Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Lobo316 Jun 18, 2015 8:05:56	Quick clarification please...   On page 190, under Breaking Up Your Move...   This section tells you, you can break up your move, using some of your speed before, and after, your action.   Question...can this action be an attack?   Reason I ask is the very next section, Moving Between Attacks...   This section tells you "If you use an action that includes more than one weapon attack you can break up your movement even more..." <and goes on to describe a fighter moving 10, attacking, moving 15 and attacking again>.   So, do you HAVE to be using an action that allows you to make multiple attacks to use the "move, attack, move option?"  Or can you move, attack, move...if you only have one attack (see my original quesiton, in bold above....can your "action" be an attack?)
#2 jaelis Jun 18, 2015 8:11:00	Yes, your action can be an attack. Point of the second part is that you can also move "during" your action if your action involves multiple attacks.
#3 zingbobco000 Jun 18, 2015 8:12:56	Lobo316 wrote:
#4 Lobo316 Jun 18, 2015 12:21:25	Great, just confirming (we're doing it correctly).  Thanks!
#5 ZHDarkstar Jun 18, 2015 12:29:26	What about a Warlock of 5th level or higher casting Eldritch Blast? Can they move in between spell attacks that are part of the same action? I guess this question could also apply to spells like Scorching Ray, since it also has multiple spell attacks during a single action.
#6 jaelis Jun 18, 2015 12:44:03	ZHDarkstar wrote:
#7 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 18, 2015 13:00:47	The Rules As Written only mention weapon attacks, rather than spell attacks, though it might also be worth considering from the point of view for the Rules As Intended and the Rules As Fun.   For those, you'd have to ask what would happen if you did allow spell attacks from a multi-attack spell to be split up that way.   Does it make the spell use much better compared to the weapon attacks?  Is this more or less fun for everyone? jaelis wrote:
#8 ZHDarkstar Jun 18, 2015 13:10:22	jaelis wrote:
#9 jaelis Jun 18, 2015 13:46:54	It seems pretty uncommon that it would matter, since all the spells that give multiple attacks are ranged, I think. It's a bigger deal for melee attacks.
#10 ArialBlack Jun 18, 2015 13:50:59	Eldritch Blast and similar have an instantaneous duration. The consequences of that are that each of the beams are released simultaneously, so the faster has to assign each beam to a target before any of them are resolved. The caster cannot shoot one, see what happens, then decide where to shoot the next.   It also means that the caster cannot move between shooting each beam.
#11 Noctaem Jun 18, 2015 14:19:56	ArialBlack wrote:
#12 jaelis Jun 18, 2015 14:33:49	I don't know, I could go either way on the instantaneous thing. Maybe it refers to the individual attacks, but maybe it refers to the whole spell. I wouldn't fault a DM for taking either postion.
#13 Noctaem Jun 18, 2015 14:43:54	jaelis wrote:
#14 ArialBlack Jun 18, 2015 14:57:47	Noctaem': what does the word 'instantaneous' mean?
#15 jaelis Jun 18, 2015 14:59:55	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #11) Coredump00	I have noticed that the more vehement someone is, and the more mocking they make their post... the weaker their argument tends to be. Its almost as if they hope you only detect how forceful they are and ignore what they are actually insinuating.   Noctaem wrote:
#17 Tempest_Stormwind Jun 18, 2015 15:05:49	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #13) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #17) Coredump00	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#20 jaelis Jun 18, 2015 15:17:46	My own feeling is that it would be pretty reasonable to apply the instantaneous duration to each individual effect of a multi-effect spell. Agreed the book doesn't say that, but I don't feel it is an implausible interpretation.
#21 Noctaem Jun 18, 2015 16:01:32	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#22 jaelis Jun 18, 2015 16:46:00	"Light" has a lot of meanings. But even outside of the game, a "light weapon" is common term. The game isn't using the word in a way that is alien to its ordinary usage. I wouldn't expect them to be using "instantaneous" in a way different from usual either.   Plus the book actually says that that instantaneous spells have magic that  "exists only for an instant."
#23 Noctaem Jun 18, 2015 17:27:17	I don't see any reason why that quoted text should mean what he claims it means.    what you're explaining about the word light is also completely irrelevant to the point I was making.  All that matters is what it means within the context of the game as defined by the rules of the game.
#24 jaelis Jun 18, 2015 17:30:05	Noctaem wrote:
#25 Noctaem Jun 18, 2015 17:42:25	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #16) ArialBlack	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #20) Coredump00	jaelis wrote:
#28 ArialBlack Jun 18, 2015 21:41:41	Just to point out: neither a single attack nor an extra attack nor both combined nor a multi-attack are described as 'instantaneous'. We know you can make one attack and see how it turns out before you decide to move/attack again.   This is in contrast to spells which are described as instantaneous and are not noted as allowing the attacks to be broken up between moves.
#29 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 3:58:57	Ok then.  Well you guys have fun playing that way.  Using the dictionary to change the rules in the book is nothing new, and you're doing it not to create something good for the players, but to nerf spells.  I get it, nothing I say will make you guys understand, not even 7 points that you're just conveniently ignoring.  Hopefully others will understand.
#30 mrpopstar Jun 19, 2015 6:25:53	The rules are clear.   -- GENERAL Breaking up your move: You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action.   SPECIFIC Moving between attacks: If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. --   Rules and written, you cannot break up your movement between spell attacks that are part of the same action.
#31 Bloodscythe Jun 19, 2015 6:29:57	I interpret "duration: instantaneous" to mean "exists so briefly, it can't be dispelled."  The spell hits its target, affects the target, and blinks out of existence before it can be dispelled.   So in that regard, I see a possible argument for casting a spell like EB and moving between blasts.  Each blast will hit its target, affect its target, and blink out of existence before it can be dispelled.   But what if you cast the spell, which lets you blast up to 4 creatures, and after hitting a creature with 1 of the 4 blasts, you trigger a readied action or provoke an OA that drops you to 0 hp?  Can you continue to use the blasts you created even though you're at 0 hp?  You did afterall successfully cast the spell, so you, per the rules, have 4 blasts.   You could argue that the blasts are swirling around seeking targets after you cast the spell, and they just are delayed hitting their targets, and they'll find targets even if you get dropped to 0 hp.  But if they're magical energy flying around the air, looking for a target, you'd think they could be dispelled.   It's more in line with the description of the duration as well as the idea of magic to just reason that the spell instantly affects targets the moment the spell is cast, rather than afterward.  Even spells that create beams or rays or missiles are described as instantly striking its target.  Nonmagical arrows behave the same way.  The time it would take the projectile to travel through the air isn't even factored into combat.
#32 mrpopstar Jun 19, 2015 6:40:13	Bloodscythe wrote:
#33 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 7:19:29	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #29) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #31) Coredump00	Bloodscythe wrote:
#36 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 7:24:07	Coredump00 wrote:
#37 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 8:05:37	Coredump00 wrote:
#38 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 8:07:46	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #34) Glimjack	Noctaem thinks that 5E has re-defined the word 'instantaneous' so that it no longer means 'an infinitely small, but non-zero, span of time' and changes it to 'cannot be dispelled'.
#40 mrpopstar Jun 19, 2015 8:32:08	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #33) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #35) Bloodscythe	Coredump00 wrote:
#43 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 8:50:13	I don't see any reason to think grapples and shoves are weapon attacks. But if you do then of course they work fine with the movement rules.
#44 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 9:00:00	I agree with you on this point Bloodscythe, I didn't remember the rules for multiple attacks specifically calling out "weapon" when I suggested it up thread.  So no, you can't attack -> move -> attack, etc..  with things that aren't weapon attacks.  But that wasn't anywhere near the relevant part of the argument, that's simply something I suggested was possible AFAIK at the time.  Thanks for clarifying.
#45 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 8:59:31	Glimjack wrote:
#46 OoftaMeg Jun 19, 2015 9:02:27	Basic rules page 70 specifically calls out weapon attacks.   Moving between Attacks If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.
#47 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 9:11:06	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #38) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #43) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
#50 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 9:28:52	Bloodscythe wrote:
#51 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 9:46:40	Bloodscythe wrote:
#52 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 9:44:50	jaelis wrote:
#53 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 9:48:33	Noctaem wrote:
#54 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 9:52:16	jaelis wrote:
#55 ArialBlack Jun 19, 2015 9:54:00	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #52) Macv12	Noctaem wrote:
#57 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 10:01:11	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #50) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #56) ArialBlack	Macv12 wrote:
#60 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 10:10:27	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #57) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
#62 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 10:12:20	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #60) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #62) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
#65 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 10:27:18	Cool so I can use counterspell on it? Same for other magic item effects?
(Reply to #65) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
#67 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 10:37:26	ArialBlack wrote:
#68 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 10:38:18	Bloodscythe wrote:
#69 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 10:42:02	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #52) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #69) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #68) Bloodscythe	jaelis wrote:
#73 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 10:56:47	Bloodscythe wrote:
#74 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 11:01:49	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #73) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #74) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#77 mrpopstar Jun 19, 2015 11:06:17	Bloodscythe wrote:
#78 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 11:13:26	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #78) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #77) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
#81 Noctaem Jun 19, 2015 11:46:18	I believe that the rules make a specific exception when it comes to the monk unarmed strike and that it also specifically says that it counts as something but is actually not for other purposes.  See the recent errata.
(Reply to #81) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#83 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 19, 2015 12:30:52	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #83) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#85 mrpopstar Jun 19, 2015 14:44:36	Bloodscythe wrote:
#86 jaelis Jun 19, 2015 15:03:39	Well the whole thing seems a lot simpler to me if you just assume an attack is a weapon attack when it uses an actual weapon, and a spell attack when it uses a spell. Or of course if an effect specifically tells you what it is (like unarmed strikes), then you go with that. But shoves and grapples don't use a weapon and don't say the are weapon attacks. So I'd say they are just attacks, neither weapon nor spell. Why insist on categorizing them, it just raises complications.
#87 Macv12 Jun 19, 2015 16:35:04	Still haven't had my question answered. Where do those four categories of attacks come from?   If they're not spelled out and explicitly limited to those four (weapon, spell, melee, ranged), then I think a new category (special) must exist.   Re: unarmed strike. "Weapon attack" is a category of attacks with specific behavior. They are triggered by certain actions (Attack action, opportunity attack, etc). They all have the same structure. They don't supply the stats you need individually; you plug in a weapon's stats to roll them. If you don't have a weapon at the time you make a Weapon Attack, you plug in the unarmed strike's stats. You are making a Weapon Attack. You are emphatically not using any kind of weapon. Unarmed strikes aren't "natural weapons" per se, they're just not weapons.   Grapple and Shove don't share the behavior of weapon attacks. They have no hit roll, benefit from nothing that benefits weapon attacks, and they're called out, both times, as "special melee attacks." I think this has to be a new category of attacks.
#88 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 19, 2015 20:29:20	I would agree that it's not just four types of attack, since other types demonstrably exist; even if unarmed strikes have a specifically-noted ability to substitute for melee weapon attacks, they're noted that way because (by default) they're not one of those types. I'd still consider allowing the grapple/shove with stunning strike, though.  Even if it's not correct in the RAW, it could be correct for RAI or RAF, and worth exploring.  I could see a "stunning palm" shove or "nerve pinch" grapple working in terms of flavour, it's just a question of whether using the relevant game mechanics for the delivery method causes any obvious problems with game balance.   jaelis wrote:
(Reply to #88) Macv12	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#90 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 20, 2015 1:45:43	Macv12 wrote:
(Reply to #85) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #87) Bloodscythe	Macv12 wrote:
#93 mrpopstar Jun 20, 2015 7:19:19	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #88) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #93) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
#96 mrpopstar Jun 20, 2015 7:26:29	Bloodscythe wrote:
#97 mrpopstar Jun 20, 2015 7:30:56	Bloodscythe wrote:
#98 Orethalion Jun 20, 2015 7:32:44	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #96) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #97) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #98) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#102 mrpopstar Jun 20, 2015 7:49:28	Bloodscythe wrote:
#103 mrpopstar Jun 20, 2015 7:54:49	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #102) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
#105 Orethalion Jun 20, 2015 7:59:54	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #105) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#107 Orethalion Jun 20, 2015 8:01:09	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #105) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#109 mrpopstar Jun 20, 2015 8:31:52	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #108) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
#111 ArialBlack Jun 20, 2015 9:12:13	The game has three types of D20 roll: attack roll, ability check, and saving throw.   Attack rolls are either melee or ranged, and are either weapon attacks or spell attacks. Therefore, there are four types of attack roll: melee weapon attack, ranged weapon attack, melee spell attack, ranged spell attack.   There seems to be some confusion about whether or not you need an actual weapon to make a weapon attack, or that if an attack is described as a 'weapon attack' then it defines that attack as being made by a 'weapon'. It's unfortunate that they chose 'weapon attack' as the term,  when they could have chosen a word that didn't cause such confusion. Try the phrase 'physical attack'. It works the same: any attack roll not made by a magical effect is a 'physical attack', but whether it utilises an actual weapon or not is irrelavent. This is actually the case with 'weapon attack' now.   You can use a grapple or a shove in place of any 'weapon attack', but when you do you are not making an attack at all! You are instead making an ability check, usually a contested ability check. Thus, you cannot use any feature that keys off an attack (such as, say, the monk's Stunning Strike) when making a shove or a grapple check.
