D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Noctem]

Spot on!


We don't have to know what the magic words for each spell actually are, we just know that there are some for each spell with a verbal component, and that it must be provided. If it is not provided, the spell is not successfully cast.


Let's say that the verbal component for, say, lighting bolt, the magic words which must be provided, is the phrase "So long as men shall breathe, or eyes shall see!"


If you just say "So long as men..." and then stop, have you provided the required verbal component? No. Does a partial bolt of lightning, roughly a third of the usual length, fry some of the baddies, with the bolt growing longer as you continue the phrase? No.


How do we know? Because if you just said "So long as men..." and the spell effect, or part of it, appeared, and then you refused to complete the phrase, then the spell effect appeared even though you never provided the verbal component! You can't just go around shouting "So...!" and expecting your spells to work anyway! You've failed to provide the verbal component (the whole phrase) and so, RAW, the spell fails.


This is why we know that the components must be fully completed before the spell effect begins, because until you complete the components, you haven't provided the components.


When the Ready action lets you ready a spell, then the wording that lets you fully 'cast' the spell as an action (the components/spell slot) and later use a reaction to release the spell effect, relies on the already existing spellcasting rules that mean the casting process must complete before the spell effect begins.

That's exactly what I'm saying too Arial. 100% agreement there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And you're both substituting your conjecture for fact. Ryan has it right -- there's no there there. There's no words in there that say one way or the other. There's nothing in the normal process that indicates that casting must be complete before the effects -- it's all lumped together under 'cast a spell'. Ready has slightly different wording, but the 'but' there means it's still vague on timing. You cannot conclusively say one way or the other.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I believe the logic is as follows:

In order to gain the effects of casting a spell, you must first successfully cast the spell. In order to successfully cast the spell you must:

Expend a slot of the appropriate level
Expend the required action type (Action, Bonus or Reaction being the 3 possible currently)
Perform the V, S, M requirements if any

As detailed in the spell entry and the spellcasting rules. Specifically the entry for Components found on page 79 of the Basic Rules PDF which reads "A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it" and " If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell." This tells us that these are the requirements to even attempt to cast the spell. There's nothing in there about performing the component requirements throughout the spell, only that they are required to cast the spell in the first place. So I think this position is unfounded within the rules.

Once all of the above is completed, you have successfully cast the spell. You then gain the effects of having successfully cast the spell. So until you do the above, you have not successfully cast the spell. Some spells may have additional requirements listed in the effect section in order to cast the spell, but those are clearly listed and identified as "when you cast this spell you must also do x in order to cast the spell". But again these are all requirements that must be done in order to cast the spell and once you cast the spell you gain the effects. There is no reason to believe that you need to perform the component requirements during casting and continue into when you resolve the effects.

Now since the readied action language specifically states that you "cast the spell as normal" except that you then hold the effects until you release them later as a reaction, you would indeed NEED to perform all of the component requirements when you "cast the spell as normal" because if you didn't you wouldn't be able to cast the spell and would have nothing to ready.

I'd just like to point out that, by your argument here, there are effects hanging around because of a readied action, meaning they'd be available for a dispel at this time. Even assuming non-instantaneous spells, you've previously been pretty adamant that such things can't happen, but now you've actually adopted the underlying argument position that was used to say that it was.

I am amused.

 

[Zorku]

Spot on!

We don't have to know what the magic words for each spell actually are, we just know that there are some for each spell with a verbal component, and that it must be provided. If it is not provided, the spell is not successfully cast.

Let's say that the verbal component for, say, lighting bolt, the magic words which must be provided, is the phrase "So long as men shall breathe, or eyes shall see!"

If you just say "So long as men..." and then stop, have you provided the required verbal component? No. Does a partial bolt of lightning, roughly a third of the usual length, fry some of the baddies, with the bolt growing longer as you continue the phrase? No.

How do we know? Because if you just said "So long as men..." and the spell effect, or part of it, appeared, and then you refused to complete the phrase, then the spell effect appeared even though you never provided the verbal component! You can't just go around shouting "So...!" and expecting your spells to work anyway! You've failed to provide the verbal component (the whole phrase) and so, RAW, the spell fails.

This is why we know that the components must be fully completed before the spell effect begins, because until you complete the components, you haven't provided the components.

When the Ready action lets you ready a spell, then the wording that lets you fully 'cast' the spell as an action (the components/spell slot) and later use a reaction to release the spell effect, relies on the already existing spellcasting rules that mean the casting process must complete before the spell effect begins.

Again, that claim is false. The ready action does not rely on spells working in that exact way. Provide a quote that actually says that or stop acting like you've already done so.

 

[Arial Black]

And you're both substituting your conjecture for fact. Ryan has it right -- there's no there there. There's no words in there that say one way or the other. There's nothing in the normal process that indicates that casting must be complete before the effects -- it's all lumped together under 'cast a spell'. Ready has slightly different wording, but the 'but' there means it's still vague on timing. You cannot conclusively say one way or the other.

