For spells such as Scorching Ray and Eldritch Blast (L5) where the caster can choose separate targets for each Ray/Beam, at what point does the caster have to specify the target?
Scorching Ray says: "Make a ranged spell attack for each ray..."
Eldritch Blast says: "Make a separate attack roll for each beam."
Does this imply a caster can wait to see the result of one ray/beam before deciding who to target with the next? e.g. Ray #1 kills the Orc, so I'll target the Hobgoblin for Ray #2, darn he's still standing, so I'll hit him again with Ray #3
Or should the targets for each of the rays/beams be decided as the spell is cast?
Note, for comparison, Magic Missile says: "The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several." Here, given the specific language indicating the darts hit simultaneously, it would be clear that the caster has to decide the targets of all darts as the spell is cast.
Thanks.
I think Magic Missile is given as the example for such spells; especially the spells with an Instantaneous duration.
As I've explained in another thread, I believe that Eldritch Blast is one spell attack, with multiple targets; and, that the Eldritch Blast spell description is the "specific vs general" rule that calls for a separate attack roll for each target. I believe allowing the caster to target each blast, in sequence/consecutively, allows for the duration to be longer than the definition of the Instantaneous duration allows.
It is certainly open to interpretation; but, as stated, I think allowing the choosing of targets after the spell is cast, adds to the rules (in regard to the duration) rather than works within them.
EDIT: It is interesting to note, however, that Scorching Ray specifically states that the caster makes "a ranged spell attack for each ray"; but, again, I think these attacks all occur within such a small timeframe (the Instantaneous duration) that the caster must choose the targets before resolving any of the attacks.
In the PHB under the Making an attack entry bottom of page 193 - top of page 194:
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
Step 1. Choose a target
Step 2. Determine Modifiers
Step 3. Resolve the attack.
So as you can see, the first step whenever you make an attack roll with anything in the game, you have to pick the target of the attack you're making. So to answer your specific questions:
Sorching Ray: You cast the spell, determine how many rays you can attack with and then start making the attacks. For each ray you follow steps 1-3 of the Making an Attack entry. Once you're done resolving one ray, you repeat these steps for each one. So to mirror that in play: you select a target then the DM decides what modifiers if any you have on the attack (advantage, cover, obscurement, etc) and finally you roll the d20 to resolve the attack. You do this for each of the rays in that order.
Eldritch Blast: Works the same way, they just used different ways to say the same thing. The reason for it is because eldritch blast starts as only 1 beam, so they needed to make it clear that each beam (once you level up and gain multiple) is made seperately. You follow the rules for making an attack above just the same because it uses attack rolls.
Yes the caster can resolve the first beam, see that it killed his first target and then select a new target for the next beam/ray. Selecting targets is done for every attack roll as the first step, as per the Making an Attack entry above. You do not need to pick all your targets for all beams/rays before making the first attack roll. This is not how it works and you can see that for yourself above. The rules clearly say that whenever you're making an attack roll you follow the 3 steps above. Each time you have to make an attack roll, so for each beam/ray, you follow the rule above. It's very simple. The example you gave with the orc and hobgoblin is correct. You can do that as per the rules, no issue.
No the casting of the spell is not when you select targets as per the rules quoted above. Simply casting a spell has nothing to do with selecting targets. It's when you make an attack roll. Just do what the PHB says.
Magic Missile is a unique spell in the PHB. It's the only spell in the entire game that requires that all darts be resolved simultaneously. Also note that Magic Missile does not have an attack roll, which is why they added that line in AFAIK. Unless a spell specifically calls out something like this, you should always follow the general rules quoted above when making an attack roll.
Hope this helps.
EDIT: I'm begging you here, do not let lawrenceboy mess up your thread. This is not about the duration of the spell. He's under the impression that the duration is what decides these things but he's completely wrong and if you look at the entry for the duration he's talking about on page 203 you'll see for yourself that it doesn't say ANYTHING about what he's saying. Targets for spells are decided when you make an attack roll as per the rules I quoted for you. Lawrenceboy is using a random definition of the word instantaneous to invent a whole bunch of rules that don't exist. He can't provide you with anything to prove what he's saying, ask for proof. This is a new problem on this forum ever since someone made this claim. We've been working at it for multiple days now to explain to them how and why it doesn't make sense but they are simply refusing to listen to reason. So please, focus on the rules in the PHB that you can read for yourself and not their messed up definition.
Noctaem, I'm not trying to mess up any thread. The rule you're quoting is the general rule. The Instantaneous duration is a more specific rule; it overrides the rule you've quoted. That is all I'm trying to say here.
Noctaem, thanks for the pointer to p. 194. Combined with the wording of both spells, I'm convinced that each attack is resolved before the next, allowing a caster to choose a target after seeing the results of the previous attack.
Lawrencehoy, thanks also for your input, I'd certainly have no problem if a DM followed your ruling, however I agree with Noctaem that it is not RAW.
Appreciate both responses, thanks again.
@Lawrence
But it seems like you're going in circles. Noctaem pointed this out in the other thread. You're using the same proof to back up the first thing you said and any proof to back it up. It's a circular argument like Slagger explained. There's nothing in on page 203 that agrees with you and the claims you're making. You can't give any rule source for what you're saying from the PHB. All you seem to have is your opinion and the definition of a single word that you keep pointing at which doesn't make you right because nothing agrees with you.
Bletch wrote:
Bletch wrote:
Vivaldi wrote:
[quote="Noctaem"]
In the PHB under the Making an attack entry bottom of page 193 - top of page 194:
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
Step 1. Choose a target
Step 2. Determine Modifiers
Step 3. Resolve the attack.
So as you can see, the first step whenever you make an attack roll with anything in the game, you have to pick the target of the attack you're making.[/quote]
Yep, follow these steps, in order for each attack.
After that, Noctaem, you get lost.
There is nothing in those rules which tell you what to do if you have multiple attacks. You are making stuff up when you say that if you have more than one attack you must resolve attacks consecutively.
If you have, say, 3 beams, each beam must follow the above steps in order. If your attacks are consecutive, then you go through all the steps for a single attack before starting the process for the next attack. The trouble is that you are assuming that the attacks are consecutive, then using that as 'proof' that all multiple attacks must be consecutive.
If the attacks are simultaneous, then the steps are still followed, in order, for each attack. But the steps are simultaneous with the other attacks.
So, with 3 beams:-
Step 1: Choose a target for each beam.