#112 Orethalion Jun 20, 2015 9:28:49	ArialBlack wrote:
#113 mrpopstar Jun 20, 2015 9:40:18	I think the point Bloodscythe is trying to make is that, given the presentation of the game, the following is proper...   Unarmed Strike. Melee Weapon Attack: +0 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 1 bludgeoning damage.
(Reply to #112) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#115 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 20, 2015 11:36:05	Bloodscythe wrote:
#116 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 20, 2015 11:46:34	ArialBlack wrote:
#117 Noctaem Jun 20, 2015 14:37:00	Bloodscythe wrote:
#118 ArialBlack Jun 20, 2015 16:55:21	Noctaem, I've already debunked all seven of those points, and asked you to provide your interpretation of what you think 5E defines as 'instantaneous'. You've failed to provide one, therefore I have no case to answer.
#119 Noctaem Jun 20, 2015 17:41:55	Hahahaha ok!  That's your answer?!  Yeah, you know you have nothing and you're reducing yourself to that.  Good stuff, you have a good one!
(Reply to #119) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
#121 ArialBlack Jun 20, 2015 18:59:44	Noctaem, you're not actually participating in this debate. You're just throwing insults from the crowd.   You're saying that I'm wrong about what 5E thinks 'instantaneous' means, but not providing an alternative meaning.   If you want to participate credibly, then provide an alternate explanation. What do you think 5E means by 'instantaneous'?    This is a very simple thing to do, if you actually have a credible answer.
#122 Noctaem Jun 20, 2015 20:49:51	ArialBlack wrote:
#123 ArialBlack Jun 20, 2015 20:55:36	I'm asking you direct questions, and you keep avoiding them. I'll try again:-   Noctaem, is it your position that in 5E the word 'instantaneous':   a.) means 'cannot be dispelled'   AND   b.) does not mean 'a short span of time'?
#124 Orethalion Jun 20, 2015 21:03:54	ArialBlack wrote:
#125 Orethalion Jun 20, 2015 21:08:59	ArialBlack wrote:
#126 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 20, 2015 22:07:25	Orethalion wrote:
#127 Orethalion Jun 20, 2015 22:22:06	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #124) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#129 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 21, 2015 5:08:13	Orethalion wrote:
#130 ArialBlack Jun 21, 2015 9:02:04	Casting a spell, and the duration of the spell, are different things. Casting is the cause, and the spell is the effect.   Spells with an 'instantaneous' duration still have to be cast, and the time it takes to cast is not described (nor logically can be) 'instantaneous'.   The reason that counterspell works against instantaneous spells is because the trigger for counterspell is not the spell going off; the trigger is observing the VSM components as the spell is being cast, and 'casting' is not instataneous.
#131 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 9:07:26	ArialBlack wrote:
#132 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 9:17:36	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #131) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#134 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 9:20:13	ArialBlack wrote:
#135 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 9:22:22	ArialBlack wrote:
#136 ArialBlack Jun 21, 2015 9:23:08	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #134) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#138 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 9:58:44	ArialBlack wrote:
#139 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 9:59:31	ArialBlack wrote:
#140 Vivaldi Jun 21, 2015 10:42:42	ArialBlack wrote:
#141 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 21, 2015 11:39:21	Vivaldi wrote:
#142 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 12:01:17	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#143 Coredump00 Jun 21, 2015 12:28:14	The Duration of the spell EB is Instantaenous....so the magic from EB "exists for only an instance"   Please note, that duration is for the entire spell of EB.  So the spell is cast, and the clock stops.  When all 4 beams have been fired and hit/miss, and the clock stops.  The time on the clock must be no more than 'an instance'.  Granted, there is no PHB defined time for 'instance' so there is some room to negotiate.  But 'instance' is not for each beam, but for the entire spell.   And 'instance' must apply for the entire spell if it has 1 beam or 4 beams.  (which is the reason that moving 'between' beams is pretty absurd) Now, I can see a reasoning for allowing the 'target-fire-hit' to be done 4 times in succession very fast....but it is also reasonable to adjudicate that 'instance' is short enough to restrict them to being targetted/fired at the same time.       Personally, in a vacuum I think they would all go at the same time.  Based on various tweets about other topics... I think they are allowed to be in sequence.... but if so then I think Melfs Meteors and Scorching Ray can also be fired/resolved in sequence.
#144 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 12:34:24	Coredump00 wrote:
#145 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 21, 2015 13:27:31	Orethalion wrote:
#146 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 15:01:13	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #144) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#148 Greenstone.Walker Jun 21, 2015 22:34:56	Bloodscythe wrote:
#149 Orethalion Jun 21, 2015 22:35:27	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #149) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #144) Coredump00	Orethalion wrote:
#152 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 22, 2015 1:27:14	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #109) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #148) Bloodscythe	Greenstone.Walker wrote:
#155 mrpopstar Jun 22, 2015 5:28:31	Bloodscythe wrote:
#156 Orethalion Jun 22, 2015 6:11:41	ArialBlack wrote:
#157 Orethalion Jun 22, 2015 6:10:45	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #155) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
#159 mrpopstar Jun 22, 2015 7:28:42	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #159) Bloodscythe	mrpopstar wrote:
#161 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 22, 2015 9:51:07	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #161) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#163 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 22, 2015 13:30:50	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #163) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#165 Vivaldi Jun 22, 2015 13:59:32	Counterspell stops spells before they ever take effect so that seems to make sense.
#166 lawrencehoy Jun 22, 2015 14:35:15	Bloodscythe wrote:
#167 lawrencehoy Jun 22, 2015 14:39:47	If the blasts from Eldritch Blast could be spread out over more than one intant, then it would not be intantaneous. Remember, the duration is for the magic of the spell, not each of the individual effects of the spell.
(Reply to #166) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #167) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#170 Vivaldi Jun 22, 2015 16:18:08	The only spell capable of stopping another spell when it is cast is Counterspell..  I just laughed out loud typing this.
#171 Macv12 Jun 22, 2015 16:47:10	But if a DM had a homebrewed setting where the PCs have access to some way to slow down time, it would be totally relevant. Say the PCs are traveling so fast relative to everything else, they can outwalk the fireball as it travels from the caster to the target space "instantaneously." They ask the DM if they can then dispel the spell, since now it's very much not instantaneous. "Well, the rules say it can't be dispelled...oh, I see, it's not like it's a special class of spells that can't be dispelled, it's just because they're normally too fast for that. Well this situation falls outside the norm. Sure, it works."   This ruling, and whatever other rulings that I haven't thought of, are served by rules that describe the reality of a thing such that the DM or players can evaluate it and make judgments, then go on to clarify more rules interactions (like the fact that it's normally not feasible to dispel an effect as quick as a Fireball). It's imprecise, but it's a "mile wide and an inch deep"; it describes things generally enough that they can be ruled on in a variety of scenarios, rather than going into detail describing every nuance and interaction of a set of rules as they relate to more common scenarios.   Another example would be in Crossbow Expert, where it refers to a "loaded" crossbow. If nothing else, this grounds the rule and prevents someone from arguing that they can attack with the crossbow in any context, including throwing it or firing when they have no ammunition. The Ammunition property was recently clarified to work in a similar way: "use some sense. If you can't load the ammunition, you can't fire. You need a free hand to do that. (Unless you don't.)" The stealth rules also do this when they stare at their feet and mumble about being unseen, or just not looked at, and unheard, or at least not listened to, etc. They give context for what the rule is actually describing so you can comfortably make rulings in situations that the writers didn't even think of.
#172 Orethalion Jun 22, 2015 18:38:14	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#173 Orethalion Jun 22, 2015 18:43:05	Bloodscythe wrote:
#174 mrpopstar Jun 22, 2015 19:56:37	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #156) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#176 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 23, 2015 1:57:20	Bloodscythe wrote:
#177 Orethalion Jun 23, 2015 4:48:37	ArialBlack wrote:
#178 Orethalion Jun 23, 2015 4:52:08	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #173) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#180 Vivaldi Jun 23, 2015 5:14:28	From what I understand:   A spell being held is cast, but the effects of the spell whatever they might be don't happen until you release the spell.   You can counterspell someone readying a spell like that because the spell is cast, a slot is used up.  But you can't dispell it because there's no effects to dispell yet.   Once the spell is released, you can dispell the effects if they can be dispelled in the first place.  Something with instantaneous duration can't be dispelled but something with concentration or whatever can be.
#181 Orethalion Jun 23, 2015 5:19:18	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #176) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #181) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #180) Bloodscythe	Vivaldi wrote:
#185 Orethalion Jun 23, 2015 6:35:00	Bloodscythe wrote:
#186 Vivaldi Jun 23, 2015 6:44:21	I would say no too, counterspell requires that you use it when someone is casting a spell and uses up your reaction.  Someone holding a spell he has already readied in the past does not count as a legit target for counterspell, but could be for dispell magic if the spell being held (once released) has a duration other than instantaneous.  Counterspell is only used when the spell is cast in the first place.
(Reply to #177) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #187) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
#189 Vivaldi Jun 23, 2015 10:15:49	Honestly, I know Noctaem was blunt about it but the discussion really is pointless.  This all seems to come from 1 person who says that the dictionary definition of a word is more important than the description in the book for the instantaneous duration.  I don't get it.
#190 ArialBlack Jun 23, 2015 11:14:24	The end result is not the same. If you shoot a beam then hang around to see what it did, the spell is over, its duration expired.   The attacks are resolved separately, but not consecutively. It might work out that way over the table, just like you'd roll damage from each missile of the magic missile spell at the table, but it still represents simultaneous missiles.   Either way, you are not compelled to roll a single D20 multiple consecutive times to resolve it, just like you don't need to roll a single D4 multie times for magic missile. In each case, you can roll the number of dice equal to the number of beams/missiles, colour-coded by target.   However the players use dice at the table, the character's attacks for these spells are simultaneous.
#191 Vivaldi Jun 23, 2015 11:26:48	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #190) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
#193 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 23, 2015 12:27:36	Orethalion wrote:
#194 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 23, 2015 12:27:13	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #193) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #194) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#197 Vivaldi Jun 23, 2015 12:52:02	I believe what Slagger is looking for is called Counterspell :p
(Reply to #197) Bloodscythe	Vivaldi wrote:
(Reply to #189) Coredump00	Vivaldi wrote:
(Reply to #198) Coredump00	Bloodscythe wrote:
#201 lawrencehoy Jun 23, 2015 23:14:37	Bloodscythe wrote:
#202 lawrencehoy Jun 23, 2015 23:39:53	Bloodscythe wrote:
#203 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 0:11:40	Bloodscythe wrote:
#204 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 0:09:24	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #202) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #203) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #201) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#208 Vivaldi Jun 24, 2015 6:06:55	Bloodscythe wrote:
#209 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 8:20:49	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #209) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#211 Noctaem Jun 24, 2015 8:27:13	Slagger, intantaneous duration literally says word for word:  CANNOT BE DISPELLED.   How much more obvious can it be.   What you're trying to force dispell magic to do is called Counterspell, as has been pointed out by Bloodscythe, Vivaldi, and now myself.  Open your eyes.
#212 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 8:28:30	Vivaldi wrote:
(Reply to #209) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #212) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#215 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 8:42:42	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #191) ArialBlack	Vivaldi wrote:
#217 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 9:02:35	Bloodscythe wrote:
#218 Noctaem Jun 24, 2015 9:07:35	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#219 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 9:11:25	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #192) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
#221 Noctaem Jun 24, 2015 9:18:02	ArialBlack wrote:
#222 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 9:29:47	Noctaem wrote:
#223 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 9:37:59	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #217) Bloodscythe	[quote="Slagger_the_Chuul"]   Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #219) ArialBlack	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#226 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 9:45:15	[quote="Bloodscythe"] The ready rules indicate that the sequence should run: Casting of the spell. Reaction triggered in response to casting of the spell. Spell's effects.   The sequence you have described instead runs: Casting of the spell. Spell's effects. Reaction triggered in response to casting of the spell. Which means the triggered reaction now occurs right after an event other than the other than the one specified as the trigger (after event 2, when the trigger was event 1).  That conflicts with the rules for readying.
#227 Noctaem Jun 24, 2015 9:48:44	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #223) ArialBlack	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#229 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 9:57:46	ArialBlack wrote:
#230 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 10:06:43	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #226) Bloodscythe	[quote="Slagger_the_Chuul"] Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #227) ArialBlack	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #225) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #232) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #229) ArialBlack	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#236 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 10:28:40	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #233) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
#238 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 10:30:33	ArialBlack wrote:
#239 Noctaem Jun 24, 2015 10:33:00	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #234) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #239) ArialBlack	Noctaem wrote:
#242 Vivaldi Jun 24, 2015 10:47:31	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #240) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #237) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
#245 Coredump00 Jun 24, 2015 13:58:48	For those willing to listen....   The crux comes down to the importance (and length) you give to the term "exist for an instance"   Some are wiling to give it almost not importance, or allow it to be as long as you want. (Earlier in the thread, some were more than willing to have 'an instance' be 6 seconds long.)   *IF* you feel that 'an instance' is a very short amount of time, then that puts an additional condition on the rules being used. It also creates a 'more specific' situation than a normal attack. The logic of following that rule goes like this....  Attacking with 1 beam takes an instance, and Attacking with 2 beams takes an instance....thus they must be happening in the same 'instant', and thus be happening at the same time.  The time it would take to attack with 4 beams, one after the other, would be longer than 'an instance' and thus against the rules   Now, if you are willing to believe that it is possible to attack 4 times in an instance, than you would disagree with this stance.  Or if you are willing to believe that you attack as part of the casting, and only each effect lasts for an instance, then you would disagree with this stance. Both of those run into problems of their own... but not huge problems. (things like the Ready action and such)     For various reasons, I think they are sequential attacks; but it does seem reasonable to assert that 'an instance' is too short of a time for sequential attacks.
