D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Ristamar]

I (mostly) gave up trying to rationalize the quirks of imperfect, abstract systems years ago. Anybody can try to dissect abstract mechanics into a logical framework that fits their point of view and then pontificate endlessly on message boards as to why their method is correct. While it can occasionally lead to interesting discussions, it typically adds nothing to the actual game except a growing list of superfluous house rules.

EDIT: Crawford's "Ready action" ruling regarding Eldritch Blast is interesting, though I can't imagine it will come up often, if ever, in my course of play.

2nd EDIT: And the above ruling may have only occurred in my own mind. Lack of sleep strikes again...

 

[seebs]

Did we ever get a specific ready-action ruling on eldritch blast? I know we have "retarget between blasts" and "readied actions can go between multiple attacks".

 

[Arial Black]

Of course you agree. You answered your own question.

He answered my question, and I agreed with his answer. He could easily have given an answer that I thought was wrong.

You're as wrong as ever. There's no magical cloud to dispel, just a spell that is currently being cast.

If the spell is 'currently being cast', then there cannot be any bolts yet so there is nothing to dispel. Bolts can only be called once the spell has been cast; the past tense here shows that the spellcasting process has been completed. The idea that you are still chanting the verbal components and still gesturing the somatic components all through the duration of spells is absurd and has never been part of any D&D rules.

For the sake of at least understanding your views better:
If somebody official said that with EB you're actually just casting the cantrip 4 distinct times (at sufficiently high levels) how upset would you be with that and why?

I'd ask how the 'cast a spell' action allows you to cast four spells in one action. That interpretation then requires them to state the maximum number of spells that can be cast in a single 'cast a spell' action, or is it unlimited. Does this apply to any spells, or just cantrips.

Also, why has the ability to cast multiple spells in one action not been mentioned in the rules, and why did 5E deliberately change the spellcasting concept from previous editions, without even mentioning it in the 5E rules. Why is it called the 'cast a spell' action when it should be called the 'cast some spells' action?

 

[Ristamar]

Did we ever get a specific ready-action ruling on eldritch blast? I know we have "retarget between blasts" and "readied actions can go between multiple attacks".

Hm. Maybe there wasn't one? I thought I saw something about it being possible, but now I'm second guessing myself because I can't find anything official.

 

[Arial Black]

This is the main flaw in your argument. The rules however never specify that the time between eldritch blasts is longer than an instant, it is purely your opinion that it is so.

We know that an instant in D&D is not defined as "an imperceptibly short amount of time" because several instantaneous spells, such as fireball, describe the spell effect perceptively moving, so an "instant" can't be infinitely short.

Since an instant has been shown to necessarily be a length of time, declaring it to be shorter than the time to cast and use a multi-beam eldritch blast is purely an arbitrary cutoff that is not supported by the text of the rules. On the contrary, is actively in conflict with the rules as written since it leads to the rule about instantaneous spells and dispelling appearing to be contradictory.

We don't need to know the exact number of nano-seconds this period of time is. We already know that whatever that length of time, it is the same length of time for both the caster and the dispeller; either there is enough time between beams to observe the first beam and use that knowledge to inform your next act (switch target or release readied spell), or there isn't.

 

[Noctem]

The non sequitur that you keep bringing up hasn't been correct since the first time you did, Arial. Frankly after 81 pages I would like to believe that you would be able to understand that.

 

[Lord Twig]

The non sequitur that you keep bringing up hasn't been correct since the first time you did, Arial. Frankly after 81 pages I would like to believe that you would be able to understand that.

What is the non sequitur? Arial Black is absolutely correct.

And none of this would be a problem if the attacks were actually instantaneous. Instead some players whined about "wasting" bolts on already dead targets and we got a paradoxical ruling in the name of "fun".

And I'm sure there are many people that think it is more fun to be able to see the results of each of their effectively simultaneous attacks regardless of the fact that it doesn't make any sense. I personally find it less fun.

Of course it is reversed with Magic Missile which is explicitly stated as being simultaneous. So I guess if you cast Magic Missile you have to settle for less fun that if you cast Eldritch Blast? (Or more fun in my case.)

 

[spectacle]

What is the non sequitur? Arial Black is absolutely correct.

And none of this would be a problem if the attacks were actually instantaneous. Instead some players whined about "wasting" bolts on already dead targets and we got a paradoxical ruling in the name of "fun".

And I'm sure there are many people that think it is more fun to be able to see the results of each of their effectively simultaneous attacks regardless of the fact that it doesn't make any sense. I personally find it less fun.

Of course it is reversed with Magic Missile which is explicitly stated as being simultaneous. So I guess if you cast Magic Missile you have to settle for less fun that if you cast Eldritch Blast? (Or more fun in my case.)

No, we got a ruling confirming that the same rules apply for spell attacks as weapon attacks when it comes to targeting. Spells were never intented to require simultaneous targeting in 5E. Do you also require players to declare weapon multi attacks before making them? That would be even more fun than just requiring it for spells wouldn't it?

 

[Lord Twig]

No, we got a ruling confirming that the same rules apply for spell attacks as weapon attacks when it comes to targeting. Spells were never intented to require simultaneous targeting in 5E. Do you also require players to declare weapon multi attacks before making them? That would be even more fun than just requiring it for spells wouldn't it?

Different situation. Spells do not get Extra Attack. If they did, then it would be 2 or more separate spells. Each would be targeted individually and each could be interrupted.

On the flip side if you could make simultaneous attacks with, say, a melee weapon, that would be awesome. The closest think I can think of is the Ranger's Whirlwind Attack. It's one attack with separate attack rolls for each target. Note that you do not get to chose targets after each roll. Of course you can only ever get one attack on each target.

So let's say that the Ranger is next to four opponents. He wants to leave at least one unharmed. I would rule that he has to pick all of his targets before rolling. It is just one attack after all. So he could pick all four and hope he misses one, or he could pick three and maybe end up with more than one unharmed if he misses. Time to make a tactical decision! Do you risk it? Fun!

Edit: Also, you can move between attacks. But not between the "instantaneous" attacks of a spell. I wonder why that is?

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, we got a ruling confirming that the same rules apply for spell attacks as weapon attacks when it comes to targeting. Spells were never intented to require simultaneous targeting in 5E. Do you also require players to declare weapon multi attacks before making them? That would be even more fun than just requiring it for spells wouldn't it?

Personally, I think this ruling makes EB the uber-cantrip. It was stong before, being force damage and d10s, and getting multiple attacks instead of just scaling the damage die. Not even considering warlock invocations to superpower it up (which is fine, that's their shtick), it was already a top tier cantrip. But this ruling makes it even moreso. If you hit an enemy with a few hitpoints with any other cantrip, that's it, you waste him, all of those extra dice of damage don't really mean much. But if it's EB, the first bolt wastes the bad guy, and now you get to salvage the rest of the spell by pounding on the next guy in line. It's already a good cantrip, and this added versatility/wasted attack prevention just puts it clearly at the top of the cantrips.

Setting EB to simultaneous attacks wouldn't weaken it compared to other cantrips. It's still the top dog. It would just bring it more in line and not make it's inherent awesome so clearly better than the rest.

But the SA is there, and it's not added it's less than goodness to the game.