D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Well, to be fair, I also didn't invite you to skim through and bring things back up. If you choose to do so, I think it's worthwhile to ask that you be a tad be more specific that 'I recollect', especially when assigning motives to people.

Now, if I asked you out of the blue, instead of in response to you paraphrasing my inputs, you'd have a defensible point. As it is your standing on being vague and handwavey, which is definitely your right, but doesn't lend any credence to your declarations that it's been settled. Also, a pattern with you, where you make a vague statement and then refuse to provide any clarification to it, instead preferring to insist that you were correct. Which is a bit ironic, given that you're calling noctem out on the same thing with his strawmen.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@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.

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.

It was you that just said that seebs misrepresented you. It's on you to show that, not insist that others go through the thread again, find the specific thing you're talking about (we don't even know what point of yours you think seebs is misrepresenting), and then guess why you think it's a misrepresentation. A question asking you to clarify is eminently reasonable.

 

[seebs]

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.

I am very confused by this description. If there's anything else to do, and they use their action, they can't use a readied action. If they want to use a readied action, that means giving up their action on their turn. That makes readied actions a pretty high cost, because they effectively cost you your turn, and may not even result in doing anything.

It sounds like you're saying that they rarely take readied actions, which means the total cost to them of readied actions is small because there's so few of them. I'd interpret that as meaning that needing to use a readied action to attain a result makes the cost too high for most people to do it

 

[Noctem]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

Listen, we're 52 pages in and deadlocked until we get a dev response. I'm not going to waste my time explaining how someone is misrepresenting something I said 30 pages earlier just because they decided to create a strawman about it now weeks / months later. If people really care that much, the thread is right here, they can read it and come to their own conclusion. What I am going to do though is point out that it's a misrepresentation because it is. You should realize that this horse has been dead for a while. Why not wait like everyone else until we get dev input?

 

[seebs]

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.

We already have the dev confirmation that you can see the results of the first beam before targeting the second, that did break the casting of spells into discreet steps. Actually, we have another much clearer example: Read the rules for readied actions, specifically readied spells. If you ready a spell, you are actually fully casting the spell, then you have cast the spell, then you use your reaction to let it go.

Which actually, now that I think about it, is probably the best case to use for the "can you dispel instantaneous magic while it is in-process" question:

If I ready a fireball for "if Jim moves", and your turn comes between mine and Jim's, and you cast dispel magic on me, what happens? We already have unambiguous rules in the text saying that (1) I have already used my spell slot, (2) I must maintain concentration on my spell or lose its effect. So if you attacked me, and I failed the concentration save, I'd lose the fireball. But what about dispel magic? The "magic exists only for an instant" claim clearly doesn't apply; I'm holding the spell and concentrating on it. It has already been cast.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]

Listen, we're 52 pages in and deadlocked until we get a dev response. I'm not going to waste my time explaining how someone is misrepresenting something I said 30 pages earlier just because they decided to create a strawman about it now weeks / months later. If people really care that much, the thread is right here, they can read it and come to their own conclusion. What I am going to do though is point out that it's a misrepresentation because it is. You should realize that this horse has been dead for a while. Why not wait like everyone else until we get dev input?

Sorry, doesn't fly. You accused another poster of falsely representing you without specifics. The devs or waiting for an answer have nothing at all to do with that accusation. You continue to maintain that seebs has misrepresented you by stating so again, and again without any indication of what you think seebs has misrepresented. So long as you refuse to clarify or withdraw the accusation, all you're doing is maligning another poster with unfounded accusations of dishonesty.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We already have the dev confirmation that you can see the results of the first beam before targeting the second, that did break the casting of spells into discreet steps. Actually, we have another much clearer example: Read the rules for readied actions, specifically readied spells. If you ready a spell, you are actually fully casting the spell, then you have cast the spell, then you use your reaction to let it go.

Which actually, now that I think about it, is probably the best case to use for the "can you dispel instantaneous magic while it is in-process" question:

If I ready a fireball for "if Jim moves", and your turn comes between mine and Jim's, and you cast dispel magic on me, what happens? We already have unambiguous rules in the text saying that (1) I have already used my spell slot, (2) I must maintain concentration on my spell or lose its effect. So if you attacked me, and I failed the concentration save, I'd lose the fireball. But what about dispel magic? The "magic exists only for an instant" claim clearly doesn't apply; I'm holding the spell and concentrating on it. It has already been cast.

Huh. That's a good point.

 

[Noctem]

Sorry, doesn't fly. You accused another poster of falsely representing you without specifics. The devs or waiting for an answer have nothing at all to do with that accusation. You continue to maintain that seebs has misrepresented you by stating so again, and again without any indication of what you think seebs has misrepresented. So long as you refuse to clarify or withdraw the accusation, all you're doing is maligning another poster with unfounded accusations of dishonesty.

The specifics are listed in this thread, available to anyone who wants to read them. Taking a snippet of someone's post out of context weeks after it's posted to then make a bunch of claims about what they are saying as a whole, alone, should make it obvious here. But that's ok, I've said it's a misrepresentation and that's all there is to it, I don't care if you don't like my response to his strawman.

