Two little questions

[Kane0]

Okay this shouldnt take long

1: does repelling blast trigger multiple times, as in once per hit (up to 4 at high levels)? I wager if so you can knock a single foe back up to 40' if you wanted to

2: does being pushed out of threatened area allow an Oa? As in repelling blast knocks a foe back 40', giving the fighter a swing on his way by?

Cheers in advance!

[hawklost]

1) Since it was pointed out that every single Eldritch blast strikes at the same time, the effect on a single target should only occur once. Now, striking 4 targets should cause all 4 to be pushed in my opinion.
EDIT: I would also use the fact that it says 'when you hit a creature with Eldritch Blast' Not, when you hit them with a beam. So the fact that there is 1 beam striking or 4 beams striking the creature from the same Eldritch Blast should not matter.


2) Being forced to move out of a threatened range does not actually cause OAs to occur. This is somewhere in the book but I cannot remember the exact location.

[Alucard2099]

1: does repelling blast trigger multiple times, as in once per hit (up to 4 at high levels)? I wager if so you can knock a single foe back up to 40' if you wanted to

I would go with yes, each beam would hit him and push him 10'. I would allow you to do this 4 times.


2: does being pushed out of threatened area allow an Oa? As in repelling blast knocks a foe back 40', giving the fighter a swing on his way by?

No. Being forced out of a threatened square of someone you are engaged with does not provoke an OA.

[Yagyujubei]

I would also rule yes for the first question and not sure for the second.

even if each beam hits simultaneously, they are separate beams that require separate rolls. if you get to add your damage modifier to each beam due to them requiring an attack roll, I couldn't in good conscience deny the pushback, for that very same reason.

as for OA's I don't remember the 5E rules, but this worked in earlier editions, so it would have to have been changed i guess....also there are spells that force movement (not by pushing but still) that provoke OAs

[Eslin]

Okay this shouldnt take long

1: does repelling blast trigger multiple times, as in once per hit (up to 4 at high levels)? I wager if so you can knock a single foe back up to 40' if you wanted to

2: does being pushed out of threatened area allow an Oa? As in repelling blast knocks a foe back 40', giving the fighter a swing on his way by?

Cheers in advance!

Eldritch blast is four sperate attacks, you move the target four seperate times. OAs are for deliberate movement only, so you can't force them.

[Vogonjeltz]

Eldritch blast is four sperate attacks, you move the target four seperate times. OAs are for deliberate movement only, so you can't force them.

They all occur simultaneously, so you can only move the target 10' from the point of origin. So 4 chances, 10' max.

[Yagyujubei]

They all occur simultaneously, so you can only move the target 10' from the point of origin. So 4 chances, 10' max.

i dont see how hitting simultaneously has anything to do with it unless there was a dev post about it somewhere. if getting hit by 1 fits would know you back (x) far then getting hit by 4; simultaneously or not, would surely knock you further back.

[Kryx]

1. Crawford has only posted to confirm the cha applying on all, no ruling on pushback. It probably works, but is cheesy imo

2. Answered above

[Kane0]

Thanks guys, i suspected it would be a yes and no respectively

For those on the no for thefirst question, can someone direct me to that post or ruling please?

[Jlooney]

I'd say that the first blast does 10 but each other one would only do 5. My reason is because each is a seperate roll but the amount of force youre hitting with has to do something. The real reason that a DM might not let you is shoving a creature 20 or 30 feet off a bridge or into a wall. I know a common rule is if you force move someone into a wall and whatever extra distance is left is done as d6s. So if you could blow them back 30 but they only move 10 they would get 2d6 damage from the force of the collision.

[Eslin]

I'd say that the first blast does 10 but each other one would only do 5. My reason is because each is a seperate roll but the amount of force youre hitting with has to do something. The real reason that a DM might not let you is shoving a creature 20 or 30 feet off a bridge or into a wall. I know a common rule is if you force move someone into a wall and whatever extra distance is left is done as d6s. So if you could blow them back 30 but they only move 10 they would get 2d6 damage from the force of the collision.

