Eldritch Blast and Repelling Blast - One time or Each Hit?

ad_hoc

Adventurer
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.
 

clearstream

Explorer
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.
"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.

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?
That issue is not in play, with "once on each of your turns" forestalling stacking. That change solves the problem.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
I don't understand your point.
I dont get how they quickened a cantrip with 1 sp myself.
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.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
"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.
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.

But... it still stands, if you are one of the folks who sees pushing a tanky screen out of the way exposing their non-tanky ranged guys to savvy melee types, well, then, not saying you are one who would claim that as an example... but if you were then a 10' push or a 10' draw still leaves that case available, right?

Why make a change that leaves a problem case still in play?
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
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.
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.

Note however, a proposal I think being claimed to fix these problems "10' per turn" would allow the bonus action 10' whammy, then in this case, ready the follow-up for a sign of next turn, easy to describe in a scene, and then you get back to 20' movenrnt.
 

delph

Explorer
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.
One mistake - quickened spell cost 2 SP, Twined cantrip cost 1 SP. Together It's like 2nd Spellslot. But with hex, big CHA, Agonizing blast, you can deal really big dmg to 1 person and a half one to second (by twined) + pushing them away...
 

clearstream

Explorer
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 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.

Either one hit is expected in which case the change isn't a nerf, or multiple hits are expected in which case the change is - for groups that find 20' or more push problematic - justified. The import of this, for me, is that it is not an effective refutation to say that the warlock won't always hit with all beams.
 
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.
I think you may lack experience of how groups without warlocks are just as effective at completely neutralising some encounters.

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.
It's hard to say without seeing how the game actually goes down, but if you view your warlocks as guys with machine guns it's quite easy to envision what tactics would be used against them
 
for groups that find 20' or more push problematic - justified.
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.
 

clearstream

Explorer
I think you may lack experience of how groups without warlocks are just as effective at completely neutralising some encounters.
Exactly! Although here we are discussing warlocks, and I don't really hold the view that "given X is egregious, it is okay for Y to be egregious".

I think each contributor to threads like this is usually speaking from what is, in truth, narrow experience relative to the combinations of characters, scenarios and ways to play that the rules support. In our campaign, features that stood out were kiting warlocks, polymorph-casters, spells like banishment where applicable, shield master (before the timing clarification/nerf), plane shift (for strategic circumvention), earth elemental burrow (for druids), guidance, healing spirit, and at times counterspell. No doubt other things I've forgotten right now. On one memorable occasion, eldritch spear was IMBA... which could be worth considering if a group have predominately outdoor encounters.

As a contributor to threads, over time I have become more and more aware how different views are motivated by what turns out to be very diverse experience. One set are - "What, how can you possibly have a problem with that?" - and another set are - "How can you not?!" Still, there are themes, and I believe that when one looks at later design choices (e.g. Xanathar's) versus earlier, one is seeing where the designers themselves land; from their much, much wider view of play. I've also come to feel less convinced by white-room examples. White-rooms omit much that really matters at the table.

The above then is what motivates me toward guidelines that can apply broadly mutatis mutandis. And thinking in terms of priority: how important is Y at your table? Maybe that differs from my table. Probably we should do more polling and give more thought to other evidence of wider concern, in terms of evaluating the worth of a proposed change.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
One mistake - quickened spell cost 2 SP, Twined cantrip cost 1 SP. Together It's like 2nd Spellslot. But with hex, big CHA, Agonizing blast, you can deal really big dmg to 1 person and a half one to second (by twined) + pushing them away...
EB can only be teinbed at levels 3-4. After that it can affect two targets and cannot be twinned.

That said, yes for levels 3-4 you can get some turns firing one EB with + Cha at one target and another one EB at a second target - both needing a to-hit roll. You have invocation to make this happen and spent a sorcery point.

Does a max of 2d10+6(8) if both hit four times (more with flex casting if you dont hex as much) plus hex break the bank with each hut adding 10' move and one target hexed?

Maybe for some tables.

But twinned EB vanishes at 5th.
 

delph

Explorer
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.
Eldritch blast could be the longest damage dealer in the game. - Take Eldritch spear invocation (300 ft) take spellsniper feat (600 ft) and if you are sorlock with distant spell metamagic you'll get it to 1200 ft without any restrictions...
 

delph

Explorer
EB can only be teinbed at levels 3-4. After that it can affect two targets and cannot be twinned.

That said, yes for levels 3-4 you can get some turns firing one EB with + Cha at one target and another one EB at a second target - both needing a to-hit roll. You have invocation to make this happen and spent a sorcery point.

Does a max of 2d10+6(8) if both hit four times (more with flex casting if you dont hex as much) plus hex break the bank with each hut adding 10' move and one target hexed?

