D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[spectacle]

I believe this statement to be true but also irrelevant to the discussion of reactions. I will add it to the general consensus portion.

It's not entirely irrelevant, since it does suggest that the rules can deal with external circumstances changing the target situation between Eldritch Blast attacks. So nothing will break if you allow someone to ready an action to run away if the warlock launches an eldritch blast, and then move behind cover after the first blast so that they can't be targeted by any further blasts

 

[ryan92084]

It's not entirely irrelevant, since it does suggest that the rules can deal with external circumstances changing the target situation between Eldritch Blast attacks. So nothing will break if you allow someone to ready an action to run away if the warlock launches an eldritch blast, and then move behind cover after the first blast so that they can't be targeted by any further blasts

Yep, nothing breaks with regards to targeting if allowed. I just meant irrelevant as far it being a viable RAW/RAI trigger for readying an action.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So its largely agreed ( I think arial is the lone dissenter) that

1. the attacks are sequential
2. each ray can push (including out of range of the subsequent rays)
3. dispell magic can't target spell itself just the effects of the spell
4. the original question has been answered

The only avenue of discussion left seems to be whether you can ready an action for between the rays or not. While I don't think there is a RAW answer (as trigger is defined mainly by examples) the twitter RAI is yet to be firmly established therefore its still worth a bit of discussion.

Personally I wouldn't allow a reaction to individual rays mainly because that isn't how mage slayer functions. If a feat largely based around a character trained to take advantage of a caster's distraction can't get a reaction between rays I wouldn't allow any one else too either. As a secondary point the rule book is silent on rules about the caster being attacked/pushed out of sight mid spell resolve which I take to mean that it isn't an intended possibility. Readying an action to a spell for me means after the effects not before or between (outside of actions that specifically call out other timing).

Obviously this is just my personal ruling and other DMs are free under the current RAW to go a different route without even having to invoke rule 0.

Thank you! A coherent argument that doesn't rely on the misreading of immediately. I agree with all of your points (with a waffle on 2), and have previously stated that there is ambiguity as to whether or not an individual beam is a valid trigger. However, if it is a valid trigger, than it's pretty clear RAW that you would be able to go between the blasts.

The waffle on 2 is that I could see limiting the push to once per target. Such that the first beam to hit pushes a target, but any subsequent beams that hit that target in the same casting would not. I don't think I'll rule that way, but I can see that ruling.

 

[Noctem]

Thank you! A coherent argument that doesn't rely on the misreading of immediately. I agree with all of your points (with a waffle on 2), and have previously stated that there is ambiguity as to whether or not an individual beam is a valid trigger. However, if it is a valid trigger, than it's pretty clear RAW that you would be able to go between the blasts.

The waffle on 2 is that I could see limiting the push to once per target. Such that the first beam to hit pushes a target, but any subsequent beams that hit that target in the same casting would not. I don't think I'll rule that way, but I can see that ruling.

agree to disagree.

 

[Ovinomancer]

agree to disagree.

That it's a coherent argument? That it doesn't rely on misreading immediately? That I don't agree with his points? That EB blasts aren't a valid trigger? That, if so, you can react to it immediately? That EB might push with every blast, but only once per target?

If you're going to respond to my discussion with another poster, at least be clear.

 

[Noctem]

You already know what I disagree on. Your post specifically called it out on purpose, but you know that. Although you were quoting someone else, you purposefully stated something we previously discussed. Just look up-thread if you really can't remember.

 

[Arial Black]

My last post was a detailed refutation of why the three steps of Making an Attack do not mean that multiple attacks must be sequential, and hoped to find some engagement (for or against).

Instead, Noctem immediately (I use that word advisedly, given his refusal to acknowledge what that word means!) pushes his completely pointless efforts to have me join Twitter to post his question. Although I expect that sort of thing from him, and I appreciate the rest of you pointing out the shortcomings of that, the trouble is that the next 5 pages or so are about that or about the correct use of fallacies...but not about the case in point.

So its largely agreed ( I think arial is the lone dissenter) that
*the attacks are sequential

I do disagree, but simply typing "no no no!" won't help, I'm willing to explore the consequences of them being sequential, in the hopes of demonstrating either that they cannot be, or that if they are they must happen so close together that the warlock cannot wait to see the result of one before the rest have already been shot.

