D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[seebs]

Look at Shield, etcetera; there's lots of cases where things are retroactive. But the one you gave isn't one of them.

But you're also assuming that "provided" and "completed" are the same thing, and I don't think that's actually justified at all. If pointing at targets is part of the S component, then if you get paralyzed between two beams, the later beams won't be aimable because you can't move to point. So there's the components necessary for the initial "casting", but there may be additional things happening during the "release of energy".

So I think the real answer is, if you're interrupted during the part of the spell where the effects are manifesting, the spell's already fired and does take effect, but it may stop taking effect before you're done aiming at targets or whatever.

So again, the problem is the assumption that any failure to complete the part of the spell where you're using verbal or somatic components to, say, aim at additional targets, causes the components not to be "provided". Provided just means they're there during casting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Er...!

So, you begin chanting the verbal component. While still chanting, the effects of the spell happen, killing me...

Then, before you can complete the verbal component, my friend kills you...

...then, because you failed to provide the V component, the spell that already killed me(!) fails, and so I come back to life...???

I'm basing this on what you just posted, specifically: "If something prevents you from finishing parts of them, that may affect outcomes, and could retroactively cause the spell not to work."

I'd probably just have the spell end at that point, rather than walk anything backwards. Given we're already discussing a corner case, and you postulation there is going even deeper into the corner, I'm going to say it's the realm of rulings, not rules.

But, as a counterpoint, let's say we go with your method -- the spell is cast, all components are provided, and we're adjudicating the effect (which would, I believe, be fully present, correct?). Same situation. 1st beam/whatever kills you, your friend's readied action triggers and he kills the caster, what do you do with the other beams/whatevers that now exist and must be dealt with?

I imagine that your answer will be largely similar to mine: they don't do anything. So, despite having two different concepts of how spells work, it turns out that the actual resolution is exactly the same. Which just goes further to saying that you're arguing fluff as rules, and it doesn't matter.

 

[Noctem]

Look at Shield, etcetera; there's lots of cases where things are retroactive. But the one you gave isn't one of them.

But you're also assuming that "provided" and "completed" are the same thing, and I don't think that's actually justified at all. If pointing at targets is part of the S component, then if you get paralyzed between two beams, the later beams won't be aimable because you can't move to point. So there's the components necessary for the initial "casting", but there may be additional things happening during the "release of energy".

So I think the real answer is, if you're interrupted during the part of the spell where the effects are manifesting, the spell's already fired and does take effect, but it may stop taking effect before you're done aiming at targets or whatever.

So again, the problem is the assumption that any failure to complete the part of the spell where you're using verbal or somatic components to, say, aim at additional targets, causes the components not to be "provided". Provided just means they're there during casting.

Pointing at a target is not a requirement of CASTING in 5e AFAIK so the problem you just invented to provide evidence doesn't even apply in the way you want it to. Picking targets is done as the first step of the Making an Attack rules section and would only happen once the spell effects are being resolved, not during the casting which is when the components are provided / required. You don't pick targets during the casting of the spell, you pick them when you make the attack(s) the spell grants, or more specifically when you resolve the effects of the spell you successfully cast. In some cases its picking an area of effect as well (fireball). You don't pick the area the spell will target during the casting. You pick it after you provide all the requirements of casting the spell in full, successfully cast the spell, and begin resolving the effects of having cast the spell.

Components are only required during the casting of the spell itself, once successfully cast the spell there's no longer a need for components. You've already provided them during the casting of the spell. Now you're resolving the effects.

I also disagree with your conclusion based on the above.

 

[Noctem]

I'd probably just have the spell end at that point, rather than walk anything backwards. Given we're already discussing a corner case, and you postulation there is going even deeper into the corner, I'm going to say it's the realm of rulings, not rules.

But, as a counterpoint, let's say we go with your method -- the spell is cast, all components are provided, and we're adjudicating the effect (which would, I believe, be fully present, correct?). Same situation. 1st beam/whatever kills you, your friend's readied action triggers and he kills the caster, what do you do with the other beams/whatevers that now exist and must be dealt with?

I imagine that your answer will be largely similar to mine: they don't do anything. So, despite having two different concepts of how spells work, it turns out that the actual resolution is exactly the same. Which just goes further to saying that you're arguing fluff as rules, and it doesn't matter.

If you're killed between the attacks of your eldritch blast, any beams left over simply fail to do anything and the effects of the spell end. This has nothing to do with fluff. It's about someone claiming that you don't have to provide components when casting a spell, contrary to raw, and that spells slots and the like aren't consumed when you cast the spell. As well as talking about retroactive results with interactions which doesn't make any sense. This is about the spell casting rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you're killed between the attacks of your eldritch blast, any beams left over simply fail to do anything and the effects of the spell end. This has nothing to do with fluff. It's about someone claiming that you don't have to provide components when casting a spell, contrary to raw, and that spells slots and the like aren't consumed when you cast the spell. As well as talking about retroactive results with interactions which doesn't make any sense. This is about the spell casting rules.