Step 2: Determine modifiers for each beam.
Step 3: Resolve the attack for each beam.
Whether you attack simultaneously or consecutively is not decided by the rules for these steps; they are decided by the nature of the multiple attack. If the multiple attacks happen simultaneously, they follow those steps without any problem whatsoever, simultaneously.
In what way is following the rules, 'not following the rules'?
If the attacks are simultaneous, then the steps are still followed, in order, for each attack. But the steps are simultaneous with the other attacks.
So, with 3 beams:-
Step 1: Choose a target for each beam.
Step 2: Determine modifiers for each beam.
Step 3: Resolve the attack for each beam.
These are the rules being followed exactly.
ArialBlack wrote:
Dear OP: It isn't explicit which way is expected by the rules. P. 194 is the general process....but may not be the specific method for a 'multi-shot instantaneous spell' Despite the long winded and vociferous folks demanding they are 100% right...... there are rules supporting both interpretations. (Just because someone chooses to ignore a rule citation, does not mean it doesn't exist.)
That said, based on multple reasons, including how other rules interact and my interpretation of certain twitter responses from Crawford..... I believe the expected method is to deal with them sequentially.
Coredump00 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I can't believe Coredump actually tried to drag in Jeremy Crawford into this fantasy of theirs. I'm just awed by it....
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Instead of getting into a who-said-what I will simply state that in my opinion, each ray from scorching ray is it's own attack. You attack with a ray, then decide if you want to continue attacking the same target or a different target.
If you have multiple attacks for any action, you choose a target, resolve the attack, choose a target, resolve that attack and continue until you have no more attacks.
It doesn't matter what type of action you are using to attack.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
By RAW (as described in replies above), the player rolls each attack and resolves them in sequence. There is no ambiguity in my mind about how the rules are meant to be applied.
The difficulty comes in reconciling the rules with the combat narrative, and this is the source of confusion for some DMs/players. A creature falls unconscious or is killed outright when it is reduced to 0 HP. Does this happen immediately? Mechanically yes, narratively, not necessarily. It falls upon the DM to describe this in terms that make sense for the particular action, and provide context for the player's decision if, as in the original example, the character does enough damage to kill an opponent, and wants to direct the next attack roll against a different target.
That said, the DM may find it more productive to describe an action after all attack rolls have been resolved, rather between attack rolls. He still declares if one attack results in a kill immediately after the damage is done, so the player can choose where other attacks should go. However, he can save the flowery description til after everything is resolved, in order to create a more compelling and accurate narrative.
edit: Requiring the caster to select his targets in advance of resolving the attack rolls is perfectly acceptable, and I think it actually makes more sense than RAW. But that is a house rule.
Well for starters we can totally remove this idea that the duration of instantaneous means the spell goes off in the dictionary definition of the word. Look at the spell fireball (or many others) it says "A bright streak flashes to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." So you have 2 phrases there that based on the dictionary cannot be instant. And then, into an. Both move along the timeline for a serious of events thus not instant. So get it out of your head that the duration of instaneous means in an instant.... Just means it can't be dispelled.
so I agree based on pure RAW that you get to choose your new target after rolling previous but remember there is RAI(intended) and RAF(fun) to take into account that the designers specifically say to take into account. How I look at it is you can't move between this attacks like you can with multiattack(right?) so you obviously have less time between these attacks then normal attacks. So maybe you get to see if the attacks hit before choosing the next target but not rolling damage until the end because you don't really have time to notice how painful that hit looked. Or maybe you do roll damage first but the DM doesn't tell you if it actually kills the monster or not. Things barely killed with only 1 or 2 damaged overkill might die fairly slowly so it might not be so obvious if it's down for good or just in a lot of pain.
all I'm getting at is with these fairly ambiguous rules if there is a possible compromise it's usually the best way to take it. I actually play a level 11 warlock and I choose all my targets before I roll the first one. It's honestly more fun because I really have to plan out and take some risk vs reward. Do I want to guarantee this monster will die or try to kill 2 but at the risk of having them both live.
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Great, now that you've given your opinion again without an ounce of stuff to back it up, we all know how you houserule the game. And again, you're making a circular argument because AGAIN you keep pointing to the same silly words for everything you claim. CIRCULAR ARGUMENT, look it up. Quoting 1-4 words out of an entire paragraph while claiming they say something they don't isn't going to convince anyone. Multiple people are explaining this to you. Thanks for sharing.
Helnam wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Coredump00 wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Bletch wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
At this point, with two threads and pages of posts, I think it's fair to say there are two camps that aren't going to convince eachother. Either all targets of the separate attacks are chosen before any of them are resolved, or you choose targets as each attack gets resolved. No side will budge until Sage Advice or an official errate cleans this one up.
Just be aware that this discussion exists, and ask your DM how he rules these spells work at his table.
At the end of the day I don't think the enjoyment of your character depends on the possibility of overkilling a target now and then.
Razintarr wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Our grop went with the version where you can make each attack sequetially and move in between, just because it's more fun and cinematic to imagine a spellcaster ducking and weaving through combat firing ray after ray than it is to imagine 3 beams shooting from the hand of a stationary caster.
The rules are obviously vague enough that either interpretation is possible (just check out the argument in this thread), so why not go with the cooler option?
My interpretation of Scorching Ray is that you 'instantaneously' create three rays of fire, and then you hurl them afterwards. The hurling is more like an additional part of the action, not a part of casting the spell itself. So your action has been to cast the spell (instantaneous) and then hurl the resulting rays of fire (sequential).
I don't see the need, therefore, for either side to be 'wrong' in the basis of their argument. Both sides are right - the 'instantaneous' brigade are just confusing the act of hurling rays of fire etc., with the act of conjuring said rays of fire in the first place (which is indeed instantaneous as per the rules and spell description)
Note that magic missile indicates the bolts hit 'simultaneously' and scorching ray doesn't....
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
The only question you need to answer to prove Making An Attack is done in sequence is this:
If a fighter has 4 attacks from their Attack Action, do they have to pick targets for all 4 attacks before rolling dice?
Since Making An Attack applies to weapon attacks and spell attacks, if a fighter doesn't have to, neither does a spellcaster. The rule for Making an Attack applies to both equally. There is no interpretation that instanteous spells resolve differently because there is no wording in the duration's description that says the rules for Making An Attack are altered. Since the rules aren't altered, they must be the same.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Out of Curiousity;
Would those of you advocating eldritch blast beams are not instantaneous answer the following:
1. Is there a possibility of being interrupted between beams?
2. If you are using the repelling version could a target get pushed into cover so that some beams are at disadvantage and others are not?
