D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[seebs]

Before, because you follow the order of events the spell describes... Maybe you should read the Spellcasting section of the PHB to get better acquainted with the subject you want to discuss?

You know, after the thing with the "Make an Attack" rule a while back, I'd think you'd be more careful about snide comments like that.

This is how you resolve the spell:

1. Declare you're casting Chain Lightning
2. Spend the action type required (most likely your Action for the turn)
3. Spend any material costs and/or other requirements in order to cast the spell (V, S)
4. Complete casting the spell. (last chance to use counterspell)
5. Resolve the effect(s) of the spell (the spell is now cast and it's effects are being resolved)
6. Declare legal primary target within range of the spell's effect
7. Declare legal secondary targets (up to 3 for the base spell, more with higher spell slots) within range of the spell's primary target
8. Have all declared targets roll a saving throw
9. Roll damage
10. Apply damage to all targets who failed their saving throw OR half that damage to all targets who succeeded.

Unless a spell, item or weapon attack specifically states that you resolve the attacks simultaneously you never do because you follow the Making an Attack rules. The only exception in the game is Magic Missile AFAIK which actually does specifically call out that you resolve attacks simultaneously. Which again, is exactly what Jeremy Crawford said in his earlier tweet:

That's an interesting thing. See, you said here:

6. Declare legal primary target within range of the spell's effect
7. Declare legal secondary targets (up to 3 for the base spell, more with higher spell slots) within range of the spell's primary target
8. Have all declared targets roll a saving throw

Why isn't it:

6. Declare legal primary target.
7. Have primary target roll save. Roll damage, apply damage.
8. Declare legal secondary targets.
9. Have secondary targets roll save.

Or even:

8. Declare first secondary target.
9. Secondary target rolls save.
10. Declare second secondary target.
11. Secondary target rolls save.

Personally, I would go for the first because it's streamlined, but there might well be cases in which your preferred choice of secondary targets is contingent on knowing the outcome of the damage to the first target. And it seems obvious that intent is that you can't do that. But that means we have some instantaneous spells (like eldritch blast) where we're assuming that you can make each attack sequentially, after seeing how the previous attack or attacks worked, and other instantaneous spells (like chain lightning) where you declare all targets at once.

One rule might be "instantaneous implies simultaneous", meaning that every instantaneous spell requires you to pick targets up front, then resolve effects on them, and the effects are considered simultaneous. Another might be "attack rolls are always sequential, otherwise spells are simultaneous unless stated otherwise", so you pick multiple targets up front unless the spell has attack rolls. There aren't many spells with multiple targets and attack rolls, and I've seen different rulings on some of these topics.

(See also the question, in prior editions, of whether targets that make their save against a spell that affects N hit points or creatures count against its total target count; after all, they are "not affected" in some cases.)

 

[Noctem]

Not really. If instantaneous implies simultaneous, then magic missile doesn't need the language saying "simultaneous". It could also have impact on how we understand future spells not yet written. Your question is a question about the current set of spells in print. It doesn't get us to the theoretical questions.

Ok... and why does it matter if it doesn't need the language if we get a no answer? Nothing changes as a result, this fact isn't even important at that point. I don't understand why you think this is important or a reason why the question isn't valid?

Potential future spells not yet written... are also irrelevant to this discussion. However I would say that the question is actually very much relevant to our understanding of them since if the answer is YES, then that means that future spells will ALSO have to specify that their attacks are resolved simultaneously. Which again goes to reinforce the tweet from JC from earlier in the thread which I just linked. Which again is why MM actually needs to say that. If the answer is no, it also would help us understand because of the points under No I listed in my previous post.

I mean it sounds to me like you're just grasping at straws here... Nothing you just posted is actually an issue or means that the question isn't a good one. Are you just saying it's not a good one for the sake of doing so?

 

[Noctem]

You know, after the thing with the "Make an Attack" rule a while back, I'd think you'd be more careful about snide comments like that.

