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

[Greenstone.Walker]

I do each hit, for both players and foes.

Any rule like this works both ways. Characters standing on the edge of a cliff need to beware flying opponents with thorn whip.

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?

That is a really good point.

Shoving is a contested ability check, as are the Bigby's hand and telekinesis spells. The Pushing Attack manoeuvre of battlemaster fighters requires a saving throw, as do many spells (for example, levitate).

But the two you mention (as well as lightning lure from SCAG) move their target based solely on an attack roll.

Are there others? A web search found the Thunderbolt Strike feature of tempest clerics. Maybe the dissonant whispers spell (fail one save, take both damage and forced movement)?

 

[Salthorae]

I do each hit, for both players and foes.

Any rule like this works both ways. Characters standing on the edge of a cliff need to beware flying opponents with thorn whip.

Can't say that I've never used thorn whip to pull enemies back into my Hunger of Hadar floating above it on my Broom of Flying before...

But again, each hit and Hunger of Hadar is a deadly combination too... you can deal up to 40d6 damage to something if you can keep in there for the duration. Creature is blinded and speed is halved. So it takes a creature with speed 30' a move and a Dash just to exit the Hunger of Hadar by 10'.

Two EB's with Repelling Blast on it puts them right back in the middle of it.

Secondary Question that just occurred to me for folks who use the RAW method for Repelling Blast:

How do you handle the Blast/Move sequence of events?

Are the Blasts landing simultaneously (pending to hit roll) and so the target receives all their movement push at one time? Or is the pushing mechanic in your games incremental with each hit? I.e. "hit, hit, miss, hit, move 30'" OR "hit, move 10', hit, move 10'..."

I ask for the Hunger of Hadar example above.

If you do incremental, even one hit would put the target into the radius of Hunger again in my example above, so subsequent attacks would be at disadvantage then if you don't have Devil's Sight?

 

[Mistwell]

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".

I keep seeing this "without a save" as if that's the context here. You have to HIT. Spells are EITHER you have to hit OR you have to save. There is no meaningful difference really - either the player rolls a d20 and compares it to a target fixed number (AC), or a Foe rolls a d20 and compares it to a target fixed number (DC). So there is just as easy a way to avoid this attack as pretty much any other bog standard spell or attack.

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?

You have to hit. That's essentially the same as a save or an opposed check. It's still all just a d20 vs a target number, with the foe setting the target number with their AC.

And if this somehow freaks you out, literally every single PC and foe can do the same thing without a cantrip at all. They can just grapple and shove! Or grapple and move you!

Why is moving someone seen as overpowered somehow, after five years of this stuff and literally nobody ever saying anything like "wow forced movement is breaking my game" here, or the WOTC before they shut down, or on Reddit, or on FB, or anywhere?

And why, when I asked for actual examples from real games where this did something meaningfully "overpowered" am I still getting theoretical responses? I think that's not a coincidence. I don't think it's all that powerful, and people are fretting over nothing. If I am wrong in that assumption, there should be a slew of people posting about it, for years now, because it's soooo common. levitate, dissonant whispers, telekinesis, Bigby's hand, thunderwave, etc.. there is just so much that forces foes to move. Why, all of a sudden, would this one be broken because it uses AC for the target fixed number instead of a fixed DC (or opposed roll)?

 

[Salthorae]

I keep seeing this "without a save" as if that's the context here. You have to HIT. Spells are EITHER you have to hit OR you have to save. There is no meaningful difference really - either the player rolls a d20 and compares it to a target fixed number (AC), or a Foe rolls a d20 and compares it to a target fixed number (DC). So there is just as easy a way to avoid this attack as pretty much any other bog standard spell or attack.

You have to hit. That's essentially the same as a save or an opposed check. It's still all just a d20 vs a target number, with the foe setting the target number with their AC.

And if this somehow freaks you out, literally every single PC and foe can do the same thing without a cantrip at all. They can just grapple and shove! Or grapple and move you!

Why is moving someone seen as overpowered somehow, after five years of this stuff and literally nobody ever saying anything like "wow forced movement is breaking my game" here, or the WOTC before they shut down, or on Reddit, or on FB, or anywhere?

