D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Noctem]

The by the book reasoning for the concentration is to "hold its energy, which you release with your reaction" and "holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration". I don't feel either classifies as the "magical effect" of a spell on a target.
The ready action adds a release step to the normal casting rules tells you how that step may be interrupted, breaking concentration or letting the round go by.

You're completely right Ryan

 

[seebs]

I still don't understand your disagreement with me about the opportunity cost of using the ready action when there is nothing else available to do with your action. If there is "nothing effective" to do with your action besides take the ready action then the cost of taking the ready action is "nothing effective" and I don't rate that as high. If you/your DM allows ready actions outside of combat, which generally would be the case for a"if the other party attacks us" scenario, then the cost is still "nothing effective" since there isn't an action economy outside of combat.

Okay, the argument I'm making is: If you'd only use a readied action if you have nothing else you can do, that implies that readying is, in general, never better than any other action. In which case, why even have it? It's useless.

If readying can do a thing which you can only achieve by readied actions, that makes it more likely that you might actually give up a useful action to get it. And that would make the rule less of a waste of space, and more of an actual tactical choice available to players.

So my point is, if you see players never ever using ready unless they've got no other ideas, then it's not that the opportunity cost is low; it's that the opportunity cost of using it at any other time is so high that you never see it paid.

My mistake, I misread that you were attempting the target the actual concentration of the spell caster with your dispel. But I did address it later as you've found. I would not say concentration itself counts as a magical effect under the current rules.

Concentration doesn't have to be a magical effect in and of itself. The spell you are concentrating on is itself a "magical effect". That magical effect has a duration (while you are concentrating on it), and in general you can use dispel to dispel a "magical effect". The only usual exceptions are that you can't try to target the casting of the spell (that's counterspell) and that you can't dispel instantaneous spells after they have taken effect. But while someone's holding the spell for a readied action, it hasn't taken effect yet, and they are concentrating on it, not casting.

We were discussing the viability of breaking down the cast a spell action into casts a spell and resolution to which you replied therefore I don't think my response was off base.

The readied action rules clearly distinguish between "casting the spell" and "releasing the magic", with the later being when the spell's effects would get resolved.

Off topic: Line item quoting is going to makes this discussion difficult especially if when you comment on things that are continued later in the same quoted post. Directly quoting someone heavily implies you are responding to their points but I should have said "we/" are going off the point as it was just a phrase I was using to redirect my own post not a judgement on yours.

Line item quoting is the only way to have any idea what specific comments a given remark is in response to.

 

[Noctem]

Here's the problems with your position seebs:

1. in a scenario where readying an action is the worst choice, it means that readying actions = useless = why have it / it's a waste of rules space / it's not useful. Ergo, you must be right and readying an action must have extra powers when readying a spell. This is illogical and an appeal to those following the discussion to ignore real evidence in favor of your personal bias. I would also argue that just because something isn't a good option most of the time, that it's nothing like what you describe. Being able to ready actions or ready spells is awesome when you need it. Just like being able to make ranged attacks is awesome when you need it. Just because you don't need to make a single ranged attack during a whole days worth of encounters or multiple levels worth of play doesn't mean that ranged attacks are useless / a waste of rules space / etc.. Again, this is nonsense.

2. The spell you are concentrating on is just that: a spell. It is not described as a magical effect anywhere and is not considered an effect since by holding the spell you are holding the effects of the spell you cast by definition and by the rules. You release the effects of the spell when you spend the reaction. You're inventing rules text to justify your position. Holding a spell is not having a magical effect which you can target by dispel magic. You're trying to create an exception to how dispel and instantaneous spells interact which doesn't exist in the rules.

3. Specific beats general, the ready action rules specifically state rules for how this spell works. This does not apply to game elements outside of readied actions and does not go beyond those specific rules.

4. Line item quoting is also used to take snippets of text out of their context or paragraphs in order to sometimes change their meaning or intent. He's asking you not to do that respectfully. The least you can do is respect his request.

 

[ryan92084]

See, I find that a tortured reading because it allows that there is something magical there, but it isn't really there for purposes of dispelling, but it is there if someone whacks you with a stick because then you might lose it. The middle part sticks out as odd, there.

We've already allowed that the normal instantaneous wording is suspended for a readied spell, because the magic is cast but is still around (possibly for much longer than a round, as you can continue to hold round over round if you continue to ready). I find it weird that the magic is vulnerable to sticks, which can otherwise never prevent a spell from coming to be, but isn't to the one spell designed to end magic because of a definitional reading that's already violated by the very situation under discussion.