It's not a snide comment, I'm recommending you read up on the spell section of the PHB since you don't seem to understand that there's a difference between a spell with an attack roll and a spell with a saving throw against an effect. It was simply a recommendation. You don't have to do it if you don't want to read up on it.

That's an interesting thing. See, you said here:

6. Declare legal primary target within range of the spell's effect
7. Declare legal secondary targets (up to 3 for the base spell, more with higher spell slots) within range of the spell's primary target
8. Have all declared targets roll a saving throw

Why isn't it:

6. Declare legal primary target.
7. Have primary target roll save. Roll damage, apply damage.
8. Declare legal secondary targets.
9. Have secondary targets roll save.

Because the spell specifies that you select the primary and secondary targets before having the targets roll the saving throw. The order of execution is written in the spell. You can houserule not to follow that order, if you want, but at that point you're no longer following the instructions from the spell. If I tell you to pick up a green apple, then a yellow apple and finally a red apple and you decide to pick them all up at the same time or in a different order then you've changed my directives in the most basic way. You're no longer following what I've told you to do, you're doing your own thing. If you change what the spell tells you to do, you're doing the same thing. That's called a houserule.

Or even:

8. Declare first secondary target.
9. Secondary target rolls save.
10. Declare second secondary target.
11. Secondary target rolls save.

See above.

Personally, I would go for the first because it's streamlined, but there might well be cases in which your preferred choice of secondary targets is contingent on knowing the outcome of the damage to the first target. And it seems obvious that intent is that you can't do that. But that means we have some instantaneous spells (like eldritch blast) where we're assuming that you can make each attack sequentially, after seeing how the previous attack or attacks worked, and other instantaneous spells (like chain lightning) where you declare all targets at once.

Houserule away if you want. You're also now comparing spells with attack rolls which follow the Making an Attack rules vs a spell with an effect and saving throw which does not. You're comparing apples to oranges.

One rule might be "instantaneous implies simultaneous", meaning that every instantaneous spell requires you to pick targets up front, then resolve effects on them, and the effects are considered simultaneous. Another might be "attack rolls are always sequential, otherwise spells are simultaneous unless stated otherwise", so you pick multiple targets up front unless the spell has attack rolls. There aren't many spells with multiple targets and attack rolls, and I've seen different rulings on some of these topics.

The quote from JC that has been quoted multiple times shows that you don't pick all the targets at once for spells where you make attacks. However, spells where you don't make attacks like fireball have you pick targets in the order the spell details. Fireball is all targets within the area of effect, chain lightning is more specific and divine word is everyone you pick who can hear you, which is up to the DM in most cases.

(See also the question, in prior editions, of whether targets that make their save against a spell that affects N hit points or creatures count against its total target count; after all, they are "not affected" in some cases.)

Prior editions are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Noctem]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]

Come on then, this is the question I would like you to ask and the reasons why it's a good question. You can get it posted in only a few moments...

Is Magic Missile the only spell which has its attacks resolved simultaneously?

A: Yes.

What does this mean?

1. No other spell currently published has its attacks resolve simultaneously. Arial Black's claim that Eldritch Blast does so is therefore proven incorrect. This also supports JC's earlier tweet that specifies that unless the spell itself says attacks are resolved simultaneously (like Magic Missile does) then they are not by default.

2. This also explains that just because a spell has the instantaneous duration, that its attacks are not resolved simultaneously by default and instead follow the Making an Attack rules like every other spell attack. Arial Black's claim that instantaneous duration means simultaneous attacks is therefore shown to be incorrect.

3. Further questions can be asked if needed.


IF the answer is NO:

1. That means that spell attacks don't have to specify they are resolved simultaneously.

2. It contradicts the earlier answer from JC which explained that a spell has to specify that its attacks are resolved simultaneously and opens up further discussion.

3. A list of spells which do resolve simultaneously beyond Magic Missile can then be tabled and discussed.

4. We can see if all instantaneous duration spells are resolved the same way or only some. To prove or disprove this claim from Arial Black.