And why, when I asked for actual examples from real games where this did something meaningfully "overpowered" am I still getting theoretical responses? I think that's not a coincidence. I don't think it's all that powerful, and people are fretting over nothing. If I am wrong in that assumption, there should be a slew of people posting about it, for years now, because it's soooo common. levitate, dissonant whispers, telekinesis, Bigby's hand, thunderwave, etc.. there is just so much that forces foes to move. Why, all of a sudden, would this one be broken because it uses AC for the target fixed number instead of a fixed DC (or opposed roll)?

Well, that's an incredible amount of snark and attitude. Thanks for that I guess.

I have seen variations on this discussion/thread before on multiple boards from GitP, to RPG.Stackexchange, to here in earlier threads, so there are people out there talking about it.

No other unlimited use ability in 5e can push an opponent away from you from up to 120' away or also force them to move up to 40' and has no limits on the size of the opponent you can move.

A Pixie Warlock could Eldritch Blast a Great Wyrm Red Dragon back 40'

Personally, no moving someone 10' on the board isn't breaking my game. I would have zero issues with it, if it were limited to 10' once per round like Grasp of Hadar, Lance of Lethargy, Thorn Whip, Lightning Lure, etc.

It's the unlimited, incremental scaling nature of the Repelling Blast that raises my ire. Especially in multiclassing scenarios which have broken games I've been in before (SorLock I'm mostly looking at you).

It is such a good ability that almost every Warlock I've ever played with takes it whether they are focused on EB as their thing or not. That tells me that it's a bit over the top.

Every other ability in the game requires you to be much closer to your foe, from in their square (grapple) to 60' away (Levitate) and usually costs you something other than your action. Levitate and non-cantrips cost you a spell slot and are also much closer range than EB can be. Cantrips besides EB with Repelling Blast are limited to 10' once per turn. So are EB's other rider Invocations for that matter.

The physical options, grapple and shove, are limited to one size category larger than you. To grapple or shove someone is an opposed check rather than just a straight to hit or save. and you sacrifice your damage to do so.

At my table it forces me to design encounters around Repelling Blast for every battle. I have not yet found a battle where Repelling Blast doesn't change the nature of the encounter all by itself and at zero resource cost to the party.

I can't have battles in open space with single opponents (Huge or not, flying or not) or the warlock can solo them by keeping at 80-110' away and just pushing the enemy back constantly. No one else even has to raise a weapon with that ability and it cost the Warlock none of their resources to do it.

I know that 5e punishes single monster combat, but without Repelling Blast in the repertoire, at least there is combat, not just kiting.

It forces me to swarm or have large #'s so that other people have something to do or only have indoor battles or invisible foes or fight at range, or some combination of all those, or... etc. It very much limits what I feel I can do as a DM to make a meaningful and fun combat encounter when Repelling Blast is at my table.

The fact that I have to to take it into consideration with every battle design, means that it is too good at its job.

If it were just 10' once per turn, again, zero issues from me. But it's not.

 

[CleverNickName]

I play in two different campaigns: I am the DM in one, and in the other I'm a warlock (hexblade).

In my campaign, I rule that it works on every hit, but only once per target (meaning, you can push 3 different creatures, but not one creature three times). But we don't have any warlocks in the party, so it's not really an issue for us.

And in the other campaign, my DM ruled that it would only work once per turn, no matter how many creatures I might hit with it. So I chose a different invocation (Devil's Sight) and never looked back.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, that's an incredible amount of snark and attitude. Thanks for that I guess.

It's not really. It's frustration and pretty direct response. Not much snark there. Nor sarcasm. Just me asking for like the forth time "can you guys give me real examples of this being an issue" and the forth "here is some vague theory and conclusions" in a row. I appreciate later you do start to give examples.

No other unlimited use ability in 5e can push an opponent away from you from up to 120' away or also force them to move up to 40' and has no limits on the size of the opponent you can move.