3. If you target two creatures and one has counterspell or something similar (some form of reaction to shut down your casting) and you hit that one first is the other creature not affected at all?
4. Can a target get pushed out of range from the first beam such that subsequent beams can't reach it?
Phorem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Phorem wrote:
Phorem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
My own questions for people who think all targets must be chosen at the point of casting.
1) Do you make someone making a weapon attack declare targets before attacking?
2) Where does it say that spell attacks should be handled differently than weapon attacks?
As far as instantaneous duration, there's a difference between how long it takes to resolve the spell attack(s) and how long the spell persists.
Page 79 Basic Rules
Duration A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed. Instantaneous Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant.
The important thing is that duration describes how long a spell persists, not how long it takes to cast or resolved. Each ray only lasts an instant, the ray does not persist after the attack is resolved.
It does not state that the entire spell is cast or resolved in an instant.
3) So my last question, why make spells follow a different set of rules?
Sounds like the argument is between whether the spell sends all its stuff all at once, or more like a roman candle. Has anyone tried asking in a twitter?
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The cake analogy is an excellent one.
If you had a recipe for a chocolate sponge cake, and that recipe had steps 1 to 10, then it's telling you how to make one cake, just like Making An Attack is telling how to make one attack.
But there is absolutely nothing in that cake recipe that says you can't make three cakes at the same time, doing step 1 three times followed by step 2 three times and so on, with all three going into the same oven and being taken out at the same time.
In short, there is nothing inherent in the step system that forbids you taking the same step multiple times to get multiple results. You can certainly make three cakes simultaneously, and there is nothing about the step system that implies that it cannot be done for several beams simultaneously.
The notion that 'because steps' leads to 'therefore cannot be simultaneous' is simply false.
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
The only thing that "instantaneous" means in the game as it applies to the mechanics of magic is that the magical energy does not last long enough to be dispelled.
I'm beginning to understand why some participants in this discussion are becoming so exasperated with the people who insist on using any other definition.
Nevvur wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise.
Jeremy Crawford added,
Jeremy Soard @JeremySoard
@JeremyECrawford Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?
Orethalion wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
I would have then sent a tweet to Jeremy Crawford asking him to clarify all the things that then no longer work coherently. Trying to better understand how things work as intended by the designers.
Nevvur wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
It has been suggested that the words 'instant' and 'instantaneous' don't mean the same thing to WotC that they do to the rest of the English-speaking world; that they don't refer to a span of time at all, but instead just mean 'undispellable'. So I looked at the 3.5 PHB (p176) to see what WotC thought the instantaneous duration meant.
"Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting. For example, a cure light wounds spell only lasts an instant, but the healing it bestows never runs out or goes away."
This description, held alongside the 5E description, shows that WotC do indeed mean a very short span of time, and the word itself certainly does not mean 'undispelable'. The fact that they can't be dispelled is simply a consequence of the magic coming and going so quickly that no-one can react fast enough to do anything about it. Like, dispelling or...changing your mind about targets!
EDIT: The post did change while I was answering, but I'll let the question stand, in case it's relevant.
ArialBlack wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
This is why I've been avoiding these threads. No matter what is said, no matter who says it (even Jeremy Crawford) you can't convince someone who's mind is made up.
Duration is just how long the spell lasts. A ray lasts for a moment, a wall of fire lasts up to a minute.
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
In general, and it is a generalisation, those who are personally invested in a discussion or argument are less likely to change their opinions, at least publicly, due to pride. However, those who read the threads, who are not affected by having invested an opinion, can still be convinced of the validity of an opinion, so sharing them is never entirely wasted even if the person it is directed to is not convinced.
El_Condoro wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Either I am not being clear, or you are not reading what I am actually writing. I will assume it is me and try again.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Right now what does the spell do? It gives you X attacks. Okay then. You make X attacks.
That is all the rules say. Anyone claiming more than that is wrong.
Now for resolving them: nowhere in the book is simultaneous resolution mentioned. Thus simultaneous resolution is not RAW. What is mentioned is resolving an attack in the singular. So we do that, X times. "Focus time" ends and in that instant you've attacked X times, sequentially.
And not to mention that JC has actually directly stated that you're wrong lawrence.. at this point if you're just going to keep arguing this nothing will ever convince you to change your mind.
Lawrencehoy, what is your position on the response from Jeremy Crawford?
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Good god Slagger, it's already been explained to you. Why the hell are you trying to start the argument all over again? We have the answer from Jeremy. Enough already. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yeah, arguing for the sake of arguing. This is just the same arguments presented over and over again.
Noctaem wrote:
Also note that "baking" has to include the troublesome step of "mixing" (targetting), otherwise the analogy is worthless.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Recalling previous editions spell text is irrelevant. The intent of Wish in every edition is to create a super powerful magical effect (or replicate another spell). One of these editions ages you 10 years. One of these does not. It is a very mechanical aspect of the spell that has changed with new editions, and should be obeyed in the edition you are playing.
In one edition of D&D, scorching ray targets are declared simultaneously. In another edition, they are not. It is a very mechanical aspect of the spell that has changed with new editions, and should be obeyed in the edition you are playing.
Also...
Okay, so the game mechanics have been altered across the magic system. However, what has not changed is the concept of a fireball, instantaneously exploding for area of effect damage! The fluff might be that a pea-sized spark shoots from the caster to a point he chooses, which then bursts into flame, but the 'instantaneous' part means exactly the same in 5E as it did in earlier editions. 'Instantaneous' might not have the literal meaning, but we know that it means 'such a short span of time that no-one can do anything about it', including dispelling it, or seeing how some of it works out before deciding how to use the rest.
ArialBlack, we have Jeremy Crawford's answer on the matter. For it to not apply (at least on mechanical grounds), the RAW would have to say that an attack is simultaneous. That would suggest that somewhere the rules should either say it directly such as "these attacks are simultaneous", or either employ or reference another rules section that does so.
For example, if the description of the instantaneous duration said that "multiple attacks made as part of an instantaneous duration are simultaneous", it would consistute such a statement for any instantaneous duration. Rules implying it as a possible, but unstated consequence of a type of duration would not fit the description given in Jeremy's answer.