#246 Noctaem Jun 24, 2015 15:23:59	Coredump00 wrote:
#247 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 21:51:10	Noctaem wrote:
#248 lawrencehoy Jun 24, 2015 22:30:11	Bloodscythe wrote:
#249 lawrencehoy Jun 24, 2015 22:45:41	ArialBlack wrote:
#250 lawrencehoy Jun 24, 2015 22:51:42	Bloodscythe wrote:
#251 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 24, 2015 23:16:48	lawrencehoy wrote:
#252 lawrencehoy Jun 24, 2015 23:21:15	Noctaem wrote:
#253 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 3:24:35	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#254 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 3:38:15	lawrencehoy wrote:
#255 lawrencehoy Jun 25, 2015 4:05:25	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #250) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#257 Vivaldi Jun 25, 2015 6:28:47	I can't help but agree with Bloodscythe's last line.  There really is no argument here.  Nothing you're saying can be found in the rules.  There is no interpretation that agrees with you...
#258 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 9:56:59	ArialBlack wrote:
#259 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 10:15:06	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#260 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 10:05:41	lawrencehoy wrote:
#261 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 10:10:40	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #258) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#263 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 10:15:02	The rules say that EVERY TIME you make an attack roll you have to follow the 3 steps.  EVERY TIME.  Multiple attacks are implicitely covered automatically by the general rule.  I can't believe you don't even understand something this basic lol...
#264 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 10:15:30	Orethalion wrote:
#265 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 10:17:38	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #262) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
#267 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 10:23:07	Lol the more he posts the more it just becomes obvious he either has no idea at all what he's talking about or he's actually distorting things on purpose to troll the forum.
(Reply to #253) Coredump00	Noctaem wrote:
#269 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 11:02:28	Orethalion wrote:
#270 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 11:18:35	Orethalion wrote:
#271 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 11:28:45	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#272 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 11:32:58	Coredump00 wrote:
#273 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 11:33:39	Orethalion wrote:
#274 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 11:43:25	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#275 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 11:37:49	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#276 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 11:53:40	Noctaem wrote:
#277 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 12:04:31	I feel that the ongoing discussion between Orethalion and Slagger is pure semantics.  It doesn't matter how you cut it, the duration of the spell specifically calls out it cannot be dispelled.  So regardless of how you're trying to get around that via readying dispell magic or whatever, the fact is you can't dispell it regardless.  Nothing in the ready an action rules or the spell itself suggests that this would be any different.  You would need something to specifically state it gets around the general rule for instantaneous spells.
#278 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 12:06:38	Orethalion wrote:
#279 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 12:20:15	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#280 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 12:37:06	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #270) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#282 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 12:48:11	Noctaem wrote:
#283 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 12:59:12	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#284 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 13:00:50	Bloodscythe wrote:
#285 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 13:09:58	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #284) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#287 Bloodscythe Jun 25, 2015 14:39:33	Here, I'll try to simplify it for you.   Example A) A character uses an action which gives them 4 attacks.  If the attacks are weapon attacks, the character can move between them. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3.   Is this correct?   Example B) A character uses an action which gives them 4 attacks.  If the attacks are weapon attacks, the character can move between them. The character makes an attack, and only does step 1. The character makes an attack, and only does step 1. The character makes an attack, and only does step 1. The character makes an attack, and only does step 1. Attack 1, step 2. Attack 2, step 2. Attack 3, step 2. Attack 4, step 2. Attack 1, step 3. Attack 2, step 3. Attack 3, step 3. Attack 4, step 3.   Is this correct?   If you say example A is correct then the following is also correct: A [spellcaster] uses a [Cast a Spell] action which gives them 4 [spell attacks].  If the attacks are weapon attacks, the character can move between them. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3.   A [fighter] uses an [Attack] action which gives them 4 [weapon attacks].  If the attacks are weapon attacks, the character can move between them. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character can move or stay where they are. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character can move or stay where they are. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character can move or stay where they are. The character makes an attack, and completes steps 1-3. The character can move or stay where they are.   This is how the game is actually played so it must be correct.   If you say example B is correct then the following is also correct: A [fighter] uses an [Attack] action which gives them 4 [weapon attacks].  If the attacks are weapon attacks, the character can move between them. The character makes an attack, and only does step 1. The character makes an attack, and only does step 1. The character makes an attack, and only does step 1. The character makes an attack, and only does step 1. Attack 1, step 2. Attack 2, step 2. Attack 3, step 2. Attack 4, step 2. Attack 1, step 3.  The character can move or stay where they are. Attack 2, step 3.  The character can move or stay where they are. Attack 3, step 3.  The character can move or stay where they are. Attack 4, step 3.  The character can move or stay where they are.   This contradicts how the game is actually played, so it must be incorrect.   So unless you require a fighter who has 4 attacks to pick all 4 targets before rolling any dice, which would break any melee fighter, since they can't move from target to target between their attacks, you are contradicting yourself if you believe example B is correct, because the example has to apply to spell attacks and weapon attacks alike, because the rules for Making An Attack govern all attacks.   So if you allow a fighter with an axe to fully resolve an attack, which means they pick their target, determine modifiers, roll the attack roll and damage and resolve the attack, then either move or stand in place before making their next attack, you must allow a spellcaster to do the same, with the exception of not being able to move.   And please, no one try to argue that the fighter can pick all 4 targets before rolling dice... yes, they can.  But that would be performing the steps of Making An Attack out of order.  And technically, they can only pick targets within reach of their current position, which would make being able to move between attacks completely pointless.  So really, the only time a fighter might pick all 4 targets up front is if they won't be using any movement between attacks, and it really doesn't serve the player to do so, because why select a target for your 2nd attack before you know the results of your 1st attack?  You might want to keep hitting the same target of the 1st attack if it's not killed, but you'd want to pick a different target if it is killed.   If you aren't applying the rule for Making An Attack, which applies to all attack rolls, universally, then you're not following the rules.
#288 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 14:17:35	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#289 Bloodscythe Jun 25, 2015 14:27:00	I now expect someone to counter with something like "but an instantaneous spell is instant so all attacks strike in parallel, but we know weapon attacks occur in sequence"... They're missing the point.   Picking your targets and rolling dice are what the PLAYERS are doing.  Out of game, the attack rolls are sequential.  Period. Attacking with a spell or swinging an axe is what the characters are doing.  In game, instantaneous spell attacks can be in parallel or sequential... it doesn't matter because there's no mechanical difference.  We know that until all the attacks are resolved, the character can't move.  And since time is parsed into turns, actions, and such per character, what can happen within the span of an instantaneous spell, whether it's 3 seconds, or the blink of an eye, in terms of actions, is unchanged whether you consider the attacks to be parallel or sequential.
#290 Orethalion Jun 25, 2015 15:06:18	Orethalion wrote:
#291 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 21:28:48	Bloodscythe wrote:
#292 lawrencehoy Jun 25, 2015 21:49:00	Bloodscythe wrote:
#293 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 21:44:32	Bloodscythe wrote:
#294 ORC_Cricket Jun 25, 2015 21:51:14	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.
#295 lawrencehoy Jun 25, 2015 21:56:06	Slagger_the_Chuul is correct in his reading of the rules. Each side is making positive statements that are each interpretations of the rules.   Orethalion wrote:
#296 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 25, 2015 22:07:21	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #286) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
#298 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 3:17:11	Step 3: Resolving the attack would be where damage is applied and death can occur.  And why do you sound like you're just trying to find ways to screw over the player at every turn?  Oh I don't have to tell the player the target died hur hur hur he can keep attacking a dead target hur hur hur.  Like really?
#299 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 4:23:47	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #293) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #297) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #299) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#303 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 5:38:52	Bloodscythe wrote:
#304 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 5:49:43	Bloodscythe wrote:
#305 Orethalion Jun 26, 2015 6:02:19	lawrencehoy wrote:
#306 Orethalion Jun 26, 2015 6:14:30	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#307 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 9:57:30	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #304) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #307) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #303) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#311 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 7:53:03	Bloodscythe wrote:
#312 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 8:07:15	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #311) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#314 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 8:17:44	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #312) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #314) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #308) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
#318 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 8:50:45	Bloodscythe wrote:
#319 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 9:03:39	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #318) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #319) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#322 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 9:12:02	ArialBlack wrote:
#323 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 9:17:47	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #322) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#325 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 9:40:00	Bloodscythe wrote:
#326 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 9:46:40	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #326) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#328 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 10:31:22	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #325) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#330 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 10:36:04	Not for for him though Bloodscythe, you have to understand what he's saying.  He REQUIRES a narrative when reading the rule, he's not just reading what it says.  To him, he's applying the rule to an imaginary narrative to understand.  You're never going to agree because you're not using the same means to arrive at a conclusion.  Which is why we now have 3 pages of the back and forth which is just you guys saying the same things on repeat lol.
(Reply to #330) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#332 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 10:38:39	Bloodscythe wrote:
#333 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 10:40:15	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #332) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#335 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 10:58:26	Noctaem wrote:
#336 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 11:08:16	But you're placing a greater importance on narrative while we're not even looking at it, other than for specific examples to explain the rules, because it only applies in-game.  I think that's the whole issue.  This is a rules forum where we discuss the rules in the various books.  You're never going to agree with them as they are written in the book because you taint them with a narrative that you believe is more important than just the text itself.  In fact you even create narrative when you're not supplied with one which then taints your conclusions.  I think the most simple way to explain this is that all your responses aren't what the rules say but how you would rule at your table (also called houserules) which makes trying to convince you of anything completely pointless.  Again, you're not discussing the rules of the game, you're discussing how you would make rulings at your own table for an imaginary narative you invent as we go.
#337 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 11:08:57	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #335) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #337) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#340 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 11:34:06	Bloodscythe wrote:
#341 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 11:37:12	Bloodscythe wrote:
#342 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 11:57:55	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #341) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#344 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 12:04:21	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #342) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #342) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#347 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 12:10:35	Noctaem wrote:
#348 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 12:10:53	At least we can clearly see where the problem is for Slagger, now it's just a matter of getting him to recognize the problem he's having.
(Reply to #348) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#350 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 12:14:04	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #347) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#352 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 12:16:08	Bloodscythe wrote:
#353 Orethalion Jun 26, 2015 12:23:29	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#354 Orethalion Jun 26, 2015 12:27:13	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#355 Orethalion Jun 26, 2015 12:40:57	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #355) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#357 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 12:47:46	Bloodscythe wrote:
#358 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 12:59:54	Bloodscythe wrote:
#359 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 26, 2015 13:09:01	Orethalion wrote:
#360 Noctaem Jun 26, 2015 13:09:57	So you're changing how specific game elements work by changing the general rules only when it suits your argument?  How do you not see the inherent problem with that approach? lol
#361 Orethalion Jun 26, 2015 13:11:41	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #357) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#363 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 27, 2015 2:04:43	Noctaem wrote:
#364 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 27, 2015 2:04:13	Bloodscythe wrote:
#365 El_Condoro Jun 27, 2015 2:30:55	Whirlwind Attack is unusual: one attack with multiple attack rolls. The intent is that you don't move during it. Jeremy Crawford added, Mr. Noname @fritomuncher @JeremyECrawford Can a Ranger move between the attacks granted by their level 11 feature Whirlwind?   Twitter (bolding above mine)
#366 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 27, 2015 2:44:35	I'm quoting you from the other thread here El Condoro, since I think this is more decisive.   El_Condoro wrote:
#367 El_Condoro Jun 27, 2015 2:52:46	Combined, I think they say a character can't EB - move - EB again, or some other spell with multiple attack rolls. He can make the call as to which targets each attack roll is made against, sequentially, but not move between them.
#368 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 27, 2015 3:14:33	El_Condoro wrote:
#369 Noctaem Jun 27, 2015 5:50:51	Finally this is resolved.  Took over a week lol...
#370 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 27, 2015 6:01:40	Noctaem wrote:
#371 Noctaem Jun 27, 2015 7:22:24	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#372 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 27, 2015 7:27:15	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #364) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #369) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #366) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#376 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 29, 2015 10:07:38	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #376) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#378 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 29, 2015 11:00:59	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #378) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#380 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 29, 2015 11:59:10	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #380) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#382 Slagger_the_Chuul Jun 29, 2015 23:18:40	Bloodscythe wrote:
#383 lawrencehoy Jul 01, 2015 0:29:52	El_Condoro wrote:
#384 lawrencehoy Jul 01, 2015 0:44:56	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #384) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #383) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#387 Orethalion Jul 01, 2015 5:53:17	lawrencehoy wrote:
#388 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 01, 2015 6:43:59	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #388) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#390 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 01, 2015 7:51:50	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #390) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#392 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 01, 2015 8:39:48	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #386) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #392) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#395 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 01, 2015 10:28:41	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #395) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#397 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 01, 2015 11:33:41	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #397) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#399 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 01, 2015 12:27:59	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #399) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#401 Orethalion Jul 01, 2015 18:35:16	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #401) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#403 Orethalion Jul 01, 2015 19:33:51	ArialBlack wrote:
#404 lawrencehoy Jul 01, 2015 21:53:20	Bloodscythe wrote:
#405 lawrencehoy Jul 01, 2015 21:57:13	Bloodscythe wrote:
#406 lawrencehoy Jul 01, 2015 22:03:40	Orethalion wrote:
#407 lawrencehoy Jul 01, 2015 22:11:16	Bloodscythe wrote:
#408 lawrencehoy Jul 01, 2015 22:14:16	Bloodscythe wrote:
#409 Orethalion Jul 01, 2015 22:16:46	lawrencehoy wrote:
#410 Orethalion Jul 01, 2015 22:18:29	lawrencehoy wrote:
#411 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 1:13:45	Bloodscythe wrote:
#412 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 1:28:46	Orethalion wrote:
#413 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 1:38:32	Here's a fun one for the "instantaneous" duration description:    Dispel magic is an instantaneous effect that, rather than a creature or object, can target a magical effect (and end a spell upon it).  That's can produce an instantaneous effect that doesn't fit the description given by the instantaneous duration text (it does not heal, harm, create, or alter a creature or object).   So, can I dispel a dispel magic that affected a magical effect?
