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

ClaytonCross

Kinder reader Inflection wanted
I think the biggest issue is that while a fighter can push up to 5 times with no resources, their shoves are not also inflicting damage at the same time, and they have to be in melee range, and the target has to be no more than one size larger, and they have to use their movement if they want to shove more than 5' distance.

That's a lot of extra conditions.

Also, as others have pointed out, usually an attack rider allows a saving throw to avoid it, even though there was already an attack roll made to inflict damage.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on repelling blast as I haven't seen it in play yet (no warlock lovers in my crowd, I guess), but even without specific scenarios I can see that some might be inclined to take it down a notch simply to bring it more in line with other cantrips and abilities.

Nothing wrong with that, even if you or I or anyone else happens to disagree.
The OPs problem was enemies being knocked off cliffs to there death. That being the case the damage you dealt is irrelevant since both result in 0 hit points.

Lightning Lure, would be the closet example of what your talking about, however my point is its not the spell Eldritch blast that grants the "push" effect. Its the Repelling Blast eldritch invocation. As an invocation that requires you to invest in a spell to use it, its kind of a double the cost for a lesser effect ability. As I said, I used it... Lance of Lethargy is simply better unless your GM is running a campaign that takes places on the cliff of a mountain. Even if your fighting Storm Giants on floating city most of the fighting will be in buildings, on level areas in the middle (roads, court yards, etc) and when you do find some one on a ledge they are likely facing out toward you and repelling blast would push them to safety not off the ledge. So they added Grasp of Hadar which does that.... but then it furthers my point because the warlock taking a spell and now two Eldritch invocations is investing a lot of core class recourses for a rare event where they look cool.

Again if a GM feels the need to nerf a player, do what you have to do. I am just advocating that before you ever nerf a spell or ability that is clearly working as intended form a player who wants it for that intent, consider if its really all that bad. If your not putting enemies on ledges, its already restricted to crowd control. When I used if for that all I did was annoy melee characters in my party.
 

clearstream

Explorer
The OPs problem was enemies being knocked off cliffs to there death. That being the case the damage you dealt is irrelevant since both result in 0 hit points.
The cliff thing was not the OP's problem. I think the OP was seeking to clarify the RAW, which was covered in the first page or so. The rest has been our own meandering :)
 

delph

Explorer
The cliff thing was not the OP's problem. I think the OP was seeking to clarify the RAW, which was covered in the first page or so. The rest has been our own meandering :)
yes it "well played game" :D same you can tell it about big rock on rock above road and falling it on enemy who cant get out... it's just about preparing before battle.

or one fun use of EB - fly, EB with Grasp of Hadar... 1d6 every turn by take them 10 ft up and let them fall back. Not so deadly, but fun...
 
When I look at people's battle maps for Waterdeep, or think about the many encounters that took place in my OOTA campaign in mapped urban areas, the sight lines are frequently hundreds of feet long.
If you look at a map of Paris, you would say the sightlines along the Champs-Elysees where over a mile. But if you are actually go there you would find your sightline was about 30 feet before it was blocked by pedestrians and traffic.

And there is a big difference between planned cities like Paris, gridiron cities like in the US, and (mostly) unplanned cities like London (where I live).
 
Last edited:

clearstream

Explorer
So, all this change would fo thrn is chsnge up dome of the other tactics to keep it doing what is doing now.

Hey, if fhars good enough for your table to call it a "fix" then all I can say again is that thats fine and dandy and I am glad you found a house tule that "fixes" your table's issues with the warlock class.

Now as long as nobody figures out all the other ways st tier-3 etc somebody can just skip over that screen line, y'all should I hope be great.
One thing at a time, hey? We're allowed to fix X even if Y is still broken. That's how progress is made.

