D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[seebs]

I know you like to take things to extremes when speaking about what I said, but that doesn't serve the discussion at all Seebs.

Uh, what? I am not taking anything to extremes. I'm responding to what you said. Possibly not to what you meant, but I am not a mind reader.

You said: "Give me a rules quote that says you can interrupt actions." Well, I gave you two examples of explicit statements about things interrupting other things in the rules. So, actions can be interrupted. There you have it; you have rules quotes that state that you can interrupt actions.

Now, those don't directly state that you can interrupt things with a readied action, but it's important to note that the readied action rules don't say that they take effect after the action containing their trigger, but immediately after their trigger. Not after movement is complete, but after someone has fully moved to a particular location.

Especially when you're simply making strawmen to argue against. Counterspell, just like Shield specifically calls out that it can interrupt an action and invalidate it's own trigger. Shield an attack vs Counterspell is the casting of a spell. I still haven't seen anything more other than the examples which give no context or direction as to how to resolve the triggers in practice.

Okay, so think it through.

If you can't take your action immediately upon the cultist stepping on the trap door, but rather, you have to wait for the cultist's entire move to complete before pulling the lever... Does that do you any good at all? No! It's useless. And it would be an atrocious example to give, if it wouldn't actually usefully work, unless they were using the example to point out one of the limitations of readied actions.

So the fact that they don't tell you how it works suggests strongly that it works in the only useful way, which is to say, "the trap door opens before the cultist can continue moving".

Which is to say, it interrupts the move.

I see examples of perceivable events, which fall within DM fiat to allow in the first place. So I'm not convinced at all. Again you making strawmen to argue against doesn't make you right.

I'm not arguing against a strawman, I'm arguing for application of Gricean maxims to the text. They would not provide an example of a trigger unless they thought it ought to work and be a valid trigger that would be useful, or they were going to use it to illustrate the limits of readied actions. Since there's nothing explicitly saying what happens, and the text is completely useless if it isn't communicating something about their intent, we take the plain language reading that those triggers are expected to work. They are offered as examples of the kinds of triggers which are supposed to be usefully possible within the game. Sure, the DM has final say in what's allowed, but then, the DM is allowed to always refuse to allow any readied action. There's no rule that explicitly says that the DM must allow you to ready any specific action; the DM can just declare every suggested trigger to be disallowed. Discussion of a hypothetical hostile DM is uninteresting; we have to assume the DM is at least trying to create a game experience basically similar to what the designers suggest, and that means that these are examples of reasonable readied actions which the DM should allow and which should work in a useful manner.

EDIT: And looking at the 2 examples you listed, both involve movement and don't specify ongoing actions. A goblin moving next to someone and in response to that event a character moves away. The example allows for both interpretations, there's nothing stating the goblin was going to continue moving. Simply that he moved next to someone. The trap door is the same, pulling a lever when someone steps on a trap. No mention of moving beyond the trap door or an ongoing action, simply moving onto it. That allows again for BOTH interpretations to be true. So basically, even the examples can be shown to support both interpretations if you don't add biased context.

Which is to say, if you specifically drop the assumption that the people writing the book put them there with any intent that they communicate anything about the game... But even then, they don't support both interpretations, they are merely consistent with both interpretations. But if we assume that the writers intended that text to mean something, or to tell us anything about the game, they tell us that a readied action can occur during someone else's move.

What we need for example is a rules quote that says reactions can interrupt ongoing actions, like going off mid movement or between attacks. Or a dev tweet which supports either side. AFAIK there is no rules quote available to support the interruption of actions with reactions beyond specific reactions that specifically state that they do. IE: Shield, Counterspell, Opportunity Attacks. I would also say that I find it odd that these reactions need to specifically call out that they can interrupt actions the way they do while you're assuming all reactions can, even without rules text to support that claim. But let's stick to the first points since it'll answer this one too.

You haven't understood my position. I don't think a readied action can in general interrupt the casting of a "1 action" spell, because if the casting is the trigger, the trigger completes before the reaction takes place. So that won't work. But if you can pull a lever the moment someone steps on a trap door, and movement can happen between attacks, then you can pull a lever if someone steps on a trap door while moving between attacks. Becaus the "trigger" is not necessarily the same thing as "the entire action which contains the trigger".