Maybe for some tables.

But twinned EB vanishes at 5th.
everyone guide for sorlock, bladelock, ... I'v seen, doesn't count on this restriction. But it's good point to think about it.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
everyone guide for sorlock, bladelock, ... I'v seen, doesn't count on this restriction. But it's good point to think about it.
Obviously house rules can change a lot and allowing twin to work on multi-target spells might indeed impact these warlocks perceptions at any table.

Certainly if we are looking at twinned multi-shots each eb with repelling that raises the stakes a bit... for how seriously they see their EB problem.

But, first thing I would look at thrn would be "maybe our house rule is an issue?" not "let's add more house rules to correct for this house rule."

But that's me... others will do differently I am sure.

But as far as RAW EB, have not seen warlocks spamming EB as "the problem" at our tables into tiers 2-3. Cannot see it as such at tier-4 either as the gains from potentially 10' to 20' more per tier (quickened, all hit dream state) do not outshine the other gains made by tier from other approaches.

See, yo me, it's not that warlocks spamming EB with these features eont be effective or wont impact play or wont mesn some types of enemies have big problems - it's that that us true for all the magic classes (and the others too) and this one in particular is not out of whack when compared to those. It's actually in my ecperience rather niche.

At tier-3 there are often, frequent, more than a few movement enhanced enemies - ports or fliers- so the tier-1 screen formation is long gone. A variety of effects allow creation of vover and concealment not just using whats handy. The 10' corrider long tunnel slugfest are fewer and fewer and less desired by those with many more options.

But, hey, its likely at any table by tier-3 there are plenty of differences so, as I said, figure out what the example problems are and as a group mske chsnges thst deal with them. My issue with the one per turn is it doesn't fix the problem of moving screeners out of formation - which was specifically called out. You need something more like a way to give a strength save on top of the hit the AC so it becomes almost impossible to rely on moving them to stop that tactic with a 4 bolts to get one hit use caee.
 

clearstream

Explorer
My issue with the one per turn is it doesn't fix the problem of moving screeners out of formation - which was specifically called out. You need something more like a way to give a strength save on top of the hit the AC so it becomes almost impossible to rely on moving them to stop that tactic with a 4 bolts to get one hit use case.
Seeing as it does fix that case as I understand it, maybe you mean something other than what I think you mean. Can you expand on the case that you think is not fixed by "Once in each of your turns"?
 
Exactly! Although here we are discussing warlocks, and I don't really hold the view that "given X is egregious, it is okay for Y to be egregious".
But the point is, nothing is egregious. Being able to effectively nullify the enemy isn't undesirable. Effective use of tactics should be rewarded. Not every fight should boil down to whose hp last the longest - in fact most shouldn't.

And remember, anything that can be done by players can be done to players.
 
Eldritch blast could be the longest damage dealer in the game. - Take Eldritch spear invocation (300 ft) take spellsniper feat (600 ft) and if you are sorlock with distant spell metamagic you'll get it to 1200 ft without any restrictions...
If you pick up a feat, and three invocations, a multiclass and a consumable resource you deserve to get something good.

But the truth is, a range of 1200 feet is pointless unless you also have telescopic vision. It's further than you can see, and a lot longer than any dungeon corrador.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
Seeing as it does fix that case as I understand it, maybe you mean something other than what I think you mean. Can you expand on the case that you think is not fixed by "Once in each of your turns"?
Maybe I misunderstood.

One case brought up was using EB with repelling to move a tanky guy out of the way so melee strikers could approach a non-tanky ranged guy.

Moving a tanky guy 10' should be sufficient to open that gap. You dont need to move folks 30' or so yo open a gap for melee guys. Hevh, all you really need is any number of ways to must step to bypass the whole problem and thst kicks in by late tier-1 to mid-trir-2 but for the case isnt 10 enough batting helpful terrain?

So it wont help to limit it to 10', at least not as a rule. Its possible of voursecfor that rule change plus certain terrain features to do so, just like its possible for terrain alone to do so.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
If you pick up a feat, and three invocations, a multiclass and a consumable resource you deserve to get something good.

But the truth is, a range of 1200 feet is pointless unless you also have telescopic vision. It's further than you can see, and a lot longer than any dungeon corrador.
Yup... it's why I keep saying "warlock" over EB. It's not the cantrip performing these tests of awesome gsme smashing tier-4 mayhem... it's a class with multi-class etc getting to fo awesome stuff- much like the others at their level get as well.

I get that it's fun to look at one thing and what it can do, but its judged not on some abstract but what everybody else can do against the foes, right ?
 

Advertisement

Top