D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Simonb1]

Hi all,

After reading the above posts, and rereading the PHB, I think that Instanteous, as described in the PHB is badly worded.

It should say that NO spell with this decriptor lasts beyond the action used to cast the spell, and your only defence is your Reaction.

In relation, does Repelling Blast works with each beam, I think so. But be careful about knocking people over the edges, their kit goes with them.

Simon B

 

[Dausuul]

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

Every rules debate thread eventually devolves into this.

People start out putting forward various arguments and viewpoints. Eventually, all the major arguments and viewpoints have been put forward and hashed out. Everyone has picked a side (not necessarily the side they started out on), and since they have already seen and accounted for all of the major arguments, there is no longer any argument that will sway them from their chosen position.

From this point forward, the only thing keeping the thread alive is people who can't resist the siren song of someone else being Wrong On The Internet, and it's safe to say there won't be any more productive discussion unless new information (a new rulebook, a Sage Advice ruling, etc.) appears.

However, the discussion before the thread reaches this point is often very interesting and informative.

 

[Noctem]

For what it's worth I completely agree with you Dausuul.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, I haven't been a part of the previous discussions, and I wouldn't mind if Noctem would answer the questions I posed. If I'm going to accept his point of view, I'd like to explore the other ramifications.

 

[Noctem]

Well, I haven't been a part of the previous discussions, and I wouldn't mind if Noctem would answer the questions I posed. If I'm going to accept his point of view, I'd like to explore the other ramifications.

Sorry if I missed your questions, if you post them again I'll answer them as best I can.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry if I missed your questions, if you post them again I'll answer them as best I can.

Post 62.

 

[Noctem]

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.

First, I have check into the part where you tie in "time" into the fact that Eldritch Blast doesn't allow movement between attacks. What I'm getting here is that you're extrapolating meaning behind the movement rule only allowing movement between weapon attacks and not spell attacks. I don't think anyone here but the devs can know why they made that restriction and so I don't think it's good form to try to bring it into the discussion to then say that it's because it takes time. Time, as stated before is not a factor for how attacks resolve. That's nonsense that's closely tied into a simulationist mindset. I don't care how you run your game at home if you really want to track how long an arrow flies through the air to justify telling a player that because the arrow takes 10 seconds to fly to its target, the attack will deal damage next round if the target doesn't move. I mean really this is kind of silly stuff you get into in these kinds of discussions and I'm not interested in the least. So again, time and how much time there is in between attacks, how you can move between weapon attacks and not spell attacks and so on is not a discussion I'm interested in having because regardless of what you claim it works the same way anyway. Everything happens within your turn, you make 11 attacks in that turn or 1 it's the same thing. Eldritch Blast attacks are sequential because you have to resolve each one in sequence via the Making an Attack rules.

Readied action triggers are DM fiat. I can tell you how I would rule at my table in regards to a trigger for a readied action but I can't tell you how it works beyond that. It's up to each individual DM to rule if a trigger is good or not based on loose guidelines in the PHB. However I can tell you that readied actions happen after their trigger resolves unless specifically stated otherwise. For example, the spell Shield triggers off getting hit but can negate that hit by increasing the defenses of the caster. A readied action by a player like what you describe in your example cannot, AFAIK, do that. So the player's readied action would proc, because the trigger has been met, but he would have to wait for the Eldritch Blast to resolve completely before being able to take whatever action he readied. This is because by the general rules, actions cannot interrupt each other outside of specifically called out exceptions (like Shield).

But really, the problem here is that you're attaching simulation oriented questions into a rules discussion where the answers simply don't matter outside of your table and houserules. Partly because the answers don't change anything and partly because the edition itself doesn't care.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First, I have check into the part where you tie in "time" into the fact that Eldritch Blast doesn't allow movement between attacks. What I'm getting here is that you're extrapolating meaning behind the movement rule only allowing movement between weapon attacks and not spell attacks. I don't think anyone here but the devs can know why they made that restriction and so I don't think it's good form to try to bring it into the discussion to then say that it's because it takes time. Time, as stated before is not a factor for how attacks resolve. That's nonsense that's closely tied into a simulationist mindset. I don't care how you run your game at home if you really want to track how long an arrow flies through the air to justify telling a player that because the arrow takes 10 seconds to fly to its target, the attack will deal damage next round if the target doesn't move. I mean really this is kind of silly stuff you get into in these kinds of discussions and I'm not interested in the least. So again, time and how much time there is in between attacks, how you can move between weapon attacks and not spell attacks and so on is not a discussion I'm interested in having because regardless of what you claim it works the same way anyway. Everything happens within your turn, you make 11 attacks in that turn or 1 it's the same thing. Eldritch Blast attacks are sequential because you have to resolve each one in sequence via the Making an Attack rules.

