D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[seebs]

Oh-hoh!

DMG, p. 252

Adjudicating Reaction Timing

Typical combatants rely on the opportunity attack and the Ready action for most of their reactions in a fight. Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

... What's interesting here is that they imply that there is a significant judgment call to be made. (Consider the monk Deflect Arrows. If someone with multiple attacks shoots a monk, does anyone think that the monk's return-throw happens only after all the attacks have otherwise been resolved?)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just to be clear, it doesn't follow the "making an attack" guidelines simply because it is worded to state

"You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam." Nothing within the spell description suggests treating it as separate attacks, merely that you are required to make additional attack rolls. It doesn't even suggest you pick different targets in essence, merely that you can direct the beams towards different ones. So I don't believe anything related to making an attack is relevant here based on that suggestion.

I can understand how you might assume it's multiple attacks, but it is not. It simply requires multiple attack rolls. And this, quite clearly, would fall under the rule "specific beats the generic."

Crawford said that it's intended to be subsequent attacks - each fully resolved before the next, so it is multiple, separate attacks. And attacks have a set procedure, as already well noted, which would mean you pick targets for each beam, after resolving all of the effects of the beam before it. If you hold that you can set a readied action trigger to 'makes an attack', then you can set the same trigger to the eldritch blast attacks. The argument is currently whether or not 'immediately after the trigger' allows you to go between attacks. Because Noctem is being difficult, I'm specifically arguing that RAs can interrupt general actions, like the attack action, because that's far more clear than the eldritch blast example. I can see the possibility of disagreement on spell created multiple attacks, but not that RAs cannot interrupt actions in general.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh-hoh!

DMG, p. 252

Adjudicating Reaction Timing

Typical combatants rely on the opportunity attack and the Ready action for most of their reactions in a fight. Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

... What's interesting here is that they imply that there is a significant judgment call to be made. (Consider the monk Deflect Arrows. If someone with multiple attacks shoots a monk, does anyone think that the monk's return-throw happens only after all the attacks have otherwise been resolved?)

Deflect arrows is a good one!

 

[Ovinomancer]

Eldritch Blast is not an attack or a series of attacks, it's a spell with an Instantaneous duration, regardless of whether or not the beams fire in rapid succession. Thus, the beams cannot be interrupted by another action outside of Counterspell.

FWIW, I don't think that same logic correlates to extra attacks as part of the attack action.

Disagree. The spell cannot be retroactively stopped outside of counterspell. yes, but there's a solid argument to be made that you can still react to the attacks in the spell.

 

[Noctem]

Just to be clear, it doesn't follow the "making an attack" guidelines simply because it is worded to state

"You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam." Nothing within the spell description suggests treating it as separate attacks, merely that you are required to make additional attack rolls. It doesn't even suggest you pick different targets in essence, merely that you can direct the beams towards different ones. So I don't believe anything related to making an attack is relevant here based on that suggestion.

I can understand how you might assume it's multiple attacks, but it is not. It simply requires multiple attack rolls. And this, quite clearly, would fall under the rule "specific beats the generic."

Yes it does follow the Making an Attack section because as the section explains:

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

So the rules very clearly explain that anything which involves making an attack roll (eldritch blast does), is an attack which in turn follows the Making an Attack rules. The rules also specify that they apply to spell attack rolls (like the ones you can make via Eldritch Blast). But you say this yourself in the above. There's nothing specifically stated in the spell that would make it not follow the general rules for how spell attack rolls are resolved. So you're incorrect on that point. Picking of targets is done in the Making an Attack section, specifically step 1. There's no need to give further rules since attacks fall within those rules which explain how to resolve them.

The spell also clearly states that you resolve each attack separately. So yes, it is multiple attacks.

 

[Noctem]

Oh-hoh!

DMG, p. 252

Adjudicating Reaction Timing

Typical combatants rely on the opportunity attack and the Ready action for most of their reactions in a fight. Various spells and features give a creature more reaction options, and sometimes the timing of a reaction can be difficult to adjudicate. Use this rule of thumb: follow whatever timing is specified in the reaction's description. For example, the opportunity attack and the shield spell are clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers. If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

... What's interesting here is that they imply that there is a significant judgment call to be made. (Consider the monk Deflect Arrows. If someone with multiple attacks shoots a monk, does anyone think that the monk's return-throw happens only after all the attacks have otherwise been resolved?)

