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

[Paul Farquhar]

It just occurred to me that I might have mistaken your argument. Do you mean that because other things are more problematic, one should make no attempt to fix things that are problematic?

I don't think it's problematic at all. I think it's part of the game. And I think if an 11th level character didn't have powers which could trivialise some encounters, that would be problematic.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think it's problematic at all. I think it's part of the game. And I think if an 11th level character didn't have powers which could trivialise some encounters, that would be problematic.

Ah. I can see that for DMs that want characters to have powers that trivialise some encounters, then repelling blast is doing God's work.

I'm pretty sure I am twisting your words. But then perhaps this is the razor: many other character powers don't bother me at all, and I don't feel like I am warping encounters around them. When I think about what I might mean by warping - it's something more than modifying. I might modify an encounter to present a more interesting problem for characters, conscious of their abilities. Warping is more than that - it's a sense of frustration that I have to directly respond to a certain ability - to take it into consideration every time - otherwise I risk my encounter falling flat. Becoming unfun, protracted kiting.

You can see how that's a grey area. Informed by a DM's underlying philosophies. I don't like to feed my players wins - that is, I try to avoid designing easy wins into encounters. For me that feels cheap, both as a DM, and as a player (if my DM does that for me). I want players to surprise me by finding a way to win. The very best wins are those I didn't even think possible.

I like to present the game on hard mode. I dislike what repelling blast per RAW brings to the game. You've made various arguments which feel a bit white-roomish against my actual experience of what system-savvy players can do with it. Within the context of my campaigns, and how I DM.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't understand why your enemies are simply not shooting back, or moving into hard cover (Eldritch Blast requires LOS).

Sure, some enemies might not have ranged weapons, but if most of them didn't I would expect any adventuring party to make short work of them.

 

[5ekyu]

Just a few comments.

First, along the way someone discussed using EB to move obstacles... it can only target creatures.

Second, by the time we make it past 5th level or so, maybe before then, the visbility of the single large brute starting at range in open closing with party scenario is well gone - no retreat or kiting necessary. The impact of magic and class abilities do change the way challenges s work as you move from tier to tier as a matter of course. Trying to keep "simple" threats effective past the point where they are is...well... what I would call warping.

Third, if a GM is running a game at tiers 3-4 where this class is causing a problem, sure, talk with your players and if everyone is on board and consider best fixes. Might be changing this is the right thing... or maybe it's a more varied challenge suite. Maybe you change this yo see another thing replace it because, you know tier 3-4 isnt really conducive to success of "simple direct" challenges by dumb brutes.

You really dont have to prove yo strangers thst something is broken yo change it, just talk to your players and see who agrees that there is s problem, that this is the problem and that this is the right fix.

My bet is, if its happening as often as claimed st a given table, that eont be hard.

 

[clearstream]

First, along the way someone discussed using EB to move obstacles... it can only target creatures.

Someone speculated that it might be used to move objects attached to creatures. That seems mistaken to me, and to raise it here for me feels like a strawman because I don't believe anyone is wedded to that argument.

Second, by the time we make it past 5th level or so, maybe before then, the visbility of the single large brute starting at range in open closing with party scenario is well gone - no retreat or kiting necessary. The impact of magic and class abilities do change the way challenges s work as you move from tier to tier as a matter of course. Trying to keep "simple" threats effective past the point where they are is...well... what I would call warping.

This also for me feels like a strawman. To try and give you some insight: to me it feels like those arguing that repelling blast is fine are just not coming to the debate with enough experience of system-savvy players using it. Because none of what you say makes sense to me, or reflects what is happening in my game. I'm not using simple threats... that's precisely my worry. Yes, it can absolutely trivialise simple threats. And, when party members work together, it can trivialise a surprising array of non-simple threats.

To add just one layer of complexity to the simple-threat example, a common tactical situation is where some non-tanky ranged are being protected by some tanky melee. Repelling blast can push that melee around letting party members interact with the ranged. System-savvy players can abuse this. It's not about how they work in a white-room, in isolation: it's about how the cantrip can be spammed in situations where a party can conspire to take maximum benefit from it.

 

[5ekyu]

Someone speculated that it might be used to move objects attached to creatures. That seems mistaken to me, and to raise it here for me feels like a strawman because I don't believe anyone is wedded to that argument.


This also for me feels like a strawman. To try and give you some insight: to me it feels like those arguing that repelling blast is fine are just not coming to the debate with enough experience of system-savvy players using it. Because none of what you say makes sense to me, or reflects what is happening in my game. I'm not using simple threats... that's precisely my worry. Yes, it can absolutely trivialise simple threats. And, when party members work together, it can trivialise a surprising array of non-simple threats.

To add just one layer of complexity to the simple-threat example, a common tactical situation is where some non-tanky ranged are being protected by some tanky melee. Repelling blast can push that melee around letting party members interact with the ranged. System-savvy players can abuse this. It's not about how they work in a white-room, in isolation: it's about how the cantrip can be spammed in situations where a party can conspire to take maximum benefit from it.