 

[Noctem]

We already have the dev confirmation that you can see the results of the first beam before targeting the second, that did break the casting of spells into discreet steps. Actually, we have another much clearer example: Read the rules for readied actions, specifically readied spells. If you ready a spell, you are actually fully casting the spell, then you have cast the spell, then you use your reaction to let it go.

Which actually, now that I think about it, is probably the best case to use for the "can you dispel instantaneous magic while it is in-process" question:

If I ready a fireball for "if Jim moves", and your turn comes between mine and Jim's, and you cast dispel magic on me, what happens? We already have unambiguous rules in the text saying that (1) I have already used my spell slot, (2) I must maintain concentration on my spell or lose its effect. So if you attacked me, and I failed the concentration save, I'd lose the fireball. But what about dispel magic? The "magic exists only for an instant" claim clearly doesn't apply; I'm holding the spell and concentrating on it. It has already been cast.

Great question, post on twitter and see if you get a response about the RAI

For my part and the RAW, the spell is still an instantaneous spell regardless of being held or not. Readying a spell does not change any of its effects, features or stat block unless specifically stated. Remember this is a specific beats general rules system. The general rule is: Instantaneous spells can't be dispelled. We need a specific rule, somewhere, which states that the general rules are not followed. The rules for readying spells make no distinction between a readied instantaneous spell and a non-readied instantaneous spell when it comes to Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic itself does not specifically state that it can affect a spell which is readied. The rules text for the instantaneous duration itself doesn't say that it can be affected by dispel magic when readied either. So basically, nothing changes just because you ready the spell. You don't have a single line of text which hints or states that dispel magic can affect a readied instantaneous spell.

So bottom line: No, dispel magic can't affect a readied instantaneous spell. DMs can houserule on this of course.

PS: You people are obsessed with dispel magic. It's like every couple of pages there's another post about this spell and some weirdo interaction you seem to hope works. What is it with this spell that makes you guys so obsessed with it? lol

 

[ryan92084]

I am very confused by this description. If there's anything else to do, and they use their action, they can't use a readied action. If they want to use a readied action, that means giving up their action on their turn. That makes readied actions a pretty high cost, because they effectively cost you your turn, and may not even result in doing anything.

It sounds like you're saying that they rarely take readied actions, which means the total cost to them of readied actions is small because there's so few of them. I'd interpret that as meaning that needing to use a readied action to attain a result makes the cost too high for most people to do it

Neither but the second is closest, the cost is relatively small because the only time readied a readied action is used/desirable (to the people I play with) is when there isn't something better to do with their action. I aplologize for not wording it clearly enough. Example: The enemy out of range you'd generally want to take the ready action and set your trigger for when they enter range. Therefore the cost was small (as your action was wasted anyway) and you gain an attack you wouldn't otherwise get.


If you can attack and aren't trying to interrupt a spell (since that is left solely to counterspell) why would you ever take the ready action to attack mid beams thereby spending your action and possible reaction to often get less out of it while letting the enemy get more?

We already have the dev confirmation that you can see the results of the first beam before targeting the second, that did break the casting of spells into discreet steps. Actually, we have another much clearer example: Read the rules for readied actions, specifically readied spells. If you ready a spell, you are actually fully casting the spell, then you have cast the spell, then you use your reaction to let it go.

Which actually, now that I think about it, is probably the best case to use for the "can you dispel instantaneous magic while it is in-process" question:

If I ready a fireball for "if Jim moves", and your turn comes between mine and Jim's, and you cast dispel magic on me, what happens? We already have unambiguous rules in the text saying that (1) I have already used my spell slot, (2) I must maintain concentration on my spell or lose its effect. So if you attacked me, and I failed the concentration save, I'd lose the fireball. But what about dispel magic? The "magic exists only for an instant" claim clearly doesn't apply; I'm holding the spell and concentrating on it. It has already been cast.

I've been with this thread since the beginning and mage slayer discussions in the past (before the timing was clarified) so this isn't newly trod ground for me. Furthermore you're going off the point I was attempting to make. I will attempt to elaborate. Your statement was

But to be clear, I don't think attacking between rays is "attacking mid spell cast". The spell has-been-cast at that point, you're in the resolution phase.

and those are the discreet steps I was referring to. However, If you feel the need, and once again I don't advise it as its not supported, to break down spells into the discreet parts of casting time, resolution phase, and the individual effects in the resolution then your reasoning for allowing a readied trigger to hit before mage slayer doesn't work. Mage slayer attacks triggers when an enemy casts a spell which, in broken down magic, would occur before the between beam readied trigger but would still hit after it.

As for your newly brought up points, new to you at least, I'll try to respond:

JC didn't break up spells into a cast and resolution phase which is what was being discussed. The method of resolving attacks isn't new.
The ready action is different from the cast a spell action and has special rules because of it.
Dispel magic targets lingering effects of spells not casters actively concentrating on them. You don't dispel the caster concentrating on hex you dispel the creature/object the hex is on. Or you dispel the effect itself such as with illusions.