D&D 5E (2014) Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Noctem]

@ryan92084

Agreed on most of what you said Ryan. Though I will say that going over discreet parts as you put it for spells is important because it's good to know up to what point someone can cast counterspell for example. I posted break downs upthread for various spells.

 

[seebs]

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.

Yeah. So far as I know, I am not misrepresenting Noctem's posts, and since I've seen no specific statement of what the gap is between what Noctem said, and what I said Noctem said, I have no way to correct this belief. I guess I could just pick things Noctem has said at random to reinterpret?

 

[Noctem]

Yeah. So far as I know, I am not misrepresenting Noctem's posts, and since I've seen no specific statement of what the gap is between what Noctem said, and what I said Noctem said, I have no way to correct this belief. I guess I could just pick things Noctem has said at random to reinterpret?

Or you could actually read the posts in question 20 pages back, not take snippets of them out of context weeks later, not make claims about what I believe, not create strawmen to argue against, ask questions instead.. or you know what, how about you just knock it off completely and just wait for the dev response to the tweet you said you sent? Nothing moves forward by beating the dead horse.

And you are misrepresenting what I said. You've done it multiple times over the 53 pages of this thread and you're still doing it even when the thread is deadlocked and there's absolutely nothing to gain.

 

[ryan92084]

The ready action dispel on instantaneous spell twitter question has been asked before and answered

@JeremyECrawford Can you Ready a Dispel Magic to trigger on an instantaneous spell's casting to interrupt the target spell's effect?

Dispel magic isn't intended to work on instantaneous spells. Counterspell is suited for that task.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/19/ready-a-dispel-magic/

edit:wasn't a double post afterall

 

[Noctem]

Sorry for the double post but the conversation advanced since I started my last reply.

The ready action dispel on instantaneous spell twitter question has been asked before and answered


http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/19/ready-a-dispel-magic/

Yes this has been posted before IIRC, and yet they still try to dispel instantaneous spells (like I said before, it's every couple of pages that they try)! Thanks for posting this again though, might jog their memory?

 

[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.

Sorry for the double post but the conversation advanced since I started my last reply.

The ready action dispel on instantaneous spell twitter question has been asked before and answered





http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/19/ready-a-dispel-magic/

Yeah, I think seebs is aware of that, and we've collectively pointed that out before. In fact, that was my sticking point with the whole thing to begin with. However, the situation seebs points out with a readied spell, cast and held, being a possible target for dispel is very interesting, as it clearly violates the 'already done and gone' part of dispel.

Now, you can just go with the tweet, and that's fine, but I think seebs has brought up a very good point with the held spell. I'd let that work in my game, if for no other reason than it makes sense. i dislike sticking to rules that cease making sense and have no other redeeming balance issues in their favor. This would be such a case -- nothing else breaks or becomes unbalanced if I allow dispel magic to target a held spell, instantaneous or not.

 

[ryan92084]

Yeah, I think seebs is aware of that, and we've collectively pointed that out before. In fact, that was my sticking point with the whole thing to begin with. However, the situation seebs points out with a readied spell, cast and held, being a possible target for dispel is very interesting, as it clearly violates the 'already done and gone' part of dispel.

Now, you can just go with the tweet, and that's fine, but I think seebs has brought up a very good point with the held spell. I'd let that work in my game, if for no other reason than it makes sense. i dislike sticking to rules that cease making sense and have no other redeeming balance issues in their favor. This would be such a case -- nothing else breaks or becomes unbalanced if I allow dispel magic to target a held spell, instantaneous or not.

Well, as I pointed out upthread it does break the targeting of dispel magic a bit as the caster concentrating on a spell is not generally a valid target, unless the effect is on the caster. Since dispel magic has a relatively short range you could potentially save some time by going after the enemy caster to dispel rather than having to return to your ally to help. It's a pretty minor change but from the rules nonetheless.

 

[seebs]

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.

The fact that you'd only use a readied action when there's nothing useful to do with your action is why I consider the cost "high"; it has to offer some kind of real advantage to be an option that you'd ever use.

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?

Because you might want to ready an action for "if the other party attacks us".

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.

Could you point me to a single instance previously in the thread of anyone talking about the state of an "instantaneous" spell which has been readied, and thus which is subject to being prevented from going off by attacks? If you don't ready a spell, there's no way for an attack to break your concentration on an instantaneous spell, because there's no concentration involved in casting an instantaneous spell.

Furthermore you're going off the point I was attempting to make.

Yes, that is because I was curious about a thing which I had not yet seen any discussion of. I am not only here to discuss your specific points, but rather, to discuss the topic in general.

I will attempt to elaborate. Your statement was 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.

That's a good point; it's clearly generally the intent that the mage slayer attack happens after the spell has been cast, and that this would include the initial spell effects (such as people making saves, targets being selected, and so on). However, I think you're mistaken about the necessity of distinguishing between casting and resolution, because the rules for readied actions clearly make that distinction.

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.

I never said JC did that. See readied actions, page 193. "When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs." We have a distinction here where you have cast the spell, but are now "holding its energy", which means that you're done casting but are using concentration to keep the spell ready for a reaction.

The ready action is different from the cast a spell action and has special rules because of it.

And even has special rules for readying a spell, which change the way the "cast a spell" action works when you use ready to cast a spell.

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.

Well, that's the interesting question. You're allowed to target a "magical effect". Is a spell someone is concentrating on a "magical effect"? It seems to me that it might be considered one.

 

[seebs]

The ready action dispel on instantaneous spell twitter question has been asked before and answered





http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/19/ready-a-dispel-magic/

edit:wasn't a double post afterall

You have misunderstood. I'm not talking about a readied dispel. I'm talking about an ordinary, non-readied, dispel being cast while someone else has readied a spell.

If you ready a magic missile, and I attack you before your reaction trigger happens, you have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. Normally, a melee attack can't interrupt an instantaneous spell, but if you're holding it as a readied action, it seems like it now can.

So that tweet is unrelated to my question.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

Does a question of exactly who said what, and who was technically correct on what, 20 pages ago really matter now? Your current pursuit of that issue is getting people to report you on the basis that you're making it difficult to discuss the rules. Leave the personal grievances (or grievances on behalf of another) out of it and let the thread move on, please.