D&D 5E (2014) Eldritch Blast and Repelling Blast - One time or Each Hit?

[clearstream]

But Repelling Blast is far from the only way to knock someone off a cliff - a simple Bull Rush can have the same effect.

A bull rush can be opposed by Athletics of Acrobatics, right?

 

[Gadget]

Shouldn't there be a saving throw involved? Or a strecngth check at least, or a dex check to catch the fall? What if there is a fixed wall behind the pushed opponent? Would he not take additional damage? I know these topics came along with thunderwave or what it is called and such, but is the to hit roll of the eldritch blast enough? Imagine if you got three blasts them, then it is almost a sure bet to hit at least once, that is a real killer then.
What I try to express is: it is not a 9nth level spell causing this and there is asumingly no save on the targeted party, no matter if it is a hill giant, titan or whatever, it is sent flying by a cantrip?

5e relies more on DM adjudication than previous editions. Such that, if there is a wall or some such behind the target, the DM may indeed rule a certain amount of damage is taken rather than have the spell list such out in excruciating detail.

As for a Saving Throw, in most circumstances, this is really not necessary and just complicates the game. It is hardly a "9th level spell" effect to knock someone back ten feet. If you run into situations where warlocks with Repelling Blasts are knocking titans off of cliffs that often, maybe you could rule that they get a ST; or that huge creatures just don't get knocked back, but rather take a bit more damage to avoid being knocked back. EB is, by design, the most potent cantrip in the game; the bread and butter of many Warlock builds. It's supposed to be a strong option for the Warlock.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A Titan would pretty much certainly survive a fall of a cliff, which on average does 70 hp of damage, as would anything immune to bludgeoning damage.

 

[Mistwell]

Yup, I agree that the RAW is clear. When thinking about balance I have a number of things on my mind. One thing that is not on my mind is the power of a mechanic: strong mechanics are fine. Rather it is how that mechanic is, in play?

Does it warp encounters around it? So not just - is it powerful - but, do I as DM usually need to adjust the encounter or behaviour of creatures in the encounter to deal with this one mechanic, otherwise the encounter becomes tactically weird or uninteresting?

Does it invalidate other strategies? Essentially, do all players choose this because it's so good that other choices are not worth taking. This is actually quite a tricky question to apply, because there are also mechanics that are foundational to a class - they're how the class operates - and of course all players take those. I'm sure people will have different views on this, but for me agonizing is foundational, while repelling invalidates other strategies. Part of the "why" is that repelling often invalidates other class' strategies! Repelling is also something of a one trick - does everything all by itself - a good mechanic plays well with other strategies.

When I (experimentally) change it, do players still consistently take it? This for me is a very useful test. If I tune something, and players still want that thing, there's a really good chance it was over-tuned to begin with. Repelling even once per target is in that bag. Another way of putting this is - does it need to be that good? I think the invocations released with Xanathar's are very suggestive that it does not: that it was an oversight.

Have I enough experience with this in play, to feel confident? This is important. Sometimes, there is a counter or natural balance to something, and you just haven't played enough to know. Some things - magic stones is an example - are good at certain levels, but stop being good later on. Repelling is good at every level it is available. In fact, I think it gets better at higher levels because... no save.

Does the game design take proper account of this strategy? Some mechanics are very strong, but then the game design includes counters to them. Repelling allows a warlock at any level that has it, to push monsters regardless of their CR. Our warlocks in OOTA could push Demogorgon with it. The game design just didn't seem to properly account for the strategy.

So while the RAW is clear, I wouldn't play it that way. Or at the very least, I'd suggest trying an alternative. Is it at the top of the list of things to fix? Probably not, because not all parties will even contain a warlock. If, like mine, your party ends up with two of them... then you might prioritise it higher!

There is a lot of explanation missing from this long post. I mean if I just look at it, it looks thorough. But when reading it, there is a whole lot of repetition and very little actual explanation here. How does it supposedly invalidate other strategies? No idea, no explanation or whiff of a possible explanation offered. Lots of other things in the game move things 10' feet, and I've never heard anyone mention that invalidating other strategies, so this is a total mystery. Similarly, it's good at every level? Why? Why is it good at ANY level in fact? Total mystery, no explanation of any kind made. I guess the reader is just supposed to assume all the really important parts of your post? Any examples at all backing up what you allege?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A bull rush can be opposed by Athletics of Acrobatics, right?