#414 Noctaem Jul 02, 2015 3:28:37	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #404) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #408) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #411) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #414) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#419 Orethalion Jul 02, 2015 6:20:57	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#420 Orethalion Jul 02, 2015 6:24:49	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #420) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#422 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 8:07:20	Orethalion wrote:
#423 Noctaem Jul 02, 2015 8:16:23	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #422) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#425 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 8:40:20	Noctaem wrote:
#426 Noctaem Jul 02, 2015 8:41:34	Bloodscythe wrote:
#427 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 9:07:46	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #427) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#429 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 10:24:31	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #429) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#431 Noctaem Jul 02, 2015 11:09:09	@Slagger   Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled.
#432 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 11:17:20	Bloodscythe wrote:
#433 Noctaem Jul 02, 2015 11:24:42	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#434 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 11:31:43	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #434) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#436 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 12:03:40	Bloodscythe wrote:
#437 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 12:02:53	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #436) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#439 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 12:08:28	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #439) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#441 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 12:16:24	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #441) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#443 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 12:27:22	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #443) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#445 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 02, 2015 12:45:50	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #445) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#447 Bloodscythe Jul 02, 2015 13:51:33	Slagger is trying to claim that a character can ready Dispel Magic and set the trigger to the perceivable "someone casting a spell".  Since the spell's effect occurs after the spell is cast, and the readied action occurs after the spell is cast, both events happen concurrently.    The issue I see is that by setting the trigger to "someone casting a spell", the reaction doesn't occur during the spell's effect.  The spell you're trying to dispel isn't actually cast until the effect exists, which means the reaction occurs after the effect exists.  For instantaneous spells, since the effect exists in such a brief span of time, the reaction occurs after the effect comes and goes.  And the text supports that by stating that instantaneous effects can't be dispelled because its magic is too brief.   The way the game is designed, actions, bonus actions, reactions... you can only be doing one activity at a time, and due to initiative order and the wording of the abilities, no two activities can resolve at the same time.   Consider the following example of two wizards dueling : A wizard readies Magic Missile with the trigger "I'm going to release my magic missile if he tries to cast a spell". A 2nd wizard casts magic missile. First the spell is cast, then the reaction occurs. An instantaneous spell's effect happens when the spell is cast.  A readied action happens after the spell is cast. Since the spell is cast, and its effect happens when the spell is cast, it hits and kills the first wizard and the wizard's held spell never gets used since it would occur after they die.
#448 LordTwig Jul 02, 2015 15:57:26	I think I fully understand what Slagger is saying, and he is both right and wrong.   The problem is that from a game point of view the Eldritch Blast exists for only an instant, but simultaneously allows enough time for the Warlock to pick a target, see the results, then pick another target, and so on until all beams are done.   The full text for Instantaneous duration:   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.   He did not leave out any relevant sentence. That is the complete text and it is disingenuous to claim he did so.   Reading just what is there it is logical to assume that if you are taking your time casting an "Instantaneous" spell, I should have a chance to dispel it. I feel I should point out that some of you argued that "an instant" can be several seconds earlier in this very thread.   So if "an instant" lasts for several seconds while you are choosing targets and enjoying your results, from a narrative standpoint, I should have the opportunity to dispel your still active magic. No where in that rule does it say that spells with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled. It says the spell effects things "in a way that can’t be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant" and after that the result is, apparently, not magical.   So to reiterate. By a strict reading of the rules spells can both be "instant" and too fast to dispel, but also last long enough to see the results of your "instant" spell and then continue applying more results of that "instant" spell until you are done. This doesn't make sense in a narrative or "realistic" way, but it is one of those things you can just hand wave and say, "It happened instantly and the Warlock just happened to target the blasts so they were most effective." I assume this was done because it was determined that it would be less fun to waste a blast on a creature that the previous blast already killed.   But their is room in the rules to allow for Slagger's reading. If you take too long casting your "instant" spell a DM could reasonably decide that there is enough time for someone else to cast an also "Instantaneous" Dispel Magic and end your slower "instant" spell. There is nothing saying you can't dispel an "Instantaneous" spell as long as you can somehow get the spell off in the "instant" of time that the spell is still active.
#449 OoftaMeg Jul 02, 2015 14:49:49	I understand what he's saying, I disagree with the conclusion.   Some spells grant you multiple spell attacks.   With a few exceptions, reactions happen after (in response to) the triggering event.   You can't dispel a spell casting. You can't dispel the magic created (a beam of crackling energy in the case of Eldritch Blast) because by the time you could react the attack has already been resolved and the damage (on a hit) has already been done.
#450 ORC_Animus Jul 02, 2015 15:03:01	I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code of Conduct 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.   If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
#451 lawrencehoy Jul 02, 2015 22:35:23	Orethalion wrote:
#452 Orethalion Jul 02, 2015 23:54:57	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#453 Orethalion Jul 02, 2015 23:57:18	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#454 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 0:02:50	lawrencehoy wrote:
#455 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 3:01:31	Bloodscythe wrote:
#456 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 3:34:30	Orethalion wrote:
#457 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 7:23:58	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#458 OoftaMeg Jul 03, 2015 7:32:15	The rules are not complex.  For the most part they use simple, easy to understand language.  They say what they mean and they mean what they say.  When there's an exception to the normal rule, they spell it out.  In addition, the people who wrote the book are not some long lost sages of ancient times, they occasionally respond on twitter.   Instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled because the book says "they can't be dispelled".  There is no rule in the book that would allow you to interrupt the magic of an instantaneous spell.   Multiple attacks are resolved sequentially because there is no distinction between spell attacks and normal attacks.  If they were meant to be an exception to the rule they would have spelled it out like they did with Magic Missile.   I'm done repeating the obvious.  Have a good day.
#459 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 9:20:26	Orethalion wrote:
#460 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 9:25:56	OoftaMeg wrote:
#461 ArialBlack Jul 03, 2015 9:47:39	I find it amusing that the same people who say that the spell is much too fast to be interrupted by a Readied dispel magic were the same ones who claim that an 'instant' can be as long as 5.999 seconds...   I find it astonishnig that Orethalion thinks that the beams are not the spell effect! What are they? Where do they come from? Can I buy them from a shop? Do they litter the battlefield after the combat is over? How much do they weigh?   How did these beams come into existence if they weren't created by the spell?
(Reply to #448) Bloodscythe	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #461) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #462) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #460) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #464) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
#467 ArialBlack Jul 03, 2015 10:21:21	All of the following quotes come from the Spellcasting chapter.   Under 'Casting a Spell': "Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, range, components, and duration. The rest of the spell entry describes the spell's effect".   This defines which part of a spell description is the 'spell effect'; the body of text below the stat block describes the 'effect', and when the spell 'effect' is cited, this is what it means. For eldritch blast, the beams are described here and not in the stat block, therefore the beams most certainly  the spell 'effect'.   Under 'Duration': "A spell's duration is the length of time a spell persists". Wait, what do you mean by 'spell' in this context? "Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed".   This means that when it says that the 'duration' is the length of time that a 'spell' exists, that the 'duration' is the length of time that the spell 'effect' persists. The 'spell effect' is the spell!   For eldrith blast,  the duration is 'instantaneous', therefore its effects persist for 'an instant'. Since the beams are the spell effect, then the beams only last for that instant. They do not exist before the effect exists, because they are the effect.   Under 'Components': "A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it....If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell".   This means that you must complete the components before  the spell begins, because if you haven't completed the components then you haven't provided the components and are unable to cast the spell.   This means that the beams do not exist while you are in the process of casting, because the effects do not exist until the casting has been completed. You can decide who to target, but you can no more make attack rolls for beams that don't exist yet than you can make attack rolls for a sword that is still in its scabbard.   As for attack rolls, these are called for to see if the attack you just made were successful. If you shoot an arrow, you don't get to make the attack roll while the arrow is still in your quiver or still nocked and drawn. You make an attack roll after  you release the arrow, and the attack roll determines if it hit.   When you make an attack roll for one of the beams which are the effect of eldritch blast, then you are determining if the beam that has already  'streak(ed) towards' the target creature actually hit it or not.   You cannot make the attack rolls before the beams exist, and the beams exist entirely within the duration because the beams are the spell 'effect'. The damage those beams do is definitely not the spell effect, because if it was, then that damage would go away when the spell ends.
(Reply to #466) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #467) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #468) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #470) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #469) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
#473 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 11:03:43	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #472) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #471) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #474) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
#477 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 11:06:43	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #473) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #477) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #476) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
#481 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 11:24:53	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#482 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 11:28:30	ArialBlack wrote:
#483 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 11:36:34	Bloodscythe wrote:
#484 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 11:44:25	ArialBlack wrote:
#485 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 11:46:50	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #483) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#487 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 11:51:49	Orethalion wrote:
#488 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 11:53:54	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #487) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#490 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 11:58:05	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#491 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 11:58:06	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#492 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 11:59:45	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #488) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#494 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 12:02:57	Bloodscythe wrote:
#495 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 12:09:08	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #494) Bloodscythe	[quote="Slagger_the_Chuul"]   Bloodscythe wrote:
#497 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 12:13:52	Orethalion wrote:
#498 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 03, 2015 12:20:12	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #497) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#500 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 12:31:56	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#501 Orethalion Jul 03, 2015 12:33:33	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #498) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#503 Bloodscythe Jul 03, 2015 12:50:48	Hmm, based on our discussion, does anyone else feel that Goodberry should have a duration of 24 hours?   So the berries are made permanently, but after 24 hours they no longer are infused with magic... but instantaneous spells shouldn't have any persisting magical energies.  It seems contradictory:  the berries are magical for 24 hours, but instantanteous spells' magical energies only exist for an instant...   Or is it that the spell instantaneously creates up to 10 magical berries.  You can't dispel the creation (ie, you can't make the berries cease to exist), but you can dispel the magical energy that infuses a berry, making it lose its potency before the 24 hour duration is up?   It's almost as if Goodberry is two spells.  One is instantaneous and creates berries.  The other has a duration of 24 hours and provides nourishment and healing.
#504 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 04, 2015 5:48:37	Bloodscythe wrote:
#505 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 04, 2015 6:08:23	Bloodscythe wrote:
#506 Orethalion Jul 04, 2015 7:22:05	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#507 ArialBlack Jul 04, 2015 8:05:46	A wizard and a warlock square off; one said something about the other's mom, there was an exchange of opinions, and the wizard wins initiative.   Wizard: uses the Ready action, and the trigger is 'when I can see the spell effect of a spell originating from the warlock', and the readied spell is 'dispel magic, targeting the spell effect, whatever it is. It should be noted that the wizard must be able to perceive the spell effect, because if he can't then the trigger condition is not satisfied.   Warlock: casts eldritch blast. He is 5th level, so gets two beams.   On the one hand, the spell is instantaneous, so the magic comes and goes so quickly that it can't be targeted with dispel magic. On the other hand, it's alleged that the warlock has up to 6 seconds to shoot one beam, see if it kills the wizard, and using that information choose to target either the still living wizard or ignore the dead wizard and target the wizard's best mate.   These two things cannot both be true.
#508 OoftaMeg Jul 04, 2015 8:30:41	Or ...   Two gunfighters, Wiz and War face each other on a dusty street   Wiz uses the ready action to shoot the bullet War shoots at him when he pulls the trigger   War pulls his gun and shoots Wiz twice.*  He doesn't have to holster or reload his weapon between attacks.   Wiz can't shoot the bullet because there is no time to react to the bullet being fired as they instantaneously hit him because he's an idiot.   *War fires twice, in sequence (and theoretically at two targets) because that's how guns work.  One bullet at a time.  Yet he his still holding the gun and according to the rules he can fire twice.  Just like D&D resolves attacks one at a time.  The casting of a spell doesn't necessarily end after the first attack even though the blast of energy created by the spell only lasts for an instant.
