D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

Several problems here.

First, nowhere in the book (or in any dictionary!) is 'instant' defined as either 'less than one round' or 'less than six seconds'. You just made that up.

Next, a Readied action certainly can occur during someone else's action, so if 'instantaneous' lasts for an entire action then your readied dispel can certainly be triggered by seeing the first beam, and that dispel would occur before the second beam was shot, rendering claims that 'the entire instantaneous spell must be resolved before anyone has a chance to focus on any part of it' as demonstrably untrue.

As soon as the warlock himself contemplates the results of the first beam before shooting the next, this creates that window that allows the dispeller to do his readied dispel.

In a pedantic sense you're right about the definitions. In a "look at what the game devs have done and how they keep treating these questions" sense it's clear that instantaneous means anything of that duration.

But I'm asking you to stop using dispel in this example. You've already got explicit wording that dispel can't touch this so if you are actually correct in much of this it just makes things make less sense.

Also: I've only skimmed back a few pages, but is anybody actually arguing that all 4 beams have to go off before anyone gets to react?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Noctem was pretty strongly arguing that nothing can ever interrupt an action, and that the fact that the examples given of readied actions don't explicitly state that they can interrupt actions means they probably can't, so far as I can tell. Which made no sense at all to me, and violated Gricean maxims, but whatever.
 

Several problems here.

First, nowhere in the book (or in any dictionary!) is 'instant' defined as either 'less than one round' or 'less than six seconds'. You just made that up.
It's not defined anywhere, but it seems to be how the game is using the term. If you read the rules with "instant=less than one round" then all the "issues" about instantaneous spells that are troubling you so much go away.
 



Battlemaster gets other tricks on top of his bow shooting, which is more effective than a mere push, especially at levels below 17 (I favor the one that inflicts fear). Having both Repelling and Agonizing blast IS a rather steep investment for a warlock at levels 2-11, which is where most games take place. Combine with magic bows/arrows, and things become interesting fast.

Eldritch Blast with Hex, Agonizing, and Repelling isn't that much better than Fighter with a bow. There's strong arguments that they're roughly on par when all is said and done. It is absolutely intentional that Warlocks are only balanced if they can deal 1d10+5 x 4 and knock back 40' on an attack at level 17. Its what they do. Warlocks have more in common with a paladin and ranger than they do with a wizard (I say the same of bard, despite full progression as well). The only difference is that their "bow" is magic instead of wood. Or should we take away all swords and bows from our half-caster population?

Yeah, a BM can do other things, but always at the expense of not doing the push. Every time he does something different is one less time he could push. The 'lock does it every time, without fail. Also, the 'lock has quite a few other things he can do other than that even if he takes the 'steep' investment of one of his invocations (agonizing blast is not necessary for repelling blast). Like cast spells, maybe, which the BM will never do. You're comparing the central feature of a subclass that has limited uses to the always on abilities of a 'lock with one of his invocations.

And the 'lock will hit far more often that he will miss at 17th. Bounded accuracy ensures this. And that blast isn't much better than a fighter with a bow fails horribly at the exact moment that the fighter runs out of arrows.
 

There was a moderately large discussion about whether or not anything could interrupt an action, I don't remember where. A ways back, though.
The most recent time I was able to find it made it look like the most extreme position he was taking was "the book doesn't specify one way or the other."

Yeah, a BM can do other things, but always at the expense of not doing the push. Every time he does something different is one less time he could push. The 'lock does it every time, without fail. Also, the 'lock has quite a few other things he can do other than that even if he takes the 'steep' investment of one of his invocations (agonizing blast is not necessary for repelling blast). Like cast spells, maybe, which the BM will never do. You're comparing the central feature of a subclass that has limited uses to the always on abilities of a 'lock with one of his invocations.

And the 'lock will hit far more often that he will miss at 17th. Bounded accuracy ensures this. And that blast isn't much better than a fighter with a bow fails horribly at the exact moment that the fighter runs out of arrows.
Running out of arrows is irrelevant.

I mean yeah, the number of arrows somebody has is a real number that plenty of people actually pay attention to, but the mechanisms for balance that the devs used and shared in the DMG don't care about combat lasting more than three rounds and only expect you to go maybe two combats before you get a chance to scoop up your ammunition. In some weird edge cases a DM can make this into a big problem for a character, but it's not meant to be a constant issue. Cantrips and weapons aren't completely identical, but they're clearly meant to follow the same progression.

So that leaves you with a good point about superiority dice being a resource that can easily be depleted, but I think that was the wrong approach in the first place. If you're looking at special effects on basic attacks then we should really be talking about feats. The caster classes all get just enough ability score improvements that they should be actually spending most of them on abilities, whereas the weapon fighter types get enough to pick up a fair number of feats that will impact their attacks. Something like the charger feat is going to have a very similar impact in terms of pushing enemies around, especially at levels more commonly played.