So, your position is that, even though the required verbal component is, say, "So long as men shall breathe, or eyes shall see!", but the caster just says, "So long as...!", the spell effect begins?

It's binary: you have either provided the verbal component, or you haven't. If you haven't provided the whole thing, you haven't provided what is required, therefore the spell fails. That means that they must be provided before the spell begins, because if the spell effect began before the verbal component is complete then it would begin even though the component has not been provided yet (and may never be), and this is contrary to the RAW that the required components must be provided or the spell fails.

If you disagree, spell out exactly the sequence of events that has the components overlap with the spell effect, without contravening the rules requiring the components. Logically, I cannot imagine such an event, but I'm eager to hear just one possible, legal sequence of events!

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, your position is that, even though the required verbal component is, say, "So long as men shall breathe, or eyes shall see!", but the caster just says, "So long as...!", the spell effect begins?

No, and I'm struggling to get where you might think I said that.

It's binary: you have either provided the verbal component, or you haven't.

Yes.

If you haven't provided the whole thing, you haven't provided what is required, therefore the spell fails.

Yes.

That means that they must be provided before the spell begins, because if the spell effect began before the verbal component is complete then it would begin even though the component has not been provided yet (and may never be), and this is contrary to the RAW that the required components must be provided or the spell fails.

No. There's no statement as to where something happens during the casting action. Components must be provided, or you can't cast. When you're done casting, the components are consumed. When you're actually done casting is left vague, with the only requirement being that you're done when the action used to cast the spell ends, or when the effect of the spell is released (in the case of readied actions).

Your reading of this as 'everything casty-like is done before the effect happens' is a fine, and logical, interpretation. It makes sense, it's internally consistent, AND it's entirely your conjecture. RAW just doesn't say that. Doesn't mean it's not a fine house rule.

The conjecture that components continue through the release of the effect is also a fine, logical interpretation. It makes sense, it's internally consistent, AND it's entirely conjecture. RAW just doesn't say that. Doesn't mean it's not a fine house rule.

I'm not playing favorites, here, I'm just continually pointing out that you've moved outside RAW, and while I appreciate the dedication and care you've put into your argument, it's still just your conjecture. As is the other one in discussion.

If you disagree, spell out exactly the sequence of events that has the components overlap with the spell effect, without contravening the rules requiring the components. Logically, I cannot imagine such an event, but I'm eager to hear just one possible, legal sequence of events!

I could do such a thing, but it would be as much conjecture as your argument. And that's my point.

 

[Noctem]

I'd just like to point out that, by your argument here, there are effects hanging around because of a readied action, meaning they'd be available for a dispel at this time. Even assuming non-instantaneous spells, you've previously been pretty adamant that such things can't happen, but now you've actually adopted the underlying argument position that was used to say that it was.

I am amused.

No because until released there are no effects to target. Dispel does not target a spell, it targets effects. You're failing to understand that difference. Until you release the effects as a reaction you have nothing to target. I've said this all along. Try to keep up...

 

[Ovinomancer]

No because until released there are no effects to target. Dispel does not target a spell, it targets effects. You're failing to understand that difference. Until you release the effects as a reaction you have nothing to target. I've said this all along. Try to keep up...

You actually say that you're holding the effect for release in that post. To quote, you say, "[n]ow since the readied action language specifically states that you "cast the spell as normal" except that you then hold the effects until you release them later as a reaction...." I'm fine if that was a typo. Just thought it was funny.

 

[seebs]

Okay, imagine that the spell's verbal components are "I want to set someone on fire and today it's... you!"

It is entirely possible that, in normal casting, the "you!" is said as you point at the target, and then they are set on fire. And that with a readied action, you cast the spell normally, but that this actually means stopping at "it's...", and then on your reaction you suddenly say "you!" and someone is set on fire. You're still "providing" the components, because the release-of-energy is part of the normal casting process, and yes that makes some of the descriptive language be merely mostly-accurate with some exceptions... But that's really common in the 5e rules.

 

[bganon]

If you disagree, spell out exactly the sequence of events that has the components overlap with the spell effect, without contravening the rules requiring the components. Logically, I cannot imagine such an event, but I'm eager to hear just one possible, legal sequence of events!

The rules do not require causes to precede their effects, especially inside a single action. So it is perfectly consistent for the spell to take effect "before" the components have been provided. It breaks with our normal notions of causality, but the rules do not require that our normal notions of causality be satisfied, especially inside an individual action. There are, in fact, already rules that play with causality, like rerolling after seeing the "result" of a roll but before "effects" are applied, or the Shield spell... how does that even work, in-setting? The wizard gets to rewind time after being hit and expend a slot?

Rules aren't physics.