I think you might be overusing strawman.

Again, my response to moving obstacles was just to clear that up. I did not use it to refute the rest of the argument, just to clear up that error, right? Has fact-checking now become a strawman?

Second, if you want to imagine those who disagree are just inexperienced, thats fine, though a bit dismissive. But if that's what you think, why engage with folks you are already dismissing as not knowing enough? Are you trying to edjimicate us know-littles?

Since you go on for a bit about how none of what I say is anything you agree with and white room this and that, but I didnt mention ehite rooms, did I?

So, maybe I should clarify even though you seem to be responding to others while quoting me.

The ranged guy blocked by tanky fighter is a simple challenge. It is a good example of a tier-1 type threat - low tier-1. By even third level, spells like hold person really hit that notion. So do a lot of other things like obscurment spells etc.

By the time you move into tier-2 upper end, that setup has fallen well below sustainable due to lots of slots to spend and more powerful options.

Honestly, willy nilly pushing around the tank by hitting with beams against the high AC tank seems... less than optimal an approach even for that tier-1 defense strategy.

But, yeah, from us low educated point of view, my first question is why are these simpletons adopting a tier-1 defense in a situation where apparently the enemies are at a level and given free movement etc to strike from direction to push them out of formation?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To add just one layer of complexity to the simple-threat example, a common tactical situation is where some non-tanky ranged are being protected by some tanky melee.

I would say this is a simplistic encounter. Why can't the ranged attackers duck into hard cover when they aren't shooting?

 

[5ekyu]

I would say this is a simplistic encounter. Why can't the ranged attackers duck into hard cover when they aren't shooting?

yup the enemy can apparently strike from range and directions to disrupt a formation critically so... so hey guys lets go into a formation defense without any other plans!!!

But again, i do not get how its somehow disagreeable to suggest folks talk it over with their players and come to an agreement that its a problem, what the problem really is and an agreement on how to fix it for their given table.

I myself strongly suspect that if the warlock class is a problem at high tiers, its not just due to repelling blast invocations - nor is it the only one swatting tier-one approaches.

 

[clearstream]

But, yeah, from us low educated point of view, my first question is why are these simpletons adopting a tier-1 defense in a situation where apparently the enemies are at a level and given free movement etc to strike from direction to push them out of formation?

It's not clear to me whether you are speaking from experience, or from speculation. You or Paul had raised a simple one-brute example. I wanted to draw your attention to there being more complicated scenarios where pushing just one actor per turn matters. The examples, like ducking back, that I'm hearing seem so oblivious to the issues with repelling blast that I just had to question what live play experience they come out of? You have chosen to mock that, but I note you have not chosen to attest to experience with it.

But again, i do not get how its somehow disagreeable to suggest folks talk it over with their players and come to an agreement that its a problem, what the problem really is and an agreement on how to fix it for their given table.

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.

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. I mean... isn't that at odds with the philosophy behind what you are saying here?

However, to progress the discussion, what do you make of the Xanathar's wordings? The hedging that feels suggestive of the issues being felt more widely?

 

[5ekyu]

It's not clear to me whether you are speaking from experience, or from speculation. You or Paul had raised a simple one-brute example. I wanted to draw your attention to there being more complicated scenarios where pushing just one actor per turn matters. The examples, like ducking back, that I'm hearing seem so oblivious to the issues with repelling blast that I just had to question what live play experience they come out of? You have chosen to mock that, but I note you have not chosen to attest to experience with it.


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.

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. I mean... isn't that at odds with the philosophy behind what you are saying here?

However, to progress the discussion, what do you make of the Xanathar's wordings? The hedging that feels suggestive of the issues being felt more widely?

I did not raise a simple one-brute example. It's been raised all thru this thread way before I got here, its why I felt a comment was needed. Its not my example, just an ongoing reference here I commented on. I thought it was pretty obvious by the last post at least that it is a smattering of approaches etc thst of vorse seem useful theprough dome of tier-one that later fail as you hut higher tiers and more robust challenges.

I have not once said you were playing your game wrong. You may feel I said that or thst I think you are a plaid Chevy camaro... but neither are actually true.

On the subject of play, yes I have seen repelling blast used. It has been used in dome circumstances effectively. It has not been seen to be out of whack with other class abilities in terms of its overall impact. But then, by the time it becomes a strong element with any realistic odds of more than one hit a turn - maybe 11th when it gets three shots, there are simply put better ways to use an action being used by most charscters.

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 dont think much of them. If a GM and thrirctsble choose to use that as a basis to add a once per turn limit to Repelling, that is just dandy in my viewpoint. I could not be happier.

But, of course, that change would be missing the mark, right, if one of their example use cases were, oh say, moving a screening tank out of the approach to a non-tanky ranged guy? Seems a 20' move alone would still allow that, so the once per turn is just not the right approach to fix that table's problem.

Which gets back to talking through all the stages with the plsyers...
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 yo a Xanathar reference to other invocations limiting to once per turn and leaving that issue still in plsy, right?