OoftaMeg wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
JC has chimed in again. If the target is 115' away, the first beam can repel the target out of range for the second beam.
I am intrigued how AB tries to get around this one...
That's how :P
Both the pushing and the distance pushed are at the caster's whim.
Right, just don't push the target.
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Where in the process of resolving the Cast A Spell action does it call for you to check the spell duration, that you continue to bring up the duration in the first place?
(This is the third or fourth time the question or point has been made, but since we're all repeating ourselves, and this has yet to be answered....)
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
When it comes to how long an 'instant' is, I have no problem with the act of targetting being a rapid process. I have a major problem with the caster shooting one beam, waiting to see if the target dies or not, then using that knowledge to inform their next choice of target, potentially four times. That's not one 'instant' by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if Crawford wants us to resolve these attacks one-at-a-time, he has not said that the caster has time to change target based on the result of a previous beam when the entire spell is instantaneous.
A useful tweet to him might be something like, "When casting scorching ray/eldritch blast, can the caster wait until one ray resolves, wait to see if the target dies or not, then use that knowledge to decide who to target next, all in the same instant that the spell exists?"
ArialBlack wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
We're still having this argument?
There are two types of spells. Spells where the effect of the spell persists past the caster's turn (charm person, wall of fire, etc) and those that don't persist (eldritch blast, fireball, scorching ray, etc).
It's clear, simple language. Scorching ray is instantaneous because each ray only lasts for an instant. That's what the rules say, that's how attacks are resolved, that's what Jeremy Crawford has confirmed in a couple of tweets now.
If that's not good enough, I give. 
OoftaMeg wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
FWIW, to those (in the right) arguing that attacks are made sequentially:
I actually came to this thread believing targets were supposed to be declared simultaneously, and had been running E.blast and S.Ray accordingly... until the 3rd post in cleared it up. In fact, I still think it's a fair and reasonable house rule to ask spellcasters to do so, though I don't intend to enforce it any more.
Anyway, I'm proof that people can change their perspectives and admit they're wrong.
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
I've only just realised this! Eldritch blast never says that if you get more than one beam you get more than one attack! You get more than one attack roll!
This means that JC's tweet about multiple attacks (a general rule; remember he said absolutely nothing about eldritch blast) is irrelevant in a discussion about this spell, which is not multiple attacks, but a single attack with multiple attack rolls.
And talking about JC tweets, he revealed that Whirlwind Attack is not multiple attacks, but a single attack with multiple attack rolls. Since eldritch blast is worded like Whirlwind Attack in this regard, JC's Whirlwind tweet applies, while his Multiple Attack tweet does not.
ArialBlack wrote:
Desperately trying to find any loophole you can to avoid having to just admit you were wrong? Jeez...
ArialBlack wrote:
Yunru wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
While I disagree with certain people on this message board about whether or not we can use common definition of the word "instantaneous", I don't think it matters.
The duration of the spell is just how long it persists. Nothing in the rules says that eldritch blast casting ends once the first bolt is created, all it says is that the bolt only persists for a moment. A wall of fire persists for up to a minute, the bolts don't persist after the attack is completed.
If the bolts went off simultaneously they would have said so in the description as they did with magic missile. Why did they spell it out for magic missile if it was not clarify that since you aren't making an attack it's an exception to the general rule of how to resolve attacks?
Assuming that want separate, simultaneous attacks how else could they have worded it to satisfy those arguing for simultaneous?
Are there any other spells that fall into this category? Scorching Ray specifically states that you get multiple spell attacks. Yet it's duration is also instantaneous, why is that not an issue?
Finally, Jeremy Crawford weighed in on this and it's still an issue? 
OoftaMeg wrote:
I find it incredibly disingenous that these people would keep arguing that they're right after everything that's been presented to them (including a direct dev tweet) AND that they would suddenly move the goal posts of the discussion over and over as they are proven wrong. Every time they are shown to be wrong about their claim, they simply change the claim slightly to then make the same arguments over again ad nauseam. And frankly it just seems like they don't actually know the stuff they quote, we have to keep correcting them over and over.
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
I think we should just keep repeating these words until it sinks in:
"You can't use dispel magic on a spell with the instantaneous duration."
Maybe it'll sink in after a few pages.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
I would take the people who continue to argue against JC's ruling more seriously if they would bother to address where they were shown to be wrong, instead of leaping for the next desperate syntactical gap.
I'm also curious how the simultaneous-target people would rule Dispel Magic vs. Prayer of Healing, given the arguments they present. The important thing in both cases (E.Blast/S.Ray, PoH) is that selecting the targets is a process over time, but the magical energy itself lasts only an instant.
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Maybe this has already been stated, as I cant be bothered to read through all the bickering after page 3
but my 2cp:
When you Cast a Spell, as your main Action, and that spell requires an Attack Roll, if that Attack has multiple targets, they are all chosen when the caster casts the spell, he does not know if the beam, missle, blast, or snowball_chance_in_hell is going to kill any one of those targets prior to his 'action'...but hopefully he is an intelligent fellow and can deduce this, and/or is able to choose wisely.
Also, this is not to be confused with Making an Attack, which is a completely different game mechanic as clarified via tweets and IIRC the last sage advice supplement.
Radaceus wrote:
Radaceus wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Radaceus wrote:
Regardless, of making one or several attacks, the original question was damage. And in the case of an instantaneous spell, the damage happens instantaneously, therefore the caster shouldnt know if the target is dead until after the spell has resolved. in those few seconds of his action he determines an opponent or opponents and casts. Making one or several attacks does not matter. It IS different than a melee attack and making an extra or bonus attack, because you cannot make more than one Casting a Spell action per turn...i.e. you cannot cast an additional spell as your Extra/Bonus Attacks and the reason why you can break up movement between these Attacks (read: melee Attack Action) and etc
This seems more logical to me, than casting multiple beams and getting to decide whether to target another creature after you roll damage on your additional beam which was cast instantaneously with your first.
The argument all hinges on the fact that the Eldritch Blast says to make a seperate attack for each beam, versus Magic Missle which say they all happen simultaneously ( note: you dont make an attack roll with Magic Missle, does this then mean you can wait to see if your missle kills the goblin before directing the next missle to target?). I think a couple of spells have been worded badly, I believe the Eldritch beams and any other instantaneous spell should happen simultaneously, that, or change the ruling on Casting a Spell to allow more than one spell being cast per action ( that is the RAI of the Extra Attack and thus the singular use of target in the Making an Attack sequence), because that is the essence of the argument, multiple attack actions.
summarily,
if this is to be a house rule I am using to clarify the few spells which need this clarity...so be it
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
A very desperate attempt. At this point I'm convinced this is pure trolling. His only goal is to keep posting nonsense to get people to reply so he gets attention. We should just stop so he moves on.
