Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6777157" data-attributes="member: 16814">Granted, and it's a good argument, but if I answer this for myself, the reason I didn't engage it is because I've already accepted Crawford's statement that they are sequential.  I've further accepted that the way you make an attack is the '1) choose targets, 2) determine modifiers, 3) resolve the attack' methodology in the book.  If methodology is correct, and we do the attacks sequentially as Crawford said, then the result is that you choose your first target, determine the modifiers, resolve that attack (and all associated outcomes), and then you choose your second target (can be the same as the first), determine modifiers,... as so on.I didn't engage in your reasoning because I've already stated how I think it works.  I grant that you have a solid argument, if you ignore Crawford, which is, again, 100% perfectly fine to do.  His statements are guidance, not rules.Yeah, I see that point about the 'per casting' instead of 'per beam' pushback.  I'm not sure I'll rule that way, and I'm leaning towards per beam -- not for any particular reason other than that's how my players will likely read it and going the other way opens up a possible argument for little gain.  There's little downside in my group to rule it as 'per beam'.  But I see that argument clearly, and I will address the latter points as if it is 'per casting' and not 'per beam'.So, IF we go with 'pushback only once per casting' AND with Crawford's statement that the attacks are subsequent, then Crawford's statement about being pushed out of range make perfect sense.  The first beam to hit a target pushes it back 10' during step 3) of the make an attack process (resolve the attack).  If that pushes them out of range of the spell, then no subsequent beams can be targeted at that target during that same casting.  It doesn't require that there be a second casting, or that the beams be simultaneous for that interpretation to work.  Aside:  I added Crawford's subsequent ruling because it's logical to assume that Crawford agrees with Crawford on all related rulings, so you can't analyze the situation with one Crawford ruling and not the other.You could argue that the actual effect of eldritch blast is Xd10 damage, where X is the number of beams that hit.  The description of that effect is 'beams of crackling energy.'  I think that's a fairer interpretation, because the spell's intent isn't to create beams of crackling energy, but rather to use beams of crackling energy to hurt things.  The end result, and therefor effect, is to hurt things.  The beams are a descriptive middleman.I think this argument, while I can't fault the logic, is mooted by noting that you can't target a spell with dispel magic, only the ongoing effects of the spell.  As noted above, it's valid to not consider the beams the effects of the spell, just the descriptive means to the effects.  Regardless, there's enough slop that the premises of your argument aren't universal, and others can be logically used that come to a different conclusion.Remember that four beams is not the spell being cast four times; they are still the effect of a single casting of the spell.I disagree here.  It's perfectly valid as a ruling, and works logically enough depending on what you demand of it.  There hasn't been a case presented that slam-dunk says that's it's impossible.  I wouldn't have gotten there on my own, but seeing it I can recognize how it works, and that's well enough.I agree that if the beams are sequential, and follow the processes, then they also exist as available triggers like any other attack would.  I can see someone disagreeing and choosing to not allow those as triggers, but I think they are and have presented my case.  I further agree that arguments to 'tweet him' don't really offer anything to the debate.  If someone chose to and provided the result, that would be offering something, but insisting others do it and refusing to debate until they do so is childish.  You don't have to argue (that's not the childish part), but you shouldn't insist others follow your demanded course of action (go tweet).</blockquote>

Verification