D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Celtavian]

[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

I see that. Crawford has changed how previous editions have handled spells such as this for as long as I can remember turning this into a "fire, check target, fire again, check target" with each casting. It hasn't been that way for years. I no longer trust Crawford as a rules guy. I'm going to start writing things my own way. I wanted to keep house rules to a minimum, but I see that will not be possible because I have min-maxers that will exploit imbalanced rules like this cantrip that can push people up to 40 feet with no save. I won't be purchasing any more 5E books, since I don't really need them to make things in the game. This isn't the first ruling I've found to be imbalanced and changes old rulings in a bad way. I'll just go back to hoping the Pathfinder guys make a new game with simplified rules, but done with at least some semblance of verisimilitude and consistent rulings or attempts at balance which this new 5E "rules guy" seems to want to not bother with. Most rule designers understand a no save knockback over a short distance is a serious game disruption, but not Crawford. Seems to completely overlook how this ability can be exploited to trivialize the game in a bad way.

Here's a last prediction: This Repelling Blast ruling will be changed after enough people have exploited it to trivialize encounters in conjunction with ranged attacking. It'll take months, possibly years, because of how slow rule designers like Crawford and Mearls appear to be at assessing tactical rule problems without receiving player feedback. They can't seem to see the problem with their own eyes and tactical capabilities and will wait until enough people say, "It's kind of stupid that a cantrip can keep knocking any creature back 30 or 40 feet while the players move back 30 feet and keep on hitting them with ranged attacks." You may even see the truly ridiculous exploitative multiple characters with repelling blast after a two or three level warlock dip knocking a creature back double the amount to show how truly problematic this ruling is.

I'm going to kill it as a house rule. That's one of the nice things about having a min-max group. You get to see the problems before the general population accepts that the problem is real.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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:

There is a look phase, where you see the results of the attack applied. If there was no look phase, you'd be arguing for shoot-shoot-shoot-look which would be declaring all of the targets, rolling all of the attacks, and then seeing all of the results. Since that's not what you're arguing, instead you argue that the caster gets to 'look' and see what the results of one attack are before moving to the next, then there is a nominal 'look' phase.

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.

Yeah, so, I have't contested any of this.

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.

There has to be time, if only to resolve the effects of the attack. That's even in the process flow for the attack. You resolve all of the flow and then start over, performing a new attack. Attacks are distinct things.

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.

The trigger must complete, not the action. If the trigger is on an attack, the readied action can go after the trigger. You are not interrupting the trigger if you use your readied action between attacks.

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)

And right here you're not interrupting the attack if you use a readied action. Your reacting in that infinitesimal and undefined time in between attacks.

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.

Shield interrupts the process flow of 'make an attack'. So it is a special case. However, it is not analogous to reacting to a completed attack, before another attack begins.

A readied action can interrupt another creature's turn or action, but what it cannot do is interrupt the trigger unless specified otherwise (like shield and counterspell, both of which interrupt the trigger). So you can, very much, react using a readied action to an attack, and take your reaction after an attack is concluded but before anything else, including another attack using extra attack, occurs.

So, if you choose to interpret eldritch blast as consecutive attacks, the you can trigger off of any one of the attack and react before the next takes place. You couldn't stop the triggering attack, but you could go right after it. That's the drawback to resolving eldritch blast (and scorching ray) this way -- if you follow the rules one way, you should be consistent.

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.

It is not correct. You can interrupt actions, you can't interrupt the trigger unless otherwise stated. And I gave the feat to prevent a discussion about AOs, which was entirely beside the point and a red herring to boot.

 

[Quartz]

I've skipped several pages of the thread, but my view is that the default in 5E is that it doesn't stack with itself. So if you have multiple Eldritch Blasts, I would rule that you can move one target a maximum of 10'. That means that if you have three EBs you can move one target 10' or three targets 10' each.