5. Further questions can be asked as needed.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[Celtavian]

Things have changed in this edition. It's a small detail, but it has changed. Beam/ray spells operated differently in 5E and the spell text is different to support this change.

 

[Noctem]

Things have changed in this edition. It's a small detail, but it has changed. Beam/ray spells operated differently in 5E and the spell text is different to support this change.

agreed 100%

 

[cmad1977]

I'd agree if he'd actually responded to my argument and didn't make an error about readied actions while explaining.

That's just flat wrong. It's not his fault you couldn't understand his responses.

 

[seebs]

Prior editions are irrelevant to this discussion.

It'd be easier to respond if you used /quote tags when doing inline responses.

Anyway, I don't think you're responding to the things I'm advocating here. Yes, I'm aware that the Make An Attack rule is different from the rest of the spell resolution rules; that's why I don't think magic missile is at all relevant to a discussion of eldritch blast, because magic missile doesn't use attack rolls, so no question about how magic missile is resolved is particularly relevant to a discussion of how eldritch blast is resolved.

I think you would get much better results in discussions if you assumed that other people were not idiots, and had some familiarity with the rules, and tried to understand what points they might be making that would be relevant or topical, rather than focusing so hard on trying to find ways to dismiss things people say. The goal should not be to declare victory, but to achieve a clear understanding of the other side's views so you can productively engage with them. I've read the spell sections, and combat rules, many times, and getting condescending suggestions that I read the rules based on your firm belief that I don't understand them does not fit well with my prior experience of asking you to actually cite to the rules you're quoting, and finding out that they never existed and you just sorta made them up.

Look back at the early days of the Disintegrate thread, when you repeatedly claimed that the "Make an Attack" rules gave an explicit order of steps in resolving attacks, but the order you gave was nothing like what was in the rules. It wasn't a one-time thing; you made multiple posts in which you asserted that you had unequivocally shown that the exact rule you were making up was in the text. It wasn't. Nothing even similar to it was in the text, in fact; the order of operations you'd invented was completely absent from the rules.

Why exactly should you be telling me to read the rules?

Hint: I'm not asking you all these questions about how you'd resolve things because I haven't read the rules. I'm asking them because you are making sweeping assertions about things you claim the rules clearly state, which I haven't found in the rules, and I am trying to understand the model you have built for how the rules work. By asking questions about how you understand the rules. It's not that I couldn't offer answers to these questions; it's that I'm trying to understand your answers. Because I happen to have reached the same conclusion you have (I think) about Eldritch Blast, but your reasoning is still incomprehensible to me, and I'm trying to understand your model, because if you actually have a good argument here, I think it would be beneficial for it to be presented more compellingly and consistently.

 

[Noctem]

AAh I see, you want to turn this into a pissing contest because you're going to dredge up previous mistakes I made, and apologized for, in the past?

Well, thanks for participating but I think I'll stop responding to you from this point on since you want to make this personal. Gl hf.

 

[seebs]

Ok... and why does it matter if it doesn't need the language if we get a no answer? Nothing changes as a result, this fact isn't even important at that point. I don't understand why you think this is important or a reason why the question isn't valid?

It would matter because it would tell us something about how the rules work. I am not sure it is within my power to help with the understanding aspect of this, but it seems to me that you might find it enlightening to change your approach. Instead of viewing "I do not understand why someone thinks X is relevant" as proof that it is irrelevant, why not view it as proof that there's something other people are perceiving or thinking about or discussing that you haven't understood yet?

I mean it sounds to me like you're just grasping at straws here... Nothing you just posted is actually an issue or means that the question isn't a good one. Are you just saying it's not a good one for the sake of doing so?

No, I'm saying it's not a good question because I don't consider your argumentation about what the answers would mean to be remotely convincing. I have some background in rules interpretation and requests for clarification, and that question is completely useless to someone trying to understand the rules.