D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Arial Black]

I apologize if my post in anyway made you feel called out or that I wished to engage in the debate of those points with you. It wasn't meant to and I don't.

No worries mate. I'm not embarrassed by being associated with the dissenters (even if I seem to be alone here), because that is indeed the case.

It's okay if you don't personally wish to engage in this debate, but I do and it seems that some others genuinely do, even if they hold the other position. I'm totally okay with defending my case and deconstructing theirs, and just as okay with them doing the same; I'd be pleased, not offended.

There are some that aren't engaging at all. Instead, they pretend to do so, while decrying others with quite absurd accusations, irrelevancies and abuse. I won't call them out by name, because that would be unfair to Noctem.

 

[Noctem]

I love how you guys just keep a circular post system. it's like we're going over the same 3 things over and over and have done so for the last 10 pages or so. Maybe I should just start quoting my earlier responses instead of posting new stuff each rotation. Save time.

 

[spectacle]

If the "when in "when you hit with Eldritch Blast" doesn't mean every time you hit, why does it mean once per casting of EB? Why not once per day? Or one time per target ever?

 

[ryan92084]

No worries mate. I'm not embarrassed by being associated with the dissenters (even if I seem to be alone here), because that is indeed the case.

It's okay if you don't personally wish to engage in this debate, but I do and it seems that some others genuinely do, even if they hold the other position. I'm totally okay with defending my case and deconstructing theirs, and just as okay with them doing the same; I'd be pleased, not offended.

...snip

I understand your position and just wanted to clarify my intent with that reply. Unfortunately I really don't have anything to add to those points that I believe would further the discussion with you or any other else hanging in the wings that hasn't been said here or in the old wotc thread.

 

[Arial Black]

Thank you for a reasoned response.

Granted, and it's a good argument, but if I answer this for myself, the reason I didn't engage it is because I've already accepted Crawford's statement that they are sequential. I've further accepted that the way you make an attack is the '1) choose targets, 2) determine modifiers, 3) resolve the attack' methodology in the book. If methodology is correct, and we do the attacks sequentially as Crawford said, then the result is that you choose your first target, determine the modifiers, resolve that attack (and all associated outcomes), and then you choose your second target (can be the same as the first), determine modifiers,... as so on.

I didn't engage in your reasoning because I've already stated how I think it works. I grant that you have a solid argument, if you ignore Crawford, which is, again, 100% perfectly fine to do. His statements are guidance, not rules.

I must point out that, even if JC rules that the beams are sequential, this doesn't mean that the warlock has time to observe the results of the first bean before shooting the next.

Remember, if he does have that time, then so does the dispeller. The rules that JC wrote are that instantaneous spell cannot be dispelled, because the magic exists only for an instant. If JC now rules that 'instantaneous' is long enough for the warlock to observe results and change targets based on that observation, then he has also ruled that the magic does exist long enough to be targeted by a dispel! This would mean that JC's tweet disagrees with JC's rules! See my problem here?

Of course, this may be a result of a limit of 140 characters....

So, IF we go with 'pushback only once per casting' AND with Crawford's statement that the attacks are subsequent, then Crawford's statement about being pushed out of range make perfect sense. The first beam to hit a target pushes it back 10' during step 3) of the make an attack process (resolve the attack). If that pushes them out of range of the spell, then no subsequent beams can be targeted at that target during that same casting. It doesn't require that there be a second casting, or that the beams be simultaneous for that interpretation to work. Aside: I added Crawford's subsequent ruling because it's logical to assume that Crawford agrees with Crawford on all related rulings, so you can't analyze the situation with one Crawford ruling and not the other.

As I pointed out, if JC is actually ruling that the beams are sufficiently separated that there is enough time to see the result of a beam and react to it, then JC is indeed disagreeing with JC!

You could argue that the actual effect of eldritch blast is Xd10 damage, where X is the number of beams that hit. The description of that effect is 'beams of crackling energy.' I think that's a fairer interpretation, because the spell's intent isn't to create beams of crackling energy, but rather to use beams of crackling energy to hurt things. The end result, and therefor effect, is to hurt things. The beams are a descriptive middleman.

You could argue, but not successfully.

The entry of 'instantaneous' tells us that these spells cannot be dispelled, because the magic exists only for an instant. The 'effect' of a spell is the 'magic' of a spell! The 'magic', the 'effect', can certainly have non-magical consequences (like damage), and these consequences cannot be dispelled by dispel magic because they are not even 'magic'!

The 'magic', the 'effect' of eldritch blast is crackling beams of damaging energy, streaking toward the targets. That is the 'magic', the 'effect', and the only reason that they cannot be dispelled is that the 'magic' comes and goes in an instant, meaning it is no longer there to target by a readied dispel.

If you, or even JC himself, change 'instant' into a period of time within which you can do other things, then the very reason they 'cannot be dispelled' falls away!

I think this argument, while I can't fault the logic, is mooted by noting that you can't target a spell with dispel magic, only the ongoing effects of the spell

So, what are the 'effects', the 'magic' of this spell? Is it the damage? If it is, then the damage, as the ongoing effect, could very much be dispelled! But the damage isn't the 'effect'; 'damaging beams of energy' are the effect.

