D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Noctem]

So you're saying that a warlock firing a level 11 eldtrich blast using the Cast a Spell action can fire a beam and then move 15 feet and fire another beam and move another 15 feet and fire another beam? I want to be clear.

By the rules a spell is not giving you any attacks. It's merely allowing you to use an attack roll to resolve the spell. Which has a very different meaning. I see once again the snarky little poster doesn't know the rules he's attempting to assert.

Ah so I checked the rules text for moving after posting and it seems you can only move between Weapon Attacks:

Moving between attacks

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. (Player's Handbook, p. 190)

So my bad there. However, the Making an Attack section does say that it also covers SPELLS.

 

[Celtavian]

I can see that. I will leave the rest of this "discussion" to you as it sounds you have some amount of experience with it. I doubt you can convince these people that the "spell attacks are simultaneous" rule exists only in their head, but hopefully the idea won't spread to anyone else reading this thread.

If you could explain what you get to do between these beam attack rolls, maybe you could make us folk that have been doing it this way for multiple editions understand. Because maybe you're not convincing anyone because we've been doing spells like scorching ray and eldtrich blast for what seems like forever and it has always been the case if the spell doesn't allow you to do keep it going for multiple rounds, you pick the targets when you cast the spell. Nothing in 5E indicates it is any different now.

The only point of contention is whether each hit knocks a person back 10 feet or one casting is 10 feet. I'll admit that an exact reading of the rules might indicate 10 feet per hit. I also don't think it is a stretch to have it 10 feet per casting of the spell. As far as balance goes, 10 feet per hit is more balanced for a 0 level cantrip.

 

[Arial Black]

I can't believe this discussion is going again... We hashed this out on the wizards forums for over 30 pages!

You make it sound like we came to a consensus after 30 pages....we certainly did not!

1. Instantaneous duration on spells is clearly stated in the PHB description of what the word means as being a spell that is cast and resolves within a single turn. It also cannot be DISPELLED specifically because of that reason. It NEVER says anything about the spell having all of its attacks (if any) be simultaneous, require targets to be selected before a single attack is made and whatever other things some people in this thread have brought up.

The bit you quoted is true, but in no way changes what 'instantaneous' means. These are notes on the consequences of a spell being instantaneous: it cannot be dispelled because the energy has already come and gone, so there is no magic to dispel. This in no way means that instantaneous spells last for ages but are somehow immune to dispel magic.

2. The only spell in the ENTIRE GAME that has all of its attacks resolve simultaneously is Magic Missile.

It might be the only one with the redundant language, but that does not limit the meaning of the 'instantaneous' duration.

The only reason why it works that way is because the spell itself specifically says that it works this way.

Even without that redundant language, the spell's instantaneous duration means that it works that way.

The general rules, found on pages listed previously in this thread (notably by [MENTION=6780410]spectacle[/MENTION] who actually quoted the text itself), explain that for each attack made the attacker must follow 3 steps. The first step is picking a target. This is true for ANY attack being made in 5e!

Agreed. Every attack must take those steps in order.

So no, you don't pick your targets immediately when casting the spell, you pick them when you make an attack.

And you make the attacks simultaneously.

Eldritch Blast can have several attacks, just like someone with the Extra Attack feature using the Attack Action. Both of these would follow the Making an Attack section as follows:

Attack 1
Pick a target
Determine Modifiers
Resolve the Attack

Attack 2
Pick a target
Determine Modifiers
Resolve the Attack

And so on until the attacker has no attacks left.

And the following sequence also obeys the rules on Making An Attack:-

Pick targets for bolts 1, 2 and 3
Determine the modifiers for each attack
Resolve each attack simultaneously

Note that the Attack action has certain rules that apply to attacks made using that action, but the Cast A Spell action doesn't have all the same rules. There is no rule that allows you to move between attacks granted by the Cast A Spell Action, for example, only to the attacks granted by the Attack action.

3. Mike Mearls has publicly stated that he is not the guy to ask about rules. He has been found to be wrong about his answers over 50% of the time and most notably, Jeremy Crawford has had to recheck and give the correct answers.

But this is not one of those times.

4. Eldritch Blast pushing a target 10 feet when it hits is simply to understand.

...and simple to misunderstand...

You can only hit or miss with EB when you make an attack and each attack is a sequential event as shown above by the rules.

Mis-applying the rules for the Attack action and applying them to the Cast A Spell action...The rules do not support this.

Every time EB hits, you push 10 feet. Jeremy Crawford has also confirmed this via twitter and sage advice.

AFAIK, he has only said that a beam may push the target beyond the range of subsequent beams...but beams from the same spell are not subsequent, but simultaneous.