#509 Orethalion Jul 04, 2015 8:31:18	ArialBlack wrote:
#510 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 04, 2015 11:07:18	Orethalion wrote:
#511 Orethalion Jul 04, 2015 11:16:55	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #508) ArialBlack	OoftaMeg wrote:
#513 mrpopstar Jul 05, 2015 8:00:06	ArialBlack wrote:
#514 Orethalion Jul 05, 2015 8:00:49	ArialBlack wrote:
#515 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 05, 2015 10:06:40	Orethalion wrote:
#516 Orethalion Jul 05, 2015 10:21:27	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#517 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 05, 2015 10:52:55	Orethalion wrote:
#518 Orethalion Jul 05, 2015 11:01:04	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#519 lawrencehoy Jul 05, 2015 20:42:15	Orethalion wrote:
#520 mrpopstar Jul 05, 2015 20:57:00	lawrencehoy wrote:
#521 Orethalion Jul 05, 2015 21:07:28	lawrencehoy wrote:
#522 lawrencehoy Jul 05, 2015 22:34:16	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #514) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#524 mrpopstar Jul 06, 2015 4:51:48	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #524) ArialBlack	mrpopstar wrote:
#526 mrpopstar Jul 06, 2015 5:18:23	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #526) Macv12	mrpopstar wrote:
#528 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 6:12:13	ArialBlack wrote:
#529 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 6:13:13	Macv12 wrote:
#530 mrpopstar Jul 06, 2015 6:20:37	Macv12 wrote:
#531 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 6:38:49	mrpopstar wrote:
(Reply to #527) ArialBlack	Macv12 wrote:
#533 OoftaMeg Jul 06, 2015 7:59:21	Even if Crawford's first tweet allowed for any wiggle room to say that eldritch blast attacks were simultaneous (it doesn't) his response to the second tweet is flat out makes simultaneous bolts impossible.   If the bolts strike simultaneously, the first bolt could not push the target out of range for the second and subsequent bolts.
#534 mrpopstar Jul 06, 2015 8:19:08	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #534) OoftaMeg	mrpopstar wrote:
#536 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 06, 2015 8:53:54	Although they might describe the same general idea, I don't think the bullets are a good analogy for the actual quantities of time involved (in most cases).  Bullets typically move too fast to be seen, while the description for spells like eldritch blast indicates that the beams move slowly enough for someone to see them streaking towards a target.   Orethalion wrote:
#537 OoftaMeg Jul 06, 2015 9:08:40	Dispelling with a readied action doesn't work because you can't interrupt an action with a reaction.  The reaction happens after the action (and the spell action) is complete.  Since no magic from the spell persists after the spell casting action is done there is nothing to dispel.   Similar to how you can't ready an action for when the orc starts to swing his axe at your head.  By the time you can respond to the orc's attack action, the axe attack has already been resolved.
#538 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 06, 2015 9:16:57	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #538) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#540 LordTwig Jul 06, 2015 12:02:36	For the gunslinger analogy think of it more this way. I ready an action to shoot your gun out of your hand as soon as you fire it. You draw and shoot. I can't shoot the bullet out of the air, it happened in an instant and my reaction takes place after the action that triggered it. You are now waiting to see if I fall over from your first bullet before firing again. I now shoot the gun out of your hand. You can't shoot your second bullet.   So for the Eldritch Blast. I ready an action to dispel your spell. You cast your spell and your first blast goes off in an instant. I can't dispel your spell before that happens because my reaction takes place after you cast. You are now waiting to see if I fall over before making your attack with your second beam. I dispel the Eldritch Blast. You can't shoot any more Blasts because I have already ended the "Intantaneous" duration of your spell.   Or you could say that you cast Eldritch Blast and all of the beams (2 or more) fire off in an instant (an extremely short span of time), sequentially, so fast that by the time I cast my Dispel Magic the magic is already gone. This is how I would rule it. This does not contradict the tweet from Jeremy C.   If you have 4 beams I would say you have to decide who you are targeting with all beams as soon as the spell completes. Say you target enemy #1 with 3 beams and enemy #2 with 1 beam. You roll sequentially. Beams 1 hits enemy number 1 and pushes him back. Beam 2 also hits and pushes him back, but it also pushes him out of range. Beam #3 fails because the target is out of range. Beam number 4 hits enemy number 2.   There you go. It makes complete sense, follows all rules and Jeremy's tweet. It also makes sense.
#541 LordTwig Jul 06, 2015 12:13:24	Let's change it up a bit. A wizard and warlock are facing each other at high noon. The wizard prepares to cast Disintegrate on the Sorcerer as soon as he casts a spell. (Good guys always let the bad guy draw first. )   The warlock casts and his first bolt goes off "in an instant". The wizard's reaction goes immediately after the triggering action before anybody else can do anything. He disintegrates the warlock. The warlock can't fire off any more blasts.   Again, this is not how I would do it. I would just let the warlock fire all of his beams at once. One immediately after another so fast that they could not be interrupted. But you couldn't wait to see the results of each hit before continuing each attack.
(Reply to #540) OoftaMeg	LordTwig wrote:
#543 LordTwig Jul 06, 2015 12:38:58	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #543) OoftaMeg	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #544) LordTwig	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #545) OoftaMeg	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #546) LordTwig	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #547) OoftaMeg	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #548) LordTwig	OoftaMeg wrote:
#550 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 17:42:37	LordTwig wrote:
#551 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 17:44:42	LordTwig wrote:
#552 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 17:45:54	LordTwig wrote:
#553 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 17:47:53	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #550) LordTwig	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #551) LordTwig	Orethalion wrote:
#556 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 22:20:22	LordTwig wrote:
#557 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 22:21:21	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #552) LordTwig	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #556) LordTwig	Orethalion wrote:
#560 Orethalion Jul 06, 2015 22:51:12	LordTwig wrote:
#561 LordTwig Jul 06, 2015 23:05:39	We are reaching the same conclusion for different reasons. I think instantaneous spells are magic, so they could be dispelled, except they can't because of the speed at which they happen. Your reasoning is that they just can't be targeted at all because dispel magic would have to target the result, which would be the damage that was inflicted, which is not magical.   The difference is subtle and, ultimately, not important. The result would be the same during any game either of us was running. So I will just let this point drop.
#562 lawrencehoy Jul 06, 2015 23:26:05	LordTwig wrote:
#563 lawrencehoy Jul 06, 2015 23:39:37	LordTwig wrote:
#564 lawrencehoy Jul 07, 2015 3:59:42	OoftaMeg wrote:
#565 FarBeyondC Jul 07, 2015 8:15:56	Maybe I'm just weird, but I'm not seeing why there's an issue with regard to the resolution of Eldritch Blast and similar spells like Scorching Ray:   As far as the game table is concerned, the player of the character casting Eldritch Blast follows the rules for Making an Attack- choosing a target, determining modifiers, and resolving the attack- sequentially for each beam the spell creates.   As far as the game narrative is concerned, the character casting Eldritch Blast strikes (potentially harming/pushing what they strike) one to four times at targets said character chose through various means (I imagine these means will be different for each caster of the spell, but present for all casters) with beams of crackling energy. This- the striking (and potential harming/pushing) of targets with created crackling beams of energy- happens too briefly to be dispelled.
#566 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 07, 2015 8:18:55	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #551) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #562) Coredump00	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #568) LordTwig	Coredump00 wrote:
#570 Noctaem Jul 07, 2015 15:19:06	LordTwig wrote:
#571 Bloodscythe Jul 07, 2015 16:08:30	Does Jeremy C's latest response to me help resolve the issue?   Jeremy Crawford ‏@JeremyECrawford 19h19 hours ago Jeremy Crawford retweeted Jeremy Soard Dispel magic isn't intended to work on instantaneous spells. Counterspell is suited for that task. Jeremy Crawford added, Jeremy Soard @JeremySoard @JeremyECrawford Can you Ready a Dispel Magic to trigger on an instantaneous spell's casting to interrupt the target spell's effect?
#572 Noctaem Jul 07, 2015 16:22:55	Last nail in the coffin.  Now you guys admit you were wrong and let's all move on together
(Reply to #571) LordTwig	Bloodscythe wrote:
#574 Orethalion Jul 07, 2015 17:47:54	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#575 Orethalion Jul 07, 2015 17:48:43	Noctaem wrote:
#576 Orethalion Jul 07, 2015 17:49:44	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #573) Bloodscythe	LordTwig wrote:
#578 lawrencehoy Jul 07, 2015 21:16:58	Bloodscythe wrote:
#579 Orethalion Jul 07, 2015 21:26:47	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #578) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #559) Bloodscythe	LordTwig wrote:
#582 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 08, 2015 0:36:57	Orethalion wrote:
#583 lawrencehoy Jul 08, 2015 3:14:19	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #583) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#585 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 08, 2015 5:47:26	Bloodscythe wrote:
#586 CraggleRock Jul 08, 2015 6:01:03	ArialBlack wrote:
#587 Orethalion Jul 08, 2015 6:06:17	lawrencehoy wrote:
#588 Orethalion Jul 08, 2015 6:11:49	Bloodscythe wrote:
#589 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 08, 2015 6:29:47	Orethalion wrote:
#590 Orethalion Jul 08, 2015 6:39:53	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#591 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 08, 2015 7:16:36	Orethalion wrote:
#592 OoftaMeg Jul 08, 2015 7:31:14	I sure am glad this argument is over now that we have multiple clarifications from Jeremy Crawford.
#593 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 08, 2015 8:30:43	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #580) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #584) LordTwig	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #594) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #588) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #595) Bloodscythe	LordTwig wrote:
#599 Orethalion Jul 08, 2015 18:21:51	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#600 Orethalion Jul 08, 2015 18:23:06	ArialBlack wrote:
#601 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 08, 2015 20:30:07	Orethalion wrote:
#602 Orethalion Jul 08, 2015 21:40:55	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#603 lawrencehoy Jul 08, 2015 23:41:30	Orethalion wrote:
#604 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 09, 2015 3:47:01	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #604) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#606 Orethalion Jul 09, 2015 6:08:06	lawrencehoy wrote:
#607 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 09, 2015 6:52:40	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #600) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
#609 CraggleRock Jul 09, 2015 8:29:11	ArialBlack wrote:
#610 Orethalion Jul 09, 2015 23:11:44	ArialBlack wrote:
#611 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 10, 2015 1:48:54	Orethalion wrote:
#612 lawrencehoy Jul 10, 2015 3:17:39	Orethalion wrote:
#613 CraggleRock Jul 10, 2015 4:37:11	lawrencehoy wrote:
#614 Orethalion Jul 10, 2015 5:50:59	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#615 Orethalion Jul 10, 2015 5:57:49	lawrencehoy wrote:
#616 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 10, 2015 6:53:59	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #610) ArialBlack	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #617) OoftaMeg	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #618) ArialBlack	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #619) OoftaMeg	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #620) Lucas_Blackstone	Could we please let this thread die? There is no point in trying to debate with people when Crawford explains how it works, and yet people still make up arguments to pretend he is wrong and they are right. They will not change their mind, and those who agree with Crawford should not change their mind. So nothing can come of this besides more insults snuck into debating.
#622 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 10, 2015 10:46:45	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #619) LordTwig	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #621) LordTwig	Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
#625 Orethalion Jul 10, 2015 15:00:20	ArialBlack wrote:
#626 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 11, 2015 3:24:53	LordTwig wrote:
#627 Orethalion Jul 11, 2015 5:43:42	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #622) ArialBlack	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#629 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 11, 2015 10:58:34	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #627) Lucas_Blackstone	Orethalion wrote:
#631 Bloodscythe Jul 11, 2015 17:12:02	I don't understand the accusation that JC didn't consider his word choice... The thing is the rules don't say two or more instantaneous attacks are simultaneous.  His word choice seems perfect for the actual intent: the attacks are made rapidly, and are too brief to be dispelled.   As far as his tweet clarifying the matter, it was already clear.  In order to be fair, all attacks are done by a player by following the 3 steps of Making An Attack, one attack at a time, then repeating the process until all of the attacks are resolved, regardless of the kind of attack whether it's a melee or ranged weapon attack or an attack as part of a spell.     I truly don't know why this is even being debated.  Basically people arguing that a player has to pick all their targets first before they can even resolve their first attack are admitting that they adjudicate unfairly.  Why would any DM want to be unfair?  That's contrary to the spirit of the game.
#632 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 12, 2015 5:35:58	I do not agree with assuming fault in the designer's reply, but neither do I agree with dismissing the discussion, it just should be conducted reasonably and with an open mind.  Sometimes, that does mean discussing the language and words used (note I say "discussing", not "attacking"); not everyone understands the same thing from reading the same sentence.   Whether someone's points are valid, or their conclusions unfair can be shown through discussion.  If it cannot be shown, perhaps it is not the case after all.    Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #632) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#634 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 12, 2015 23:41:20	Bloodscythe wrote:
#635 ArialBlack Jul 13, 2015 7:51:45	Having 'instantaneous' mean that the beams are simultaneous (while arrows from a bow are not) is not 'unfair'. It is what it is. There are differences.   The players who come to 5E from earlier editions already know that the rays from scorching ray are simultaneous (because it said so), and are entirely okay with 'instantaneous' resulting in simultaneous beams. When they read the spell descriptions in the 5E PHB, there is nothing there that makes them think they would not be. Nothing that makes them think that an 'instant' now lasts up to 6 seconds (except that it is still 'instant' if someone tries to dispel it while simultaneously being nearly 6 seconds for other purposes!).   Only reading the 5E PHB as if it was the only source of information in the world would anyone think that the meaning of the word 'instantaneous' is 'undispellable', and only then by refusing to acknowledge the 'because/instant' part. And yet, the 3.5 PHB is complete enough that it spelled these things out for us, whereas the 5E PHB deliberately does not (in favour of 'natural language).   It seems that the main consequence of deliberately not writing a lot of explanatory text, is that people misunderstand even the most basic things.
#636 CraggleRock Jul 13, 2015 8:10:03	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #635) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #634) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#639 ArialBlack Jul 13, 2015 17:42:25	But 5E does define 'instant' as being too short a time to overlap another instant, because if you could overlap one instant with another then you could dispel an instantaneous spell if you Readied the dispel.
