ad_hoc
(they/them)
Cantrips are worse, but still "slot free" and warlock with invocations and sorcerer with metamagic (guickened cantrip by 1 SP) are still on table when you think how to deal with 1 enemy.
I don't understand your point.
Cantrips are worse, but still "slot free" and warlock with invocations and sorcerer with metamagic (guickened cantrip by 1 SP) are still on table when you think how to deal with 1 enemy.
I dont get how they quickened a cantrip with 1 sp myself.I don't understand your point.
"Once on each of your turns" language is directly aimed at stacking. It's a hard limit on that. So a creature can be brought 10' closer (with grasp) and slowed 10' (with lance) only once even if hit by more than one of your beams. For the sake of argument, say that I think pushing 0-30' (the range for the most played character levels) is well balanced. Then what is the reason that I also think pulling 0-30' would not be balanced? What is my motive, as a designer, for creating that difference?As for what I think you are referring to as the Xanathar's wording - that there exist other invocations that have a once per turn limit - I don't think much of them.
That issue is not in play, with "once on each of your turns" forestalling stacking. That change solves the problem.Which gets back to talking through all the stages with the players...
Is there a problem?
What is the problem?
What are possible fixes?
Which do we want?
I mean, it would be less than optimal to list the moving tanker out of the way as an example then point to a Xanathar's reference to other invocations limiting to once per turn and leaving that issue still in play, right?
I don't understand your point.
I dont get how they quickened a cantrip with 1 sp myself.
Which I believe, in the post you edited after quoting sections, I said would be dandy if you chose to use that as a motivation for the change at your table."Once on each of your turns" language is directly aimed at stacking. It's a hard limit on that. So a creature can be brought 10' closer (with grasp) and slowed 10' (with lance) only once even if hit by more than one of your beams. For the sake of argument, say that I think pushing 0-30' (the range for the most played character levels) is well balanced. Then what is the reason that I also think pulling 0-30' would not be balanced? What is my motive, as a designer, for creating that difference?
Grasp of Hadar
Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with your eldritch blast, you can move that creature in a straight line 10 feet closer to you.
Lance of Lethargy
Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with your eldritch blast, you can reduce that creature's speed by 10 feet until the end of your next turn.
Repelling Blast
When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line.
That issue is not in play, with "once on each of your turns" forestalling stacking. That change solves the problem.
Ok, so the difference in sorcerer points is whether at5th you have it for five rounds or two - which seems a significant difference. That is why I mentioned it as a point I was wondering about - given all these house rules being thrown about.I feel like you are both trolling with those responses.
@delph is pretty obviously saying, regardless if they put the correct # of sorcery points required, that SorLock mutliclass builds with Repelling Blast and Quicken Spell present a compounding issue on Repelling Blast's effect on combats. At 5th level you have 4 bolts per round for a couple of rounds. At 11th you have up to 6/round, etc.
It's not a 100% compounding as they'll run out of Sorcery Points, but it does exacerbate the issue for sure.
I feel like you are both trolling with those responses.
@delph is pretty obviously saying, regardless if they put the correct # of sorcery points required, that SorLock mutliclass builds with Repelling Blast and Quicken Spell present a compounding issue on Repelling Blast's effect on combats. At 5th level you have 4 bolts per round for a couple of rounds. At 11th you have up to 6/round, etc.
It's not a 100% compounding as they'll run out of Sorcery Points, but it does exacerbate the issue for sure.
I was thinking about this point (and a few others like it in other posts). For me it is answered by how things go in play. Say a DM makes it "once in each of your turns". At tier-1 this has no consequence: they only had one beam anyway. At tier-2+, against foes with high ACs the expectation is a 10' shove: once again, usually, no consequence.But we are talking about what could happen. The fact that Eldritch Blast can (and often does) miss seems to be conveniently forgotten by some people.
I agree with that. Earlier I raised that the experience at a given table is in truth pretty limited, compared to all the possible ways to play. I mean, in my campaign even over two years we only saw just over a dozen different characters getting substantial play. So I'm very conscious of the finite scope of my experience. That is what I want to draw to your attention.
And, relatedly, I feel like you and Paul appear to say that my table is playing the game wrong, should we have a problem with this cantrip. You keep taking pains to point out how we're doing it wrong... what we should be doing instead.
Why would it be a problem though? A crossbow has a longer range than eldritch blast, a crossbowman might be quite happy to be shoved back 20 feet. But the situation where there is actually 20 feet of clear space behind the enemy for them to be pushed into seems like quite an unusual one to me.for groups that find 20' or more push problematic - justified.