D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Noctem]

You've repeatedly ignored the fact that, without that assumption, the rules text is completely incoherent. Gricean maxims: They still work.

Um. The text works fine if you just read it as it is written and not imagine intent being that the cultist was going to continue past the trap or the goblin was going to continue moving past and just happened to step next to the character with the ready action. These are things you're adding into the examples to give them your desired context or bias.

But you know, keep saying it no longer works if you want! Which part is specifically incoherent btw?

Also:

 

[Noctem]

Dude, the insulting image macros about arguments you didn't quite understand are not a compelling tactic; they just make you look like you're much more focused on looking cool and trying to hurt people's feelings than on actually thinking about the issue.

Note: For the most part, you get better results if you stick to one of those goals at a time. Also, I think you might want to rethink that second one, it's sorta impractical, but I respect the sincerity of the attempts.

pointing out the problems with your arguments is an effective tactic when I'm faced with brick walls. At least others reading the thread can see your posts for what they are in a simple way. I also don't find them insulting, though perhaps I'm not as emotionally invested in the conversation or maybe it's that you don't like being shown the type of fallacy you're employing? I dunno. You keep saying I don't understand but you make no effort to give real evidence. You stick to rhetoric. And I didn't know posting meme's makes you cool. That's good to know! However, I'm not making ad hominem statements, that's mainly you two. I'm engaging your arguments directly, that's why the meme's don't talk about you and instead focus on your arguments. Stop trying to turn this into a personal attack discussion. It won't work.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My mistake, I thought there was still some confusion as to whether or not a readied attack could be made between the individual rays of an Eldritch Blast.

No, my apologies, I failed to understand that you were linking that answer as a response to that. I don't see how that answer actually addresses the issue. It says that you can't stop the spell being cast, and nothing about a possible readied actions that might occur in between attacks created by the spell being cast. Technically, at the point you're making the attacks, the spell casting part has come and gone.

 

[dmnqwk]

Tbh the biggest assumption is that each beam hits at a different time period, thus creating additional triggers.

If you direct multiple beams at the same foe, why would the foe suffer multiple trigger conditions from the beams? They are hit, suffer the 10' knockback, then when you check to push them back from another beam the conditional trigger is already applied preventing an additional occurrence.

So if you direct all beams at the same place, they all trigger the same 10' pushback, while hitting multiple creatures will create separate pushbacks. The only way to argue against this is to believe either:
a) The spell creates a single conditional trigger, in which case you are ignoring the part where it mentions each creature. or
b) The beams do not hit concurrently, meaning each beam on the same target has the capacity to trigger it's own conditional trigger and cause 10' knockback per beam.

The when clearly ascribes a singular significance to the spell hitting, regardless of how many beams hit the target at the same time.

 

[Ristamar]

No, my apologies, I failed to understand that you were linking that answer as a response to that. I don't see how that answer actually addresses the issue. It says that you can't stop the spell being cast, and nothing about a possible readied actions that might occur in between attacks created by the spell being cast. Technically, at the point you're making the attacks, the spell casting part has come and gone.

Eldritch Blast is not an attack or a series of attacks, it's a spell with an Instantaneous duration, regardless of whether or not the beams fire in rapid succession. Thus, the beams cannot be interrupted by another action outside of Counterspell.

FWIW, I don't think that same logic correlates to extra attacks as part of the attack action.

 

[Noctem]

Tbh the biggest assumption is that each beam hits at a different time period, thus creating additional triggers.

If you direct multiple beams at the same foe, why would the foe suffer multiple trigger conditions from the beams? They are hit, suffer the 10' knockback, then when you check to push them back from another beam the conditional trigger is already applied preventing an additional occurrence.

So if you direct all beams at the same place, they all trigger the same 10' pushback, while hitting multiple creatures will create separate pushbacks. The only way to argue against this is to believe either:
a) The spell creates a single conditional trigger, in which case you are ignoring the part where it mentions each creature. or
b) The beams do not hit concurrently, meaning each beam on the same target has the capacity to trigger it's own conditional trigger and cause 10' knockback per beam.

The when clearly ascribes a singular significance to the spell hitting, regardless of how many beams hit the target at the same time.

You're right that the biggest assumption is that there's a time lapse between the attacks. They've used this invented claim to justify a bunch of other things during the discussion. "Because there's time between attacks, I can cast dispel on an instantaneous spell" is just one example.

Anyway, what you have to remember is that Eldritch Blast lets you make attacks as part of its effect for casting the spell. Because it let's you make attacks, it follows the Making an Attack section of the PHB. Because it follows those 3 steps, you have to make one attack after the other since in order to make an attack you have to do each step in order. So first pick a target, figure out modifiers, then resolve the attack (IE, make the attack roll, roll damage, apply damage, apply other effects, etc..) and only then can you move to the next attack you can make.

Targeting the same person 3 times with one casting of Eldritch Blast has no importance for how each attack is resolved. They all follow the Making an Attack rules and the first step of each attack is to pick a target. The effect of hitting a target with each beam is to push 10 feet. Each attack can hit or miss. The feature says when you hit with the spell you do x. No limit of how many times per casting of the spell you can push I should also note. Each time you hit with the spell you get to push. If you hit 3 times you get to push 3 times. You are not correct about it being a single conditional trigger. There's no such restriction on the feature or spell and I'm sorry but you're also incorrect about how these sort of features work. When a game element says do x when you do y, you get to do x every time you do y unless a restriction is in play. There is no such restriction here.