Also the grappler feat (as intended instead of referring to a non-existent rule) and something like mobile allow a rogue that so desires to dragon two opponents their full move speed each turn (cunning action to dash and negate the movement penalty.) If we're talking about level 17 then of course the rogue can fly, and with expertise in athletics they will never fail the contested checks, so there's a significantly greater total distance they can move enemies around and/or drop them down pits, except in weird cases of enemies lining up on a ledge for the warlock firing squad.

With those examples in mind the only remaining concern ought to be to the tune of "the warlock does this from range where both of those examples are melee," but that's pretty much what the casting classes always get in exchange for being less durable if they do end up in melee.
And since I'm talking to you I want to again emphasize that these examples are not completely identical, but have the similarity of not using exhaustible resources, and moving enemies where you want them.

Personally I think the Warlock method is easier to use and a bit more versatile, but I'd agree with your earlier hypothetical of the class being a bit of a one trick pony. Even if you match the DMG suggested encounters and rests per day they're still working with about half the spells of other pure casters and you can expect a large portion of those to go to either utility or just hexing as hard as they can until their concentration breaks. Or put another way- they don't heal and can't cast fireball.
 

Yeah, a BM can do other things, but always at the expense of not doing the push. Every time he does something different is one less time he could push. The 'lock does it every time, without fail. Also, the 'lock has quite a few other things he can do other than that even if he takes the 'steep' investment of one of his invocations (agonizing blast is not necessary for repelling blast). Like cast spells, maybe, which the BM will never do. You're comparing the central feature of a subclass that has limited uses to the always on abilities of a 'lock with one of his invocations.
By level 17, you have more than enough superiority dice to have the BM do something every turn. And, frankly, pushing is not that great of an ability. Enemy caster or archer? Pretty much meaningless. Against a wall or someone at the person's back? Meaningless. Speed of 30, hit thrice, and no one with Polearm mastery in the enemy's way? Meaningless. Casting it when you're low level? Generally meaningless.

The BM will always have a variety of options to choose from that are immediately relevant. Pushing is a useful in only niche situations. Its great if used tactically, but that tactic won't be in every round for every battle, nor for every GMing style. Assuming that its meaningful for every attack is unrealistic. Hells, if the enemy has something where approaching them hurts the PCs, Repelling blasts are an active detriment to the party. You can't turn it off.

And, really. I don't know why the BM would even want to push when the vast majority of the time he has better options. Pushing has limited utility in too many situations unless you're setting up a combo with other party members.

And the 'lock will hit far more often that he will miss at 17th. Bounded accuracy ensures this. And that blast isn't much better than a fighter with a bow fails horribly at the exact moment that the fighter runs out of arrows.
I call BS. If you're fighting a hoard of low level monsters with low AC, you'll probably be using AoEs. Even if not, the monsters will be dying fairly quickly to the damage from the blasts, not knockback, and you'll likely have to worry about entire hoards. If you're fighting level appropriate monters, like a high level fiend, you'll be swinging at AC 19; at level 17, you'll have a bonus of +11, assuming maxed casting stat, which is not an assumption that I'm comfortable taking. That's a 40% miss chance, which assumes that 1, maybe 2 will beams will miss. Sure, you might have Foresight, but again, you also might have True Polymorph or Power Word Kill, which are highly useful spells to have.

In the end, assuming that you'll always be hitting with the beam just because high level is frankly unrealistic. Its the type of thing that sounds good on paper, but don't work in execution. People at level 17 are fighting legendary monsters and altering the course of entire planes. If you're fighting mooks, then you're supposed to mow through them like paper. The problem being that there's a lot of paper, and shoving one monster isn't exactly a big deal. And Bounded Accuracy means that those low level mooks are still a threat to you as well.
 

The BM will always have a variety of options to choose from that are immediately relevant. Pushing is a useful in only niche situations. Its great if used tactically, but that tactic won't be in every round for every battle, nor for every GMing style. Assuming that its meaningful for every attack is unrealistic. Hells, if the enemy has something where approaching them hurts the PCs, Repelling blasts are an active detriment to the party. You can't turn it off.
Repelling blast is always optional knockback. "You can push"
 

The most recent time I was able to find it made it look like the most extreme position he was taking was "the book doesn't specify one way or the other."

Going further back, post
#212 has a quote of an earlier post from Noctem, saying:

"As stated before, actions in 5e CANNOT interrupt each other outside of specific examples like the spell Shield. You cannot use a readied action to interrupt another action. You cannot interrupt the Attack Action of a level 5 fighter in between his first and second attack with a readied action unless that readied action specifically states (like shield) that you can."

Since the examples given of readied actions clearly make sense only if your action can take place during part of someone else's action or move, he's then said also that the examples given of typical triggers are not examples of triggers the designers clearly intend players to be able to specify and react to, but rather, are examples of things a DM can rule either way on, with no implied suggestion that they ought to work as intended.

The "but it's a DM ruling" thing is a way to dodge around the actual original claim, which is that it is absolutely impossible for a readied action to occur between, say, the multiple attacks granted by the extra attack action.
 

Remove ads

Top