The reason opportunity attacks need special language is that they are doing something unusual: They are activating before their trigger completes, because if they went off after it completed, they would always fail because the target would be out of range. (Presumably, it works the other way with the opportunity attacks granted by polearm master, or else they'd never be able to hit because the target would be out of range.) But the thing that makes them unusual isn't "reaction happens before enemy's entire 30 foot move is done", but "reaction happens before the 5 foot move which triggered it is done".

 

[Noctem]

Well actually the example of the trap door is fine if it's meant to be an example of a perceivable event (the guy steps on the trap door) and the action you do in response (pull the lever). There's nothing wrong with the examples. The only reason to call it "useful way" is because you want it to work the way you claim it does and you realize that you have to expand to include design intent. Which by the way you have no ground to stand on since you're not a designer of the edition AFAIK. But really it doesn't have to, the examples as explained can work for either interpretation. I just picked the one where I don't have to add meaning or intent to them in order for them to work.

I never said the trigger didn't work, I said the trigger works for either interpretation. See that's another strawman you just put forth and argued against. They do work for either interpretation. You're just expanding their meaning and intent (which again you have nothing to base this on beyond personal bias) to include ongoing movement, the ability to interrupt actions, etc...

I understood your position just fine buddy. You're just stuck on saying you're right. You're not providing any rules source or dev tweet or anything official to support your claim. All you're doing is pointing to example triggers and expanding their meaning to include how to resolve readied actions against OTHER specific actions, which aren't even listed as examples since only movement is. How to resolve readied actions vs multi attack actions is not included. All that's included is 2 examples of readied action triggers against movement and even then they don't say anything about interrupting ongoing movement. A goblin stepping next to someone or someone stepping onto a trap door don't imply ongoing movement. If it said: "as the cultist moves down the hallway and steps on the trap door, you pull the lever to set off the trap" I would agree with you because it implies an ongoing movement. Or if the examples included one which actually did imply interruption of action like, as the warrior raises his weapon to strike you stab him or as the warrior unleashes a flurry of attacks you stab him or as the rays of the warlock's eldritch blast fly off to strike at his target you move away or whatever else. But the examples simply don't say or imply that at all. So really since you're missing anything that says it resolves how you claim, we're really not moving forward any time soon since walls of text won't help you prove your claim.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well actually the example of the trap door is fine if it's meant to be an example of a perceivable event (the guy steps on the trap door) and the action you do in response (pull the lever). There's nothing wrong with the examples. The only reason to call it "useful way" is because you want it to work the way you claim it does and you realize that you have to expand to include design intent. Which by the way you have no ground to stand on since you're not a designer of the edition AFAIK. But really it doesn't have to, the examples as explained can work for either interpretation. I just picked the one where I don't have to add meaning or intent to them in order for them to work.

I never said the trigger didn't work, I said the trigger works for either interpretation. See that's another strawman you just put forth and argued against. They do work for either interpretation. You're just expanding their meaning and intent (which again you have nothing to base this on beyond personal bias) to include ongoing movement, the ability to interrupt actions, etc...

I understood your position just fine buddy. You're just stuck on saying you're right. You're not providing any rules source or dev tweet or anything official to support your claim. All you're doing is pointing to example triggers and expanding their meaning to include how to resolve readied actions against OTHER specific actions, which aren't even listed as examples since only movement is. How to resolve readied actions vs multi attack actions is not included. All that's included is 2 examples of readied action triggers against movement and even then they don't say anything about interrupting ongoing movement. A goblin stepping next to someone or someone stepping onto a trap door don't imply ongoing movement. If it said: "as the cultist moves down the hallway and steps on the trap door, you pull the lever to set off the trap" I would agree with you because it implies an ongoing movement. Or if the examples included one which actually did imply interruption of action like, as the warrior raises his weapon to strike you stab him or as the warrior unleashes a flurry of attacks you stab him or as the rays of the warlock's eldritch blast fly off to strike at his target you move away or whatever else. But the examples simply don't say or imply that at all. So really since you're missing anything that says it resolves how you claim, we're really not moving forward any time soon since walls of text won't help you prove your claim.

Let's take a moment and unpack this. First, for a reminder, the text in question:

First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include "If the cultest steps on the trapdoor, I'll pull the lever that open it," and "If the goblin steps next to me, I move away."

When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes, or ignore the trigger. Remember that you can take only one reaction per round.

So, let's go down the list, and you point out exactly where you have a problem.

1) You decide what the trigger will be. In the examples given, the triggers are, "[when] the cultist steps on the trapdoor," and, "[when] the goblin steps next to me."