Fixing repelling blast is a different undertaking than fixing the warlock class. As a class I'm unconvinced they even need fixing. People occasionally say that warlocks feel like one-tricks, which is true, but where I personally feel most disappointed is with all the many invocations that languish due to the better effectiveness of a subset of them: Agonizing Blast, Devil's Sight, Repelling Blast, Fiendish Vigor were in constant play at out table.

Were I revising warlock, I would look for better balance between invocations, so that I could see warlocks at my table feeling more of a genuine decision between them. But that is also very campaign dependent: Beguiling Influence and Mask of Many Faces might be very good in a political or heavily social campaign. I can attest that for a combat-focused campaign, the mechanically strong choices are narrow.

I would commend switching repelling blast to "once on each of your turns". This does, in play in a wide range of encounters at all tiers, work very neatly. And I think it makes some other picks more viable.

If you look at a map of Paris, you would say the sightlines along the Champs-Elysees where over a mile. But if you are actually go there you would find your sightline was about 30 feet before it was blocked by pedestrians and traffic.

And there is a big difference between planned cities like Paris, gridiron cities like in the US, and (mostly) unplanned cities like London.
I've lived ten years in one, and frequently visited the other of those cities and the sight lines on major roads like the Champs-Elysees are hundreds of feet long. You can get elevation over pedestrians on statuary, and various walls and arches. It might be better to refer to Venice or Carcasonne as examples of what you mean.

In those smaller medieval towns, that have not been altered so much by war and technology, you can see the sort of walled in and narrow lanes where spear would not be so useful. Even there I suppose you have the Grand Canal and the Piazza San Marco. There might be some streets where the overhang would block sight lines for a flying warlock... better to fight indoors if one lacks the range advantage.
 
Last edited:

5ekyu

Adventurer
One thing at a time, hey? We're allowed to fix X even if Y is still broken. That's how progress is made.

Fixing repelling blast is a different undertaking than fixing the warlock class. As a class I'm unconvinced they even need fixing. People occasionally say that warlocks feel like one-tricks, which is true, but where I personally feel most disappointed is with all the many invocations that languish due to the better effectiveness of a subset of them: Agonizing Blast, Devil's Sight, Repelling Blast, Fiendish Vigor were in constant play at out table.

Were I revising warlock, I would look for better balance between invocations, so that I could see warlocks at my table feeling more of a genuine decision between them. But that is also very campaign dependent: Beguiling Influence and Mask of Many Faces might be very good in a political or heavily social campaign. I can attest that for a combat-focused campaign, the mechanically strong choices are narrow.

I would commend switching repelling blast to "once on each of your turns". This does, in play in a wide range of encounters at all tiers, work very neatly. And I think it makes some other picks more viable.


I've lived ten years in one, and frequently visited the other of those cities and the sight lines on major roads like the Champs-Elysees are hundreds of feet long. You can get elevation over pedestrians on statuary, and various walls and arches. It might be better to refer to Venice or Carcasonne as examples of what you mean.

In those smaller medieval towns, that have not been altered so much by war and technology, you can see the sort of walled in and narrow lanes where spear would not be so useful. Even there I suppose you have the Grand Canal and the Piazza San Marco. There might be some streets where the overhang would block sight lines for a flying warlock... better to fight indoors if one lacks the range advantage.
"One thing at a time, hey? We're allowed to fix X even if Y is still broken. That's how progress is made."

But viewing things in isolation and judging them as a problem - that is often a very flawed way to judge and fix in a complex system. If "fixing" this feature means the players still do the same thing that was defined as a problem by different means then all you have done is hold them "I prefer you fo it this other way" or " I dislike when warlocks do this but it's fine when others do it. "

Moreover, is what a thing viewed in isolation sedn asxdoing really worse or more problematic that the rest of things others can do with the same action, etc at the same tier? How many ways can clerics or druids or sorcerers best the same "problems", just in different ways?

"One thing at a time" is fine as the way you peel potatoes... not fine as the way you pick your menu.