*each ray can push (including out of range of the subsequent rays)

The Repelling Blast certainly does not say that the target gets pushed by 10 feet for each beam that hits, only that it gets pushed 10 feet if it gets hit by eldritch blast, and four beams from the same casting is still only one eldritch blast.

Further, my recollection of JC's post on the matter (which I only saw because it was reproduced on a forum) was that a beam can push the target out of range of future beams. Trouble is, because all the beams from a single eldritch blast are simultaneous, then 'future beams' or 'subsequent beams' (I can't remember which phrase was used) must be from later castings of the spell, not from other beams of the same casting.

Saying that "it must be beams from the same casting, because the beams are sequential" is begging the question; assuming that your interpretation is correct and then using that as proof that your interpretation is correct. JC's tweet did not provide an answer to that question!

*dispell magic can't target spell itself just the effects of the spell

The effect of eldritch blast is that beams of crackling energy streak toward your targets. This is 'instantaneous'; it has no practical duration, which is why it cannot be dispelled.

However, if we take the idea that 'instantaneous' spells last long enough for the warlock to shoot, look, decide, target, shoot, look, decide, target, shoot, look, decide, target, shoot, then we must accept that, while the warlock is doing that, then:-

a.) the spell effect (the crackling beams of energy) are in existence for that period of time (the ones that haven't been shot yet)

AND

b.) an opponent must have time to cast a readied dispel at the spell effect (the beams)

Therefore, if 'instantaneous' spells last long enough for the warlock to see the result of each beam before deciding the target of the next, then the subsequent beams can be dispelled with a readied dispel.

Remember that four beams is not the spell being cast four times; they are still the effect of a single casting of the spell.

*the original question has been answered

...but the answer did not stand up to scrutiny.

BTW, it may be that the beams are sequential, but go off too rapidly to respond to individual beams, like a single squeeze of a machine gun trigger firing four bullets. The consequences of that include:-

* a readied action with 'beam 1' as the trigger could only occur after all beams have hit and no longer exist, making it impossible to dispel
* the warlock could not wait to see the result of 'beam 1', because if he did then the other beams have already been and gone.

It is impossible for the warlock to have the time to see the result of each beam before deciding who to target next without also giving the enemy the chance to use a readied dispel on the remaining beams.

Now, I'm totally okay with people posting contrary opinions with evidence or logic to back up their position; this is a debate, after all.

What would not be helpful is a childish urging to "Tweet him then!", as this doesn't offer anything to the debate. Nor would pointless quibbling about fallacy definitions.

 

[ryan92084]

...snip

I apologize if my post in anyway made you feel called out or that I wished to engage in the debate of those points with you. It wasn't meant to and I don't.

 

[Noctem]

I apologize if my post in anyway made you feel called out or that I wished to engage in the debate of those points with you. It wasn't meant to and I don't.

Agreed. I don't feel there's any point in trying to continue the debate with Arial Black either. He's the lone dissenter like you mentioned earlier and imo (and I'm saying this as my own statement and not one we necessarily share) he's stuck in an echo chamber and is totally incapable of accepting evidence that he's wrong. He will twist and dismiss anything that might do so, even dev tweets as he's proven up thread. I am however interested in the tweet Seebs sent out since that's actually still open to debate imo.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My last post was a detailed refutation of why the three steps of Making an Attack do not mean that multiple attacks must be sequential, and hoped to find some engagement (for or against).

Granted, and it's a good argument, but if I answer this for myself, the reason I didn't engage it is because I've already accepted Crawford's statement that they are sequential. I've further accepted that the way you make an attack is the '1) choose targets, 2) determine modifiers, 3) resolve the attack' methodology in the book. If methodology is correct, and we do the attacks sequentially as Crawford said, then the result is that you choose your first target, determine the modifiers, resolve that attack (and all associated outcomes), and then you choose your second target (can be the same as the first), determine modifiers,... as so on.

I didn't engage in your reasoning because I've already stated how I think it works. I grant that you have a solid argument, if you ignore Crawford, which is, again, 100% perfectly fine to do. His statements are guidance, not rules.

-snipping bits covered under the above for brevity-

The Repelling Blast certainly does not say that the target gets pushed by 10 feet for each beam that hits, only that it gets pushed 10 feet if it gets hit by eldritch blast, and four beams from the same casting is still only one eldritch blast.

Further, my recollection of JC's post on the matter (which I only saw because it was reproduced on a forum) was that a beam can push the target out of range of future beams. Trouble is, because all the beams from a single eldritch blast are simultaneous, then 'future beams' or 'subsequent beams' (I can't remember which phrase was used) must be from later castings of the spell, not from other beams of the same casting.

