D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ovinomancer]

Technically, counterspell doesn't interrupt, it retroactively removes its trigger. It creates paradox.

 

[ryan92084]

Ya, if someone thought of that tactic I might allow it as one off and then warn the party against future attempts.

I might send a tweet about intended timings for features that rely on cast(s) a spell and where they fit with a readied spell. I have a both a storm and wild sorcerer in my party atm so there is decent chance it'll come up.

I'm already 0-1 for getting responses might as well make it 0-2.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's the spirit!

 

[seebs]

You've still got some capacity to interrupt certain kinds of things, just not anything of the 1 action variety. With a readied spell you're looking at something that takes 1 action and 1 reaction, and not at the same time either.

A multiple-attack attack action is 1 Action, and you can interrupt it with a readied action.

 

[Noctem]

Technically, counterspell doesn't interrupt, it retroactively removes its trigger. It creates paradox.

Counterspell does interrupt, just like Shield. It then can negate it's own trigger, just like Shield. That doesn't change the fact that it does interrupt. The moment someone starts casting a spell, before the spell is done being cast and any effects come into play, Counterspell is used. It does not retroactively do anything. It can't undo anything. It simply negates the spell that was being cast. All costs for casting the spell are still paid by the caster.

 

[Noctem]

A multiple-attack attack action is 1 Action, and you can interrupt it with a readied action.

He must have been talking about non multi-attack 1 action stuff.

 

[Zorku]

A multiple-attack attack action is 1 Action, and you can interrupt it with a readied action.

Alright you've got me on some inconsistency in my positions there.

I suppose to fix my claim I'd have to specify that it's single actions before any class features go multiplying them. Extra attacks and the one cantrip are the only things that behave at all like this, right?

 

[seebs]

Alright you've got me on some inconsistency in my positions there.

I suppose to fix my claim I'd have to specify that it's single actions before any class features go multiplying them. Extra attacks and the one cantrip are the only things that behave at all like this, right?

Scorching Ray appears to behave the same way too. And it's rather more complicated, I think. We've got examples in the rules suggesting that you can interrupt someone's movement, for instance. I suspect there's other things that give multiple attacks in some way. Consider things like the cleave procs off the great weapon master feat; you drop an opponent so you get to take another attack.

So the answer is, really, that you can interrupt an action if the action is reasonably obviously divisible into discrete happenings that are resolved separately in some way. Probably.

 

[Zorku]

With cleave I feel like it's a separate action, but there's a strong chance that's not how the developers meant any of the extra attacks when you use an attack action sorts of abilities and feats. I guess there's not any game vocabulary that does a great job of describing a reasonable unit of activity for reactions to go after...

Readying silence for someone starting to cast a spell feels a lot like readying a shove for someone starting to swing their sword. Dumb enough that it makes a lot of the explanatory text pointless.

 

[seebs]

The reason I might tolerate the readied-silence is that letting go of a readied spell is presumably faster than the full casting process. On the other hand, if that works, a readied dispel should also be able to interrupt a spell.

I do remember being offended by the 3E ruling that a readied dispel could interrupt a quickened spell, because that made no sense to me.