D&D 5E (2014) Warlock and Repelling Blast

[seebs]

My thought was, Noctem's claim about "interrupting actions" may have been intended to mean "prevent the action which triggered them from happening".

 

[Ovinomancer]

My thought was, Noctem's claim about "interrupting actions" may have been intended to mean "prevent the action which triggered them from happening".

No, as his response to my query about readying to attack a fighter if he attacks you being foiled by the fighter having extra attacks and choosing to move away from you between attacks. He said that's exactly what would happen (while chastising me for limiting the discussion to remove AOs) because you can't interrupt actions. Hand on, I'll go get the quote.

Here it is:

As stated before, actions in 5e CANNOT interrupt each other outside of specific examples like the spell Shield. You cannot use a readied action to interrupt another action. You cannot interrupt the Attack Action of a level 5 fighter in between his first and second attack with a readied action unless that readied action specifically states (like shield) that you can. Readied actions as the kind a player can ready by declaring a trigger and action they are going to take in response to that trigger cannot get around the general rules which govern how actions interact.

This is an example in steps:

1. Declare I use Eldritch Blast
2. Use up the action type associated with Casting a Spell and Eldritch Blast (my action)
3. Use any material costs associated to casting the spell I have chosen and perform any other requirements for casting the spell.
4. Finish casting the spell (this is the last step where the spell can be counterspelled because after this you are resolving the effects of having successfully cast the spell)
5. Resolve the effects of the spell (in this case making x number of attacks as described in the spell effect section, say 2 attacks for this example)

Making an Attack
1. Declare target of attack 1
2. Figure out the modifiers if any for the attack
3. Resolve the attack (including damage and effects like forced movement for example)

1 Declare target of attack 2
2. Figure out the modifiers if any for the attack
3. Resolve the attack (including damage and effects like forced movement for example)


Any readied action by an ally would begin now. However, as stated a Shield spell could be used during step 3 of the attacks (Resolve the attack) when you are declared to be hit. This could lead to the attack instead missing, but only because the spell itself allows for this exception to the general rules.

As for your last example, that is correct. You cannot interrupt the action of another creature with a readied action. Immediate Interrupts from 4e no longer exist. Reactions in 5e, outside of very specific examples, work like Immediate Reactions which always happen AFTER their trigger is fully resolved. In this case, the action being used to attack. Note that the creature attacking you moving away would normally provoke an Opportunity Attack which you can perform instead of your readied action. If you have a feat to stop the OA, that's a feat benefit and imo it should be self explanatory that feats are powerful and should remain powerful. But the fact remains that you had to give the attacker a feat to circumvent something you obviously knew would happen to mitigate the strategy you suggested be used to counter the argument I presented. So to you.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473235-Warlock-and-Repelling-Blast/page8#ixzz3tP3PVriQ

 

[seebs]

Oh, yeah, that's just plain wrong.

 

[Arial Black]

Back on topic...

It has been asserted that the word 'instantaneous' does not mean in 5E what it means in RL; that it is a defined piece of game-specific jargon...

I disagree. But since I recognise that simply typing "You're wrong, I'm right, read the rules and if you disagree with my interpretation then I'll ignore you" would not be productive, for the sake of argument I'll explore the idea that 'instantaneous' is nothing but jargon, and that we don't need to know what the word means IRL to know what it means in 5E because we can look at the 'definition' of the word on p203....

...can't be dispelled, because the magic exists only for an instant.

Hmmm. Where is the game-jargon definition of 'instant'? There isn't one. Well, how are we expected to know what a word means if it doesn't have a definition in the PHB?

How, indeed. Perhaps, in an edition that prides itself on using 'natural language', they expect us to know what 'instant' means (even if, inexplicably, they expect us to totally ignore what 'instantaneous' means).

They must expect us to use the RL definition of 'instant', because they haven't provided an alternative game-jargon definition.

We also know that it refers to 'instantaneous', and we also know that it must refer to a 'span of time', because the word refers to the 'duration' of a spell, which is defined on p203 as the length of time a spell persists.

So, when referring to a span of time, what does 'instant' mean. Choose any English dictionary you like.

Literally, it refers to an infinitely short, but non-zero, span of time. This time-span, being infinitely short, is by definition indivisible. If you can do something, observe its effects, then do something else in relation to that observation, then that time-span cannot be described as an 'instant'. The consequences of an event being instantaneous is that it is already over by the time any response to it can be made.

However, I understand that 'natural language' doesn't always use literal definitions. Okay. So, how is 'instant' used (when referring to a span of time) in more casual speech?

Simply put, it's about the 'instant' coming and going too quickly to matter in the time-frame of the general events in question. For example, from the time-frame of the 13.8 billion year life-span of our universe (give-or-take a week), a single day can be thought of as an 'instant', but a single day cannot be thought of as an 'instant' when waiting for the kettle to boil.

