D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[spectacle]

Actually what it means is that the magic of an instantaneous spell will never last for more than an instant, so if you ever rule that it does, you made a mistake somewhere and need to review your reasoning. As I said before, if you interpret "instant" as "less than a round" then it resolves any inconsistencies around this matter and the rules make perfect sense as written.

 

[ryan92084]

[MENTION=6780410]spectacle[/MENTION] it needs to mean less than an action if you want to use that reasoning. That doesn't really help though if you use Crawfords attacks are valid ready triggers ruling.
[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] I fixed the question in my last post. The trigger was incorrect originally.

 

[spectacle]

@spectacle it needs to mean less than an action if you want to use that reasoning. That doesn't really help though if you use Crawfords attacks are valid ready triggers ruling.

Ah, I meant less than a turn, not less than a round, thanks for spotting that.

Why does attacks being valid triggers matter? I'm not sure if I'm following you.

 

[ryan92084]

Ah, I meant less than a turn, not less than a round, thanks for spotting that.

Why does attacks being valid triggers matter? I'm not sure if I'm following you.

Just playing devil's advocate here but if instant only means less than a turn and ready actions can go between the spell's beams/rays then the dispel can hit within that less than one turn instant.

Honestly though nothing posted here since the tweet clarification is new. There are a myriad of potential reasons to not allow dispel to work.

Pick one or any combination of

1. The instantaneous duration says so
2. The devs say so
3. The beams/rays aren't a valid target for dispel
4. Instant means several things besides the entire description must fit within a time approaching nil
5. If the trigger is a magical attack the dispel goes between beams leaving no target
6. The trigger timing to have a beam mid streak(after attack but before it lands) is too tight and if allowed would make any spell with an invented travel time subject to a readied dispel
7. other that i forgot

And only one to let it work

1. Instant doesn't mean a time approaching nil and refers to the whole description so the devs are wrong and sequential beams are subject to dispel. Otherwise instant must mean a time approaching nil and refers to the whole description so the devs are wrong and the attack is simultaneous

Which was originally Arial's argument for the targeting must be simultaneous/before the attacks are rolled and how the whole dispel ready action discussion came about.

 

[Noctem]

[MENTION=6802559]ryan92084[/MENTION]

You should also add in the 'and only one to let it work' the following:

This means that an instantaneous spell can be dispelled, contrary to RAW. JC is still disagreeing with JC.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473235-Warlock-and-Repelling-Blast/page59#ixzz3wTE66sNi

This means that according to AB: the RAW, the RAI and the devs themselves are all wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just playing devil's advocate here but if instant only means less than a turn and ready actions can go between the spell's beams/rays then the dispel can hit within that less than one turn instant.

Honestly though nothing posted here since the tweet clarification is new. There are a myriad of potential reasons to not allow dispel to work.

Pick one or any combination of

1. The instantaneous duration says so
2. The devs say so
3. The beams/rays aren't a valid target for dispel
4. Instant means several things besides the entire description must fit within a time approaching nil
5. If the trigger is a magical attack the dispel goes between beams leaving no target
6. The trigger timing to have a beam mid streak(after attack but before it lands) is too tight and if allowed would make any spell with an invented travel time subject to a readied dispel
7. other that i forgot

And only one to let it work

1. Instant doesn't mean a time approaching nil and refers to the whole description so the devs are wrong and sequential beams are subject to dispel. Otherwise instant must mean a time approaching nil and refers to the whole description so the devs are wrong and the attack is simultaneous

Which was originally Arial's argument for the targeting must be simultaneous/before the attacks are rolled and how the whole dispel ready action discussion came about.

Your first list up to 5 is a good list of the things that need to be overcome (6 has some assumptions I don't find compelling and 7 is, well, unpersuasive ). However, I don't think that your 'let it work' bullet is particularly fair. The devs haven't actually answered on this particular nuance, and could say that this works without actually disagreeing with anything they've said before. IE, the prior could be the general rule while this narrow corner might be the exception that proves it.