#640 Orethalion Jul 13, 2015 17:52:12	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #639) CraggleRock	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #641) OoftaMeg	CraggleRock wrote:
#643 lawrencehoy Jul 13, 2015 23:10:25	CraggleRock wrote:
#644 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 14, 2015 0:07:03	Bloodscythe wrote:
#645 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 14, 2015 0:22:33	ArialBlack wrote:
#646 CraggleRock Jul 14, 2015 5:04:46	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#647 CraggleRock Jul 14, 2015 5:43:32	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #644) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#649 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 14, 2015 7:01:44	CraggleRock wrote:
(Reply to #641) ArialBlack	CraggleRock wrote:
(Reply to #649) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #651) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #650) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #652) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #653) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #654) ArialBlack	Bloodscythe wrote:
#657 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 14, 2015 7:46:18	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #656) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
(Reply to #657) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#660 OoftaMeg Jul 14, 2015 8:14:14	If only we had a ruling by someone in authority.  Someone who was the lead developer for the rules system.  Something like:   Jeremy Soard:  "Eldritch Blast: are the attacks resolved in parallel or sequence? Do you have to pick all the targets first before rolling?"   Jeremy Crawford: "Multiple attacks on the same turn aren't simultaneous, unless a feature or spell says otherwise."   Then when we didn't like the answer we could continue to try to point out something that we see as an issue that apparently Mr Crawford doesn't see as a problem.  Then we could be told that you would have to use counterspell instead of dispel magic.   Ah well.  Maybe in some distant future such things will be possible.
(Reply to #655) Bloodscythe	ArialBlack wrote:
#662 Bloodscythe Jul 14, 2015 8:24:38	I have to ask: do any of you actually play that way?  Do you require a spellcaster to pick all the targets of a spell's attacks before resolving them?  How do you handle an attack pushing a target out of range of the other attacks?  I assume, that you don't push the target out of range until all the attacks hit, acting as one big hit...   Basically it seems what you're describing is 5 attacks that hit simultaneously as one big hit, effectively a single attack, with 5 damage rolls added up, effectively as one big damage roll.  And additional effects like push... how do you handle that?  Let's say all 5 beams push 10 ft.  Do you treat 5 simultaneous hits as 5 simultaneous pushes from the current position, for a cumulative pushed distance of 10 ft or do you add up the pushes like you add up the damage rolls and the target is pushed 50 ft from the current position?    The rules allow the target to be pushed 10 ft for each hit, so 50 ft is supported by the text, but if all the hits strike simultaneously, they can only push the target 10 ft from the point at which the beam hit, so the target will only move 10 ft.
#663 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 14, 2015 8:54:48	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #663) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#665 lawrencehoy Jul 14, 2015 13:43:48	CraggleRock wrote:
#666 lawrencehoy Jul 14, 2015 14:02:20	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #666) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#668 Orethalion Jul 14, 2015 18:16:29	ArialBlack wrote:
#669 Orethalion Jul 14, 2015 18:22:35	ArialBlack wrote:
#670 lawrencehoy Jul 14, 2015 21:51:54	Bloodscythe wrote:
#671 lawrencehoy Jul 14, 2015 21:54:18	Orethalion wrote:
#672 lawrencehoy Jul 14, 2015 21:59:12	Orethalion wrote:
#673 Orethalion Jul 14, 2015 22:01:15	lawrencehoy wrote:
#674 Orethalion Jul 14, 2015 22:04:39	lawrencehoy wrote:
#675 lawrencehoy Jul 14, 2015 22:36:31	Orethalion wrote:
#676 Orethalion Jul 14, 2015 22:53:27	lawrencehoy wrote:
#677 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 14, 2015 23:07:36	Bloodscythe wrote:
#678 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 3:47:43	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #670) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#680 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 5:57:18	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#681 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 6:01:03	lawrencehoy wrote:
#682 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 15, 2015 7:47:21	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #682) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#684 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 17:42:11	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#685 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 21:11:45	Bloodscythe wrote:
#686 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 21:15:56	Orethalion wrote:
#687 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 21:19:00	lawrencehoy wrote:
#688 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 21:20:52	Orethalion wrote:
#689 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 21:25:46	lawrencehoy wrote:
#690 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 21:25:56	Orethalion wrote:
#691 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 21:28:39	lawrencehoy wrote:
#692 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 21:29:53	Orethalion wrote:
#693 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 21:34:51	Orethalion wrote:
#694 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 21:36:13	lawrencehoy wrote:
#695 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 21:37:01	Orethalion wrote:
#696 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 21:42:56	lawrencehoy wrote:
#697 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 21:43:29	lawrencehoy wrote:
#698 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 21:54:34	Orethalion wrote:
#699 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 22:05:39	lawrencehoy wrote:
#700 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 22:14:35	Orethalion wrote:
#701 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 22:15:19	lawrencehoy wrote:
#702 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 22:19:14	Orethalion wrote:
#703 Orethalion Jul 15, 2015 22:34:24	lawrencehoy wrote:
#704 lawrencehoy Jul 15, 2015 22:45:35	Orethalion wrote:
#705 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 15, 2015 23:18:00	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #705) CraggleRock	There's always going to be a "sequence" to the attacks, even running them in parallel.  Sure, you can give the impression of resolving the three steps simultaneously, but in effect, you are always going to be choosing to apply them in some sort of order by selecting which you are rolling against with which attack.  Or are you actually saying my warlock with five eldritch bolts can choose five targets, roll five d20s, and then make the decision which result applies to each target?     How about if I have advantage on a target I choose to hit with five bolts: do I roll ten d20s and then choose the best five of those as my results?  If I only have advantage on my next attack, do I roll six and pick the best five?  Ah wait, they are simultaneous, so with advantage on my next attack, I must get advantage on all five!     Or do we instead say we are resolving the first blast and roll 2d20, then figure out the second, and so on?   In the case that we do the latter, we are actually choosing a sequence of the steps, doing step 1 five separate times, then step 2 five separate times, then step 3 five seperate times, in a sequence, and then we encounter odd, RAW-breking situations such as still hitting goblins after they were pushed into a pit and out of sight; situations that don't arise by running it as steps 1, 2, then 3, five separate times.
#707 lawrencehoy Jul 16, 2015 3:18:41	CraggleRock wrote:
#708 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 16, 2015 3:22:33	CraggleRock wrote:
(Reply to #705) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #685) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#711 Orethalion Jul 16, 2015 6:07:45	lawrencehoy wrote:
#712 Orethalion Jul 16, 2015 6:16:13	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#713 OoftaMeg Jul 16, 2015 6:34:11	Everyone sing along "This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started posting to it, because they don't agree, and they'll continue posting to it forever just because this is the thread that never ends ..."     Side 1: Instantaneous duration is the only thing that matters instantaneous duration spells must be done in an instant, therefore they must be simultaneous to happen in the same instant. Since all attacks are simultaneous all targets must be picked at the same time and all results are resolved simultaneously   Side 2: Instantaneous duration just means a short period of time In 5E, it means that the magic lasts no longer than a caster's turn. Unless specified otherwise, all attacks are resolved the same.  You choose choose a target, determine modifiers, resolve the attack (including hit and damage). Because all attacks are resolved the same, the attacks must be handled sequentially. Because all attacks are handled sequentially, the caster can choose a different target as the first step If the attacks were simultaneous, the rules would specifically say so.  Magic Missile explicitly states it.  If all Instantaneous spells happened simultaneously, there would be no need for the clarification on Magic Missile. Making a caster choose all targets before any attack is resolved is inherently unfair unless you make characters wielding weapons follow the same rule. ​According to Jeremy Crawford, all attacks are sequential and if your attack pushes a target the first attack could push your target out of range. ​That's pretty much it, right? Is there anything else to add to the conversation?
(Reply to #713) Bloodscythe	OoftaMeg wrote:
#715 Orethalion Jul 16, 2015 6:45:47	OoftaMeg wrote:
#716 OoftaMeg Jul 16, 2015 7:56:30	I'm trying to keep snide comments and snipes out of this.  I'm just summarizing the different points of view since nothing new has been added to this (or the other parallel thread) in oh ... about a thousand postings.     Side 1: Instantaneous duration is the only thing that matters instantaneous duration spells must be done in an instant, therefore they must be simultaneous to happen in the same instant. Since all attacks are simultaneous all targets must be picked at the same time and all results are resolved simultaneously Statements made by Jeremy Crawford don't mean anything when it comes to interpreting the rules.   Side 2: Instantaneous duration just means a short period of time In 5E, it means that the magic lasts no longer than a caster's turn. Unless specified otherwise, all attacks are resolved the same.  You choose choose a target, determine modifiers, resolve the attack (including hit and damage). Because all attacks are resolved the same, the attacks must be handled sequentially. Because all attacks are handled sequentially, the caster can choose a different target as the first step If the attacks were simultaneous, the rules would specifically say so.  Magic Missile explicitly states it.  If all Instantaneous spells happened simultaneously, there would be no need for the clarification on Magic Missile. Making a caster choose all targets before any attack is resolved is inherently unfair unless you make characters wielding weapons follow the same rule. ​According to Jeremy Crawford, all attacks are sequential and if your attack pushes a target the first attack could push your target out of range for subsequent attacks.   Dispelling instantaneous spell with a readied Dispel Magic is a related topic.  There seem to be 3 sides.  Maybe.     Side 1 Since all beams fire simultaneously you can't dispel them   Side 2 You can't dispel the effect of the spell (the damage of an eldritch bolt for example), you can dispel the actual magic if you timed it just right.   Side 3 The rules say you can't dispel a spell with an instantaneous duration therefore you can't.  There is no way you could time the dispel to match the beam(s) created by casting a spell because readied actions are reactions and happen after the trigger, no trigger no dispel.   Jeremy Crawford has stated that you can't ready a Dispel Magic to dispel a spell with the instantaneous duration, you would have to use Counterspell.   ​That's pretty much it, right? Is there anything else to add to the conversation?  If I've misrepresented your point of view please let me know.
#717 CraggleRock Jul 16, 2015 8:44:13	OoftaMeg wrote:
#718 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 16, 2015 10:05:13	Bloodscythe wrote:
#719 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 16, 2015 10:22:35	Orethalion wrote:
#720 OoftaMeg Jul 16, 2015 11:25:52	For completeness I've added the "narrative" argument which has been used a few times now.   Note that I'm not saying that one interpretation is "correct".  If people are having fun you are doing it right.  I personally believe Jeremy Crawford has weighed in on the correct interpretation of the rules but if there is something I've missed or misrepresented I will add it to the list.   Side 1: Instantaneous duration is the only thing that matters instantaneous duration spells must be done in an instant, therefore they must be simultaneous to happen in the same instant. Since all attacks are simultaneous all targets must be picked at the same time and all results are resolved simultaneously Statements made by Jeremy Crawford don't mean anything when it comes to interpreting the rules. The narrative determines whether or not the attacks are simultaneous.  If the DM describes it as simultaneous, it is.   Side 2: Instantaneous duration just means a short period of time In 5E, it means that the magic lasts no longer than a caster's turn. Unless specified otherwise, all attacks are resolved the same.  You choose choose a target, determine modifiers, resolve the attack (including hit and damage). Because all attacks are resolved the same, the attacks must be handled sequentially. Because all attacks are handled sequentially, the caster can choose a different target as the first step If the attacks were simultaneous, the rules would specifically say so.  Magic Missile explicitly states it.  If all Instantaneous spells happened simultaneously, there would be no need for the clarification on Magic Missile. Making a caster choose all targets before any attack is resolved is inherently unfair unless you make characters wielding weapons follow the same rule. If your narrative says that the attacks are simultaneous, you should change the narrative to match the rules. ​According to Jeremy Crawford, all attacks are sequential and if your attack pushes a target the first attack could push your target out of range for subsequent attacks.   Dispelling instantaneous spell with a readied Dispel Magic is a related topic.  There seem to be 3 sides.  Maybe.     Side 1 Since all beams fire simultaneously you can't dispel them   Side 2 You can't dispel the effect of the spell (the damage of an eldritch bolt for example), you can dispel the actual magic if you timed it just right.   Side 3 The rules say you can't dispel a spell with an instantaneous duration therefore you can't.  There is no way you could time the dispel to match the beam(s) created by casting a spell because readied actions are reactions and happen after the trigger, no trigger no dispel.   Jeremy Crawford has stated that you can't ready a Dispel Magic to dispel a spell with the instantaneous duration, you would have to use Counterspell.   ​That's pretty much it, right? Is there anything else to add to the conversation?  If I've misrepresented your point of view please let me know.