A Pixie Warlock could Eldritch Blast a Great Wyrm Red Dragon back 40'

Have you had a pixie warlock Eldritch Blast a Great Wyrm Red Dragon from 120' away and move it back 40' in a game of yours, and if so was it an issue? You seeing my frustration yet. If this is a white room issue, OK then let's hear that. But I am pretty sure this wasn't a real example.

Personally, no moving someone 10' on the board isn't breaking my game. I would have zero issues with it, if it were limited to 10' once per round like Grasp of Hadar, Lance of Lethargy, Thorn Whip, Lightning Lure, etc.

It's the unlimited, incremental scaling nature of the Repelling Blast that raises my ire. Especially in multiclassing scenarios which have broken games I've been in before (SorLock I'm mostly looking at you).

Everyone understands this is something which "raises your ire". But what differentiates something from a pet peeve and an actual problem is seeing it cause an actual problem.

It is such a good ability that almost every Warlock I've ever played with takes it whether they are focused on EB as their thing or not. That tells me that it's a bit over the top.

Most classes have a common always-available combat option, which is also not overpowered but just really common. Almost every fighter I've seen played has chosen either a polearm, a greatsword, a sword and shield, or an axe and shield. Almost every wizard I've seen has chosen magic missile and web. Every bard I've seen has chosen Vicious Mockery. All the rogues I've seen chose a rapier (and often a ranged weapon). A common base line always available attack option for a class is not, in itself, a sign that something is a problem.

At my table it forces me to design encounters around Repelling Blast for every battle. I have not yet found a battle where Repelling Blast doesn't change the nature of the encounter all by itself and at zero resource cost to the party.

Can you give me some specific examples?

I can't have battles in open space with single opponents (Huge or not, flying or not) or the warlock can solo them by keeping at 80-110' away and just pushing the enemy back constantly. No one else even has to raise a weapon with that ability and it cost the Warlock none of their resources to do it.

OK, an example. It's a weird example I think, but it's an example.

Now I've heard of "white room" analysis but never literally white room! Seriously, you have combats which take place with NO cover, anywhere at all? What kind of setting is this?

Let's say you're outdoors. There should be rocks/boulders, trees, hills, ridges, crags, fissures, bridges, buildings, etc. which can provide full or partial cover for foes. Partial would increase their AC, and full would break line of sight. So what's going on that your foes encounter a repelling blast and don't immediately take cover? And why are your foes having such a low AC that the Warlock is finding it so easy to hit them?

It might be an interesting challenge to pull up a map of an encounter from any published module and see if DMs here are stumped at thinking of a way, on the spot, to get a foe to the party in that setting assuming repelling blast. Without any advanced planning or alteration to the encounter for them to do it.

 

[ClaytonCross]

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!

I don't disagree with your method. I played a warlock and toke this ability, found it underwhelming and annoying to my melee players, then changed it out and never looked back. I found that its not useful against anyone in melee with allies and moving enemies around resulted in melee allies having to run after NPC enemies who didn't get reactions against them.

That said, my GM rule it doesn't work on creatures greater than large size or enemies with legendary resistance. Which is a huge nerf. At the same time that's not while I dropped it. I dropped it because every single time I used it the melee fighters groaned and when I get misty step as a spell I could escape without it. In the end, with out that special occasion where a minor NPC who can't fly is conveniently located on the edge of cliff (which never happened in a game I played), Lance of Lethargy allows for Warlock kiting without annoying allies and I found is just better, making it easer on melee allies instead of harder.

 

[Salthorae]

Have you had a pixie warlock Eldritch Blast a Great Wyrm Red Dragon from 120' away and move it back 40' in a game of yours, and if so was it an issue? You seeing my frustration yet. If this is a white room issue, OK then let's hear that. But I am pretty sure this wasn't a real example.

Right, hyperbole.

Everyone understands this is something which "raises your ire". But what differentiates something from a pet peeve and an actual problem is seeing it cause an actual problem.

And I'm telling you that at my tables it does cause problems for me as the DM.

Most classes have a common always-available combat option,

Most class' common/unlimited combat options don't have riders on them like EB does to move foes around.