Tiers-2-4 have a great many ways to bypass the tank-screenz non-tank formation (TSNTF), so, changing this one method of doing it doesnt solve the problem, just says this wont do it.

The number of changes needed to preserve the sanctity of the TSNTF to tiers 2-4 is, well, likely just not going into tiers 3--4 and most of 2.

Seems more like the problem bring fixed is not that the tier-1 tactic of TSNTF does ensure through tier-4 but that you dont like warlocks foing it in with repelling specifically.

Maybe if tanky fighter hot an automatic anti-teleport field?
 
Last edited:
You can get elevation over pedestrians on statuary, and various walls and arches. It might be better to refer to Venice or Carcasonne as examples of what you mean.
Getting up high is a general strategy, but unless you can actually fly, climbing a statue limits your ability to move horizontally, and therefore makes it easier for your opponent to take cover. The Camps-Elysees is chock full of potential cover, hard and soft - trees, statues, vehicles, pedestrians, shop entrances, all can prevent a statue climbing warlock getting line of sight.

So is the countryside for that matter. There are hedges, diches, trees, bushes, low hills, farm buildings, cows, any of which can provide cover. The only place you find empty open spaces is on a piece of graph paper.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
where I personally feel most disappointed is with all the many invocations that languish due to the better effectiveness of a subset of them: Agonizing Blast, Devil's Sight, Repelling Blast, Fiendish Vigor were in constant play at our table.
THIS!

Was I revising warlock, I would look for a better balance between invocations so that I could see warlocks at my table feeling more of a genuine decision between them. But that is also very campaign dependent: Beguiling Influence and Mask of Many Faces might be very good in a political or heavily social campaign. I can attest that for a combat-focused campaign, the mechanically strong choices are narrow.

I would commend switching repelling blast to "once on each of your turns". This does, in play in a wide range of encounters at all tiers, work very neatly. And I think it makes some other picks more viable.
The biggest revisions that I've made to the class for my table are the switching Repelling Blast (newly updated to this from my previous switch) to just 10' once per turn, and for my campaign EB is a Warlock feature that is Warlock level-dependent (like it was in 3.x), not a cantrip that anyone can use or scales with base character level.

I was seeing far too many SorLock builds that only dived into warlock for 2-3 levels to get Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast, & Repelling Blast, and maybe a Pact Boon, then jumping to Sorcerer for all the metamagic & font of magic/warlock spell slot cheese you can want.
 

clearstream

Explorer
The only place you find empty open spaces is on a piece of graph paper.
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. I try to include some features yet I know that there will be much glossed over. One way to look at it could be that 5e combat mechanics are designed on the assumption of battle maps with limited clutter, so that if one were designing the game for realistic maps then class features and spells also would function differently.

The way I look at it, 5e doesn't offer realistic tactical battles. More simplified heroic narratives of those battles, with much eliding and glossing over. The 5' square, the turn order, moves, actions, reactions, and hit points, of course! These mechanics all operate at a level of abstraction. When I parse spear then, I am thinking at that same level of abstraction.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
THIS!



The biggest revisions that I've made to the class for my table are the switching Repelling Blast (newly updated to this from my previous switch) to just 10' once per turn, and for my campaign EB is a Warlock feature that is Warlock level-dependent (like it was in 3.x), not a cantrip that anyone can use or scales with base character level.

I was seeing far too many SorLock builds that only dived into warlock for 2-3 levels to get Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast, & Repelling Blast, and maybe a Pact Boon, then jumping to Sorcerer for all the metamagic & font of magic/warlock spell slot cheese you can want.
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 mean when we see this as change you made but saw this "Pact Boon, then jumping to Sorcerer for all the metamagic & font of magic/warlock spell slot cheese you can want" are we yo realize that *the problem there was the extra feet of pushing?
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
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

Adventurer
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.
 
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.
 

clearstream

Explorer
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.
 
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

Explorer
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.
 

Advertisement

Top