Sure, all of these require the attack be successful in some way.

 

[Salthorae]

A Titan would pretty much certainly survive a fall of a cliff, which on average does 70 hp of damage, as would anything immune to bludgeoning damage.

This honestly is why I give a strength save after the first hit.

It pulls me out of the game too much to think about something that moves a small or medium size creature 10 feet also pushing a gargantuan or colossal creature 10 feet back.

I know it’s “Magic“, but if it’s enough force to move a titan back 10 feet per hit, it should move a medium creature back 40 or 50 feet per hit.

I’m not one to try to always bring: “realism” into my game physics, but this is one that ruins the immersive experience for me.

So rather than getting into size based mechanics for spells, I give a strength save after the first hit so that the warlock still get some auto benefit, but it gives strong/large things, the ability to move against the stream of the warlocks blasts.

For me that’s the middleground option. It’s not about nerfing the warlock, or Eldritch blast, it’s about my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Salthorae]

Sure, all of these require the attack be successful in some way.

Shoving a creature is limited by size and is an opposed check. EB is just an attack roll with damage and freebie riders if it hits. No opposition or RAW way to stop it if it hits. Even if you’re 1000’ tall, RAW you get moved back 10’/hit on a repelling blast. Oh, and your speed is still only 40’-50’ (Storm & Titan only) regardless of how long your legs are!

 

[clearstream]

There is a lot of explanation missing from this long post. I mean if I just look at it, it looks thorough. But when reading it, there is a whole lot of repetition and very little actual explanation here. How does it supposedly invalidate other strategies? No idea, no explanation or whiff of a possible explanation offered. Lots of other things in the game move things 10' feet, and I've never heard anyone mention that invalidating other strategies, so this is a total mystery. Similarly, it's good at every level? Why? Why is it good at ANY level in fact? Total mystery, no explanation of any kind made. I guess the reader is just supposed to assume all the really important parts of your post? Any examples at all backing up what you allege?

You might have mistaken the intent of my post. I think it is helpful to discuss approaches to resolving these issues, as well as the issues themselves. My thinking has been influenced by others, for instance sirlin's discussion of multiplayer game balancing.

I ran a game containing two warlocks for over two years. One survived the whole campaign, one was a reroll after a character death or two. So although the experience at any one table is narrow, I got to see it in live play in numerous encounters. It is worth noting that my players had high-system mastery and were interested in crunch: often mechanical concerns don't cause trouble at tables where that is not the case.

Warping encounters? As a DM, in order to make encounters fun, I had to give thought to repelling blast. Encounters where I failed to consider repelling blast in advance, risked being trivial for the players... and a waste of the time to craft and play them. That becomes acute when the push back makes it impossible to close: it forces a DM onto ranged strategies for foes.

Invalidating strategies? Both took repelling blast because, in play it was a dominant strategy. One gave it up at one point, and then swapped back to it the following level. The effectiveness of repelling blast meant that other - less effective - invocations were invalidated as strategies. One can easily see that this will matter most to power-gamers, and not very much at all to non-power-gamers.

Still taken? Yes, when I changed it to once per target, players still took it.

Enough experience? I firmly believe that playtesting time correlates well with the quality of analysis of game mechanics. So no, I don't think I have sufficient experience (even though relatively high perhaps, compared to other tables) to be definitive. However, I read into the Xanathar's hedging of similar invocations the results of a wider net. Speculation, certainly.

Design takes it into consideration? If you play with repelling blast through all the tiers that it is available (I have, extensively, in live play) then you will see that the scaling of the warlock's attack and the things that interact with that, is sufficiently strong that repelling blast is good at every level. It's amazing at high-level! Legendary resistance, for instance, does not interact with repelling blast, even though it is a design gambit aimed directly at catching such problems. It is wrong to look at "two mechanics that move things 10'" and say they are the same, BTW. It depends very much what they interact with.