I shoot a laser pistol at my enemy. Although he could avoid my aim, he cannot dodge the beam of light once I've pulled the trigger, because the beam travels at the speed of light. Although we know that light does not travel instantaneously, we can think of it that way because at our frame of reference it might as well be. There is no way that a human could dodge a well-aimed beam of light from 10 feet if he only started to dodge after the beam was already on its way. We can safely describe the beam as 'instantaneous' in casual language, even though we know that light does not literally travel instantaneously.

But what if we change the frame of reference? Imagine I'm shooting my laser at The Flash. The Flash can actually see, move and react faster than the speed of light! To him, the beam is not instantaneous! To him, he could sing the national anthem and still have plenty of 'time' to dodge the beam.

Where does this leave us? Although I can accept that 'instant' may not be meant literally, it still must refer to a span of time that is so small that creatures in the game cannot react to it until that instant is over. This is why p203 says that instantaneous spell can't be dispelled because the magic exists only for an instant.

Given that, it might also be the case that instantaneous beams are not literally simultaneous, but they must be so nearly simultaneous that they might as well be. An analogy that has been used in this thread is a machine gun. It's certainly true that a single machine gun fires its bullets sequentially, not simultaneously. A single squeeze of the trigger may fire, say, four bullets, and this may happen so quickly in our frame of reference that we could reasonably describe that single squeeze and its four bullets as 'instantaneous', too quick to respond to until it's too late. However, this is just as true for the shooter as it is for the victims! If a single squeeze 'instantaneously' fires four bullets, then the shooter has no time to see what damage the first does before deciding who to target with the next. The second bullet is already out of the barrel, aimed at the target he chose before he even squeezed the trigger.

Of course, the shooter could very easily fire each bullet one-at-a-time, waiting to see what each did before deciding who to shoot next. But if he does this, the whole process of shoot-look-shoot-look-shoot-look-shoot cannot be described as instantaneous! If the shooter has time to react between shots, so does everyone else.

We know from p203 that there is no time to react to the first bullet for an instantaneous effect, because the magic exists only for an instant.

With instantaneous spells, the entire spell effect exists only for a single instant, not four instants over the course of an action that could be interrupted with a readied dispel. The game already has a spell that uses this model: call lightning lets you call instantaneous bolts of lightning several times within its duration, but the spell itself does not have an instantaneous duration; if it did then the entire spell will be come and gone in a single instant, along with the druid's ability to call bolts of lightning.

Now, if someone could condense that into 140 characters and Tweet it to JC....

 

[Noctem]

@Arial Black

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.

 

[Arial Black]

@Arial Black

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...

Go ahead, I'll wait.

This has been thoroughly debunked by others in the day since I did my last batch of posts. Your question simply does not explore or allow JC to explain the parameters of the instantaneous duration. The yes/no format is a weakness here, not a strength.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to post my question...

Also, I note your continued unwillingness (or inability) to address any of the points raised...

What do you think the word 'instant' means in the context of, "...can't be dispelled because the magic exists only for an instant"?

 

[seebs]

Consider the description of fireball. You cast the spell. The ball streaks towards the specified point. If you are mistaken about your beliefs (such as, if there's an object between you and the point you picked), it detonates early.

So the magic clearly exists for some span of time. Not a long span of time, but a span of time. "Instantaneous" does not seem to me to have any particularly detailed chronological meaning past "once the spell has been resolved, there is no longer magic to be dispelled". It is entirely consistent with that to imagine a spell where you point your finger four times, and each time you point your finger, a beam fires from your finger. Each beam exists only for the barest fraction of a second, but it could take you as much as a second to point your finger... But the "magic" exists only briefly.

In short, it doesn't have to be "so fast that you can't react", only "so fast that you can't complete a significant reaction, like spellcasting, in response to it".

Although actually, this gives us a really interesting test case. Consider that we've already gotten pretty clear statements from the devs that a readied action can occur between multiple attacks. So imagine a fighter with four attacks, and 3hp left. You ready an action to attack him if he attacks you. He attacks you. His first attack is made. Your readied action now happens, as the trigger ("he attacks you") is complete. You hit him. He falls down. He does not get his other three attacks.

Can you do that to a warlock using eldritch blast? It seems to me that if the attacks granted by the spell are sequential, you can. That seems like it would be a really good question to ask the rules people, because it gets to the heart of the matter: Are these attacks actually sequential, or implicitly simultaneous?

 

[Celtavian]

I think the devs have made it clear if the spell doesn't say simultaneous, it isn't.

 

[seebs]

I think the devs have made it clear if the spell doesn't say simultaneous, it isn't.

I think that's probably true, but there is an interesting question here. Can you move between the blasts of an eldritch blast? You can move between multiple attacks. Are eldritch blast's beams more closely spaced than that?

 

[Celtavian]

I think that's probably true, but there is an interesting question here. Can you move between the blasts of an eldritch blast? You can move between multiple attacks. Are eldritch blast's beams more closely spaced than that?

You could ask, but I would think not. Even though it is multiple beams, it is still the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack Action. So technically it isn't multiple attacks. I still think it doesn't hurt to ask. If you have time to fire the ray and see the result each time, it would not be a far stretch to be able to move while doing so between rays. I could picture a guy with a pulsing laser-like spell firing while moving.