2) You decide what action you will take in response to that trigger, or move up to your speed. In the examples given, the responses are, "pull the lever that open [the trapdoor]," and, "move away."

3) When the trigger occurs, you take your reaction right after the trigger finishes, or ignore the trigger.

If you have no problems with the above, then we can discuss what that means, but first some necessary assumptions. I'll list them so you can explicitly point out where you disagree.

a) both example triggers are 100% valid, else why are they presented as example triggers
b) both example reactions are 100% valid, else why are they presented as example reactions
c) rules text generally says exactly what it means if it bothers to say something.

So, with 1-3 and a-c above, we do not have to deduce or read into anything to get to the point that readied actions can interrupt other actions. We do this by noting that both triggers are not actions, but perceivable events that can occur at any point in many kinds of actions. Also, at no point in the rule does it refer to actions and trigger interchangeably. Also, the rule clearly states that, "you take your reaction right after the trigger finishes." Not the action, but the trigger. So if the trigger occurs within a larger action, the reaction still occurs 'right after the trigger finishes." Not the action that contains the trigger, but the trigger. It's right there in cold, clear rules text that doesn't require any additional insight other than reading the rules.

State trigger. State reaction. Take reaction immediately after the trigger occurs.

There's no discussion of having to wait until the action the trigger is part of is finished. If that's your ruling, then you're the one making up things and reading in, because there is NO mention anywhere in the rules. Like anywhere, man. If you're going to stand on 'can't interrupt actions' it's you that needs to find rules for that, not us.

 

[Noctem]

That doesn't answer if the edition considers the trigger resolving as the action which involves the trigger IE: movement, attack action, casting a spell action, etc.. or the specific attack, act of raising a sword, taking a step as part of moving down the hallway and so on. We do know it's after it finishes

Your 1-3 and a-c doesn't show that reactions MUST be able to interrupt actions. You just explained the steps. You failed to give any text that says it can interrupt or provide an example that shows it does from an official source. I would also ask that you read my previous back and forth with seebs since I've already explained this.

Basically you're just reposting what Seebs already posted and as I explained, posting a wall of text doesn't make you right. Especially when you're claim depends on assumptions of design intent.

 

[Noctem]

lol weird post

 

[seebs]

No, you really didn't understand my point, at all so far as I can tell.

Consider the trap door example. If the only way that trigger can actually work if someone walks over the trap door is that after their movement is done, you get to pull the lever even though they moved off the trap door a while back, that trigger is useless. It would be a completely awful example to give, unless it were being given to show you an example of what the system doesn't let you do.

The fact that they coined a new term, "trigger", rather than saying "the action", suggests strongly that the thing is distinct from the action.

Yes, there's no absolutely explicit statement, but then, I don't think this edition has yet bothered to add an explicit statement that once you are dead you can't take actions.

 

[Noctem]

Well we can't speak to what is or isn't a good example because we're not the devs Since we can't agree on what is the correct resolution system for these triggers, we can't say that the examples are good or bad since they work for both interpretations. If it's a question of resolving after the movement ends, the example is fine because the example lists someone as moving onto a trap door, not moving down a hallway or interrupting someone's movement. If we go by your interpretation of intent, it also works because reactions can interrupt other actions. That's the whole problem, we don't know which interpretation is correct. You're just assuming you do.

trigger isn't a new term in dnd, 4e used the same language but with different rules overall. And it doesn't suggest that since we don't know designer intent or how these readied reactions resolve since the rules don't explain it. Also:

 

[Inglorin]

But movement is still not an action, is it?

 

[Ovinomancer]

lol weird post

Ah, so you have zero rebuttal other than a bunch of image macros you don't fully understand. That's okay, actually, most people misuse logical fallacies. I mean, I post a clear breakdown of the rules, don't add anything, and point to what they actually say, and you scream "argument from silence!" and "circular argument!". The shifting the burden isn't a fallacy, either, since I'm merely asking you to show evidence for your claim, not to prove mine. I've shown my work, where's yours?

If, instead, you meant this as a nice diversion to cover your retreat from the field, very well, I accept your surrender.

 

[Noctem]

But movement is still not an action, is it?

True, movement is not actually considered an action by the rules of the game. Page 71 of the basic rules has a list of the available actions in combat. To be clear though, the crux here is that they want reactions to be able to interrupt multiple attacks which are part of the same action. Like the attack action with Extra Attack or Eldritch Blast with multiple attacks.