Why not? It's not like other classes can't do the same, a battlemaster who hits with four pebbles can knock someone back 60 feet.

[Jlooney]

Why not? It's not like other classes can't do the same, a battlemaster who hits with four pebbles can knock someone back 60 feet.

But that's 4 seperate attacks and most of not all of his features for the fight. Not in one cantrip that he can use each round. Not to mention the sheer range of EB

[Eslin]

But that's 4 seperate attacks and most of not all of his features for the fight. Not in one cantrip that he can use each round. Not to mention the sheer range of EB

Bows have better range, and an eldritch blast is four separate attacks as well. Eldritch blast doesn't work like other cantrips, each blast is separate.

It should also be noted that this is an example of tradeoffs giving different costs, a fighter has an array of possible effects to use his superiority dice and they push further so that versatility and power must be paid for. An open hand monk gets to choose between trip/15 push/cancel reactions with their flurry of blows which can effectively be done unlimited times (I've never seen an OHM run out of ki to flurry except in ridiculously long fights), they get less choice and have to be in melee range so they get more uses.

As power and versatility go up, so do costs. That's kind of the point of balancing abilities.



Edit: As a side note, I've complained many times that at higher levels the battlemaster is undertuned due to having too few dice. So while costs and power are supposed to balance each other, in this case I think they've got the balance wrong - though it's not that the warlock's too strong, it's that the battlemaster is too weak.

[Kryx]

A longbow has the same range, and an eldritch blast is four separate attacks as well. Eldritch blast doesn't work like other cantrips, each blast is separate.

His point remains: it is repeatable every round. Being able to push 10-40 on a cantrip along with the already ridiculous damage of 4d10+4x cha rings alarm bells imo.

[Eslin]

His point remains: it is repeatable every round. Being able to push 10-40 on a cantrip along with the already ridiculous damage of 4d10+4x cha rings alarm bells imo.

Why does it? A warlock's entire shtick is being able to do things over and over again, and how is that ridiculous damage? It's a little below the average damage a fighter will be doing, which considering the warlock is supposed to be the sustained damage caster tells me it's working fine.

[Aramis Rhett]

Repelling Blast
Prerequisite: eldritch blast cantrip
When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line.

"Up to 10 feet"
Imho that counts for one beam as well as all 4. 10 foot pushback limit. Unless you split the beams up to attack different targets. Then each can be pushed up to 10 feet.

[Eslin]

Repelling Blast
Prerequisite: eldritch blast cantrip
When you hit a creature with eldritch blast, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you in a straight line.

"Up to 10 feet"
Imho that counts for one beam as well as all 4. 10 foot pushback limit. Unless you split the beams up to attack different targets. Then each can be pushed up to 10 feet.

Yes, when you hit a creature with eldritch blast you can push it up to ten feet. Then when you hit it with another eldritch blast, you can push it up to ten feet. Then when you hit it with another eldritch blast, you can you can push it up to ten feet. Then when you hit it with another eldritch blast, you can push it up to ten feet.

Fun fact: you can hit a creature with up to four eldritch blasts with a single action. Again, unlike every other cantrip in the game, eldritch blast is four separate attacks. Remember the designer's philosophy, they mention this one again and again. 'When in doubt, if you're making an attack roll it's an attack'.

[Aramis Rhett]

I'd have to differ on opinion. Yes, you make up to four separate attack ROLLS. No, you do not make make up to four separate ATTACKS. They all stem from the same single verbal and somatic component, leading me to think they all hit at the same time since they all burst forth at the same time. I suppose the multiple rolls are there to make sure the casters fingers are pointed accurately, thus NOT making them individual attacks in and of themselves.

Edit: Woe upon the Warlock with broken or missing fingers...

[goto124]

Edit: Woe upon the Warlock with broken or missing fingers...

