D&D 5E Eldritch Blast and Repelling Blast - One time or Each Hit?

[Salthorae]

So, how did that work?

Did just getting 10' max on that one invocation mean you saw far fewer warlock dips for the sorcs because all those other possible gains from thec3 level dip (short rest slots, invocations, more cantrips, pact boon, and patron features) all were seen as just not worth it or did you still see the sorlocks doing this with perhaps a different set of invocations?

Dud those sorlocks simply shift to chooding other options and be just as effective overall, find different effective uses for their actions?

Did other MC dips ou liked better get to be the more common options?

Did tier-1 tactics and formations hold their appeal longer? Or did they still get into trouble as more high level options opened up?

What were the outcomes beyond reducing the ft per turn moved by this means to a number that got your GM approved seal?

I saw a decrease in the SorLock dips in general because they couldn't get the scaling EB with character level so "it wasn't worth it" to them.

I haven't made the change to 10' once per turn on Repelling Blast yet. I'd changed it to 10' once per turn no save and then Str save for each instance after the first 10' (total not per creature). With that change, many Warlocks in my group swapped out Repelling blast for other invocations that we'd never seen in play before. I consider that a win as it means more of the class is getting used rather than just the combat optimal option.

SorLocks switched to different options that require less catering to in my encounter planning, so they are still effective, but I don't have to plan my encounters as much around this one ability. That is what got my GM seal of approval. That I no longer had to take one cantrip into account in my encounter planning.

 

[5ekyu]

I saw a decrease in the SorLock dips in general because they couldn't get the scaling EB with character level so "it wasn't worth it" to them.

I haven't made the change to 10' once per turn on Repelling Blast yet. I'd changed it to 10' once per turn no save and then Str save for each instance after the first 10' (total not per creature). With that change, many Warlocks in my group swapped out Repelling blast for other invocations that we'd never seen in play before. I consider that a win as it means more of the class is getting used rather than just the combat optimal option.

SorLocks switched to different options that require less catering to in my encounter planning, so they are still effective, but I don't have to plan my encounters as much around this one ability. That is what got my GM seal of approval. That I no longer had to take one cantrip into account in my encounter planning.

"SorLocks switched to different options that require less catering to in my encounter planning, so they are still effective, but I don't have to plan my encounters as much around this one ability. "

So, can you give some examples of the other tier-3 to tier-4 options they switched to that you dont have to plan for in your scenarios? In my experience, most any decent tier-3 to tier-4 oorptions generally do impact the scenes in ways that need "accounting for" by reasonable opponents. Heck, even tier-2 does that for us. I mean, once fireball comes into play, the whole cluster of bad guy minions no longer get to work the same way they do at tier-1.

But, as a general rule, yup, I can see how reducing the damage of EB would stop the dips for those wanting to spam it. Regardless of the distance, that turned it into hot eorth spending two invocations on. That I can easily see.

 

[wakarusa]

Follow up question: Would the character being repelled be subject AOO if in range of other players?

 

[Salthorae]

Follow up question: Would the character being repelled be subject AOO if in range of other players?

Forced movement doesn’t provoke Opportunity Attacks that I’ve ever seen.

 

[wakarusa]

Forced movement doesn’t provoke Opportunity Attacks that I’ve ever seen.

I guess they could be repelled through spike growth.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So true. It could be the difficulty of implementation, and for many groups a lack of desire to get deeply into tactical miniatures combat with realistic terrain, that makes it that way.

If you play "theatre of the mind" you can allow characters (PC or NPC) to take cover behind anything that could reasonably be expected to be in the location. "I dive into a ditch" "the guards tip over a table and take cover behind it" etc.

I was playing The Styles a few weeks ago, and there was a warehouse fight against enemies with ranged attacks. I didn't draw on every single packing crate in the warehouse, but when a character wanted to take cover behind a crate I allowed them to do so.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I guess they could be repelled through spike growth.

Thornwiped through Spike Growth is a common druid tactic.

 

[clearstream]

If you play "theatre of the mind" you can allow characters (PC or NPC) to take cover behind anything that could reasonably be expected to be in the location. "I dive into a ditch" "the guards tip over a table and take cover behind it" etc.

I was playing The Styles a few weeks ago, and there was a warehouse fight against enemies with ranged attacks. I didn't draw on every single packing crate in the warehouse, but when a character wanted to take cover behind a crate I allowed them to do so.

That feels like a reasonable approach. I have avoided doing anything similar because it leads to a cascade of concerns that for me that would hinder the flow of play. Can the crates be destroyed? If they can, which are destroyed and which are intact? Do they effect movement? Can combatants stand on them? Are any stacked, for more height? Can combatants stack them? It would not work for me to add intangible crates to respond to ranged.

Still, I have no criticism about your approach even if it is not for me. Again, it shows how things are going to play out differently according to the exogenous rules at the table. The tension between movement, range, resilience and dps as foundational to much of what goes on when pushing pieces around to simulate combat on a representative map. I'm happy to engage with it and of course have ideas about which parts of that play space are more fun.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That feels like a reasonable approach. I have avoided doing anything similar because it leads to a cascade of concerns that for me that would hinder the flow of play. Can the crates be destroyed?

Sure, since soft cover is +2 AC an attack that misses by 1 or 2 hits the crates smashes the contents (which is glassware).

If they can, which are destroyed and which are intact?

Doesn't matter. You can hide behind a broken crate as well as a fully intact one, or just move to the next crate.

Do they effect movement?

Sure, difficult terrain.

Can combatants stand on them?

If they want.

Are any stacked, for more height?

Sure, some are.

Can combatants stack them?

If they want, but using actions to move crates during combat is probably not a good use of an action.

It would not work for me to add intangible crates to respond to ranged.

The crates where always there, it's in the location description (GoS).

 

[clearstream]

Sure, since soft cover is +2 AC an attack that misses by 1 or 2 hits the crates smashes the contents (which is glassware).

The crates where always there, it's in the location description (GoS).

So the zone affords half-cover to whomever wants it? That's more workable. I had though you meant total cover. I would still see long ranged attacks being relevant in that scenario.