The evocation does not limit you to once per use of the spell, every hit qualifies. Multiple attacks = multiple hits = multiple triggers. This is the same for ANY ability, feature, spell, etc.. that might have a specific trigger. Unless specifically stated, if you meet the trigger requirement multiple times you get the effect multiple times.

Abilities do what they say they do. Repelling Blast says that if a creature is hit with eldritch blast, it can be pushed 10 feet. It does not say that it pushes 10 feet for every bolt of the spell that hits, only that if it is hit by the spell.

An extrapolation of the rules that adds text to the rules can't be considered rules text.

A proper understanding of what words like 'instantaneous' means is essential when reading a rules set which proudly uses 'natural language' to convey those rules. Words have meanings. The writers expect us to know what it means, without having to define words which are used the same way in the rules as they are in real life. They have to tell us what a 'combat round' is because that's a game construct that is not found in real life, but 'instantaneous' is used the same way in the game as it is in real life, so does not need to be defined by the rules.

When we understand what 'instantaneous' means, we are not 'adding to the rules' because the rules already take the meaning of the word into account.

 

[Noctem]

If you could explain what you get to do between these attacks, maybe you could make us folk that have been doing it this way for multiple editions understand. Because maybe you're not convincing anyone because we've been doing spells like scorching ray and eldtrich blast for what seems like forever and it has always been the case if the spell doesn't allow you to do keep it going for multiple rounds, you pick the targets when you cast the spell. Nothing in 5E indicates it is any different now.

The only point of contention is whether each hit knocks a person back 10 feet or one casting is 10 feet. I'll admit that an exact reading of the rules might indicate 10 feet per hit. I also don't think it is a stretch to have it 10 feet per casting of the spell. As far as balance goes, 10 feet per hit is more balanced for a 0 level cantrip.

I've already explained to you that your question of what you get to do between attacks is irrelevant to the discussion. You're shifting the goals posts.

To discuss the actual question. If you look under the Making an Attack section of the PHB it gives you the 3 steps for all attacks but also specifies the following:

"Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure."

AND

"If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."


So now we've answered 2 questions. The first is that spells are included in the Making an Attack section and the second is that if you're making an attack roll (which EB, scorching ray, etc.. all do) then you're making an attack which means you follow the 3 steps for each attack.

 

[spectacle]

If you could explain what you get to do between these beam attack rolls, maybe you could make us folk that have been doing it this way for multiple editions understand. Because maybe you're not convincing anyone because we've been doing spells like scorching ray and eldtrich blast for what seems like forever and it has always been the case if the spell doesn't allow you to do keep it going for multiple rounds, you pick the targets when you cast the spell. Nothing in 5E indicates it is any different now.

I know I said I would bow out but I have to address this. Please do not make strawman arguments. Nobody at all is saying that Eldritch Blast etc lasts for multiple rounds. It is an instantaneous spell, it only lasts for the action used to cast it. What can you do between the beams? Nothing, you resolve the beam attacks in one after the other and then the spell is over. How it worked in previous editions doesn't matter, 5E is not backwards compatible.

Again, no strawman arguments please.

 

[Arial Black]

Nobody at all is saying that Eldritch Blast etc lasts for multiple rounds. It is an instantaneous spell, it only lasts for the action used to cast it. What can you do between the beams? Nothing, you resolve the beam attacks in one after the other and then the spell is over.

If the bolts hit 'one after the other', then either there is no measurable time between those beams (so the target is still at point A when each beam hits) or there is some measurable time between each bolt (in which case the spell is not 'instantaneous).

Since the spell definitely is 'instantaneous', there can be no measurable time between beams. And that, my friend, meets the definition of 'simultaneous'.

 

[spectacle]

If the bolts hit 'one after the other', then either there is no measurable time between those beams (so the target is still at point A when each beam hits) or there is some measurable time between each bolt (in which case the spell is not 'instantaneous).

What is this I don't even... Look at the description for the instantaneous Fireball spell "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame"
That's two discrete events happening one after the other. Where on earth did you get the idea that an instantaneous spells cannot take any measurable time to cast?

 

[Noctem]

You make it sound like we came to a consensus after 30 pages....we certainly did not!

Some people refusing to admit they are wrong does not prevent everyone else to agree to a concensus. You and I believe 1 or 2 others were the only ones arguing from the basis of an extrapolation of a single word to justify a slew of rules changes and houserules that you then argued were rules text. That's not only wrong then, it's still wrong now. Your posts here just prove that.

The bit you quoted is true, but in no way changes what 'instantaneous' means. These are notes on the consequences of a spell being instantaneous: it cannot be dispelled because the energy has already come and gone, so there is no magic to dispel. This in no way means that instantaneous spells last for ages but are somehow immune to dispel magic.