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Duration has nothing to do with resolving attack rolls. Try again.
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
My takeaways:
- When you're making an attack roll as a part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
- The spells eldritch blast and scorching ray harm a creature in a way that can't be dispelled, because their magic exists only for an instant.
- Spells descriptions could be written more consistently, and in a way that makes Whirlwind Attack a clear exception.
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawrencehoy, duration has nothing to do with resolving a spell attack. Can you (or anyone) explain why you think it does?
(This is the 4th or 5th time I've said this, and I intend to keep doing so until I get an answer. Not a fun discussion, but this is apparently how you win debates online.)
Nevvur wrote:
How is the spell's duration invoked during the rule for resolving attacks?
Nevvur wrote:
Here's the easy way to check: does it say "simultaneous" or any words to that effect? No it doesn't.
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
So I was checking in to see how deep the rabbit hole went. I didn't expect it would almost reach to China.
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
If there's ever a case that "You Are Not Your Character" would apply, it would be now.
Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford Jun 26 Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise. Jeremy Crawford added, Jeremy Soard @JeremySoard @JeremyECrawford Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling? Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford Jun 30 Yes, Repelling Blast can push a target out of the range of subsequent beams from eldritch blast. Jeremy Crawford added, Jeremy Soard @JeremySoard @JeremyECrawford If you get 3 attacks with eldritch blast, can the first attack push a target out of range of the next two attacks?
In the first tweet two questions were asked. The first was responded to with a general ruling: "Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise."
The second question is completely unanswered. He is leaving it up to us to decide if you have to pick all the targets before rolling or not. It seems there is two possible rulings.
One, you can decide that since the duration is "Instantaneous" there would not be time to choose different targets after the spell is cast. So you choose all targets, then make attack rolls, one at a time, and apply the results sequentially.
Two, you can decide that, even though the duration is "Instantaneous", you will allow the caster to choose one target, roll the attack and determine the results, then choose the next target and repeat until all attacks are done. You then might describe the events as happening instantaneously and the caster didn't actually target them one at a time, but just happened to aim the right number of bolts to take out a target. Or just don't worry about the timing at all via suspension of disbelief.
Either could be correct by RAW and which you use should be determined by RAF (Rules As Fun). For me the first interpretation is more fun. So I will go with that one. No house rules needed.
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Why is everyone still confusing what the player does with what the character does?
FarBeyondC wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
FarBeyondC wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
The only way to make attacks by RAW, is sequentially. Does it explicitly say sequentially? No. However, it's not an interpretation to do attack in a sequential manner. How is that you might ask. I'll tell you.
1) The Making an Attack section is written in singular language. It only allows you to make one single attack. That one single attack runs through 3 steps and is then done. Without a specific rule overriding that written rule, you will only ever have one attack.
2) Looking at the duration langauge, nothing in there specifically overrides the general rule in the Making an Attack section or says anything about simultaneous.
3) Looking at Eldritch Blast we see specific language granting multiple attack rolls. Since the only way to have an attack roll is to make an attack, it grants multiple attacks. So here we have specific language overriding the general rule in the Making an Attack section.
4) Looking further at the Eldritch Blast, there is no specific language about simultaneous or overriding the general rule in the Making an Attack section about singular, so the only way we can enact the RAW of both Eldritch Blast (multiple attacks) and the Making an Attack section (attacks happen singular), each of those attacks has to happen one at a time. There's no way to make them simultaneous without specific language stating that, and there's no other way than sequential to engage in the RAW of Making an Attack.
RAW requires sequential for multiple attacks unless it specifically says otherwise. That's not an interpretation like Lawrence is trying to do with duration. That's the only way to enact RAW without adding language. I'm not adding sequential. Sequential just happens when I go through the steps of RAW.
CraggleRock wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
If I shoot two beams in rapid succession, then the second beam will hit an instant after the first hits. Wait a minute! If that's the case, then the first hits in one instant and the second hits in another instant; a different instant! But we know the duration is a single instant!
In fact, if there is any delay between the beams, then this is not a single instant, therefore not allowed by the instantaneous duration. The only way that an instantaneous spell can shoot two or more beams is if they are created in the very same instant. And that, my friends, means that the beams are simultaneous!
This is why the instantaneous duration is saying that the beams are created and streak out from the caster simultaneously.
It may be that the beams don't strike the target simultaneously, because every part of an opponent is a slightly different distance away (unless the target is a perfectly flat plane which is perfectly perpendicular to the caster). It might be that the beams strike nanoseconds apart, even though they left the caster simultaneously.
So, the instantaneous duration means that the beams must be created and streak out from the caster simultaneously.
BTW Orethalion, how are you getting on with squaring that circle? Are you defining 'instant' as too short a time to overlap the instant it takes to loose a Readied dispel? Or are you going with the 'instant' that is just under six seconds long?
Or are you still saying that it changes depending on whose point you are refuting?
ArialBlack wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
No rules system is perfect, and I know I've had situations where I read one thing only to accept later that my initial conclusion was incorrect. At a certain point you can either just accept that you were wrong or that there is no reason to continue arguing.
I assume people are familiar with Occam's Razor? Given two answers to a question the simplest answer is most likely correct?
On one hand we have a ruling that is totally consistent with the rules and Jeremy Crawford's tweets. Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled, multiple attacks are resolved sequentially, there is no need for all attacks to happen instantaneously.
There are at least two simple ways this can happen (the rules don't specify)
- The caster continues to cast the spell after the first attack is resolved. The casting doesn't end until the last attack is resolved.
- The energy of the spell magic is "held" by the caster and resolved in instantaneous attacks.
The other ruling is that all attacks have to happen at the moment the casting is complete and all attacks must be resolved in an instant which means they have to happen (effectively) simultaneously.
The latter proposition as a possible alternative fails because:
- Doesn't work very well with the structure of the attack action steps
- Unnecessarily penalizes spellcasters who are doing the ranged attacks
- Contradicts multiple tweets from Jeremy Crawford.
- Is never explicitly stated to work that way, even when other spells (such as Magic Missile) go out of their way to clear up possible confusion.