I think Arial and seebs have put forth a great argument, and that the rules aren't clear enough to say they're wrong outright -- they might still be right. I also think it's a longshot that they are, merely because addressing this corner case in the way Arial presents would just add confusion and other possible corners that a flat 'nope, doesn't work, can't dispel instantaneous spells at all' won't. Sure, the latter leaves some odd holes in logical progression, but it has the benefit of being easy to apply and fair in the vast, vast majority of cases.

 

[Zorku]

On p203 0f the PHB, under 'Components':-

"A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it....If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell."

This means that the spell has not been cast (i.e. doesn't exist) unless and until the components have been completed. Therefore, they must be finished before the duration begins.

You cannot have a spell effect occur by simply promising to provide the components later. If you provide some, but not all, of the components you cannot cast the spell. Therefore, if you begin chanting the magic words of a V spell but don't complete the entire verbal component, then you haven't provided the required component! If you have completed the components then the casting of the spell is over and the duration begins (unless 'paused' by readying the spell).

The VSM stuff must be completely over by the time any magical part (the 'spell effect') of a cast spell action takes place.

What you've quoted does not say what you are claiming it says. For what you're claiming you would need a quote that talks about actions being indivisible snapshots; that other actions cannot happen in the middle, but rather before or after, and at this point we know there is no such text in the book. It seems to me that you're trying to argue this as though I've said that you don't need to have started one of the VSM components until you've already shot off two lasers. If that's the case this is a lovely then this is a lovely little scarecrow fallacy, and if that's not the case then you're sorely lacking in the kinds of quotes you would need to support your interpretation of spell casting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What you've quoted does not say what you are claiming it says. For what you're claiming you would need a quote that talks about actions being indivisible snapshots; that other actions cannot happen in the middle, but rather before or after, and at this point we know there is no such text in the book. It seems to me that you're trying to argue this as though I've said that you don't need to have started one of the VSM components until you've already shot off two lasers. If that's the case this is a lovely then this is a lovely little scarecrow fallacy, and if that's not the case then you're sorely lacking in the kinds of quotes you would need to support your interpretation of spell casting.

Your both arguing hypotheticals. I don't think you have the high ground to tell him his hypothetical is less realistic that yours.

 

[Umbran]

There are those (and Noctem shall remain nameless)

You thought that was funny, didn't you?

Well, now you get the hairy eyeball from a a moderator. Because, whatever problem you had, it is now worse for you having made it personal. By doing this, you are engaging people's egos, rather than their reason. If you thought your opponent was intractable before? You've likely ensured that they will not only continue to disagree with you vociferously, but are likely to take such attitudes with you on other topics as well, even if they didn't really oppose your view on that topic previously. You have made this place just that little bit more confrontational and rude.

Not exactly a good move.

Don't make it personal. Address the content of the post, not the person of the poster.

 

[ryan92084]

Your first list up to 5 is a good list of the things that need to be overcome (6 has some assumptions I don't find compelling and 7 is, well, unpersuasive ). However, I don't think that your 'let it work' bullet is particularly fair. The devs haven't actually answered on this particular nuance, and could say that this works without actually disagreeing with anything they've said before. IE, the prior could be the general rule while this narrow corner might be the exception that proves it.

I think Arial and seebs have put forth a great argument, and that the rules aren't clear enough to say they're wrong outright -- they might still be right. I also think it's a longshot that they are, merely because addressing this corner case in the way Arial presents would just add confusion and other possible corners that a flat 'nope, doesn't work, can't dispel instantaneous spells at all' won't. Sure, the latter leaves some odd holes in logical progression, but it has the benefit of being easy to apply and fair in the vast, vast majority of cases.

Can't say I disagree with most of this. 6 was my anti Pandora's box reasoning (as you address in your second paragraph) also it goes more directly against the RaI tweet. 7 was my acknowledgement that this thread is very very long and the argument started on a forum that is gone now but, ya, my forgetting isn't very compelling.

I suppose my dissent reason could have been written truer to this situation as 'the devs didn't specify/take into account multi ray/beam spells when saying a ready dispel wasn't intended to function as counterspell" but I don't recall Arial having taken that position thus far. I was trying to stay true their reasoning without making the bullet any longer than it already is. This started as a way to prove the devs wrong about the attacks being sequential/prove that targeting is simultaneous and it doesn't make that point if I change the wording too much.