OK, an example. It's a weird example I think, but it's an example.

Now I've heard of "white room" analysis but never literally white room! Seriously, you have combats which take place with NO cover, anywhere at all? What kind of setting is this?

Let's say you're outdoors. There should be rocks/boulders, trees, hills, ridges, crags, fissures, bridges, buildings, etc. which can provide full or partial cover for foes. Partial would increase their AC, and full would break line of sight. So what's going on that your foes encounter a repelling blast and don't immediately take cover? And why are your foes having such a low AC that the Warlock is finding it so easy to hit them?

Of course, we're not talking about literal "white room" combat.

If my NPCs/Baddies are having to take cover, they're not closing with the party, are they? How does cover in an open space help the issue? If they do take cover, enter Readied Action Eldritch Blast to arrest any momentum they may have had trying to move forward by...pushing them back again.

If they can't close with the party, they can't engage in the combat and it's still Warlock Kite Time. And if they do get hit, they still have to burn movement just to get back to their cover position.

Again, I'm forced into planning combat around Repelling Blast so that combat can realistically happen for the whole group rather than just the warlock.

Honestly? AC has meant very little at my table since 5e and Bounded Accuracy came to the table. Whatever the statistics show, experientially monsters get hit with great frequency at my tables for whatever reason regardless of who is DM'ing or playing.

It might be an interesting challenge to pull up a map of an encounter from any published module and see if DMs here are stumped at thinking of a way, on the spot, to get a foe to the party in that setting assuming repelling blast. Without any advanced planning or alteration to the encounter for them to do it.

I'm not saying it's impossible or even very hard per se, but if I have to think about one ability from one PC in every combat plan, then it is having an outsized impact on my combats.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I keep seeing this "without a save" as if that's the context here. You have to HIT. Spells are EITHER you have to hit OR you have to save.

Spells that are either hit or save almost always either do damage or move you. If you want to Shove, you need to give up an attack's damage. Telekinesis moves someone but doesn't damage them. Eldritch blast does damage and moves you, for one dice roll and zero spell slots.

A creature could spend the entire combat being unable to close with the party and being damaged, all at the same time, because the warlock hits it with eldritch blast over and over. For melee only creatures (for example, elementals, golems, NPCs) or short-range creatures (for example dragons), this makes an encounter trivial, with zero resource spend from the party.

Is this a problem? Well, for some posters in this thread the answer is obviously yes. For me, I'm not sure. The only warlocks in the games I GM haven't taken the invocation. In the one game I played in where a warlock did have it, they used it often and frustrated both the GM and the players of melee fighters.

 

[Mistwell]

Spells that are either hit or save almost always either do damage or move you. If you want to Shove, you need to give up an attack's damage. Telekinesis moves someone but doesn't damage them. Eldritch blast does damage and moves you, for one dice roll and zero spell slots.

Not really. There are many that damage and move them. Like for example the very common Thunderwave spell. But there are others. Do we need to go through the list of things in the game which damage and move you?

A creature could spend the entire combat being unable to close with the party and being damaged, all at the same time, because the warlock hits it with eldritch blast over and over.

Again, no they could not. Not unless your encounters are happening in a blank, empty space.

I've asked if this has happened to anyone. Are you saying this is a routine thing to happen in your games? Which, mysteriously, hasn't come up much in the 5 years the game has been out, that foes are spending entire combats trying and failing to close with a party because of repelling blast? Shall we take a poll, or could you maybe be exaggerating for effect?

For melee only creatures (for example, elementals, golems, NPCs) or short-range creatures (for example dragons), this makes an encounter trivial, with zero resource spend from the party.

Is this a common thing in your games?

Is this a problem? Well, for some posters in this thread the answer is obviously yes. For me, I'm not sure. The only warlocks in the games I GM haven't taken the invocation. In the one game I played in where a warlock did have it, they used it often and frustrated both the GM and the players of melee fighters.

So far it's ONE guy reporting it was in his game, and even he is saying he just needed to consider it and it was not a burden he could not overcome. And he admitted some of his rhetoric was hyperbole too.