I see the whole situation differently than you from the get go. To me a ready action spell is cast as normal but is held back from materializing (or however magic works in your setting) by the will power (concentration) of the caster. Because it isn't there yet it can't be targeted by dispel. Also I see breaking concentration with "sticks" as not the magic being vulnerable but the casters mind is distracted to the point that they lose the tenuous grasp they have on the held magic that wants to dissipate/return from whence it came.

There are plenty of other spells one could cast to ruin the day of a ready action concentrating caster. Anything that does damage, forces them to spend their reaction, forces them to lose their reaction, forces them to lose line of sight for their intended target, or causes their target to be out of range for example.

As already pointed out ready action spells are not held through multiple rounds by RaW. Also I'm not sure what instantaneous has to do with this discussion. Ready action just adds the middle man hold step the spell is still instantaneous upon release.

Okay, the argument I'm making is: If you'd only use a readied action if you have nothing else you can do, that implies that readying is, in general, never better than any other action. In which case, why even have it? It's useless.

If readying can do a thing which you can only achieve by readied actions, that makes it more likely that you might actually give up a useful action to get it. And that would make the rule less of a waste of space, and more of an actual tactical choice available to players.

So my point is, if you see players never ever using ready unless they've got no other ideas, then it's not that the opportunity cost is low; it's that the opportunity cost of using it at any other time is so high that you never see it paid.



Concentration doesn't have to be a magical effect in and of itself. The spell you are concentrating on is itself a "magical effect". That magical effect has a duration (while you are concentrating on it), and in general you can use dispel to dispel a "magical effect". The only usual exceptions are that you can't try to target the casting of the spell (that's counterspell) and that you can't dispel instantaneous spells after they have taken effect. But while someone's holding the spell for a readied action, it hasn't taken effect yet, and they are concentrating on it, not casting.



The readied action rules clearly distinguish between "casting the spell" and "releasing the magic", with the later being when the spell's effects would get resolved.



Line item quoting is the only way to have any idea what specific comments a given remark is in response to.

We fundamentally disagree with the purpose of readied actions in 5e. I see it as a way to gain a reaction when otherwise have nothing to do with it and your action. Ready action gets you movement, single attack through the attack action(no Extra attack or afaik bonus), a very risky full spell as a reaction, or other action. I do see that as inherently worse then using your action/reaction/bonus as normal if an option is available to you. You see it as a way to spend a useful action and reaction to get something better than they'd be individually? I think I have that right. I doubt that can be reconciled between us.

I'm not sure how the unreleased magic would be targetable. Unless in your setting a Ready action fireball has the "bright streak" flying about the caster until released? I would wonder why the fireball doesn't detonate when concentration is lost but otherwise is an interesting prospect.

The cast a spell action is not the ready action they have different rules. Ready action has discreet listed steps before a spell comes into effect and how they interact with being hit/disabled the cast a spell action does not. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other.

 

[seebs]

The point of the readied action is to let you do a thing at a time when doing it gives you some advantage over just doing it on your turn. It's supposed to provide an advantage, in exchange for the significant chance that it won't happen at all. And while it's true that it's not "the cast a spell action", the readied action text does say "you cast the spell as normal", which seems pretty clear to me. (Huh, interesting question; if you ready a spell while standing next to someone with mage slayer, do they take their attack on your turn, when you "cast the spell as normal", or do they take it only after you release the magic, if you do?)

The reason I bring up the holding of an instantaneous spell is that it creates a case in which the spell has already been "cast", the slot is used up, the magic has been summoned and spent, and yet, the magic has not yet taken effect and dissipated. And normally instantaneous spells don't have that state; either it's not yet been cast, or it's been cast and has taken effect and dissipated. With the sequential-attacks, we still have the spell there for, at most, the duration of a person's turn. Readied actions let us have the spell in that intermediate state for several player's turns.

I don't see anything which unambiguously states that you can't hold the spell for more than one round. I also don't see anything which unambiguously states that you can. There's nothing saying that the spell dissipates if you don't use it during that turn, but there's also nothing saying you can continue to hold it.

 

[Noctem]

The point of the readied action is to let you do a thing at a time when doing it gives you some advantage over just doing it on your turn. It's supposed to provide an advantage, in exchange for the significant chance that it won't happen at all. And while it's true that it's not "the cast a spell action", the readied action text does say "you cast the spell as normal", which seems pretty clear to me. (Huh, interesting question; if you ready a spell while standing next to someone with mage slayer, do they take their attack on your turn, when you "cast the spell as normal", or do they take it only after you release the magic, if you do?)