- Requires a very specific definition of the word instantaneous that is not stated in the rules.
- Uses lawyer-like parsing of a rules system that is designed to be simple and consistent and tries to eliminate unnecessary complexity.
Bloodscythe wrote:
At this point I don't think I'm alone in getting tired of the circular arguments. We are not going to convince each other. The best we can do is try to understand the other side's point of view and move on.
Additionally you can continue to believe that there is only one "right" way to play this game or you can believe that there is more than one way to play and they can all be "right".
Personally I am happy to let people play how they want. It did bother me a little to hear people claim that the way I play was "wrong", hence why I participated in this thread at all. But I described why I prefer to do it my way, why I think it is a valid reading of RAW, and I provided an alternative point of view (along with others that have the same point of view) for anyone that comes along and would be disappointed if it worked the way the other side described.
So at this point I am satisfied with the arguments I have presented and am happy to just let it rest.
So lawance (or whatever his name is) is saying that JC was implying that the duration of instantaneous is a specific rules that takes precedence over the general rule of sequential attacks? But wouldn't that be more of a general rule anyways so he's saying that his concept of the instantaneous general rule is takes precedence over the oter general rule of sequential attacks? Pretty sure he's just misinterpreting what JC was saying.
tldr: duration of instantaneous is not a specific rule, it's a general one so it won't take precedence over the sequential rule.
Helnam wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I apologize to keep this going, I recently made a thread asking some miscellaneous questions, and was checking if I was right in thinking for Eldritch Blast each beam gets its own attack and damage roll, meaning if I was successful with the first beams attack roll, I’d roll 1d10 for the damage and apply the damage of the roll, then for the second beam I’d roll for the attack roll, and for the damage roll I’d roll 1d10, as the damage of the first and second beam are not linked.I then asked if the same applies to Scorching Ray: every ray has its own attack roll, and each have a separate damage roll as well, 2d6 fire damage per ray, and if Magic Missile was the same case as well. For the first two, the general response was yes, but someone added they felt that based on various tweet conversations of Jeremy Crawford pre and post errata, they think Magic Missile does not operate the same as Scorching Ray and other spells, saying they were under the impression Magic Missile is meant to have only 1 damage roll, and you apply that to each target, giving an example: "You will do 1D4+1+Int per missile, roll a '3' with 18 Int, and each missile does 8hp of damage. Hit the same target with 4 missiles, and do 32 hp of damage." I was just wondering, what is everyone's stance on here going as close to RAW/RAI as possible? I just found it weird that if this was true, You would have different damage rolls anyways when using Empowered Evocation. Right now I've just been treating it like i have with the examples above for Eldritch Blast and Scorching Ray. Also, is Magic Missile only meant to have one attack roll for all missiles, or is it like the examples where each missile has its own attack and damage roll?
tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
tyrionlannister2113 wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Two quick question for clarity...
If one character readies a Disintegrate to go off it the warlock casts Eldritch Blast with 4 beams, does the Disintegrate go off after the first beam of the Eldritch Blast or after all of them go off?
I think it would be after all 4 beams were fired, because Eldritch Blast lasts for just an instant and is too fast to interrupt.
Second question. Same situation, but the wizard is going to cast Disintegrate on an Archer firing 4 arrows.
I think the Disintegrate would happen after the first arrow was fired, because weapon attacks are not instantaneous.
LordTwig wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Yunru wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Suppose you were given a reading comprehension test in middle or high school that included the spellcasting chapter from the PHB followed by several questions. One question is: In the sentence "The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because the magic only exists for an instant." The noun "magic" as used in the sentence has which of the following meanings: a) tricks that seem to be impossible and that are done by a performer to entertain people b) a power that allows people to do impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions c) the spell d) all effects of the spell e) the effect of the spell that harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object. As for me, I'm going to choose "e" since magic is functioning as a collective noun for the class named earlier in the sentence. (Hint: always select the answer like "e" for similar sentence structure on college entry tests, graduate exams, and english class tests if you want to be correct.)
We know the instantaneous tag doesn't apply to casting the spell because that can take minutes for spells with duration instantaneous. We know it doesn't apply to the time the energy of the spell exists after casting, since spells can be readied which conceivably means the spell energy exists for several seconds between the finish of casting and release. Targeting is unlikely to be part of casting as casting is complete and the spell slot expended with a readied action, and selecting the target at the time of casting makes attack roll spells unusable for common readied actions such as I hit them with XXX spell when they come within range (of the spell) or when they pop up to shoot before dropping behind cover (while I can see them), and creates paradoxes if you think about it a bit. So is targeting part of the instantaneous? No,targeting is not an effect that harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or object. So does the instantaneous tag apply to the time from release to completion and include other effects of the spell? Lets take fireball as an example. An evocation spell that "produces a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire ..." "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a roar into an explosion of flame." It is an area of effect spell, so has a point or origin from which the spell's energy erupts. The point of origin can be different than the target (a selected point in space) such as when an obstruction is in the path. We also known that something about the spell allows time for reflexes to kick in since a dexterity save can be used, including the time for a shield master to impose his shield between himself and the source of the effect, even when they can not see or hear the spell caster. To me, the streak of light description, the reflex times, the transformation at point of origin, and other pieces of evidence says the spell exists as spell energy during the cinematic delivery of the spell and the instantaneous tag only applies to the transformation of spell energy into the explosion of flame. There are other instantaneous tag spells in which the delivery method described is slower than a "streak of light".
If prior art influences you (I consider this version stand alone. Text from previous versions are not RAW for 5e), a previous DnD version specifically went through what the instantaneous part meant by arcane school. For evocation spells it was transformation of the spell energy to effect at the point of origin for area effects or target, e.g. when scorching ray hit the target; for conjuration it was the creation or appearance of the object, e.g. for the Orb of Fire spell it was when the 3 inch orb appeared at your palm; and so on for the other schools. I hesitate to go through my bookshelves of splat books, errata, and official rulings for previous versions to find it, perhaps someone else can point to it
.
Interviews with and articles by the designers of 5e never mention any goal to limit or reduce the number of words used in the rules. (If there was, they failed miserably with the advantage/disadvantage multiple descriptions.) There were goals to simplify the mechanics of the game, in part by reducing the differences or combining similar mechanics that were retained. So dropping the "fired simultaneously" from scorching ray would seem an intentional design change. Errata is out and the phrase not added back. The first sentence in "Making an Attack" is evidence that spell attacks were to be more like weapon attacks than in previous versions. Where they are not to be treated the same is spelled out, such as in the movement between attacks rules.