New Spell: Grow More Fingers

[Eslin]

I'd have to differ on opinion. Yes, you make up to four separate attack ROLLS. No, you do not make make up to four separate ATTACKS. They all stem from the same single verbal and somatic component, leading me to think they all hit at the same time since they all burst forth at the same time. I suppose the multiple rolls are there to make sure the casters fingers are pointed accurately, thus NOT making them individual attacks in and of themselves.

Edit: Woe upon the Warlock with broken or missing fingers...

Someone find and link the designer thing about 'when in doubt, if you're making an attack roll you're making an attack' please. Though that's not necessary, since there's nothing in the description that states attacks, it's just based on when you hit with an eldritch blast. And we know that eldritch blast can hit up to four times per use, unlike say firebolt that just does one hit of 1-4d10.

[Kryx]

I would rule that you add your Charisma modifier whenever a beam hits. But I have my eye on this feature.

Clearly this damage is at least a slight concern for Crawford. Adding on 4x pushing makes it even more worrisome. You're welcome to argue on RAW that it works, and I agree. But it is very powerful and deserves caution imo.

Comparing to a fighter isn't exactly the same. There are DPR calculations all over so we know where each class stands. The difference between melee vs ranged in the ability to attack every round is quite different though.

A more fair comparison is an archer fighter or archer ranger. And it's important to understand that a warlock brings more to the table than those 2 in terms of spells.

[Aramis Rhett]

When you hit a creature, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you.

If specific beats general, it clearly states UP TO 10 feet. Nothing else. So that leaves no room for "but there are four beams..."
It doesn't limit how many different creatures can be pushed at a time.

[Kane0]

Just as a side note, when i think of a warlock attacking four times with EB i picture a DBZ character launching four energy attacks at an opponent. Adding in the knockback would make sense to happen for each hit in my mind.

Also i picture the verbal component to be "dakka" a number of times equal to attack rolls you make.

But anyway, knocking back a target 40' using your action at range with solid damage wouldnt be really OP at the level your doing that at, right? I mean knock something back only 20' or 30' and most of the time they are just inconvenienced if they want to close on you or something, and its a single target effect.

Edit: hopefully the general rule of "you can unless it says you cant" applies here, so at later levels i can propel my foes into amd through walls with consecutive concussive blasts.

[Aramis Rhett]

I can see how the scaling of the warlocks power can make 10' per beam more feasible, but just think of a cliffside battle with an opponent that would outmatch a solid party. 40' from one casting of EB could end the conflict in the first round if the bad guy had no means of negating the fall or able to fly/teleport back up to the battleground. Even then, just knock it off the ledge again and again until it fails a save or burns all of its spells. Seems broken if 40' knockback is allowed imo.

[Kryx]

But anyway, knocking back a target 40' using your action at range with solid damage wouldnt be really OP at the level your doing that at, right? I mean knock something back only 20' or 30' and most of the time they are just inconvenienced if they want to close on you or something, and its a single target effect.

It's not just an "inconvenience". It would most likely cause that creature to be unable to attack you in melee the following round. In other cases it could push them off cliffs, into lava, into difficult terrain, etc.
It's much more impactful than just a 10' push.

[Eslin]

When you hit a creature, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you.

If specific beats general, it clearly states UP TO 10 feet. Nothing else. So that leaves no room for "but there are four beams..."
It doesn't limit how many different creatures can be pushed at a time.

Yes, each beam pushes UP TO 10 feet. So a total of 40 feet per use is possible.

[silveralen]

Lets put this in context. By the time the warlock is pushing 40 ft characters are shapeshifting into dragons, breaking 200+ damage in a round, and tossing save or die effects at people multiple times per short rest. By level 17, things get crazy. So lets not focus overmuch on that.

At 20-30 ft it isn't really impressive for the amount of knock back, as an open hand monk can do the same with a single ki point (5-15 of them recharging on a short rest), in addition to other abilities.

The issue worth actually noting is that it doesn't allow a save, or force a skill check, or anything of that nature. That's actually a bit surprising, and fairly unique. Every other option, even ones of similar usability, require this. Yes, you have to make the basic attack roll, but again comparable abilities require that already plus the save. Considering it also lacks any other limitation (such as size) it means you can't really prevent this outside of just having a super high AC or outright immunity to magic (something like the tarrasque's reflect ability prevents knockback I'm reasonably certain, but I'm AFB).

