Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 6777303" data-attributes="member: 61529">No, that's not the distinction I'm talking about at all.5e is not a rigidly written ruleset intended to be understood as precisely literally accurate in every way at all times. Often, the explanations of how things work are a little approximate.My interpretation of the &quot;can't be dispelled&quot; claim is that it's actually a little imprecise and handwaving, but it is literally true in nearly every circumstance.So, interpretations:#1. If a spell is tagged as &quot;instantaneous&quot;, there is no non-point interval of time during which the magic is actually present; you go directly from &quot;magic not present yet&quot; to &quot;magic already came and went&quot;.#2. If a spell is tagged as &quot;instantaneous&quot;, the effects of that spell take place so quickly that there is no point at which they are present, but you can dispel them; by the time they are present, any reaction will happen only after the magic is gone, leaving only the non-magical and undispellable results.I have been tending towards the second interpretation, which may seem surprising, but I think it provides a usable model, and it is almost always indistinguishable from the first model.Here's the thing. If you don't have that &quot;instantaneous&quot; language, someone will try to cast dispel magic on a person who has been set on fire by a fireball, because &quot;the fire came from magic and should be able to be dispelled&quot;. Even though the spell's over, the fire's still there.But in the one or two cases where an instantaneous spell's effects imply some kind of time sequencing, it becomes conceivable to imagine a thing happening between them. Think about a trap which activates an antimagic field &quot;if anything hits the idol&quot;. You cast something like Scorching Ray, or Eldritch Blast. You attack the idol. The antimagic field goes up. You now have additional attacks to make... But there's an antimagic field around the idol.And that contradicts the apparent sense of the &quot;instantaneous&quot; language, but so do the official rulings we've gotten on how repelling blast works, or whether you can choose new targets after seeing what the first attacks do. And that leads me to suspect that the intent is more like the second case... in which case, during the attack sequence, it's possible that you really could interrupt, or dispel, Eldritch Blast, because the rule saying you can't is a general discussion of the intended semantics of instantaneous effects (&quot;after the effect has taken place, it's not magical, it's just the way things are&quot;), and not really an absolute and incontrovertible statement about all game timing rules ever.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seebs, post: 6777303, member: 61529"] No, that's not the distinction I'm talking about at all. 5e is not a rigidly written ruleset intended to be understood as precisely literally accurate in every way at all times. Often, the explanations of how things work are a little approximate. My interpretation of the "can't be dispelled" claim is that it's actually a little imprecise and handwaving, but it is literally true in [b]nearly[/b] every circumstance. So, interpretations: #1. If a spell is tagged as "instantaneous", there is no non-point interval of time during which the magic is actually present; you go directly from "magic not present yet" to "magic already came and went". #2. If a spell is tagged as "instantaneous", the [b]effects[/b] of that spell take place so quickly that there is no point at which they are present, but you can dispel them; by the time they are present, any reaction will happen only after the magic is gone, leaving only the non-magical and undispellable results. I have been tending towards the second interpretation, which may seem surprising, but I think it provides a usable model, and it is [b]almost always[/b] indistinguishable from the first model. Here's the thing. If you don't have that "instantaneous" language, someone will try to cast dispel magic on a person who has been set on fire by a fireball, because "the fire came from magic and should be able to be dispelled". Even though the spell's over, the fire's still there. But in the one or two cases where an instantaneous spell's effects imply some kind of time sequencing, it becomes conceivable to imagine a thing happening [b]between[/b] them. Think about a trap which activates an antimagic field "if anything hits the idol". You cast something like Scorching Ray, or Eldritch Blast. You attack the idol. The antimagic field goes up. You now have additional attacks to make... But there's an antimagic field around the idol. And that contradicts the apparent sense of the "instantaneous" language, but so do the official rulings we've gotten on how repelling blast works, or whether you can choose new targets after seeing what the first attacks do. And that leads me to suspect that the intent is more like the second case... in which case, [b]during[/b] the attack sequence, it's possible that you really could interrupt, or dispel, Eldritch Blast, because the rule saying you can't is a general discussion of the intended semantics of instantaneous effects ("after the effect has taken place, it's not magical, it's just the way things are"), and not really an absolute and incontrovertible statement about all game timing rules ever. [/QUOTE]

Verification