I would also rule that the targets get a save or ability check (CHA vs Max (STR, CHA)) vs the move. After all, the PCs don't want to be told they've been blasted off that mountain path and killed with no save, do they? But that's for a separate thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I see that. Crawford has changed how previous editions have handled spells such as this for as long as I can remember turning this into a "fire, check target, fire again, check target" with each casting. It hasn't been that way for years. I no longer trust Crawford as a rules guy. I'm going to start writing things my own way. I wanted to keep house rules to a minimum, but I see that will not be possible because I have min-maxers that will exploit imbalanced rules like this cantrip that can push people up to 40 feet with no save. I won't be purchasing any more 5E books, since I don't really need them to make things in the game. This isn't the first ruling I've found to be imbalanced and changes old rulings in a bad way. I'll just go back to hoping the Pathfinder guys make a new game with simplified rules, but done with at least some semblance of verisimilitude and consistent rulings or attempts at balance which this new 5E "rules guy" seems to want to not bother with. Most rule designers understand a no save knockback over a short distance is a serious game disruption, but not Crawford. Seems to completely overlook how this ability can be exploited to trivialize the game in a bad way.

Here's a last prediction: This Repelling Blast ruling will be changed after enough people have exploited it to trivialize encounters in conjunction with ranged attacking. It'll take months, possibly years, because of how slow rule designers like Crawford and Mearls appear to be at assessing tactical rule problems without receiving player feedback. They can't seem to see the problem with their own eyes and tactical capabilities and will wait until enough people say, "It's kind of stupid that a cantrip can keep knocking any creature back 30 or 40 feet while the players move back 30 feet and keep on hitting them with ranged attacks." You may even see the truly ridiculous exploitative multiple characters with repelling blast after a two or three level warlock dip knocking a creature back double the amount to show how truly problematic this ruling is.

I'm going to kill it as a house rule. That's one of the nice things about having a min-max group. You get to see the problems before the general population accepts that the problem is real.

But are you moving your bookmarks?

 

[Noctem]

[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

Thanks for asking or linking the previously asked question (not sure which it is).

 

[Mouseferatu]

Well, I was going to mention that I asked Jeremy about this on Twitter, but I see Edwin's already quoted my tweet and the answer. Thanks!

I have to admit, it's not the answer I expected. I've always been of the "choose targets when casting the spell unless the spell says otherwise" mindset. And I may house rule it that way in my own games. But it's always good to know the RAI.

 

[Eric V]

Well, I was going to mention that I asked Jeremy about this on Twitter, but I see Edwin's already quoted my tweet and the answer. Thanks!

I have to admit, it's not the answer I expected. I've always been of the "choose targets when casting the spell unless the spell says otherwise" mindset. And I may house rule it that way in my own games. But it's always good to know the RAI.

For what it's worth, I always viewed it as you get powered up with energy that you can now shoot with like a gun.

Since Warlocks get so few spells as a spellcaster, they effectively gave them their own "bow" attacks. It's how they balance the warlock vis-a-vis the other casters, I am guessing.

We have seen no issue with the "gun version" in our games, FWIW.

 

[Eric V]

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.

This is really well explained. I wonder if you have some sort of degree in pedagogy.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is really well explained. I wonder if you have some sort of degree in pedagogy.

I'd agree if he'd actually responded to my argument and didn't make an error about readied actions while explaining.

 

[Eric V]

I'd agree if he'd actually responded to my argument and didn't make an error about readied actions while explaining.

To be fair, he stuck with rules terminology and didn't add things like "look phase," right?

Listen, this is a simplified version of the game and it does NOT stand up well under the kind of scrutiny you and a few others are engaged in. E.g. What's the duration of the "look phase" for a 20th level fighter making 4 attacks and moving 50 feet? All supposedly in the same 6 seconds the 1st level fighter is doing things.

The game breaks down at that point, and pretty badly. Instead, for ease of play only, there's a step by step process for making attacks, and he stuck to it. It may be dumb, but on a lot of levels D&D is dumb. As long as it's fun.