I think that's more worthy of consideration, requiring a strength save to avoid the knockback seems reasonable, it's more or less what every other such ability does. Even given the limited options (as in, it can only push, nothing else) it seems a bit much.

[Kane0]

I can see how the scaling of the warlocks power can make 10' per beam more feasible, but just think of a cliffside battle with an opponent that would outmatch a solid party. 40' from one casting of EB could end the conflict in the first round if the bad guy had no means of negating the fall or able to fly/teleport back up to the battleground. Even then, just knock it off the ledge again and again until it fails a save or burns all of its spells. Seems broken if 40' knockback is allowed imo.


It's not just an "inconvenience". It would most likely cause that creature to be unable to attack you in melee the following round. In other cases it could push them off cliffs, into lava, into difficult terrain, etc.
It's much more impactful than just a 10' push.

Ismt that the whole point of having special terrain and hazards in the first place though? It wouldnt be there if the DM didnt want you to use it or have it affect the battle. makes things interesting, like knocking someone back with a shove into the same hazards or making your own with a spell.

Edit

snip
Very true, pushing back ancient dragons without even the courtesy of a save is a bit odd, a strength save or check or contest or something definitely sounds like its in order in that case.

[Knaight]

Ismt that the whole point of having special terrain and hazards in the first place though? It wouldnt be there if the DM didnt want you to use it or have it affect the battle. makes things interesting, like knocking someone back with a shove into the same hazards or making your own with a spell.

That's one reason it could be there. Another reason it could be there is because it's terrain the players picked, or just what was around in the setting at the time, or whatever else. Sometimes the PCs are fighting at one end of a rickety bridge because they knew they were going to be attacked, set up at that one end of the bridge, and are waiting for it. The DM didn't necessarily put the bridge there because they wanted to have it affect a battle.

With that said, featureless plains are boring, featureless rooms are boring, and regardless of why the terrain is what it is, there being elements that are actually interesting is pretty much a plus regardless. Sometimes you have the lake of boiling mud, out of which are a bunch of slippery angled stones, with the occasional mudspurt throwing liquid pain everywhere. Sometimes you end up in a feature poor grotto. One of these is more likely to be memorable than the other.

[Kryx]

Lets put this in context. By the time the warlock is pushing 40 ft characters are shapeshifting into dragons, breaking 200+ damage in a round, and tossing save or die effects at people multiple times per short rest. By level 17, things get crazy. So lets not focus overmuch on that.

This is a false comparison. At will damage should be comparable to other at will damage. Namely Archer Ranger and Archer Fighter in this case - and slightly less as Archers ONLY attack, whereas Warlock has much more.
Also the logic deployed here is what leads to power creep. "Crazy stuff exists, so who cares how this works" is not going to end well.
Plus the pushing comes in much earlier than 17. It comes at 5 when there are 2 blasts that each push 10ft.


The issue worth actually noting is that it doesn't allow a save, or force a skill check, or anything of that nature. That's actually a bit surprising, and fairly unique. Every other option, even ones of similar usability, require this. Yes, you have to make the basic attack roll, but again comparable abilities require that already plus the save. Considering it also lacks any other limitation (such as size) it means you can't really prevent this outside of just having a super high AC or outright immunity to magic (something like the tarrasque's reflect ability prevents knockback I'm reasonably certain, but I'm AFB).

I think that's more worthy of consideration, requiring a strength save to avoid the knockback seems reasonable, it's more or less what every other such ability does. Even given the limited options (as in, it can only push, nothing else) it seems a bit much.

This is probably the best course of action if anyone finds the pushing too much.

[Eslin]

This is a false comparison. At will damage should be comparable to other at will damage. Namely Archer Ranger and Archer Fighter in this case - and slightly less as Archers ONLY attack, whereas Warlock has much more.
Also the logic deployed here is what leads to power creep. "Crazy stuff exists, so who cares how this works" is not going to end well.
Plus the pushing comes in much earlier than 17. It comes at 5 when there are 2 blasts that each push 10ft.