So, back to my earlier post: I believe the quality of argument about issues to hand can be improved by discussing background approaches, concerns, motivations. You might have taken my post to have some other intent. I don't even believe that modifying repelling blast is justified at all tables: that really depends on the approach the group takes to play.

 

[Mistwell]

You might have mistaken the intent of my post. I think it is helpful to discuss approaches to resolving these issues, as well as the issues themselves. My thinking has been influenced by others, for instance sirlin's discussion of multiplayer game balancing.

I ran a game containing two warlocks for over two years. One survived the whole campaign, one was a reroll after a character death or two. So although the experience at any one table is narrow, I got to see it in live play in numerous encounters. It is worth noting that my players had high-system mastery and were interested in crunch: often mechanical concerns don't cause trouble at tables where that is not the case.

Warping encounters? As a DM, in order to make encounters fun, I had to give thought to repelling blast. Encounters where I failed to consider repelling blast in advance, risked being trivial for the players... and a waste of the time to craft and play them. That becomes acute when the push back makes it impossible to close: it forces a DM onto ranged strategies for foes.

Invalidating strategies? Both took repelling blast because, in play it was a dominant strategy. One gave it up at one point, and then swapped back to it the following level. The effectiveness of repelling blast meant that other - less effective - invocations were invalidated as strategies. One can easily see that this will matter most to power-gamers, and not very much at all to non-power-gamers.

Still taken? Yes, when I changed it to once per target, players still took it.

Enough experience? I firmly believe that playtesting time correlates well with the quality of analysis of game mechanics. So no, I don't think I have sufficient experience (even though relatively high perhaps, compared to other tables) to be definitive. However, I read into the Xanathar's hedging of similar invocations the results of a wider net. Speculation, certainly.

Design takes it into consideration? If you play with repelling blast through all the tiers that it is available (I have, extensively, in live play) then you will see that the scaling of the warlock's attack and the things that interact with that, is sufficiently strong that repelling blast is good at every level. It's amazing at high-level! Legendary resistance, for instance, does not interact with repelling blast, even though it is a design gambit aimed directly at catching such problems. It is wrong to look at "two mechanics that move things 10'" and say they are the same, BTW. It depends very much what they interact with.

So, back to my earlier post: I believe the quality of argument about issues to hand can be improved by discussing background approaches, concerns, motivations. You might have taken my post to have some other intent. I don't even believe that modifying repelling blast is justified at all tables: that really depends on the approach the group takes to play.

We're talking past each other. You're mostly repeating assertions without examples. I understand you claim it's an issue. I understand all your bullet points. But, you're not providing concrete examples which demonstrate the bullet point and explanation is actually relevant to anyone else's game because they have zero context to evaluate what you're claiming. It's like you're saying over and over again, in many different ways, that daggers are overpowered - without ever giving an example of a dagger being overpowered.

Tell me HOW moving a foe 10' back is doing all this? Examples of it becoming the focus of encounters, changing tactics, stopping foes from closing, being useful at levels where things like misty step are common, where other abilities to move creatures (particularly spells) are common, etc...

 

[Salthorae]

Tell me HOW moving a foe 10' back is doing all this? Examples of it becoming the focus of encounters, changing tactics, stopping foes from closing, being useful at levels where things like misty step are common, where other abilities to move creatures (particularly spells) are common, etc...

I thought they did a decent job of getting to your points in their recent post actually.

It's not the "moving a foe back 10'" that provides the issue for me or most (would be my guess). It's the "moving a foe back 10' per hit (up to 4/round at higher tiers) without any save or recourse on the one being moved".

Other than Eldritch Blast and Thorn Whip (capped at 10' total) what are other spells or abilities that force movement WITHOUT a Saving throw or some sort of opposed check?

Gust cantrip moves an unattended object 10', but to move a person 5', Str Save. I'm honestly asking because I can't remember or find another effect that can move an opponent up to 40' in a round with no saves/checks other than an attack roll.

Usually, the rider effect has some sort of save with it, even the cantrips. Gust, Dissonant Whispers, Fear, Lightning Lure, Thunderwave. The forced movement is negated on a save for each of those, though Lightning Lure is the only one of those with an attack roll, the save only negates part of the damage and movement on the others, so there is still some effect even on a save for the higher spells.