting is continuing through the release of EB bolts, then there's no effect resident to dispel between the blasts -- the spellcasting is creating and releasing instantaneous blasts independently of each other. To clarify, I've argued that you don't just cast EB, get a load of bolts, and then throw them around, but that you're still casting for each bolt thrown. That solves the problem because there's no effect present to dispel. You could still kill the caster between bolts with a readied action, and that would then stop remaining bolts from occurring as they haven't yet been created. This also solves the issue of having the effects in places and needing adjudication when the caster gets killed in this manner.

 

[Zorku]

I agree. Call lightning, meaning 'the spell-granted ability to call bolts of lightning for the spell duration' can be dispelled, even if an individual bolt cannot (because each bolt is instantaneous, even if the spell itself isn't).

Where is this going? Well, JC wants eldritch blast to work in the same way: when cast, the caster can shoot a beam at a target within range, and may keep shooting beams until he runs out of beams to shoot, and he can shoot them one at a time, with enough time between each beam to see what it does before shooting the next, all during this 'cast a spell' action.

This means that it works like call lightning, except with a duration of '1 action' rather than '1 hour'. It means that the spell effect is to let the caster shoot a limited number force beams during his action. This means that eldritch blast can be dispelled. Individual beams cannot be dispelled, but the casters spell-granted ability to shoot force beams can be dispelled.

To do so, the dispeller would have to have a readied dispel with a trigger of something like 'when I see him shoot a beam, I'll dispel the eldritch blast spell on him that allows him to keep shooting beams'.

Of course you agree. You answered your own question.

You're as wrong as ever. There's no magical cloud to dispel, just a spell that is currently being cast.

Well, we know that that's not going to get anywhere, so for the sake of at least understanding your views better:
If somebody official said that with EB you're actually just casting the cantrip 4 distinct times (at sufficiently high levels) how upset would you be with that and why?

 

[spectacle]

If the spell lasts long enough for the caster to observe the result of one beam before choosing the target for the next beam, then this means that this 'instantaneous' spell has stayed around long enough to be targetted by a (readied) dispel.

This is the main flaw in your argument. The rules however never specify that the time between eldritch blasts is longer than an instant, it is purely your opinion that it is so.

We know that an instant in D&D is not defined as "an imperceptibly short amount of time" because several instantaneous spells, such as fireball, describe the spell effect perceptively moving, so an "instant" can't be infinitely short.

Since an instant has been shown to necessarily be a length of time, declaring it to be shorter than the time to cast and use a multi-beam eldritch blast is purely an arbitrary cutoff that is not supported by the text of the rules. On the contrary, is actively in conflict with the rules as written since it leads to the rule about instantaneous spells and dispelling appearing to be contradictory.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is the main flaw in your argument. The rules however never specify that the time between eldritch blasts is longer than an instant, it is purely your opinion that it is so.

We know that an instant in D&D is not defined as "an imperceptibly short amount of time" because several instantaneous spells, such as fireball, describe the spell effect perceptively moving, so an "instant" can't be infinitely short.

Since an instant has been shown to necessarily be a length of time, declaring it to be shorter than the time to cast and use a multi-beam eldritch blast is purely an arbitrary cutoff that is not supported by the text of the rules. On the contrary, is actively in conflict with the rules as written since it leads to the rule about instantaneous spells and dispelling appearing to be contradictory.

Well, it's long enough that someone can use a readied action in between the blasts, so it's not nothing. Also, that readied action can be a dispel magic (regardless of the efficacy of this), so it's long enough between to do that, as well. Also, it's long enough between blasts to run all the way across a room, if that's your readied action (but it's not long enough for the caster to run all the way across the room, or even 5', so, well, there's that. Or maybe it is long enough, but the caster is considered grappled by the spell he's casting....*).

Any argument based on strict time in 5e has a very steep hill to climb to be useful. 5e doesn't track strict time, and often does very naughty things to it.

*all things in parenthesis above are amused speculation, and should not be considered arguments to be refuted.

 

[Noctem]

This is the main flaw in your argument. The rules however never specify that the time between eldritch blasts is longer than an instant, it is purely your opinion that it is so.

We know that an instant in D&D is not defined as "an imperceptibly short amount of time" because several instantaneous spells, such as fireball, describe the spell effect perceptively moving, so an "instant" can't be infinitely short.

Since an instant has been shown to necessarily be a length of time, declaring it to be shorter than the time to cast and use a multi-beam eldritch blast is purely an arbitrary cutoff that is not supported by the text of the rules. On the contrary, is actively in conflict with the rules as written since it leads to the rule about instantaneous spells and dispelling appearing to be contradictory.

eeexactly. So glad others see this as well.

 

[seebs]

Of course you agree. You answered your own question.

You're as wrong as ever. There's no magical cloud to dispel, just a spell that is currently being cast.

Well, we know that that's not going to get anywhere, so for the sake of at least understanding your views better:
If somebody official said that with EB you're actually just casting the cantrip 4 distinct times (at sufficiently high levels) how upset would you be with that and why?

Huh, fascinating question. I'd dislike it because it breaks the "1 action" concept, also because it wouldn't match the behavior of many of the other cantrips.

 

[Lord Twig]

Ah yes, this old debate.

I believe the official response (from memory) is that an instantaneous spell only takes an instant (an incredible small amount of time) to take effect, but also allows you to target each blast individually after observing the effects of each blast. It doesn't actually make any sense, but (according to JC I guess) it doesn't have to. It is just game rules.

Personally I think the official ruling is horrible and I house rule that instantaneous spells are really instantaneous so you have to pick all targets before rolling any dice. I find this more fun than always being able to perfectly pick your targets so you only ever use exactly enough blasts to take out a target.

So, to recap. The official ruling is bad and everyone should play it the way I do... And they should make my house rule official.