In the previous discussion you pulled a definition for the word instantaneous from outside of 5th edition, which was proven to be only a partial definition from a random website you didn't even bother to quote. You then used this definition to justify what you're arguing there and now here. What you should do instead is read the definition in the PHB which is what 5e uses, and stop trying to extrapolate a bunch of stuff off a definition that 5e DOESN'T use for what the term means in the edition



It might be the only one with the redundant language, but that does not limit the meaning of the 'instantaneous' duration.

You have yet to show a single line of the PHB which supports what you claim, either on the wizard forum or here. What you are doing is pulling a random definition from the internet (an incomplete one) and then using that. This is bad form.



Even without that redundant language, the spell's instantaneous duration means that it works that way.

Yes, it works exactly as it's written and described in the PHB. Nothing more and nothing less. Don't extrapolate beyond that as stated above.


Agreed. Every attack must take those steps in order.

Ok.


And you make the attacks simultaneously.

Incorrect, the only spell in the game that resolves its attacks simultaneously is Magic Missile. But you know this because we've said this to you for around 20 pages worth of posts. Your refusal to read doesn't make you right.


And the following sequence also obeys the rules on Making An Attack:-

Pick targets for bolts 1, 2 and 3
Determine the modifiers for each attack
Resolve each attack simultaneously

Wrong, Making an attack specifically says that each attack follows the 3 steps in the sequence given. You're changing the sequence by making someone pick all the targets in one batch, then determining all the modifiers for each attack and finally resolving all attacks simultaneously. But again, you know this. Everyone I'm sure understands that if you tell someone take a blue apple, then a green apple and finally a yellow apple and the person instead picks up all 3 at the same time they have changed your directives in the most basic way. You are no longer making sequential actions, you're making simultaneous ones. Making attacks is sequential. What you're saying here is not.

Note that the Attack action has certain rules that apply to attacks made using that action, but the Cast A Spell action doesn't have all the same rules. There is no rule that allows you to move between attacks granted by the Cast A Spell Action, for example, only to the attacks granted by the Attack action.

Not being able to move between attacks of a spell is not an indicator that the rest of what you say is correct.

But this is not one of those times.



...and simple to misunderstand...



Mis-applying the rules for the Attack action and applying them to the Cast A Spell action...The rules do not support this.

I've already linked the two sentences that prove this part wrong, read my previous posts. Making an Attack covers all attacks. Making an attack roll specifically means that you are making an attack and means you have to follow the 3 steps for each attack you make.


AFAIK, he has only said that a beam may push the target beyond the range of subsequent beams...but beams from the same spell are not subsequent, but simultaneous.

Incorrect for multiple reasons, as shown.

Abilities do what they say they do. Repelling Blast says that if a creature is hit with eldritch blast, it can be pushed 10 feet. It does not say that it pushes 10 feet for every bolt of the spell that hits, only that if it is hit by the spell.

You're adding a restriction that doesn't exist within the rules. Being hit by EB happens on each of the attacks if it hits. Just like you can apply extra damage on each hit or whatever else. There is no restriction here that you can only apply the forced movement once. You're inventing this to suit your argument.

A proper understanding of what words like 'instantaneous' means is essential when reading a rules set which proudly uses 'natural language' to convey those rules. Words have meanings. The writers expect us to know what it means, without having to define words which are used the same way in the rules as they are in real life. They have to tell us what a 'combat round' is because that's a game construct that is not found in real life, but 'instantaneous' is used the same way in the game as it is in real life, so does not need to be defined by the rules.

I'll keep my understanding of what the 5th edition description of what the term means within 5e and not ignore that in favor of a random definition you invented to suit your argument. I suggest everyone else does the same. Your houserules are yours and yours alone. Don't try to push them on other people like if they are rules text.

When we understand what 'instantaneous' means, we are not 'adding to the rules' because the rules already take the meaning of the word into account.

See above.

Replies in bold.

 

[Noctem]

I know I said I would bow out but I have to address this. Please do not make strawman arguments. Nobody at all is saying that Eldritch Blast etc lasts for multiple rounds. It is an instantaneous spell, it only lasts for the action used to cast it. What can you do between the beams? Nothing, you resolve the beam attacks in one after the other and then the spell is over. How it worked in previous editions doesn't matter, 5E is not backwards compatible.

Again, no strawman arguments please.

+1. This is exactly the kind of stuff we have to immediately respond to and rectify. This is pure strawman.

 

[Noctem]

What is this I don't even... Look at the description for the instantaneous Fireball spell "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame"
That's two discrete events happening one after the other. Where on earth did you get the idea that an instantaneous spells cannot take any measurable time to cast?

But most importantly, the amount of time at play here between attacks, between the time the bright streak leaves your pointing finger to when it gets to your designated point is IRRELEVANT. IT is not a factor for how attacks are resolved, what counts as an attack or doesn't, etc.. This is a shifting of goal posts because you guys have nothing to back your claim.