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
[quote="lawrencehoy"]
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
You keep claiming he said something he didn't. He only said that all attacks are resolved sequentially. You are reading into that sentence that you have to choose all targets sequentially as well. He specifically avoided that direct question.
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
And as I said, targetting is part of attacking. Thus if you're attacking sequentially you are also targetting sequentially.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
This really is pointless.
I'm right, you are wrong. That is what these arguments boil down to.
You play your way, I'll play the correct way.*
I'm done. You all can continue your redundant arguments.
It is inevitable that someone will reply again to say I'm wrong (I'm not), but I will let them have the last word.
Proceed.
*That's a joke. I see both as equally valid.
LordTwig wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Or was that Lord Twig graceously retreating?
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
The fact that you had to explain this proves he's arguing in bad faith. He knows and understands all of this. His post history proves it. He's just being as obtuse as possible because he can't say he was wrong. He's striving for the middle ambiguous "no one is wrong, we're both right because there's many interpretations." The problem is that's a copout. And yes, there absolutely is a right and wrong here. We have both RAW and RAI, he has nothing.
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
If he had been trolling, you'd be taking the bait every time.
But I think neither really applies; someone being determined and having a different viewpoint doesn't make them a troll or delusional.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
I was thinking of something different and realized my mistake when I got home. I didn't bring it up again because it was my mistake. Though I think you fully realize that.
It's not about seeing things from someone else's point of view. IF someone tells you on a cloudless day, at noon, with a clear sky that the sky is in fact red with burning flame raining down upon the world and that it's the apocalypse there's literally 0 reason to try and see things from their point of view, especially even after you point out that the sky is a nice blue as usual for this time of year they continue to argue with you that it is in fact as they say. There's nothing to gain from seeing things based on their point of view, they are delusional.
Just like some of the people we have in this thread who have repeatedly demonstrated that fact. Just look at the latest from lawrence. He's either delusional or he's trolling all of us. I'm favoring the latter but at some point if he keeps going I'll vote in favor of the former.
Noctaem wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Is this the part where you reference how good and evil are just point of views and go all philosophical? Can't you just stick to answering his points? you know the ones where he demonstrates you have nothing to back up your claim? I think you just know you're wrong and have nothing left to say and have now decided to back out. Congratulations, next time just admit you're wrong and move forward.
LordTwig wrote:
I'll try to make this quick. 5 beams, 5 attacks.
Player: I cast Eldritch Blast. I have 5 beams.
DM: Who are you attacking?
Player: I will send 3 beams at the wizard, because I really want him to go down. One each at his two henchmen.
DM: Okay. Roll it.
Player: Okay, 3 beams on the wizard. So that's one attack on the wizard. (Rolls attack and damage. How many attacks are being made currently? One. An attack.) Attack two on the wizard. (Rolls attack and damage. How many attacks are being made currently? One. An attack.) And attack three on the wizard. (Rolls attack and damage. How many attacks are being made currently? One. An attack.) So two hit for <some damage> and one missed.
DM: Okay. The other two?
Player: The beam on henchman number 1. (Rolls attack and damage. How many attacks are being made currently? One. An attack.) And the beam on henchman number 2. (Rolls attack and damage. How many attacks are being made currently? One. An attack.) Both hit! Awesome!
DM: Okay, your spell goes of and beams of eldritch energy fly at your opponents. They are blasted off their feet and lie still on the ground.
And Making An Attack is something the PLAYER is doing. The character just cast the spell and sent beams flying at his opponents. The player is the one that rolled the dice, one attack at a time, to see if they hit or not.
The character doesn't have time to pick his targets between attacks. Therefore the player can't use that knowledge to pick targets. To do so would be metagaming. This should be self-evident.
What you don't understand is that the process of making an attack, even spell attacks are listed as being 3 steps. You're making multiple attacks but aren't resolving them by following the steps in the PHB, you're skipping steps and then returning to the skipped steps at a later point. You're not following the rules of the game at that point. Just like you wouldn't resolve damage before knowing if you hit with an attack or not which is essentially exactly what you're doing, you're changing the order in which you resolve steps. I don't understand how this isn't clear to you. When given a series of steps to follow to do something, you don't skip one or change the order you do them in but still say you followed the steps. That's nonsensical.
And did you just copy paste what bloodscythe said only to claim it as your own? *confused*
LordTwig wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I fnally received a reply (well, I finally realized I received a reply) about targeting, from Jeremy Crawford:
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
CraggleRock wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Except with Counterspell which is specifically designed and specifically calls out that it allows you to do it. Specific vs General.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
How is this hard?
Counterspell disrupts the actual casting. "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." You aren't disrupting the magical effect of the casting, you're disrupting the casting.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
On another note, I just noticed the last paragraph/sentance of the Range rule:
"Once a spell is cast, it's effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."
This means that a Repelling Eldritch Blast can still hit its target (chosen during casting), even if that target gets pushed out of initial range (since the spell has been cast before the effects take place); even if you're using sequential blasts.
I think Orethalion is still getting hung up on "Casting a Spell" (as a section describing the entirety of a spell), versus its casting time (one of two pieces describing how the spell's active time is broken up, the other being its duration).
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I think I finally see what you're saying...
You're saying that casting Acid Splash creates a bubble of acid, but this isn't an effect of casting the spell.. this IS the spell, and the effect is only the damage this acid inflicts.
We look at the process differently.
I view a spell to be the components, performed during a casting time: hand gestures, spoken words, and material components. Doing these hand gestures and speaking secret words and using special items results in an effect: a bubble of acid that you hurl at a target.
To me, the paragraph in the Acid Splash description is the effect, not the spell. The spell is the stuff just above the paragraph: casting time, components, range, and duration.
You only consider the damage inflicted by the acid to be the effect.
I consider the creation of acid, the attack, and the damage inflicted to be the effect.
What if you cast Acid Splash and don't hit anything? Do you consider that to be no effect?
I would say casting the spell still had an effect: it created acid, that blinks into existence briefly then goes away.
But say you cast Command, and the target succeeds the saving throw. Since the target saved, the spell has no effect, despite being cast. So this is what you're talking about when saying targeting and saving throws are part of casting the spell, and the effect is afterward? So in this case, the saving throw is during the casting, and there's only an effect if the save fails.