This is probably the best course of action if anyone finds the pushing too much.

How is turning your entire party into dragons not at-will damage?

[Kryx]

How is turning your entire party into dragons not at-will damage?

This is achieved by what? A spell? That's why. Spells are limited, not at will features by default.

[Eslin]

This is achieved by what? A spell? That's why. Spells are limited, not at will features by default.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that your entire party is now made up of giant dragons or whatever seems useful until they hit 0 HP. How is that not at-will?

[Kryx]

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that your entire party is now made up of giant dragons or whatever seems useful until they hit 0 HP. How is that not at-will?

At will is something that can be done an unlimited times per day. Things like cantrip, attacks, etc.
Casting a spell to boost damage/hp/whatever for a temporary time is not at-will.

Again if you use the logic of "Spells get crazy at later levels so as long as this isn't better than spells" then you end up with a really poor baseline. Should every class now get boosts to meet the same scale? No, the scale is incorrect. Things should be compared against comparable features.

[Eslin]

At will is something that can be done an unlimited times per day. Things like cantrip, attacks, etc.
Casting a spell to boost damage/hp/whatever for a temporary time is not at-will.

Again if you use the logic of "Spells get crazy at later levels so as long as this isn't better than spells" then you end up with a really poor baseline. Should every class now get boosts to meet the same scale? No, the scale is incorrect. Things should be compared against comparable features.

Except it's not temporary. Maintain the concentration and it lasts forever, rinse and repeat until the entire party is gargantuan dragons. Again, how is that not at will damage?

[Kryx]

Except it's not temporary. Maintain the concentration and it lasts forever, rinse and repeat until the entire party is gargantuan dragons. Again, how is that not at will damage?

It is temporary: It is based on a spell which takes spell slots and is cast every day. Not to mention concentration can be broken by damage.

And once again: Comparing all classes to the extreme of one class is not a good baseline. Using it as the scale will have poor consequences.

[silveralen]

It is temporary: It is based on a spell which takes spell slots and is cast every day. Not to mention concentration can be broken by damage.

And once again: Comparing all classes to the extreme of one class is not a good baseline. Using it as the scale will have poor consequences.

Actually, not taking into account the increased resource vs at will causes problems. 15 flurry of blows per short rest creates a dynamic where it can be used every turn in most encounters. Escalating resources need to be compared to at will, to determine relative power vs usability.

Abilities which offer benefits for the majority of the day are similarly worthy of consideration.

It is establishing whether being at will grants major bonuses.

[Eslin]

It is temporary: It is based on a spell which takes spell slots and is cast every day. Not to mention concentration can be broken by damage.

And once again: Comparing all classes to the extreme of one class is not a good baseline. Using it as the scale will have poor consequences.

I'm not the one comparing it to extremes.

Past the first hour, concentration is no longer required. Do it at the start of the day and you're fine, on successive days do each party member and then yourself last.

Congratulations, everyone is pit fiends!

[silveralen]

I will say that I find one thing odd about cantrips in general: why do they scale a fourth time?

The first two make sense (generally matching the lvl 5 and lvl 11 increases of the combat classes, though not as significant). But the last isn't really present on such classes, not in a unified fashion at least.

[holygroundj]

When you hit a creature, you can push the creature up to 10 feet away from you.

If specific beats general, it clearly states UP TO 10 feet. Nothing else. So that leaves no room for "but there are four beams..."
It doesn't limit how many different creatures can be pushed at a time.

It's 4 seperate attack rolls. It's equitable with the extra attack feature that fighters get. And while you might roll the attacks simultaniously, there's nothing RAW that say that all four hit at the same time. Within one action, a character is struck by UP to 4 beams. If one beam pushes 10 feet, what exactly is it about the subsequent beams that are less effective?

You make 4 attacks. you can hit 4 people and push them all up to 10 feet away, each time they are hit with a beam. 4 hits 40 feet.

[Yagyujubei]

This is a false comparison. At will damage should be comparable to other at will damage. Namely Archer Ranger and Archer Fighter in this case - and slightly less as Archers ONLY attack, whereas Warlock has much more.
Also the logic deployed here is what leads to power creep. "Crazy stuff exists, so who cares how this works" is not going to end well.
Plus the pushing comes in much earlier than 17. It comes at 5 when there are 2 blasts that each push 10ft.



This is probably the best course of action if anyone finds the pushing too much.

it's not a false comparison because warlock is built much different than other classes. as a 20 wizard noone is gonna be casting cantrips in battle, they have dozens of more powerful spells to choose from, and are going to use their most damaging abilities.

warlock doesn't get this kinda of versatility, EB is 80% of what they have to throw at enemies, and in many cases is their best damage option so it sure as hell better be strong.

Even then if you want to compare damage I'm pretty sure it comes up weaker than a frenzy/rage barbarian, or even just a fighter full attacking.

[Maxilian]

I'd have to differ on opinion. Yes, you make up to four separate attack ROLLS. No, you do not make make up to four separate ATTACKS. They all stem from the same single verbal and somatic component, leading me to think they all hit at the same time since they all burst forth at the same time. I suppose the multiple rolls are there to make sure the casters fingers are pointed accurately, thus NOT making them individual attacks in and of themselves.

Edit: Woe upon the Warlock with broken or missing fingers...

Well... if Agonizing Blast work, why wouldn't it work with the push, having in mind that it also say on hit


When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit.

[Kryx]

Even then if you want to compare damage I'm pretty sure it comes up weaker than a frenzy/rage barbarian, or even just a fighter full attacking.

The last 2 options are at melee and also have no CC. Those classes also have only 1 thing to do: smash. Warlocks have more versatility.

Warlock's at-will should be compared to other at-wills or pseudo at-will (as mentioned earlier things that can be assumed to have all the time).

Note: Never have I said warlock needs nerfing. I said the designer noted that EB *4 cha is something he's got his eye on, and I agree that it is slightly worrisome. However I think the save suggested earlier would be a good possible implementation.

[Yagyujubei]

The last 2 options are at melee and also have no CC. Those classes also have only 1 thing to do: smash. Warlocks have more versatility.

Warlock's at-will should be compared to other at-wills or pseudo at-will (as mentioned earlier things that can be assumed to have all the time).

Note: Never have I said warlock needs nerfing. I said the designer noted that EB *4 cha is something he's got his eye on, and I agree that it is slightly worrisome. However I think the save suggested earlier would be a good possible implementation.

are you saying that fighter and barbarian attacks aren't at wills? and yeah barbarians is melee and less versatile, but he's also impossibly hard to kill and gets free advantage to compensate, and fighter could be using a bow and be using power attack from the feat to REALLY outpace the EB damage.

and in the first place you're being hypocritical. first you say "at wills should be compared to other at wills" when people mention shapechanging into dragons, and then when I do that you're like "yeah but the warlock has more versatility with his other options".

[Kryx]

are you saying that fighter and barbarian attacks aren't at wills? and yeah barbarians is melee and less versatile, but he's also impossibly hard to kill and gets free advantage to compensate, and fighter could be using a bow and be using power attack from the feat to REALLY outpace the EB damage.

and in the first place you're being hypocritical. first you say "at wills should be compared to other at wills" when people mention shapechanging into dragons, and then when I do that you're like "yeah but the warlock has more versatility with his other options".

Comparing a Cantrip to a 9th level spell is utterly silly. It shouldn't be done in the first place.

And I'm still comparing at-wills to at-wills: Damage to Damage. Your argument is that the warlock should match fighter/barbarian DPR. This is not the case already and nor did I mention any plans of nerfing Warlock's damage. So no need to get worked up.

[Eslin]

Comparing a Cantrip to a 9th level spell is utterly silly. It shouldn't be done in the first place.

