Arial Black
Adventurer
In Noctem's defence, his opinion has evolved based on JC posting relevant tweets; can't blame him for that.
It's more than I've done.
It's more than I've done.
D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast
- Thread starter Otterscrubber
- Start date
Noctem
Explorer
In what sense?
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
That the ambiguity cuts both ways.
Prior to Crawford's clarifying tweet, you were standing on the point that the RAW was unclear as to whether or not you could interrupt, yes? This was, I assume, because there's nothing in the RAW that specifically addresses how to handle interrupted actions, for one, and because there was a lack of specific language saying you could interrupt actions (ignoring dictionary attacks about 'immediately after', of course).
If that's true, and since Crawford's tweet didn't add more language about how to deal with interrupted actions, then seebs is saying that you can't now stand on RAW as clearly saying what happens when you interrupt a spell (by killing the caster). If there wasn't specific language resolving this before, and if Crawford's tweet didn't add any such language, then there's no such language now, and any argument on 'this is how RAW works' falls flat.
Exactly. I think it was pretty unambiguous from RAW that you can interrupt actions, but if you are going to claim that it was ambiguous and we needed the Crawford answer to know what RAI is for that, then it seems implausible to advance claims about what RAW says happens when you interrupt actions.
Noctem
Explorer
Just because you found it unambiguous doesn't mean it wasn't or that it was. It means that you had a belief at the time which was shown to be correct after you asked someone who knew the answer to the question. 50/50 chance essentially. So good job, you were right. I've since changed my views on the subject as a result of the answer we got, good job to me.
That being said, the end result of that discussion shouldn't have any bearing on a separate discussion about components and spell casting, when components are required or used and so on. Basically what we've been discussion for the last few pages. Especially since almost every post you've written about it has misrepresentations of the rules for the game. So let's not get on our high horses just yet.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Not a 50/50 chance. That's you making up a number to sound better (as in, "all that happened was that I lost a coin flip"). I don't care to relitigate the issue, but neither do I care to hear it downplayed in your favor.
I think you owe seebs an apology, there. His record isn't any worse than yours.
Arial Black
Adventurer
Okay, next phase of the debate...
For the sake of this point, let's use call lightning as our example spell, because we don't disagree about how it works: once cast, it lasts for "concentration, up to 1 hour'. Within that duration, the caster can use his action to cause a bolt of lightning to strike a target from the sky.
The question is this: within the duration of call lightning, can it be dispelled by another caster using dispel magic? Why, or why not?
For the sake of this point, let's use call lightning as our example spell, because we don't disagree about how it works: once cast, it lasts for "concentration, up to 1 hour'. Within that duration, the caster can use his action to cause a bolt of lightning to strike a target from the sky.
The question is this: within the duration of call lightning, can it be dispelled by another caster using dispel magic? Why, or why not?
Where the hell is that supposed to go?
Ok, fine.
Yes, you can dispel that.
Because it is a magical effect fancying about in the open world, that has already used up a creature's cast action, that dispel doesn't explicitly say it doesn't effect, and isn't something more like a permanent enchantment on a magical item.
Similar Threads