I would say casting the spell has an effect, even if the save is successful, or even if you cast on an undead creature. The magical energies assaulted a target, but the target resisted their influence, or were immune in the case of undead. The only time there are no magical energies is if the spell is interrupted.
Consider casting Fireball. To me, the effect is:
A bright streak flashes from your finger.
A massive fireball erupts from a point you target
Creatures within the blast have to make a saving throw, taking full damage on a fail, and half damage on a success.
I assume to you, the bright streak and the eruption of fire is the spell itself, not the effect of casting the spell.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Three options to choose from (I'd say option C is most correct)
Option A:
1 Warlock casts Eldritch Blast
2 Mage chooses whether or not to counter spell
if not countered:
3 Warlock picks target 1 and rolls attack/dmg
4 Warlock picks target 2 and rolls attack/dmg
5 etc.
Option B:
1 Warlock casts Eldritch Blast and chooses target 1
2 Mage choose whether or not to counter spell
if not countered:
3 Warlock rolls attack/dmg for target 1
4 Warlock picks target 2 and rolls attack/dmg
5 etc.
Option C:
1 Warlock casts Eldritch Blast
2 Warlock chooses target 1
3 mage choose whether or not to counter spell
if not countered:
4 Warlock rolls attack/dmg
5 Warlock chooses target 2
6 Mage choose whether or not to counter spell
if not countered:
7 warlock rolls attack/dmg
8 Warlock chooses target 3
9 Mage choose whether or not to counter spell
if not countered:
10 Warlock rolls attack/dmg
For option C counterspell will end the spell from the moment it is countered. Counter spell's wording says that the spell fails and has no effect, not that "it cannot have had an effect". Saying it does it just house-ruling (and time/dimension bending).
PS: On topic:
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/04/magic-missiles-strike-simultaneously/
You choose targets 1 after another for scorching ray and eldritch blast
Rikjuh wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion is correct. Counterspell must be used as a preventative tool, you can't counterspell something that has already been cast and is now taking effect like attacks from scorching ray or whatever. Like I said 10 pages ago, Counterspell must be used immediately when when the spell begins to be cast or during the casting time period (for spells that require actual time like minute/hour) or it can't be used. This is not a rewind time, undo all the damage done by a spell... This is oh you're trying to use a spell, nope! Just like in MTG in fact.
Orethalion wrote:
I feel like if you guys are super close to saying the same thing but for some reason you guys can't see that fact.
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
So then is what I wrote above about the process something you agree with:
Well let's explore.
I have the required spell components and/or I can produce the V or S required (if any) for the spell I declare I want to cast. Casting the spell then uses up the required action type if any, I perform the V requirements, use up material and/or do the S. (AFTER THIS POINT COUNTERSPELL CAN NO LONGER BE USED). I then finish casting the spell and it comes into effect. If the spell grants me attacks as an effect, I perform those in sequence using the Making an attack section of the PHB (Eldritch Blast IE). If the effect let's me create a damaging zone that requires a saving throw, I pick the area the zone affects and all creatures within must now make their saving throw (fireball IE).
Noctaem wrote:
Has this actually happened for anyone in an actual game session? In 3.x/pathfinder this may have risen to the level of requiring requiring a rule from an official source, but that's not the philosophy of 5E.
You guys seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. If this comes up, the DM will decide how it works and the game will move on. Variation of how certain edge case scenarios work from DM to DM is not the end of the world.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
If the spell requires line of sight to the caster doing the spell, then you can't counterspell it if the caster is invisible or hidden for example. I wasn't sure when I posted that part earlier.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Look. I'm not arguing that it doesn't make sense for those things to happen after the spell happens, and I will house rule my game to be that way. Nothing requires RAW to make sense, though, and you don't put something into a section if it isn't a part of that section. Casting a Spell is casting a spell and everything in that section is as well.
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
I apologize if I'm off base here, but what is the real problem here whether the attack roll is part of the casting, or an after effect? I haven't been following the thread closely, so what does it change one way or the other? I've always thought attack rolls, saving throws, damage rolls, etc. are simply mechanical elements, which are performed out of the game world? As far as the issue with using counterspell for an invisible creature casting a spell, granted you can see the spell while it is being cast (e.g. swirling flames forming into a ball gaining in size over an area for Fireball), I think that while it might be fair enough for a houserule that a creature can logically infer that an invisible creature is casting a spell within 60ft of them if you can see the spell being cast and know the invisible creature is atleast somewhere in your vicinty, it would be a very limited houserule, as unless you had a deep understanding of the different ranges of spells by heart, or were willing to look them up, there are many spells that have a range over 60ft. Or were you all refering to the caster showing signs of casting a spell while invisible (like a magical purple aura forming off their invisible outline) instead of the space where the spell would be formed? Finally, is ruling that spells being cast are visible common in many games for either case, or is it usually preferred to just describe the spell when it's done being cast for DMs?
Coolossus2123 wrote:
Oh okay, thank you!
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Anyway,...
RAW:
Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block
of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of
magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The
rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.
If you successfully cast Fireball into the air, with no creatures or objects in its Area of Effect, does the spell have an effect? Yes. A big arse fireball erupts into a fiery explosion because that's the effect of casting Fireball. It's literally what the "rest of the spell entry" describes: "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger... blossoms with a low roar into a an explosion of flame."
If you fail to cast Fireball into the air, does the spell have an effect? No. Because a spell you fail to cast has no effect. There's no big arse fireball erupting into a fiery explosion... because that's the effect of casting Fireball. If you fail to cast the spell, you point your finger... and nothing happens. If your spell is counterspelled, you point your finger... and nothing happens.
I would even go so far as to say that, knowing the spell wasn't successfully cast, the caster wouldn't even point their finger.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
@Rikjuh
I think it's more that the flavor text is just that, flavor text and when the effect of the spell says make a spell attack against the target" that's when you go to the make an attack section and pick the target, roll the attack, and finally resolve damage / apply effects for example. I would be very careful in trying to justify fluff text as indicators of how mechanical processes are resolved or in fact giving them any weight beyond cosmetics.
The reason I'm giving value to the fluff text is because the spell tells me to make an attack roll against THE target. Not against a creature in range (which the fluff described) but "the" target. This implies that a target is already selected.
Orethalion wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Rikjuh wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I think Noctaem was correct from the beginning, about 22 pages ago.
Gwaithador wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
@JeremyECrawford Regardless of damage type, the direct damage of a spell is magical.