Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7822107" data-attributes="member: 71699">What I found in play was that I could set up encounters where there wasn't enough room for characters to kite, or where the foes used ranged attacks so kiting them didn't matter. That is what I mean by warping play around the feature. Where I did not do that, the ability for a warlock to push back 20' or so (a couple of bolts hitting) and also move themselves, trivialised the combat in that long-winded way that kiting strategies do. As you point out, foes could Dash in and I would have them do that. Yet it used up their action to do it, and that would be over multiple rounds. And the warlock could step away or whatever. To understand how these encounters play (if you haven't run one), you have to factor in not just the EB/RP multiple shoves, but the character movement on top of it and any special movement they have.I base my thoughts on live play at my table: 75 sessions (I tracked them) and over a hundred encounters (I have a partial track of those in FG). As you say, the impact of repelling depends on the movement rates of the foes... and again this is the warping problem. I wanted to be able to use foes with all kinds of movement rates, and the amount of movement needed to negate repelling is more than it looks on paper.Of course, different tables have different ways of playing, which matters. Between the two warlocks at my table, one was super crunch-focused and abused the heck out of his invocations, and the other was more relaxed about them. If I had only had the second player in my game, I doubt I would have noticed a problem.I listed before a number of principles. One more is cost and risk of the fix. Sometimes a fix is "expensive" to implement (jarring to players is one example of a cost) or risky (hard to predict how it will play out). For my table, the cost of ruling once per target, was pretty much zero. My crunch-focused player was worried about repelling being imba. And the risk was also nearly zero (I'd need to explain the rule to a new player). So it felt worth making the change. At my table we tried first using a saving throw, but our warlocks said that it felt bad having to make the hit roll and then still beat a save. And of course it can impose a lot of saves every turn... one per bolt!I think if one had a different view of the cost and risk, then one might not want to try it. Otherwise I would recommend changing it to one push per target, for tables who are deeply into encounter tactics and have warlock PCs.</blockquote>

Verification