(Reply to #718) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #720) Bloodscythe	OoftaMeg wrote:
#723 OoftaMeg Jul 16, 2015 12:15:08	Clarified the note on narrative.   Side 1: Instantaneous duration is the only thing that matters instantaneous duration spells must be done in an instant, therefore they must be simultaneous to happen in the same instant. Since all attacks are simultaneous all targets must be picked at the same time and all results are resolved simultaneously Statements made by Jeremy Crawford don't mean anything when it comes to interpreting the rules. The narrative determines whether or not the attacks are simultaneous.  If the DM describes it as simultaneous, it is.   Side 2: Instantaneous duration just means a short period of time In 5E, it means that the magic lasts no longer than a caster's turn. Unless specified otherwise, all attacks are resolved the same.  You choose choose a target, determine modifiers, resolve the attack (including hit and damage). Because all attacks are resolved the same, the attacks must be handled sequentially. Because all attacks are handled sequentially, the caster can choose a different target as the first step If the attacks were simultaneous, the rules would specifically say so.  Magic Missile explicitly states it.  If all Instantaneous spells happened simultaneously, there would be no need for the clarification on Magic Missile. Making a caster choose all targets before any attack is resolved is inherently unfair unless you make characters wielding weapons follow the same rule. If your narrative says that the attacks are simultaneous, you should change the narrative to match the rules.  There may be exceptions to this if either the spell explicitly states the attacks are simultaneous or if someone is narrating that they are striking with two weapons at the same moment.  Specific rules and situations do not change the general rule. ​According to Jeremy Crawford, all attacks are sequential and if your attack pushes a target the first attack could push your target out of range for subsequent attacks.   Dispelling instantaneous spell with a readied Dispel Magic is a related topic.  There seem to be 3 sides.  Maybe.     Side 1 Since all beams fire simultaneously you can't dispel them   Side 2 You can't dispel the effect of the spell (the damage of an eldritch bolt for example), you can dispel the actual magic if you timed it just right.   Side 3 The rules say you can't dispel a spell with an instantaneous duration therefore you can't.  There is no way you could time the dispel to match the beam(s) created by casting a spell because readied actions are reactions and happen after the trigger, no trigger no dispel.   Jeremy Crawford has stated that you can't ready a Dispel Magic to dispel a spell with the instantaneous duration, you would have to use Counterspell.   ​That's pretty much it, right? Is there anything else to add to the conversation?  If I've misrepresented your point of view please let me know. [/quote]
#724 Bloodscythe Jul 16, 2015 12:38:18	haha, I wouldn't agree with it still.  Specific rules definitely override the general rules.  My point is that the narration can deviate from the mechanics of the game.  How you describe the scene is based on the results of the game's mechanics but can be as much flavor as it is mechanics.  As long as you're not changing what the player is able to do within their turn, the narration is just flavor to describe what the player's character did.
#725 lawrencehoy Jul 16, 2015 23:30:42	Bloodscythe wrote:
#726 lawrencehoy Jul 16, 2015 23:34:36	Orethalion wrote:
#727 lawrencehoy Jul 16, 2015 23:37:31	Orethalion wrote:
#728 Orethalion Jul 16, 2015 23:38:07	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#729 Orethalion Jul 16, 2015 23:44:57	lawrencehoy wrote:
#730 lawrencehoy Jul 16, 2015 23:55:38	OoftaMeg wrote:
#731 lawrencehoy Jul 17, 2015 0:02:37	CraggleRock wrote:
#732 lawrencehoy Jul 17, 2015 0:07:45	Orethalion wrote:
#733 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 17, 2015 2:53:32	Bloodscythe wrote:
#734 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 17, 2015 3:00:57	Orethalion wrote:
#735 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 17, 2015 3:24:04	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #725) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #735) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #733) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#739 Orethalion Jul 17, 2015 6:57:37	lawrencehoy wrote:
#740 Noctaem Jul 17, 2015 6:45:47	lmao lawrence proving he has no clue what an exception based system is.     It's really interesting to read these threads that go on and on, with the most vocal of people on the forum participating, because you get to realize that the reason they say these things (and argue for 20 pages that they're right no matter what evidence is provided like this very thread) simply boils down to them not understanding the material being discussed or more broadly, the game being played.  They just don't get it...  BUT the real problem is that they have no interest in actually learning something from the discussion, they aren't open minded to the idea that they might be wrong, so you end up with discussions like this.  This has been a 16 page circular argument (I'm giving the first 4 the benefit of the doubt).  The same people keep saying the same incorrect things which are shown to be incorrect by the same evidence.  over and over.
(Reply to #740) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#742 Noctaem Jul 17, 2015 7:10:40	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #730) OoftaMeg	lawrencehoy wrote:
#744 Noctaem Jul 17, 2015 7:44:34	Nice post OoftaMeg.  +1
#745 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 17, 2015 19:20:46	Bloodscythe wrote:
#746 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 17, 2015 19:30:27	OoftaMeg wrote:
#747 lawrencehoy Jul 19, 2015 20:46:50	Bloodscythe wrote:
#748 lawrencehoy Jul 19, 2015 20:54:37	Orethalion wrote:
#749 lawrencehoy Jul 19, 2015 20:59:16	Bloodscythe wrote:
#750 lawrencehoy Jul 19, 2015 21:06:16	Noctaem wrote:
#751 Orethalion Jul 19, 2015 21:16:35	lawrencehoy wrote:
#752 lawrencehoy Jul 19, 2015 21:18:20	OoftaMeg wrote:
#753 lawrencehoy Jul 19, 2015 21:23:47	Orethalion wrote:
#754 Orethalion Jul 19, 2015 21:28:27	lawrencehoy wrote:
#755 lawrencehoy Jul 19, 2015 23:13:47	Orethalion wrote:
#756 Noctaem Jul 20, 2015 3:49:28	So what you're saying is "When a dev tells me I'm wrong, what he says doesn't matter!"  And when he agrees with you, it does matter then?  You'll keep arguing you're right until they put it in writing via errata?  or until it's written in sage advice?  Or is that not enough for you?  Sounds like you're so attached to your claim that you're totally unwilling to admit you're wrong.  Which is exactly what my earlier post described.
#757 lawrencehoy Jul 20, 2015 3:59:19	Noctaem wrote:
#758 Noctaem Jul 20, 2015 4:05:21	"A spell is only simultaneous when it specifically says it is."  Direct statement by Jeremy Crawford, lead dev of 5e.   "I've only seen them say that a certain interpretation can be made" - lawrenceboy     ooooh ok.  He didn't say you were wrong.  Yes....
#759 Orethalion Jul 20, 2015 5:54:07	Noctaem wrote:
#760 Noctaem Jul 20, 2015 5:58:48	Ah!  but of course!  That explains everything!
#761 CraggleRock Jul 20, 2015 6:22:14	lawrencehoy wrote:
#762 Orethalion Jul 20, 2015 6:32:00	CraggleRock wrote:
#763 Noctaem Jul 20, 2015 6:51:19	But we know the RAW and the RAI!    The RAW is written in the PHB.  The listed definition of what the rules are for the instantaneous duration doesn't indicate in any way whatsoever that the spells with that duration, with multiple attacks, resolve simultaneously.  There is not a single line of text that backs up this statement ANYWHERE in the PHB.  In fact the only spell in the entire game that resolves simultaneously is Magic Missile BECAUSE it says it does specifically in the spell rules text.  Which only reinforces that 1.  the instantaneous duration doesn't do that by default or MM wouldn't need to call it out and 2.  That the RAI below is correct.   RAI, Jeremy Crawford himself has directly stated that the ONLY WAY a spell with multiple attacks is resolved simultaneously is if it says it does.  Which confirms the RAW and shows that the only spell that works this way is MM.     There you go, you have the RAW and the RAI that are directly confirming each other.   It's nonsensical to keep posting the way lawrence does.  It's willful ignorance because he cannot accept that he was wrong OR he's just trolling everyone to keep this going as long as he can.  He's personally invested now.  At this point he will NEVER admit he was wrong so we should just leave him to argue by himself in this thread.   EDIT Ninja'ed by Orethalion. :p
#764 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 20, 2015 16:39:50	Orethalion wrote:
#765 Noctaem Jul 20, 2015 17:21:40	because they never request this outside of a single spell, Magic Missile.  You're inventing stuff to justify your claim.  I can't believe you don't even see that yourself.   And for the record I just gave the RAW and the RAI from outside sources for why I say he's wrong.  Try reading instead of just focusing on trying to dismiss what I'm saying.
#766 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 20, 2015 17:51:28	Noctaem wrote:
#767 Noctaem Jul 20, 2015 18:25:56	No, what I said is that there is not a single piece of rules text that supports the claim being made in this thread by these people.  They can't point to it, they can't quote it and yet they say their interpretation is valid.  That's nonsensical crap and it has to be stamped out as soon as it starts because it can spread.  What I demand from these people is that they show evidence for what they claim and they are completely incapable of doing so.     He's had 20 pages of back and forth to provide a single shred of proof for what he's claiming.  Instead he's had the lead developper of the edition directly answer that he's wrong AND he's had the rules directly quoted to him multiple times.  Reasonable discussion stopped a long time ago in these threads the moment people were shown to be too arrogant to admit being wrong about something on an online forum.
#768 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 20, 2015 20:50:17	Noctaem wrote:
#769 Orethalion Jul 20, 2015 20:56:24	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#770 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 20, 2015 21:48:15	Orethalion wrote:
#771 lawrencehoy Jul 20, 2015 23:21:48	Noctaem wrote:
#772 lawrencehoy Jul 20, 2015 23:41:25	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#773 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2015 1:43:28	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #771) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#775 Noctaem Jul 21, 2015 5:47:58	Bloodscythe wrote:
#776 Orethalion Jul 21, 2015 5:57:50	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#777 Orethalion Jul 21, 2015 5:59:28	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #770) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#779 Noctaem Jul 21, 2015 6:15:39	we're just going in circles, that question has been asked multiple times already Bloodscythe.  The answer they give is always the same flawed logic using a portion of a definition they choose to use over what the PHB rule says.
(Reply to #779) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#781 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2015 6:41:34	Orethalion wrote:
#782 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2015 6:45:23	Noctaem wrote:
#783 Noctaem Jul 21, 2015 6:50:21	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #781) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#785 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2015 8:18:57	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #785) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#787 CraggleRock Jul 21, 2015 9:02:32	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#788 Bloodscythe Jul 21, 2015 9:30:36	Slagger_the_Chuul, let me try an analogy... let me know what you think of it.   There is a process called Changing A Flat Tire. Step 1: placing a jack beneath a car and jacking the car up slightly to take some weight off of the tire. Step 2: turn the lug nuts to loosen them. Step 3: Jack the car up enough to get the spare tire onto the lug bolts. Step 4: remove lug nuts. ...   This process can be used in parallel to change two tires at the same time if the jack lifts two tires off of the ground at the same time.  That's not the issue.  The issue is if someone (a passerby) informs you (the driver) that since you have two flat tires you HAVE to change two tires at the same time or you can't change a tire.  That is simply not true.  You can change them one at a time.  In fact, you can completely change a flat tire, lower the car, move the jack, and redo the entire process from scratch for the 2nd flat tire.   You are not required by any rule in the book to resolve more than one attack at the same time as another attack.  If the DM requires it, they are houseruling.  And since the rules allow all players to make attacks in the same way regardless of the kind of attack it is, the DM is also being unfair.     There is a process called Making An Attack. Step 1, Step 2, Step 3...   This process can be used in parallel to [make two attacks] at the same time if the [player has more than one attack they can make].  That's not the issue.  The issue is if someone (the DM) informs you (the player) that since you have two [attacks] you HAVE to [make two attacks] at the same time or you can't [make an attack].  That is simply not true.  You can [make an attack] one at a time.  In fact, you can completely [make an attack], [move your character], and redo the entire process from scratch for [another attack, if the attacks are weapon attacks].   While it may be more efficient to jack up a car once and change two tires at the same time before lowering the car, it is not more efficient to make two attacks at the same time.  It is more efficient to see what one attack does, then choose the target of the next attack after knowing the results of the current attack.  And since the rules allow for this, I don't know why a player wouldn't.  You combine this with mechanical issues that arise if you don't do attacks in sequence, and you're left with really only one method for making attacks, and that's in sequence.
(Reply to #788) LordTwig	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #789) Bloodscythe	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #790) LordTwig	Bloodscythe wrote:
#792 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2015 21:51:41	Bloodscythe wrote:
#793 Orethalion Jul 21, 2015 22:06:13	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#794 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2015 22:21:35	CraggleRock wrote:
#795 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2015 22:44:42	Bloodscythe wrote:
#796 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 21, 2015 22:57:29	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #795) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #796) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#799 Orethalion Jul 22, 2015 6:01:24	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#800 Orethalion Jul 22, 2015 6:03:59	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #800) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#802 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 22, 2015 7:55:13	Bloodscythe wrote:
#803 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 22, 2015 8:11:48	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #764) OoftaMeg	This thread can go on forever.  You basically have two people who insist on ruling one way with the rest of posters to the thread and the lead dev disagreeing with you.   Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#805 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 22, 2015 8:24:16	Orethalion wrote:
#806 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 22, 2015 8:30:19	OoftaMeg wrote:
#807 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 22, 2015 8:32:41	Orethalion wrote:
#808 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 22, 2015 8:34:33	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #806) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #806) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#811 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 22, 2015 8:49:00	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #811) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#813 LordTwig Jul 22, 2015 9:20:52	I just want to toss in that, although I am no longer actively arguing either side, I find the discussion interesting. And after reading some of Slagger_the_Chuul's arguments I think it makes even more sense for simultaneous attacks to exist. The primary example is Chain Lightning, which I think should have one damage roll and hit all targets simultaneous (or so fast as to not make a difference).   As to Jeremy's tweet. He never said that the word "simultaneous" had to be present for the spell or effect to be simultaneous. He just said that unless a spell or effects says otherwise attacks are sequential. So what does it actually mean to "say otherwise"? Some have argued that a duration of Instantaneous is enough to say otherwise. Others have argued that only the word simultaneous is enough to say otherwise.   The argument seems to drag on because while some people understand that others might think differently. Others think it is impossible that they are wrong and that you must admit you are wrong if you disagree with them.
(Reply to #813) OoftaMeg	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #808) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#816 lawrencehoy Jul 22, 2015 22:01:39	OoftaMeg wrote:
#817 lawrencehoy Jul 22, 2015 22:09:33	OoftaMeg wrote:
#818 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2015 0:06:08	OoftaMeg wrote:
#819 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2015 0:25:59	Bloodscythe wrote:
#820 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2015 0:29:25	lawrencehoy wrote:
#821 CraggleRock Jul 23, 2015 2:40:34	Slagger, I apologise if I am way off base here, but would I be correct in surmising you are a computer programmer to at least some degree?  Because I think I can see where you are coming from with the "running it individually, but simultaneously" in coding terms.     We have a procedure called Making_An_Attack that handles all the rules for that and it is being argued that the rules say there is only one "input" for this procedure, so it must be called, finished, then called again for another attack.  You, meanwhile, are saying: yes, but we can create a new thread that is running the first attack, and then create another one for the next attack, so they are running through the single attack at the same time(?)  For the less computer savvy, this would sort of be like making a complete "clone" of the player (or possibly, the whole table),  The first clone is given the task of resolving attack 1, the second clone the task of resolving attack 2, and so on.  Obviously, we can't clone an entire group of gamers (yet!  MUAHAHAHAHA!! ahem), but for people who think in those sorts of terms, you can "simulate" that process in your mind, and as such, the rules being singular do not preclude simultaneous, because each simulated clone is only resolving one attack.   In this respect, I would probably agree that the rules don't spefically preclude that interpretation.  However, I would argue that I don't think that this method of thinking is particularly common (maybe among programmers and techies, which probably do comprise a significant D&D fanbase proportion, admitedly), and certainly not ubiquitous.  I think the non-programmer type that comes across a numbered list in the rules of a game would more commonly consider running through the list refering to a single element several times sequentially, as that fits the common conception of how games work.  (I say this having taught several new players 7 Wonders, a game where everyone takes their turn at the same time, and usually takes a turn or two to really sink in with people.)    Going back to the threaded programming example, if you are a coder, I'm guessing you can see that there are several places where you would need to pause the procedure to ensure all the other threads were caught up (you don't want to start applying damage and effects until after all the modifiers are calculated for example), and several checks in each thread to avoid odd behaviour (you might have to have a check in the "deal damage" step to ensure that it has hit points before the attack and less or equal to zero after to flag a kill, or you could end up with one attack killing the target and the other attack also reporting it killed the target because it "reduced them" to zero HP, and therefore triggering the Award_XP procedure twice for the one foe).  Part of that shows that, even with a computer, there's still potentially some "sequence" to the application of the attacks, even running them simultaneously, and when you consider a lot of these programming headaches just aren't going to be an issue if you run the whole procedure mutliple times sequentially instead, and not introduce any new issues, I would certainly start to question the logic of trying to put in the multithreading code for inconsequential to zero benefit.
#822 lawrencehoy Jul 23, 2015 3:39:10	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#823 lawrencehoy Jul 23, 2015 3:48:15	CraggleRock wrote:
#824 CraggleRock Jul 23, 2015 4:21:45	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #819) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#826 Orethalion Jul 23, 2015 5:58:43	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #803) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #816) OoftaMeg	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #818) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#830 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2015 8:51:16	CraggleRock wrote:
#831 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2015 9:07:16	Bloodscythe wrote:
#832 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 23, 2015 9:12:00	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #831) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #832) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#835 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 24, 2015 3:49:05	Bloodscythe wrote:
#836 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 24, 2015 4:09:36	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #835) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#838 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 24, 2015 9:26:46	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #838) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#840 LordTwig Jul 24, 2015 10:02:13	Advantages of sequential weapon attacks: 1. Can move between attacks. 2. You can know the result of each attack before making the next attack.   Disadvantages of sequential weapon attacks: 1. You can only make one attack on a readied action. 2. You can be interrupted after the first attack and prevented from using further attacks or forced to make attacks with a penalty.   Advantages of simultaneous spell attacks: 1. You can make all attacks at once without being interrupted. 2. Can make all attacks as a readied action.   Disadvantages of simultaneous spell attacks: 1. Can not move between attacks. 2. Must choose all targets before knowing the results of any attack.   Sounds pretty fair to me.
(Reply to #840) Bloodscythe	LordTwig wrote:
#842 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 24, 2015 10:09:39	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #841) LordTwig	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #843) Bloodscythe	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #842) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #844) LordTwig	Bloodscythe wrote:
#847 Orethalion Jul 24, 2015 13:21:45	LordTwig wrote:
(Reply to #847) LordTwig	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #848) Bloodscythe	LordTwig wrote:
#850 Orethalion Jul 24, 2015 14:35:08	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #850) OoftaMeg	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #851) Bloodscythe	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #850) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#854 Orethalion Jul 24, 2015 22:55:15	Bloodscythe wrote:
#855 Orethalion Jul 24, 2015 23:02:39	Bloodscythe wrote:
#856 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 25, 2015 5:01:27	Bloodscythe wrote:
#857 Orethalion Jul 25, 2015 6:18:22	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#858 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 25, 2015 6:37:29	Orethalion wrote:
#859 Orethalion Jul 25, 2015 6:41:44	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #856) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #855) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#862 Orethalion Jul 25, 2015 7:49:08	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #862) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#864 Orethalion Jul 26, 2015 0:21:36	Bloodscythe wrote:
#865 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 26, 2015 2:17:08	Orethalion wrote:
#866 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 26, 2015 2:11:06	Bloodscythe wrote:
#867 Orethalion Jul 26, 2015 7:00:57	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#868 lawrencehoy Jul 26, 2015 20:38:39	OoftaMeg wrote:
#869 lawrencehoy Jul 26, 2015 21:22:55	Orethalion wrote:
#870 lawrencehoy Jul 26, 2015 21:32:59	Bloodscythe wrote:
#871 Orethalion Jul 26, 2015 21:45:14	lawrencehoy wrote:
#872 lawrencehoy Jul 26, 2015 21:45:25	Orethalion wrote:
#873 Orethalion Jul 26, 2015 21:47:50	lawrencehoy wrote:
#874 lawrencehoy Jul 26, 2015 21:54:23	Orethalion wrote:
#875 lawrencehoy Jul 26, 2015 21:57:53	Orethalion wrote:
#876 Orethalion Jul 26, 2015 22:02:06	lawrencehoy wrote:
#877 Orethalion Jul 26, 2015 22:03:50	lawrencehoy wrote:
#878 lawrencehoy Jul 26, 2015 22:41:42	Orethalion wrote:
#879 lawrencehoy Jul 26, 2015 23:05:05	Orethalion wrote:
#880 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 26, 2015 23:47:35	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #870) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #880) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#883 Orethalion Jul 27, 2015 5:41:48	lawrencehoy wrote:
#884 Orethalion Jul 27, 2015 5:53:01	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #868) OoftaMeg	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #884) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#887 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2015 11:31:39	Orethalion wrote:
#888 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2015 11:38:15	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #888) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#890 Orethalion Jul 27, 2015 18:31:02	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#891 Orethalion Jul 27, 2015 18:31:48	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#892 Orethalion Jul 27, 2015 18:33:16	Bloodscythe wrote:
#893 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2015 22:33:43	Bloodscythe wrote:
#894 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 27, 2015 22:49:16	Orethalion wrote:
#895 lawrencehoy Jul 27, 2015 23:11:37	OoftaMeg wrote:
#896 lawrencehoy Jul 27, 2015 23:16:53	Orethalion wrote:
#897 Orethalion Jul 28, 2015 6:07:36	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#898 Orethalion Jul 28, 2015 6:09:45	lawrencehoy wrote:
#899 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 28, 2015 8:26:03	Orethalion wrote:
#900 lawrencehoy Jul 28, 2015 22:52:08	Orethalion wrote:
#901 Orethalion Jul 29, 2015 5:54:04	lawrencehoy wrote:
#902 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 29, 2015 7:11:20	Orethalion wrote:
#903 Orethalion Jul 29, 2015 18:33:52	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#904 lawrencehoy Jul 29, 2015 21:00:38	Orethalion wrote:
#905 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 29, 2015 23:23:52	Orethalion wrote:
#906 Orethalion Jul 30, 2015 5:46:20	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #903) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#908 Orethalion Jul 30, 2015 6:35:09	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #908) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#910 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 30, 2015 8:14:56	Orethalion wrote:
#911 Noctaem Jul 30, 2015 8:19:41	Duration is the length of time between the start of casting the spell and the end of the spell.  That's why instantaneous spells can't be dispelled as you hopefully now know.
#912 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 30, 2015 8:40:43	Noctaem wrote:
#913 Noctaem Jul 30, 2015 10:05:46	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #913) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#915 Noctaem Jul 30, 2015 10:58:20	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #915) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#917 Noctaem Jul 30, 2015 11:46:37	Ritual spells have specific rules that apply only to them.  That's how you end up with spells that can be cast as ritual spells OR NOT.  IF you do cast it as a ritual spell follow rules x, y, z (creates the specific) or if you don't follow a, b, c (general rules).
(Reply to #917) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#919 Noctaem Jul 30, 2015 12:05:28	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #919) Bloodscythe	Noctaem wrote:
#921 Orethalion Jul 30, 2015 18:40:02	Bloodscythe wrote:
#922 Orethalion Jul 30, 2015 18:41:29	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#923 lawrencehoy Jul 30, 2015 22:24:55	Noctaem wrote:
#924 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 31, 2015 2:48:50	Noctaem wrote:
#925 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 31, 2015 2:48:36	Orethalion wrote:
#926 lawrencehoy Jul 31, 2015 3:59:53	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#927 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 31, 2015 4:47:45	lawrencehoy wrote:
#928 Orethalion Jul 31, 2015 5:51:02	lawrencehoy wrote:
#929 Slagger_the_Chuul Jul 31, 2015 8:51:12	Orethalion wrote:
#930 Orethalion Jul 31, 2015 13:11:59	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#931 Orethalion Jul 31, 2015 13:12:01	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#932 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 01, 2015 1:25:53	Orethalion wrote:
#933 Orethalion Aug 01, 2015 7:28:13	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#934 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 01, 2015 23:55:26	Orethalion wrote:
#935 Orethalion Aug 02, 2015 6:41:47	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#936 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 02, 2015 7:49:10	Orethalion wrote:
#937 Orethalion Aug 02, 2015 7:59:00	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#938 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 02, 2015 8:23:38	Orethalion wrote:
#939 Orethalion Aug 02, 2015 8:37:22	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#940 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 02, 2015 8:47:48	Orethalion wrote:
#941 lawrencehoy Aug 02, 2015 22:32:37	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#942 Orethalion Aug 03, 2015 6:07:48	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #937) Bloodscythe	Orethalion wrote:
#944 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 03, 2015 10:51:09	Orethalion wrote:
#945 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 03, 2015 10:58:30	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #945) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#947 Orethalion Aug 03, 2015 18:24:34	Bloodscythe wrote:
#948 lawrencehoy Aug 03, 2015 22:44:07	Bloodscythe wrote:
#949 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 03, 2015 23:27:21	Bloodscythe wrote:
#950 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 03, 2015 23:40:36	Orethalion wrote:
#951 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 03, 2015 23:38:55	lawrencehoy wrote:
#952 lawrencehoy Aug 04, 2015 0:27:03	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#953 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 04, 2015 1:37:33	lawrencehoy wrote:
#954 Orethalion Aug 04, 2015 6:15:55	lawrencehoy wrote:
(Reply to #950) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#956 lawrencehoy Aug 04, 2015 11:20:35	[quote="Bloodscythe"]If you consider the targeting and attack rolls to be something the player does during the casting of the spell, then the character is still casting a spell while the attack rolls are made, and the damage is dealt.  Since the character is "casting a spell", as a reaction, another character can counterspell it, which makes the spell being cast have no effect.  Any effect done prior to the player's decision to counterspell would therefore also have to undone, because if it's not undone, the spell had an effect, which violates the rules.  And you can't argue that the character can't choose to counterspell after the spell has had an effect while simultaneously arguing that the attack/damage rolls occur during the casting.  If the spell is being cast, it can be countered, regardless of whether you've applied damage or not to a target.  That establishes an issue within the ruleset if you're using that interpretation.[/quote}I agree.   [quote="Bloodscythe"]If you interpret the rules to mean that you first cast the spell, and as a result of casting a spell successfully, just after casting it, you make attacks as an effect of the spell, then the spell can't be countered while attacks are taking place.  The spell would have to be countered prior to the completion of the casting process, which is just prior to the attacks being made.   Bloodscythe wrote:
#957 OoftaMeg Aug 04, 2015 12:28:17	I don't pay a lot of attention to this thread, so this may have already been mentioned but this conversation seems to be missing a fundamental point.  The casting time for counterspell is "1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell".   Not after the first bolt or at any other time ... when you see them casting.  So the arguments of interrupting after the first attack are irrelevant.  It doesn't happen because you need to use your reaction at the time of the trigger.   In addition, you can't ready counterspell because it's a special case, it's already a reaction (not an action).  You can't ready a reaction.   in other words, counterspell has no bearing on the discussion of casting time and duration.
(Reply to #956) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#959 lawrencehoy Aug 04, 2015 21:08:14	Bloodscythe wrote:
#960 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 05, 2015 2:53:39	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #960) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #959) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#963 lawrencehoy Aug 05, 2015 23:54:57	Bloodscythe wrote:
#964 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 06, 2015 4:53:39	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #963) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#966 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 06, 2015 5:23:23	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #964) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
(Reply to #966) Bloodscythe	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#969 lawrencehoy Aug 07, 2015 3:43:51	Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #969) Bloodscythe	lawrencehoy wrote:
#971 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 07, 2015 9:27:39	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #971) OoftaMeg	Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#973 Slagger_the_Chuul Aug 08, 2015 2:03:32	OoftaMeg wrote: