Noctem
Explorer
This is really well explained. I wonder if you have some sort of degree in pedagogy.
Thank you for the compliment

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.
I'm not going to ruin the players fun by telling him tough s***, he should have told me before if he wanted to aim at that other guy over there at the beginning if he wanted to split the targets. Then every time his turn comes around it becomes a round of bargaining over how he's going to split his attacks up instead of just enjoying what his character is doing.
Don't care how long it is, just that it exists. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that before people read it, but apparently, as always, the answer is 'at least once more.'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.
You're entirely hung up on the wrong thing, which I've said a few times already. My point was that if you go with resolving multiple attacks subsequently, then it also means that you must allow things like readied actions to occur between attacks if the readied action's trigger is the attack. That's the logical outcome of that ruling.Your claim that I haven't doesn't make it so. Your personal refusal to accept my response, supported by rules text and Jeremy Crawford's quoted twitter response just now, doesn't make it so... Can you show me rules text that actually says there's something called a "look phase", time tracking between attacks, that you can interrupt actions of others using the ready action (you can't because it actually specifies the opposite) and so on? I mean you're making claims but you're not showing any supporting evidence... I'm sorry you don't like my answers but I did actually answer you regardless of what you seem to think..
As far as balance goes, 10 feet per hit is more balanced for a 0 level cantrip.
You....haven't seen the same thing done with Expeditious Retreat, Cunning Action, or any number of battlefield control spells already? Repelling Blast takes very considerably longer to develop than many other methods of accomplishing this. Like, say, even something as simple as mounts.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.
You....haven't seen the same thing done with Expeditious Retreat, Cunning Action, or any number of battlefield control spells already? Repelling Blast takes very considerably longer to develop than many other methods of accomplishing this. Like, say, even something as simple as mounts.