Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
If your going to unflatteringly paraphrase, you should provide a quote.
D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast
- Thread starter Otterscrubber
- Start date
Which is why it is the least important of my reasons. I am aware of what mage slayer is doing mechanically. They react to a spell being cast and hit after the trigger the same as the general reaction rules.
I should have phrased it as mid cast a spell action I suppose but for me it doesn't matter. If you feel the need to break spell casting down into parts (which this edition doesn't really support) then it could be argued that reacting to a ray is later than reacting to "casts a spell" as a mage slayer does so getting the attack in first would be odd. Also I just wouldn't think it fair to the mage slayer pc.
I find the cost/reward for both to be similar. Permanent cost for permanent possible reaction which you may have competing uses for versus a temporary cost for a temporary reaction that you likely wouldn't have had another use for.
As always this is just how I personally have decided to run it given the current RaW and my justifications for it. I am not trying to convince anyone one way or the other and I find both rulings completely reasonable.
There is no way in which it's unfair to a mage slayer to let a readied action react sooner than the feat lets them react, because they can always use a readied action if they want to.
And I think you're missing the point on readied actions. They don't just cost you your reaction, they also cost the previous turn's action; you're waiting to maybe do something at a particular moment instead of definitely doing something. If no trigger shows up, you have lost your action. So they're a much higher cost than merely using a reaction granted by a feat.
You do have an interesting point about breaking the spellcasting down, but readied actions clearly do allow you to break things into parts that otherwise wouldn't have parts; you can react to part of someone's move, even if it's between two of their attacks. And if they didn't, readied actions would nearly always be a completely bad idea, because of the very high cost of sacrificing your turn for a chance to maybe take an action.
And I think you're missing the point on readied actions. They don't just cost you your reaction, they also cost the previous turn's action; you're waiting to maybe do something at a particular moment instead of definitely doing something. If no trigger shows up, you have lost your action. So they're a much higher cost than merely using a reaction granted by a feat.
You do have an interesting point about breaking the spellcasting down, but readied actions clearly do allow you to break things into parts that otherwise wouldn't have parts; you can react to part of someone's move, even if it's between two of their attacks. And if they didn't, readied actions would nearly always be a completely bad idea, because of the very high cost of sacrificing your turn for a chance to maybe take an action.
Both cost a reaction so i was always comparing the cost of a feat to an action.
Maybe PCs in your experience just don't use readied actions the same way they do in mine? If there is just about anything else to use their action on they'll do that rather than take a readied so there isn't a huge cost involved. Waiting behind a door/corner or for politics to go south etc.
Maybe PCs in your experience just don't use readied actions the same way they do in mine? If there is just about anything else to use their action on they'll do that rather than take a readied so there isn't a huge cost involved. Waiting behind a door/corner or for politics to go south etc.
I acknowledge your style suggestion and reject it.
I kind of feel like we've already been through this, but now it's so formal I almost think you'd quote it the next time you critique me for not skimming through this enormous thread for an inconsequential direct quote.
I thought we were waiting on developer tweets before we were sure of that.
I guess I'm not part of this "we"? I'm fine with that. To make rules for breaking the casting of spells down into discreet steps when none, but a bit of fluff, currently exist would have to be quite a tweet. I don't think there is a lot of incentive/necessity for them in 5e but others disagree.
Noctem
Explorer
@Zorku
seebs said he sent a tweet up-thread but I guess he/she hasn't received a response yet. And to clarify, seebs is also misrepresenting what I said in the last 20 pages or so in regards to the quote on the previous page, post #490. He's taking a small bit of text only out of hundreds of lines of text and creating a strawman... again... I'll say that if anyone wants to actually know and understand what I've stated in this thread, that they just take the time go through it. At this point making strawmen, like seebs is doing, isn't going to move the discussion forward.
seebs said he sent a tweet up-thread but I guess he/she hasn't received a response yet. And to clarify, seebs is also misrepresenting what I said in the last 20 pages or so in regards to the quote on the previous page, post #490. He's taking a small bit of text only out of hundreds of lines of text and creating a strawman... again... I'll say that if anyone wants to actually know and understand what I've stated in this thread, that they just take the time go through it. At this point making strawmen, like seebs is doing, isn't going to move the discussion forward.
Last edited:
Why would it require a bunch of new rules? You can either do it or you can't. Reactions happen after their trigger. There wouldn't even be many edge cases if we were told told that you can do this.
In line with my earlier comments about calling fallacy: I think you should actually elaborate a bit on the differences between the strawman argument and what points you actually had.
Plus it should be clear that I'm not a fan of re-reading ten or twenty pages of a thread just to reply to one post. If you've got a well thought out position it can definitely be described in a non-strawman way in less space than that.
Last edited:
Noctem
Explorer
Well to be fair Zorku, if you're not a fan of re-reading 10 or twenty pages of a thread then I can honestly say that I'm not a fan of going back and re-reading my dozens of previous posts in order to respond to someone creating a strawman 51 pages in with only a snippet of text out of hundreds of lines. I've stated, explained, re-explained and re-re-explained (at the very least) my thoughts on this discussion. Until we get a response from the devs nothing will change.
You might want to look at what you quoted when I replied to you, again. It was about spellcasting having not having discreet time step rules in 5e. Adding them would require more than a yes/no tweet.
I assume you meant to be talking about getting a tweet response to the question of if the rays are a valid trigger? If so I doubt you'll get a RaW tweet saying individual rays are a valid trigger beyond the standard rule 0 up to your DM since that is the only real applicable rule. A RaI response is more plausible and RaF most likely imo.
Similar Threads
