D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Arial Black]

And yet, we've been explicitly told that it does in fact have enough duration that the warlock can choose targets after seeing the effects of previous blasts.

So there we have it. It isn't that fast. It's been answered. "Instantaneous" does not mean what you think it means, according to Crawford.

Which means that Crawford disagrees with Crawford!

Specifically, he wrote the rule that 'instantaneous' spells "can't be dispelled because the magic exists only for an instant", and now he Tweets (or seems to) that 'instantaneous' does last long enough that it can be dispelled by a readied action!

Of course, this may be mere confusion that arises from only being allowed 140 characters with which to frame an argument...!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Which means that Crawford disagrees with Crawford!

Specifically, he wrote the rule that 'instantaneous' spells "can't be dispelled because the magic exists only for an instant", and now he Tweets (or seems to) that 'instantaneous' does last long enough that it can be dispelled by a readied action!

Of course, this may be mere confusion that arises from only being allowed 140 characters with which to frame an argument...!

Well, again, dispel magic can't target spells, but only the effects of spells. Even if a spell took a full round to cast, it could not be dispelled. If you want to interrupt the spell, you counter it or kill/incapacitate the caster. So instantaneous spells can't be dispelled because their effects are not magical -- the magic has come and gone. That there's a strange rules loophole wherein the spell lasts long enough for something else to happen doesn't mean it now can be dispelled because it's effects are similarly lasting. The effect of EB is damage and maybe a push. That can't be dispelled.

 

[Noctem]

Which means that Crawford disagrees with Crawford!

Specifically, he wrote the rule that 'instantaneous' spells "can't be dispelled because the magic exists only for an instant", and now he Tweets (or seems to) that 'instantaneous' does last long enough that it can be dispelled by a readied action!

Of course, this may be mere confusion that arises from only being allowed 140 characters with which to frame an argument...!

the wole "or seems to" is where your disconnect is happening. You're inferring meaning into his tweet response because if you don't your main claim falls apart. In other words, it's circular reasoning. And I'm glad I'm not the only one who is catching you doing it now.

 

[seebs]

Which means that Crawford disagrees with Crawford!

No, it doesn't.

Specifically, he wrote the rule that 'instantaneous' spells "can't be dispelled because the magic exists only for an instant", and now he Tweets (or seems to) that 'instantaneous' does last long enough that it can be dispelled by a readied action!

No. He's been silent on the "interrupt the spell's resolution" question, thus far. He's merely stated that the caster can choose targets sequentially after seeing results from previous hits. There's nothing suggesting that D&D's rules are intended to enforce the kind of parity-of-time you're assuming here.

Ultimately, he's not contradicting himself, he's describing a rule system which, it appears, does not have a completely consistent model of how much time events take. But that's nothing new at all; we've always known than D&D does not even remotely attempt to offer a consistent model of time. So that's not a contradiction, it's just a limitation of the game engine.

Of course, this may be mere confusion that arises from only being allowed 140 characters with which to frame an argument...!

That too!

 

[Noctem]

When Jeremy Crawford decides to address a question on twitter in 140 characters, it's not an argument (as Arial Black would like to make people believe): it's the answer to your question. There is no debate to be had, he's the lead designer who has been designated to answer rules questions by WOTC. Arial Black is the only person I've ever heard claim that JC has made mistakes in his answers, has contradicted himself and so on. I would ask that no one buy into that line of thinking, Arial Black has used it in an effort to discredit and dismiss official responses. Let's stick to what is actually stated by JC for the purposes of this discussion and others. Seebs has it right.

 

[Umbran]

I would ask that no one buy into that line of thinking, Arial Black has used it in an effort to discredit and dismiss official responses.

Folks can make up their own minds about what reasoning they prefer. Please don't engage in trying to discredit or get others to dismiss a user.

 

[Noctem]

Moderator Note:
By The Rules - do not discuss moderation in-thread. Please take it to e-mail or PM if you have a question or comment. Thanks.
~Umbran

 

[Arial Black]

Well, again, dispel magic can't target spells, but only the effects of spells. Even if a spell took a full round to cast, it could not be dispelled. If you want to interrupt the spell, you counter it or kill/incapacitate the caster. So instantaneous spells can't be dispelled because their effects are not magical -- the magic has come and gone.

If, and I say 'if', the spell allows a warlock to throw several beams of force over the course of his turn, then that is the magical effect that can be dispelled; just like you can dispel the druid's spell-granted ability to keep on calling bolts of lightning from (you guessed it!) call lightning.

The effect of EB is damage and maybe a push.

That is not true. The 'effect' of eldritch blast is not 'the targets lose 1d10 hit points'. The effect is 'damaging beams of force shoot from you toward targets'.

If those beams, all of them, only exist for an instant, then they cannot be dispelled because they have come and gone before any readied action can affect them. But if the spell grants the ability to shoot beams of force for a non-instantaneous duration, then that spell-granted ability can be dispelled.

 

[Arial Black]

No. He's been silent on the "interrupt the spell's resolution" question, thus far.

Not true. He wrote the rules on how Readied actions work. According to those rules, the trigger can be any observable event. If the warlock can observe one beam before choosing what to do next, so can other observers, including an observer with a readied dispel.

He's merely stated that the caster can choose targets sequentially after seeing results from previous hits. There's nothing suggesting that D&D's rules are intended to enforce the kind of parity-of-time you're assuming here.

Wait, you're suggesting that the rules really are that actual time passes differently for the caster of a spell and everyone else? Which page is that on?

Ultimately, he's not contradicting himself, he's describing a rule system which, it appears, does not have a completely consistent model of how much time events take. But that's nothing new at all; we've always known than D&D does not even remotely attempt to offer a consistent model of time. So that's not a contradiction, it's just a limitation of the game engine.

He, or the rules he wrote, might not tell us how long each action takes, but there is no reason to believe that a particular beam lasts a different period of time for each observer. To imagine that the caster has enough time to see what the results of the first beam are, then make a decision based on that observation about who to target next, while at the same time other people present for this event do not have the time to observe the exact same beam and make the decision to pull their trigger on their readied dispel, implies that time itself is moving at different speeds for each combatant.

An interesting physics puzzle, but as a game mechanic I want to see that written in the PHB before I believe the game rules work that way!

 

[Celtavian]

I think Arial right. If an attack allows you to check to see the result of your attack, then the magic that initiates the attack can be dispelled. Otherwise you get into all kinds of ridiculous ideas about time.