The reason I bring up the holding of an instantaneous spell is that it creates a case in which the spell has already been "cast", the slot is used up, the magic has been summoned and spent, and yet, the magic has not yet taken effect and dissipated. And normally instantaneous spells don't have that state; either it's not yet been cast, or it's been cast and has taken effect and dissipated. With the sequential-attacks, we still have the spell there for, at most, the duration of a person's turn. Readied actions let us have the spell in that intermediate state for several player's turns.

I don't see anything which unambiguously states that you can't hold the spell for more than one round. I also don't see anything which unambiguously states that you can. There's nothing saying that the spell dissipates if you don't use it during that turn, but there's also nothing saying you can continue to hold it.

Wrong. Readying an action is not meant to give an advantage or a disadvantage simply by taking the ready action. It's sole purpose is to let you do something outside of your turn as a reaction. That could have advantageous or disadvantageous results. Or worse, you might not even get to do your thing because the trigger never happens. Tying readied actions with a definite "this is meant to be good for you to do" is just you showing your bias in this discussion. You're making sweeping statements that just aren't true. Readying an action must be good and must provide a benefit ergo you're right and readied actions must work the way you claim without need of rules text apparently...? Nonsense.

Mage slayer specifies that it triggers when someone casts a spell, so since you do in fact cast a spell when you ready and instead hold the effects until you release then the answer is yes. This was previously answered by Ryan.

You can't hold a readied action beyond your next turn. This is a fact and has been directly stated by dev tweet before IIRC.

Even if what you say is true and that there's no direct rule (I believe there is for the record and you just either didn't read it or whatever), a lack of evidence doesn't make you right or validate any of the baseless claims you've been making! lol I believe that would fall within the good ol' argument from silence routine.

 

[ryan92084]

The point of the readied action is to let you do a thing at a time when doing it gives you some advantage over just doing it on your turn. It's supposed to provide an advantage, in exchange for the significant chance that it won't happen at all. And while it's true that it's not "the cast a spell action", the readied action text does say "you cast the spell as normal", which seems pretty clear to me. (Huh, interesting question; if you ready a spell while standing next to someone with mage slayer, do they take their attack on your turn, when you "cast the spell as normal", or do they take it only after you release the magic, if you do?)

The reason I bring up the holding of an instantaneous spell is that it creates a case in which the spell has already been "cast", the slot is used up, the magic has been summoned and spent, and yet, the magic has not yet taken effect and dissipated. And normally instantaneous spells don't have that state; either it's not yet been cast, or it's been cast and has taken effect and dissipated. With the sequential-attacks, we still have the spell there for, at most, the duration of a person's turn. Readied actions let us have the spell in that intermediate state for several player's turns.

I don't see anything which unambiguously states that you can't hold the spell for more than one round. I also don't see anything which unambiguously states that you can. There's nothing saying that the spell dissipates if you don't use it during that turn, but there's also nothing saying you can continue to hold it.

I have nothing to add to your first two points that I haven't already said, I continue to disagree.

As for the ready action

Ready (p. 193). You have until the start of your next turn to use a readied action.

 

[Zorku]

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 not containing quotes of every phrase you've uttered doesn't make it a strawman, and you made the damn argument. You should at least have a good idea of what you've used to support the claim, and maybe even when you cited things.
Did you refer to any tweets? You already know, I do not yet know.

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.

Yeah, I did mean that, and it doesn't take a lot of explaining to answer. "You can react after the first ray, before the others have fired" would tell us all we needed to know without ever talking about time steps within cast spell actions or w/e.

 

[seebs]

The "until the end of your next turn" does imply that the spell is then lost if not used, but it's not clear that this was intended. Obviously, you wouldn't want to let someone keep that "readied" action forever and use it on a later turn after taking a normal action on that turn, in general. But if someone wanted to keep using their action to maintain concentration on a readied spell, I'd probably let them.

 

[ryan92084]

...snip



Yeah, I did mean that, and it doesn't take a lot of explaining to answer. "You can react after the first ray, before the others have fired" would tell us all we needed to know without ever talking about time steps within cast spell actions or w/e.

If that's all you want seebs tweet already accomplished that https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/675367833069424640
If your DM allows individual rays (attacks)to be triggers then you can go between them. What is or isn't a valid trigger largely left up to the DM, however. I'm on the no side for allowing that specific trigger (for my given reasons) others say yes.

I don't see either as a bad ruling and am not trying to convince others I'm right and they are wrong about allowing it.