 

[dmnqwk]

Just to be clear, it doesn't follow the "making an attack" guidelines simply because it is worded to state

"You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam." Nothing within the spell description suggests treating it as separate attacks, merely that you are required to make additional attack rolls. It doesn't even suggest you pick different targets in essence, merely that you can direct the beams towards different ones. So I don't believe anything related to making an attack is relevant here based on that suggestion.

I can understand how you might assume it's multiple attacks, but it is not. It simply requires multiple attack rolls. And this, quite clearly, would fall under the rule "specific beats the generic."

 

[seebs]

Eldritch Blast is not an attack or a series of attacks, it's a spell with an Instantaneous duration, regardless of whether or not the beams fire in rapid succession. Thus, the beams cannot be interrupted by another action outside of Counterspell.

FWIW, I don't think that same logic correlates to extra attacks as part of the attack action.

It's an attack in that you are making attack rolls, and it can be a series of attacks when there's more than one beam. It's not the same as extra attacks, but it's not entirely obvious that it's completely dissimilar in every possible way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I would rule at my table isn't the question being asked here, just like how you would rule at your table isn't. The question is more like what's the official intent for how this resolves. You claim to know intent, but you can't possibly prove that you do based on the posts you've given so far. You're not a dev. Also:

Appeal to authority -- you've substituted making an argument by saying that reading the rules is insufficient for clarity, you must get the clear statement of an authority in order to prevail. You could correct this by pointing out where you think the case for not interrupting actions lies, as I and Seebs have for pointing out the clear words 'immediately after the trigger' for our case, and then still say that you'd like to hear from the devs. That, at least, would result in an argument for your position in addition to seeking further clarification from an authority, which is not an appeal to authority. However, the substitution of only accepting an authority's opinion without making your own counterargument is a fallacy.

All I'm asking is that you support your assertion that you cannot interrupt actions. If this is as easy as you claim, then we'd be shut up already. However, the truth is that you've made an assumption that isn't supported in any way.

No it doesn't.

Sigh. Well done, you've shown that you can only say 'nuh-uh.' My six year old daughter does arguing better than you.

No we're not since it's been claimed in this very thread multiple times that a readied dispel could interrupt Eldritch Blast, an instantaneous spell. This is only one claim that's been made which the linked sage advice affects.

You're conflating. I've already said that I don't think that's how the rules work, even if I would allow such a weird thing to happen at my table if it ever came up because I wouldn't punish such a horribly bad use of resources just to make a rule argument. Again, I agree that you cannot dispel an eldritch blast in between attacks.

My sole current contention is that readied actions can clearly interrupt other actions (ie, they don't have to wait until the full action is completed, just their trigger). You said clearly before that this was impossible (specifically to the example situation I posted above). The rules read clearly otherwise. You've yet to point to anything that supports your position.

lol ok. You realize that the rules quote also includes the last phrase which specifically explains that if your movement for the turn is reduced to 15 feet and you take the dash action, your movement increases to 30 feet the same turn right? But anyway, agree to disagree I guess?

Yes, a total of 30 when you take the dash action. I struggle with your ability to read rules as ambiguous in cases that don't support you, but rock solid in cases where there's actually some ambiguity. Whatever, as I said, this isn't integral to my point so I don't care either way.

And to be clear, you can move in between WEAPON ATTACKS because the rules of the game specifically call out that you can. Readied actions do not specify this, you're just making an assumption without evidence to support it.

Yes, but nothing in there contradicts the ability to perform your reaction as part of a readied action immediately after the trigger occurs. Nor are triggers defined as anything other than a "perceivable circumstance." If they intended action, then that's a great place to say so, yes? Instead, they say "perceivable circumstance" and then go on to give examples that are not actions, but could occur within actions. There's no place the rules say you cannot interrupt an action. In fact, under reactions, it says that if a "reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction." In that same paragraph, it describes reactions as, "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's." Nothing about actions, it's all about triggers. Triggers don't say anything about actions, the reference 'perceivable circumstance." There is no place that says that actions cannot be interrupted.

Even looking at other reactions, which have the same limitations of reacting immediately to a trigger, it's clear they interrupt actions. Counterspell is a reaction that triggers on spellcasting that has additional specific language that allows it to do the one thing most reactions can't -- preempt it's own trigger. With the exception of that additional specific language, it otherwise functions as all other reactions do. Same with AOs, which can clearly occur inside other actions, such as movement between attacks. It also has specific wording that allows it to preempt it's own trigger, but otherwise it has to wait for it's trigger and then the reaction occurs. Both still follow the pattern established as 'set a trigger, set an action, if the trigger occurs, then action' with the added words of 'and this reaction can retroactively preempt it's trigger.' Hellish rebuke is a reaction that doesn't preempt it's trigger, and it follows the same path. But, with all of that, you're insisting that readied action, despite no words that say otherwise, breaks this pattern and cannot interrupt the one word missing in every discussion of triggers and reactions: actions.

At this point, the burden is really on you to explain where and what you base this one. Refusal to do so, especially when complaining that someone needs to ask the mods, is tacit acknowledgement that you're avoiding the question because you have no answer. It's long past time to put up or shut up.

 

[Ristamar]

It's an attack in that you are making attack rolls, and it can be a series of attacks when there's more than one beam. It's not the same as extra attacks, but it's not entirely obvious that it's completely dissimilar in every possible way.

I agree that it is ambiguous, but if Mearls is correct (which may not be the case), the fact that the spell uses separate ranged spell attack rolls is irrelevant.