I agree that if the beams are sequential, and follow the processes, then they also exist as available triggers like any other attack would.

In which case, they can be dispelled and therefore no longer fit the description for 'instantaneous' spells.

 

[ryan92084]

...snip
The waffle on 2 is that I could see limiting the push to once per target. Such that the first beam to hit pushes a target, but any subsequent beams that hit that target in the same casting would not. I don't think I'll rule that way, but I can see that ruling.

I can see enough wiggle room there for that interpretation but iirc agonizing blast is phrased similarly and that is a per beam modifier. If that was the intention I would have expected the designers to phrase it differently. Something to the effect of "each creature hit by eldritch blast is pushed. Creatures are only effected by this feature once per casting." rather than the current text.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If the "when in "when you hit with Eldritch Blast" doesn't mean every time you hit, why does it mean once per casting of EB? Why not once per day? Or one time per target ever?

The argument is that EB is the spell, and the beams are parts of the spell, but they cannot represent the spell as a whole. IE, each beam isn't EB, EB is all of the beams. So, if I hit you with a beam, I've hit you with EB. If I hit you with multiple beams, I've still hit you with EB. The flag for 'hit with EB' only raises once, no matter how many beam hits there are, because the beams are not EB, just parts of it. Given the wording doesn't have language that tallies the number of part hits, or has any gradations, the effect only applies once per hit target per EB.

Now, you don't have to agree with that, but that's the argument. As you can see, you can't reduce that argument into the absurdity of 'once per day or ever', as it remains consistent about individual castings of EB. So that's why you latter two questions don't apply.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can see enough wiggle room there for that interpretation but iirc agonizing blast is phrased similarly and that is a per beam modifier. If that was the intention I would have expected the designers to phrase it differently. Something to the effect of "each creature hit by eldritch blast is pushed. Creatures are only effected by this feature once per casting." rather than the current text.

That's an excellent point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thank you for a reasoned response.



I must point out that, even if JC rules that the beams are sequential, this doesn't mean that the warlock has time to observe the results of the first bean before shooting the next.

Remember, if he does have that time, then so does the dispeller. The rules that JC wrote are that instantaneous spell cannot be dispelled, because the magic exists only for an instant. If JC now rules that 'instantaneous' is long enough for the warlock to observe results and change targets based on that observation, then he has also ruled that the magic does exist long enough to be targeted by a dispel! This would mean that JC's tweet disagrees with JC's rules! See my problem here?

Of course, this may be a result of a limit of 140 characters....



As I pointed out, if JC is actually ruling that the beams are sufficiently separated that there is enough time to see the result of a beam and react to it, then JC is indeed disagreeing with JC!



You could argue, but not successfully.

The entry of 'instantaneous' tells us that these spells cannot be dispelled, because the magic exists only for an instant. The 'effect' of a spell is the 'magic' of a spell! The 'magic', the 'effect', can certainly have non-magical consequences (like damage), and these consequences cannot be dispelled by dispel magic because they are not even 'magic'!

The 'magic', the 'effect' of eldritch blast is crackling beams of damaging energy, streaking toward the targets. That is the 'magic', the 'effect', and the only reason that they cannot be dispelled is that the 'magic' comes and goes in an instant, meaning it is no longer there to target by a readied dispel.

If you, or even JC himself, change 'instant' into a period of time within which you can do other things, then the very reason they 'cannot be dispelled' falls away!



So, what are the 'effects', the 'magic' of this spell? Is it the damage? If it is, then the damage, as the ongoing effect, could very much be dispelled! But the damage isn't the 'effect'; 'damaging beams of energy' are the effect.



In which case, they can be dispelled and therefore no longer fit the description for 'instantaneous' spells.

Said my piece. I don't see how rehashing it by talking past each other is useful. We are coming at this with different premises, and they don't look compatible.

 

[seebs]

Honestly, at this point I'm on page 40 and the whole thing is a trainwreck, so...

At the beginning, as someone who wanted to know what the RAW and RAI were (we were already playing with RAF), Noctem took the time to outline, step-by-step how it works, and was later validated by the devs (and confirmed our groups' RAF = RAI). I appreciated the effort as someone looking for the official rules. Arial Black, and later yourself, started taking things in odd directions and it looked, from where I'm sitting as someone who knows not a one of you, like the negative attitude towards Noctem was based largely on the fact that he was shown to be right by Crawford.

Keep in mind, I came to this thinking it was pretty obvious that the blasts would proc separately, and that hitting someone with four blasts would knock them back 40'. I have a negative attitude towards Noctem because everything I've seen from him in this thread has been at best totally counterproductive, and often full of errors, misrepresentations, and personal attacks.

The (purposeful?) misconstruing of what he would state, and the hyper picking apart his statements came next...and he was just a guy who took the time to answer a question. No, he's not perfect...does he need to say it? Really?

Sure, now, it's denigrated further...but that's how it looked to me before.

There's history before these threads. Noctem has a long history of the behavior of being snide and rude about other people "not reading the rules" when he's actually just making stuff up. Yes, he "apologized" for it once, but he keeps doing it, so we know the apology is not sincere. He has not stopped doing the thing of making stuff up and attacking people over it.