Readied action triggers are DM fiat. I can tell you how I would rule at my table in regards to a trigger for a readied action but I can't tell you how it works beyond that. It's up to each individual DM to rule if a trigger is good or not based on loose guidelines in the PHB. However I can tell you that readied actions happen after their trigger resolves unless specifically stated otherwise. For example, the spell Shield triggers off getting hit but can negate that hit by increasing the defenses of the caster. A readied action by a player like what you describe in your example cannot, AFAIK, do that. So the player's readied action would proc, because the trigger has been met, but he would have to wait for the Eldritch Blast to resolve completely before being able to take whatever action he readied. This is because by the general rules, actions cannot interrupt each other outside of specifically called out exceptions (like Shield).

But really, the problem here is that you're attaching simulation oriented questions into a rules discussion where the answers simply don't matter outside of your table and houserules. Partly because the answers don't change anything and partly because the edition itself doesn't care.

No, I'm not attaching simulation oriented questions. I'm asking game mechanics -- if eldritch blast is shoot-look-shoot, and the caster can make decisions in the 'look' phase of the spell, then it stands to reason that it should operate like other 'look' abilities, neh? In particular, if you can react using a readied action to individual attacks in an attack action, and using the exact same mechanics as eldritch blast individual attacks, then eldritch blast should operate the same way in all regards, meaning you could 'interrupt' the cast a spell action because you're just stepping in between the individual attacks.

As for time, my only point is that there has to be some time in there to 'look' and for effects to take place, not that I wanted some specific description or quantification of said time. If there's time in between to 'look', there time for other things to possibly happen, like a reaction to a discrete event. If you rule that nothing else can happen in the 'look' phases other than the caster making other targeting decisions, then you're not being consistent with the attack rules.

And if you can't interrupt between attacks with a readied action, then you're implicitly accepting that you can have a readied action to attack someone if they attack you, and they can declare an attack action, attack you, then move 20' away and attack someone else with their extra attack, and you can't do anything about it (for sake of argument, they have the mobile feat) because you can't interrupt their attack action and they weren't done with it yet.

 

[Noctem]

k so first, there is no look phase to the spell. You determine the target of an attack when you make the attack. That's simply how game works. What you're asking/talking about is not game mechanics:

1. The length of time between attacks is not defined anywhere in 5e.
2. The same character can make 11 attacks, move, use a bonus action or 1 attack, move and use a bonus action within the exact same stated time a turn takes: 6 seconds.
3. Time, as you're using it to justify attacks happening simultaneously, is not defined within 5e.
4. It is not stated anywhere that time should be a factor when resolving a single or multiple attacks.
5. The instantaneous duration description found in the PHB does not list a restriction in regards to time, does not define anything beyond the fact that instantaneous spells cannot be dispelled and doesn't support your claim that attacks are simultaneous.
6. The EB spell itself specifically states that all attacks are to be resolved separately.

If anything it's a simulationist claim that is trying to change the rules of the game (because 5e doesn't care about this subject at all). You require that there be time in between attacks of EB, so you look for reasons why time should be there and tie in all these other things (some invented and some not) in order to make your claim real. But it doesn't work that way. What you should be doing is first looking to see if your basic claim (that there's time in between attacks and 5e cares about this) is true. It's not, as demonstrated above, outside of your houserules and home game.

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. Readied actions as the kind a player can ready by declaring a trigger and action they are going to take in response to that trigger cannot get around the general rules which govern how actions interact.

This is an example in steps:

1. Declare I use Eldritch Blast
2. Use up the action type associated with Casting a Spell and Eldritch Blast (my action)
3. Use any material costs associated to casting the spell I have chosen and perform any other requirements for casting the spell.
4. Finish casting the spell (this is the last step where the spell can be counterspelled because after this you are resolving the effects of having successfully cast the spell)
5. Resolve the effects of the spell (in this case making x number of attacks as described in the spell effect section, say 2 attacks for this example)

Making an Attack
1. Declare target of attack 1
2. Figure out the modifiers if any for the attack
3. Resolve the attack (including damage and effects like forced movement for example)

1 Declare target of attack 2
2. Figure out the modifiers if any for the attack
3. Resolve the attack (including damage and effects like forced movement for example)


Any readied action by an ally would begin now. However, as stated a Shield spell could be used during step 3 of the attacks (Resolve the attack) when you are declared to be hit. This could lead to the attack instead missing, but only because the spell itself allows for this exception to the general rules.

As for your last example, that is correct. You cannot interrupt the action of another creature with a readied action. Immediate Interrupts from 4e no longer exist. Reactions in 5e, outside of very specific examples, work like Immediate Reactions which always happen AFTER their trigger is fully resolved. In this case, the action being used to attack. Note that the creature attacking you moving away would normally provoke an Opportunity Attack which you can perform instead of your readied action. If you have a feat to stop the OA, that's a feat benefit and imo it should be self explanatory that feats are powerful and should remain powerful. But the fact remains that you had to give the attacker a feat to circumvent something you obviously knew would happen to mitigate the strategy you suggested be used to counter the argument I presented. So to you.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] Multi-beam spell like E-Blast: Choose all targets at once? Or can you hit with one, see result, choose next target, etc?
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford The intent is that you can choose an attack spell's targets one after another, unless the spell says otherwise. #DnD