Saying that "it must be beams from the same casting, because the beams are sequential" is begging the question; assuming that your interpretation is correct and then using that as proof that your interpretation is correct. JC's tweet did not provide an answer to that question!

Yeah, I see that point about the 'per casting' instead of 'per beam' pushback. I'm not sure I'll rule that way, and I'm leaning towards per beam -- not for any particular reason other than that's how my players will likely read it and going the other way opens up a possible argument for little gain. There's little downside in my group to rule it as 'per beam'. But I see that argument clearly, and I will address the latter points as if it is 'per casting' and not 'per beam'.

So, IF we go with 'pushback only once per casting' AND with Crawford's statement that the attacks are subsequent, then Crawford's statement about being pushed out of range make perfect sense. The first beam to hit a target pushes it back 10' during step 3) of the make an attack process (resolve the attack). If that pushes them out of range of the spell, then no subsequent beams can be targeted at that target during that same casting. It doesn't require that there be a second casting, or that the beams be simultaneous for that interpretation to work. Aside: I added Crawford's subsequent ruling because it's logical to assume that Crawford agrees with Crawford on all related rulings, so you can't analyze the situation with one Crawford ruling and not the other.

The effect of eldritch blast is that beams of crackling energy streak toward your targets. This is 'instantaneous'; it has no practical duration, which is why it cannot be dispelled.

You could argue that the actual effect of eldritch blast is Xd10 damage, where X is the number of beams that hit. The description of that effect is 'beams of crackling energy.' I think that's a fairer interpretation, because the spell's intent isn't to create beams of crackling energy, but rather to use beams of crackling energy to hurt things. The end result, and therefor effect, is to hurt things. The beams are a descriptive middleman.

However, if we take the idea that 'instantaneous' spells last long enough for the warlock to shoot, look, decide, target, shoot, look, decide, target, shoot, look, decide, target, shoot, then we must accept that, while the warlock is doing that, then:-

a.) the spell effect (the crackling beams of energy) are in existence for that period of time (the ones that haven't been shot yet)

AND

b.) an opponent must have time to cast a readied dispel at the spell effect (the beams)

Therefore, if 'instantaneous' spells last long enough for the warlock to see the result of each beam before deciding the target of the next, then the subsequent beams can be dispelled with a readied dispel.

I think this argument, while I can't fault the logic, is mooted by noting that you can't target a spell with dispel magic, only the ongoing effects of the spell. As noted above, it's valid to not consider the beams the effects of the spell, just the descriptive means to the effects. Regardless, there's enough slop that the premises of your argument aren't universal, and others can be logically used that come to a different conclusion.

Remember that four beams is not the spell being cast four times; they are still the effect of a single casting of the spell.

...but the answer did not stand up to scrutiny.

I disagree here. It's perfectly valid as a ruling, and works logically enough depending on what you demand of it. There hasn't been a case presented that slam-dunk says that's it's impossible. I wouldn't have gotten there on my own, but seeing it I can recognize how it works, and that's well enough.

BTW, it may be that the beams are sequential, but go off too rapidly to respond to individual beams, like a single squeeze of a machine gun trigger firing four bullets. The consequences of that include:-

* a readied action with 'beam 1' as the trigger could only occur after all beams have hit and no longer exist, making it impossible to dispel
* the warlock could not wait to see the result of 'beam 1', because if he did then the other beams have already been and gone.

It is impossible for the warlock to have the time to see the result of each beam before deciding who to target next without also giving the enemy the chance to use a readied dispel on the remaining beams.

Now, I'm totally okay with people posting contrary opinions with evidence or logic to back up their position; this is a debate, after all.

What would not be helpful is a childish urging to "Tweet him then!", as this doesn't offer anything to the debate. Nor would pointless quibbling about fallacy definitions.

I agree that if the beams are sequential, and follow the processes, then they also exist as available triggers like any other attack would. I can see someone disagreeing and choosing to not allow those as triggers, but I think they are and have presented my case.

I further agree that arguments to 'tweet him' don't really offer anything to the debate. If someone chose to and provided the result, that would be offering something, but insisting others do it and refusing to debate until they do so is childish. You don't have to argue (that's not the childish part), but you shouldn't insist others follow your demanded course of action (go tweet).