They also clearly list OA's and the spell Shield as being "clear about the fact that they can interrupt their triggers."

Then explains that if it's unclear, it occurs after the trigger finishes, like the ready action. If you go to the ready action, it doesn't explain what they mean by "after the trigger finishes", it could be the attack action as a whole regardless of how many attacks are made, or after the the casting of a spell and the resolution of its effects are resolved or during the spell in between attacks. So other than saying "The DM can make rulings", which I don't believe anyone here has actually argued against, this doesn't prove either side is correct. It does reinforce though that unless the reaction in question specifically states that it can interrupt the trigger, it doesn't.

As for the monk Deflect Arrows it specifically states that you interrupt the attack when you are hit, then reduce incoming damage from that attack by a specific amount. If you reduce to 0 you then get to catch the missile if it's the right size and make an attack as part of the reaction action. This one works just like Shield and OA's in that it specifically allows for interruption of the trigger:

Deflect Missiles
At 3rd level, you may use your reaction when you are kit by a ranged weapon attack to deflect or catch the missile. When you do so, the damage you take is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your monk level.

If you reduce the damage to 0 in this way, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have a hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or ammunition as part of the same action. You make this attack with proficiency, and treat the missile as a monk weapon for this attack.

 

[Ristamar]

Disagree. The spell cannot be retroactively stopped outside of counterspell. yes, but there's a solid argument to be made that you can still react to the attacks in the spell.

Fair point. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if either way was ultimately correct. Neither choice is game breaking, though it could set an interesting "official" precedent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then explains that if it's unclear, it occurs after the trigger finishes, like the ready action. If you go to the ready action, it doesn't explain what they mean by "after the trigger finishes", it could be the attack action as a whole regardless of how many attacks are made, or after the the casting of a spell and the resolution of its effects are resolved or during the spell in between attacks. So other than saying "The DM can make rulings", which I don't believe anyone here has actually argued against, this doesn't prove either side is correct. It does reinforce though that unless the reaction in question specifically states that it can interrupt the trigger, it doesn't.

Except it says 'immediately after the trigger', not 'immediately after the action that contains the trigger.' Words have meanings, and this could not be more clear. If it doesn't interrupt its trigger, it occurs immediately after it. You're arguing, without basis, that that means that it either can interrupt its trigger when it says so, or it occurs after the action is complete. You're word swapping in for something that's clearly established: triggers are not actions, they can be any "perceivable circumstance." The reaction occurs immediately after the "perceivable circumstance" set as a trigger unless it has wording that it can occur before or interrupt it's trigger. There's nothing there that remotely suggests that you have to wait until the end of the action that contains the trigger.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Fair point. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if either way was ultimately correct. Neither choice is game breaking, though it could set an interesting "official" precedent.

Same, on spells at least. I'm definitely in the camp of 'yes you can' to RAs occurring between normal attacks.

 

[Noctem]

Except it says 'immediately after the trigger', not 'immediately after the action that contains the trigger.' Words have meanings, and this could not be more clear. If it doesn't interrupt its trigger, it occurs immediately after it. You're arguing, without basis, that that means that it either can interrupt its trigger when it says so, or it occurs after the action is complete. You're word swapping in for something that's clearly established: triggers are not actions, they can be any "perceivable circumstance." The reaction occurs immediately after the "perceivable circumstance" set as a trigger unless it has wording that it can occur before or interrupt it's trigger. There's nothing there that remotely suggests that you have to wait until the end of the action that contains the trigger.

See my previous posts, I've already explained that immediately after the trigger might not mean what you claim here. The rules all refer to the "trigger", even though the trigger can be an action / movement / speaking / etc.. They can't use action instead of trigger, not because it represents how to resolve the readied action itself but because not all triggers are actions. So it's not proof of either interpretation being correct or incorrect.