Weird. Where did it say that in the RAW?

 

[seebs]

I'm particularly curious as to how it can possibly say anything about that in the RAW, given that Noctem was previously telling us that it was absolutely not RAW to allow attacks between the beams of an eldritch blast, or between someone's multiple attacks. Surely, if the rules explicitly tell us how to resolve the situation, they explicitly permit it.

 

[Noctem]

I'm particularly curious as to how it can possibly say anything about that in the RAW, given that Noctem was previously telling us that it was absolutely not RAW to allow attacks between the beams of an eldritch blast, or between someone's multiple attacks. Surely, if the rules explicitly tell us how to resolve the situation, they explicitly permit it.

What I said was that the RAW didn't specify one way or the other and that we should ask on twitter, which someone did. We even got a response as a result that said you could in fact ready something to go off in between attacks. Since then I've said that you could since we got the official RAI. Nice try at a strawman though. I would request that if you're going to engage in mud slinging you at least check your facts and keep it to things I've said within this month

 

[Ovinomancer]

What I said was that the RAW didn't specify one way or the other and that we should ask on twitter, which someone did. We even got a response as a result that said you could in fact ready something to go off in between attacks. Since then I've said that you could since we got the official RAI. Nice try at a strawman though. I would request that if you're going to engage in mud slinging you at least check your facts and keep it to things I've said within this month

To quibble, I distinctly recall you saying clearly that ready actions couldn't interrupt other actions, and then you started walking it back like you describe above. Although, to be fair, I suppose you lampshaded that with your 'things I've said within this month.' Personally, I'd love to have the power over people's memories implied by that requirement.

 

[Arial Black]

Look at Shield, etcetera; there's lots of cases where things are retroactive. But the one you gave isn't one of them.

Not in the game world. There are plenty of 5E game mechanics that work retro-actively at the gaming table in our world, but none of them work retro-actively in the game world unless the spell/ability description says so.

Take shield for example: it very definitely works retro-actively at the gaming table in our world; it turns an already resolved 'hit' into a 'miss'. But it doesn't work retro-actively in the game world. In that world, the caster throws up a shield just in time to divert an attack which would have hit if he hadn't thrown a shield in the way. If it worked retro-actively in the game world as well as at the gaming table, then a wizard would get a javelin through the head (killing him), then cast shield, then the javelin slides out of his head and he returns to life!

There is a distinction between what is happening with 5E game mechanics at the gaming table, and what this represents in the game world. The mechanics can be retro-active, but what is happening in the game world cannot be (without specifically time-altering magic).

The VSM components are a game mechanic, but they represent specific magical phrases spoken with exacting intonation, and specific gestures that are enacted, without which the spell is never cast. These components cause the spell to begin (assuming everything else is also as it should be: knowing the spell, spell slot, all that). If the components are not provided, the spell cannot begin. Therefore, the spell cannot begin before they are provided. Since 'half the required phrase' does not meet the requirement of 'the required phrase', then the V component has not been provided until it is complete.

 

[Arial Black]

I'd probably just have the spell end at that point, rather than walk anything backwards. Given we're already discussing a corner case, and you postulation there is going even deeper into the corner, I'm going to say it's the realm of rulings, not rules.

But, as a counterpoint, let's say we go with your method -- the spell is cast, all components are provided, and we're adjudicating the effect (which would, I believe, be fully present, correct?). Same situation. 1st beam/whatever kills you, your friend's readied action triggers and he kills the caster, what do you do with the other beams/whatevers that now exist and must be dealt with?

I imagine that your answer will be largely similar to mine: they don't do anything. So, despite having two different concepts of how spells work, it turns out that the actual resolution is exactly the same. Which just goes further to saying that you're arguing fluff as rules, and it doesn't matter.

Well, for me, all of the beams are, and must be, aimed and shot simultaneously. But JC wants it to work like call lightning, where you can shoot a beam at any time between the spell starting and ending; with call lightning the duration is '1 hour', and with eldritch blast the duration is '1 action'. Therefore, if the caster dies after the first beam but before the second, the other beams never get used.

Although our conclusions are the same in this case, it should be noted that JC's tweets allow a readied dispel to occur between beams. This would have the same result (the unused beams are wasted), but it also means that this particular instantaneous spell can be dispelled because its magic does last long enough to be dispelled.