D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Bolares]

Am I wrong here or the argument that if something worked one way for several editions it has to work the same way in 5e is a bit falacious? Editions change, so does the rules in it. But my biggest question is, why are you all still discussing this? the developers have already stated that this edition is all about rullings not rules, so, with valid arguments for both sides here, is up to each of us play the way we see fit in our tables.

At least thats my opinion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I think it's a valid question, as it opens up other interesting possibilities depending on the answer. If it is shoot-look-shoot-look as you describe, then questioning how long the 'look' part takes and what can happen during that time is a valid question. Apparently, it's not long enough to move any distance, but it is long enough for that attack's damage and effects to take place, so it's at least long enough to push a creature back 10'. That's a non-negligible bit of time. So, if that exists in your shoot-look-shoot, can someone trigger a readied action on the first bolt? "I ready an action to attack if the (insert description of the eldritch blaster here) attacks someone." So the blaster casts Eldritch Blast, and the first shot goes off, can the readied action now take place during the -look- phase of the attack? What if the readied action attack drops the caster? These are valid interaction questions that hinge on the amount of time between shots of an eldritch blast.

Personally, I prefer the shoot-shoot-shoot-look format for spells.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Am I wrong here or the argument that if something worked one way for several editions it has to work the same way in 5e is a bit falacious? Editions change, so does the rules in it. But my biggest question is, why are you all still discussing this? the developers have already stated that this edition is all about rullings not rules, so, with valid arguments for both sides here, is up to each of us play the way we see fit in our tables.

At least thats my opinion.

Discussion improves argument. Having to defend your position at least helps ensure that you have a firm grasp of why you think that way, and may even lead to you changing your mind. It's always a good thing to discuss the issue, even aggressively. At the table it is rulings not rules, but that's a poor reason to abandon discussion of those rulings when away from the table.

 

[Bolares]

discussion improves argument, but the last posts weren't discussions at all on my opninion, only people ranting that they were right and the other were obviously wrong

 

[Ovinomancer]

discussion improves argument, but the last posts weren't discussions at all on my opninion, only people ranting that they were right and the other were obviously wrong

Eh, you take what you can get.

 

[Noctem]

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.

And I also want to address this here. I hope you realize that you're basically saying: because of how it worked in completely different editions of DND, this is how we believe it works in 5e. If you can't see that your refusal to leave previous editions behind in order to focus on the current edition you're playing is a non-starter for this discussion then there's nothing I can say on my end. You first have to be willing to read and learn the rules for this edition and understand that the rules for previous editions (even 4e) aren't relevant or even applicable in any way to this one.

Let go of any preconceptions based on previous editions. Focus on what the rules for this edition say, or houserule at your table however you want but don't push your houserules as if they are rules text.

 

[Noctem]

discussion improves argument, but the last posts weren't discussions at all on my opninion, only people ranting that they were right and the other were obviously wrong

You must understand Bolares that this is a discussion that goes back months. It's understandably frustrating when you explain things over and over again to someone and yet they don't seem to care about learning anything. Talking to a brick wall so to speak. Especially so, when what the brick wall is saying makes no sense at all.

I'm not just telling people that they are wrong and ranting. I've spent hours of my time looking at the rules text, quoting rules text, asking questions on twitter, responding to people, giving examples, asking questions to other posters, etc.. And yet here we are with the exact same people saying the exact same things like if the previous 30 pages never happened. And what else do we find? Strawmen, shifting of goal posts, etc.. Like come on. This kind of stuff has to be immediately addressed especially in a discussion about rules.

 

[Bolares]

You must understand Bolares that this is a discussion that goes back months. It's understandably frustrating when you explain things over and over again to someone and yet they don't seem to care about learning anything. Talking to a brick wall so to speak. Especially so, when what the brick wall is saying makes no sense at all.

I'm not just telling people that they are wrong and ranting. I've spent hours of my time looking at the rules text, quoting rules text, asking questions on twitter, responding to people, giving examples, asking questions to other posters, etc.. And yet here we are with the exact same people saying the exact same things like if the previous 30 pages never happened. And what else do we find? Strawmen, shifting of goal posts, etc.. Like come on. This kind of stuff has to be immediately addressed especially in a discussion about rules.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your view of the rules, and play that way in my tables. Also I understand the frustration of not getting your point trough to people. But as a lawyer I've learned that sometimes when you have a clear view of rules (laws for this analogy) and can't make someone agree with you, its because they can get another view that if not equally valid, is at least reasonable. And some other times, you are absolutely right, and there is not another view of the rules, but the person you are arguing with is there to be wright, not to discuss the most valid point. I will not be the judge of what is the case here, but in both, keeping up the discussion, will only make it more heated and less respectfull, as the frustation grows. (sorry for grammar errors, not used to write that much in English)

 

[Noctem]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your view of the rules, and play that way in my tables. Also I understand the frustration of not getting your point trough to people. But as a lawyer I've learned that sometimes when you have a clear view of rules (laws for this analogy) and can't make someone agree with you, its because they can get another view that if not equally valid, is at least reasonable. And some other times, you are absolutely right, and there is not another view of the rules, but the person you are arguing with is there to be wright, not to discuss the most valid point. I will not be the judge of what is the case here, but in both, keeping up the discussion, will only make it more heated and less respectfull, as the frustation grows. (sorry for grammar errors, not used to write that much in English)

Fair enough. And I won't bother going into which of the two categories this discussion falls into because I don't think it would be productive in the end. Don't worry about your grammar, you're doing just fine

 

[Bawylie]

I think the blasts can only strike simultaneously if they have the same speed, same point of origin, and same point of impact.

If we assume the same point of origin (hand, staff, whatever) and then make attack rolls, I'm not sure we can safely assume same exact point of impact. Especially if the results of the attack rolls vary. Even if they all strike the target, it's not safe to assume they do so in precisely the same spot.

Therefore, whichever blast travels the shortest distance to target must strike first, and once it does so, it pushes the target back 10 feet. Thereafter, the blast with the next shortest distance to target now must travel an additional 10 feet. And then again for the 3rd blast, which now has to travel 10 or 20 feet extra (depending how you rule this I guess).

I assume AC is not merely armor but a creature's active attempts to defend itself (raising a shield, trying not to be hit). So I don't think there's a static target or fixed point of impact.

IMO, even if the blasts are simultaneous and originate from a fixed point, the target is moving (at least somewhat), and one blast must necessarily strike before the others.

But if i were your DM, IDGAF about any of that, so you'd be able to move between blasts and each would push 10 ft even against the same target.