Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6775978" data-attributes="member: 16814">Huh?  You quote the section on casting a spell, okay, good.  Then you quote the section on making an attack, okay, still good.  Then you say that the attack action and the spell action are different, cool, onboard.  Then you say something very weird.  Does that mean something?Um, no one's yet claimed that the additional eldritch blast bolts are like extra attacks.  They are simple spell attacks, made in sequence, one after the other, using the 'make an attack' rules.The question is, if they are separate and subsequent attacks, and you ready an action to do something if attacked, then your readied action, by the wording in the RA section, means that you react immediately upon the resolution of your trigger but before anything else happens.  Normally, for other attacks, that would mean that you get to react between attacks.  For the eldritch blast, it's a bit trickier, and there's no clear explanation if the attacks are separate effects of the cast a spell action or if they are inseparable and integral to it.Cool, most of use stopped arguing about dispel magic many pages ago.  We all agreed that you can't dispel in the middle of the spell.  We can add you to the 'agree on this bit' list, then?Um, yeah, I don't think anyone has argued otherwise for some time.  Certainly not at this point of the conversation.  Everyone currently involved has said this exact thing multiple times.  Thanks for the recap?I pointed out, what, three strawmen that were clearly strawmen, as no one had advanced the arguments he was arguing against.  So, there's those, nice and wrapped up.  I also had an appeal to authority, where Noctern refused to provide his reasoning and instead deferred to the devs.  If that's wrong, explain what's up there, as I'm pretty sure it's not wrong.  Substituting a reference to an authority instead of making an argument is exactly what an appeal to authority is.  Are you sure you're as skilled here as you think you are?  Also, do you know Noctern?  I find it exceptionally odd that you'd take time to call out my less than a handful of fallacy calls where I also provided exactly why I thought they were fallacies as somehow egregious when Nocty has been spamming bad macros of fallacies, often entirely without any merit, yet you fail to mention them at all?  Heck, he did it in the post immediately before I used fallacies. That's just weird.What?!  Who's saying this?  Who are you rebutting?  What?  Why did you quote me, here.  Are you saying that we talked about this, earlier?  Yeah, okay, great, what's your point?You're right, AMF doesn't have any language pertaining to instantaneous effects.  It does have language that affects all spells, including instantaneous ones, though.  So you couldn't AMF off the slow from a ray of frost by wandering through because it's the nondispellable effect of an instantaneous spell, but the only way it wouldn't stop the remaining bolts from an eldritch blast (if it could indeed go up in the middle of them, which is debateable) is if the casting of the spell is already done and the lazorz are just the effect remaining.  Given the effect is described as a magical bolt of energy, though, I'd be hard pressed to say that it could exist at all in an AMF for any reason, like, ever.Most recent example of what?  Man, a bunch of your stuff seems to be missing important information that would make it make sense.  Instead of working on quoting more people, you should work on fully forming your statements so the things you do quote and the points you're trying to make come across.  Cause I've gotta say, I'm not getting the point of why you're saying what your saying.  I figure there is a point, but it's missing from your posts.  Looking forward to a more clear statement of intent from you.  Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification