Results 991 to 1,016 of 1016
Thread: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
-
2015-06-26, 02:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Ah, I had misinterpreted this as an attack of opportunity, not the MS reaction attack.
Anyway, I agree that that's how Crawford would do it, since that's what the rules say. Granted it doesn't necessarily make sense (it seems more reasonable to me narratively that mage slayer should hit when the spell is being cast), but a spell being cast is, rules-wise, an instantaneous event.
-
2015-06-26, 02:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Once again, I find myself on the wrong side of this argument. The more research I do, the more I find that the rules support the idea that the Mage Slayer gets his/her attack before the spell takes effect. And this time, I may have RAW to prove it.
From the "Sage Advice Compendium" PDF available at the WotC homepage, we find that what's in the PDF is essentially RAW. On page 1, it says this:
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice.
You would think this would put me on the side of the ruling made in the tweets, but then I found this on page 3 (and remember, these are official rulings):
It is true that a number of spells, such as fire bolt and ray of frost, involve making an attack, but you can’t make such an attack without first casting the spell that delivers it.
This is covered again later in the same section:
In summary, to make a spell attack, you have to first cast a spell or use a feature that creates the spell’s effect.
There you go. Spelled out in black-and-white. First the spell is cast. Then the attack or effect happens. Seems I owe an apology to the guys who have been saying that all along. Sorry, guys.Last edited by ProphetSword; 2015-06-26 at 02:48 PM.
-
2015-06-26, 04:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
And once again you are reading things that aren't written.
Nowhere does it say that they are separate events. It only says that {B}, being a product of {A}, cannot occur without {A} happening.
It's like saying that you don't roll damage unless an attack hits. They are both a part of Making an Attack, but {B} cannot occur without {A}.Last edited by DivisibleByZero; 2015-06-26 at 04:17 PM.
-
2015-06-26, 04:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Breaking BM: Revised - an updated look at the beast-mounted halfling ranger based on the Revised Ranger: Beast Conclave.
-
2015-06-26, 04:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
It is the first time in any official ruling where casting a spell and that spell's effect or attack are called out as being something separate. I think it makes a very good case for the idea that the mage slayer could get an attack after the spell is cast but before the effect comes into play. And as I previously pointed out, some people have been saying this for a while.
-
2015-06-26, 04:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Last edited by Kryx; 2015-06-26 at 05:00 PM.
-
2015-06-26, 04:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Its the casting of a spell, not the effect of the spell, that triggers MS.
As soon as the warlock starts to cast Repelling Blast, but before he completes casting it, the MS attack would occur. If the warlock is still capable of casting after that attack, the Repelling Blast occurs as normal and has its usual effect.
-
2015-06-26, 05:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2015-06-26 at 05:01 PM.
-
2015-06-26, 05:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
-
2015-06-26, 05:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Breaking BM: Revised - an updated look at the beast-mounted halfling ranger based on the Revised Ranger: Beast Conclave.
-
2015-06-26, 05:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
For the three hundredth time, there is no need for that.
The word "when" is not used to denote timing. The word "when" is used to denote the trigger. Replace it with the word "if" if that suits your fancy.
Hey, look at that, it reads EXACTLY[ like they intended it to read.
-
2015-06-26, 05:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
And yet that's not how half of us, or perhaps more, read it. If you manufacted a toaster, would you continue stating that the instructions were correct and unambiguous the three-hundredth time someone burned his hands trying to turn it on? No, of course not. You'd fix the instructions regardless of whether they made sense to you.
Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2015-06-26 at 05:28 PM.
-
2015-06-26, 05:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
-
2015-06-26, 05:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
So dang much ambiguity.
I believe that sentence is supposed to be read: Jeremy Crawford can make official rulings. He will usually do so in the form of the Sage Advice column.
But it can also be read as: Jeremy Crawford can make official rulings in the Sage Advice column, and he usually does so.Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2015-06-26, 05:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
-
2015-06-26, 06:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
-
2015-06-26, 07:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
It still just boils down to how you read the meaning of casts.
It can mean the throw/release ie casts a stone.
It can mean the wind-up ie casts a (fishing) line.
Both are reasonable interpretations but the devs clearly meant the former. Could it have been written/errata'd differently to eliminate ambiguity, sure. It's likely they just don't see it as ambiguous. Such is English where lots of words can have different meanings depending on context.
-
2015-06-26, 10:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Testing understanding:
Assume the wizard casts Enlarge.
You get to use your reaction after the 1 action casting time, correct?
And it works that way because casting the spelling is done after casting time & not duration, correct?
Building conclusions off that test:
PHB talks about effects of the spell only in duration section & not casting time section.
I don't think anyone was arguing that you couldn't attack with a reaction after the 1 action casting time for enlarge. Am I wrong?
Given that it establishes that the duration (i.e. - effects) of the spell is separable & after the casting of the spell. I think this reads correctly plain English RAW.
With that reading I don't think mage slayer could 'interrupt' the casting but I think it's a pain English reading for why the attack happens between casting time and duration. The effects would still go of regardless since casting is complete.
It seems like it would have a strange interaction with concentration though. Are you concentrating even if the duration hasn't started? Probably not per RAW.
-
2015-06-27, 12:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
-
2015-06-27, 12:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
So I am not too experienced with 5e rules, but if Mage Slayer goes after the spell has taken effect, doesn't that actually make it better against spells which require concentration, as it would force a concentration save only if it struck after the spell has taken effect?
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2015-06-27, 12:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
-
2015-06-27, 12:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
-
2015-06-27, 01:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
-
2015-06-27, 01:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
Re: Shocking Grasp v. Mage Slayer
Finally, a positive for mage slayer going off after the casting.
A positive that would come into affect a lot more than a mage slayer situation would ever come up.Last edited by Elbeyon; 2015-06-27 at 01:17 AM.
-
2015-06-27, 01:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2014
-
2015-06-27, 02:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011