And I'm still comparing at-wills to at-wills: Damage to Damage. Your argument is that the warlock should match fighter/barbarian DPR. This is not the case already and nor did I mention any plans of nerfing Warlock's damage. So no need to get worked up.

Except the spell he's talking about is permanent unless you die, so it is directly equal to at-will damage.

[silveralen]

Note: Never have I said warlock needs nerfing. I said the designer noted that EB *4 cha is something he's got his eye on, and I agree that it is slightly worrisome. However I think the save suggested earlier would be a good possible implementation.

EB*4 cha damage is not an issue. His at will damage is not an issue at all. The save was only for the push back, you aren't going to have him roll to hit, and then the enemy save for half damage as well, that'd be absurd.


Comparing a Cantrip to a 9th level spell is utterly silly. It shouldn't be done in the first place.

And I'm still comparing at-wills to at-wills: Damage to Damage. Your argument is that the warlock should match fighter/barbarian DPR. This is not the case already and nor did I mention any plans of nerfing Warlock's damage. So no need to get worked up.

Actually he can beat a poorly optimized barbarian's DPR, largely because we have to ignore rage damage as it isn't at will.

[Yagyujubei]

Comparing a Cantrip to a 9th level spell is utterly silly. It shouldn't be done in the first place.

And I'm still comparing at-wills to at-wills: Damage to Damage. Your argument is that the warlock should match fighter/barbarian DPR. This is not the case already and nor did I mention any plans of nerfing Warlock's damage. So no need to get worked up.

im not worked up, im just saying you're being hypocritical in your argument. if you want to compare at will damage potential, it's exactly as it should be.

warlock does less at will damage than the heavy hitting melee strikers like barbarian/fighter and it does more damage than the much more versatile casters like wizard or bard. considering it is pretty much the "fighter" of caster classes this seems completely appropriate.

EDIT: @silveralen: i would consider rage as pseudo-at will if not an at will. especially since were talking lvl 20 characters here. a 20 barbarian is gonna be raging 100% of the time in battle lets be honest

[Aramis Rhett]

At lvl 20, rage is at will. Unlimited rages, they only end early if you die or become incapacitated, and assuming you never frenzy, without negative side effects.
Btw, where in the book does it say after the first hour you no longer have to concentrate on a spell?

[Kryx]

EB*4 cha damage is not an issue. His at will damage is not an issue at all. The save was only for the push back, you aren't going to have him roll to hit, and then the enemy save for half damage as well, that'd be absurd.

I wasn't planning on it... I was referring to your suggestion which put a save on the push...
Not sure why you assume otherwise.

[Yagyujubei]

At lvl 20, rage is at will. Unlimited rages, they only end early if you die or become incapacitated, and assuming you never frenzy, without negative side effects.
Btw, where in the book does it say after the first hour you no longer have to concentrate on a spell?

after the first hour the change enacted by the spell becomes permanent. thats what he means.

[Kryx]

after the first hour the change enacted by the spell becomes permanent. thats what he means.

They're talking about True Polymorph - which I was unaware of earlier as well.

I still find it to be an unfair comparison, especially since talking about later levels in D&D is always silly and EB has the double push starting at 5, tripple at 11, 4th at 17. But I think this thread has been derailed too much to continue that discussion.

[Yagyujubei]

They're talking about True Polymorph - which I was unaware of earlier as well.

I still find it to be an unfair comparison, especially since talking about later levels in D&D is always silly and EB has the double push starting at 5, tripple at 11, 4th at 17. But I think this thread has been derailed too much to continue that discussion.

meh, it seems pretty tame to me compared to what other classes can do at max level. yeah its at will but even then 40 feet really isn't that much. and against ranged enemies its not going to do anything. sure there would be the occasional situation where you could push an enemy off a cliff or something but they should be few and far between.

also it is a little ridiculous it just happens to anything you hit including an elder dragon, but again in that situation 40 feet is not gonna save you...so really I don't see it as being a problem personally.

[Abithrios]

meh, it seems pretty tame to me compared to what other classes can do at max level. yeah its at will but even then 40 feet really isn't that much. and against ranged enemies its not going to do anything. sure there would be the occasional situation where you could push an enemy off a cliff or something but they should be few and far between.

also it is a little ridiculous it just happens to anything you hit including an elder dragon, but again in that situation 40 feet is not gonna save you...so really I don't see it as being a problem personally.

Keep in mind that it is only forty feet if you hit four times. This isn't 3.5 where your friends will all laugh at you if your high level character who is focused on attacks misses with a natural 2. You will have trouble landing all of them on high level enemies. The forced movement is probably going to be ignored most of the time unless you have a polearm master standing around. Enemies can just walk back up to you and hit you again, with no reduction in damage due to having to reengage.

Allowing a strength save would reduce the number of pushes at high level from two or three to one or two. Size limits would make warlocks decline in power with level as average size of enemies increases.

Most attacks require either a save or an attack. One that requires both is highly unreliable in a system with bounded accuracy.

I think the idea of size limits comes from physical intuition being partially applied. A creature the size of a house that is hit by a concentrated blow of sufficient strength would not respond like a perfectly rigid body. It would be shredded. Also, the creature's bones would be crushed under its own weight. Most huge+ creatures are highly unrealistic.

For that matter, a person hit hard enough to be pushed back ten feet would also experience major trauma to bones and internal organs as a result.


In short, if you want it to be more realistic, you would probably have to make it overpowered.

[Kryx]

Most attacks require either a save or an attack. One that requires both is highly unreliable in a system with bounded accuracy.

Look at the Open Hand Monk - they have an attack and then a strength save for the push. Atk & save for the spell would be silly, Atk for the hitting and save for the condition is everywhere in 5e.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yes, when you hit a creature with eldritch blast you can push it up to ten feet. Then when you hit it with another eldritch blast, you can push it up to ten feet. Then when you hit it with another eldritch blast, you can you can push it up to ten feet. Then when you hit it with another eldritch blast, you can push it up to ten feet.

Fun fact: you can hit a creature with up to four eldritch blasts with a single action. Again, unlike every other cantrip in the game, eldritch blast is four separate attacks. Remember the designer's philosophy, they mention this one again and again. 'When in doubt, if you're making an attack roll it's an attack'.

Correction, you make four beams from one Eldritch Blast. Beams, not Eldritch Blasts, at most a character will only ever be hit by '1' even if hit by multiple beams from that '1' spell. Remember, it's each Eldritch Blast that pushes the character, not each beam.

An easily overlooked, but very consequential, distinction.


And while you might roll the attacks simultaniously, there's nothing RAW that say that all four hit at the same time.

It's one spell, they all hit simultaneously as there is nothing to indicate they do not. Indeed, the spell creates the beams at the same time, so there's no reason to assume they wouldn't arc to the same target at the same time. PHB 237.

[Abithrios]

Correction, you make four beams from one Eldritch Blast. Beams, not Eldritch Blasts, at most a character will only ever be hit by '1' even if hit by multiple beams from that '1' spell. Remember, it's each Eldritch Blast that pushes the character, not each beam.

An easily overlooked, but very consequential, distinction.



It's one spell, they all hit simultaneously as there is nothing to indicate they do not. Indeed, the spell creates the beams at the same time, so there's no reason to assume they wouldn't arc to the same target at the same time. PHB 237.

The pushing is triggered "When you hit a creature with eldritch blast". It is not each spell or each attack (i.e. each beam) that triggers the push, it is each "When". If the attacks are simultaneous, then it would probably only push one time. If the attacks are not perfectly simultaneous, then there would definitely be one push per hit.

Personally, I would rule that they are not simultaneous. I would go even farther than that. I would even let them resolve the effects of each attack before declaring a target for the next attack (if they have another attack).

By your interpretation, the warlock would have to declare how many beams they want to shoot at each available target before they start rolling the effects. That would mean that the warlock continually risks shooting enemies who are already dead and sparing enemies they wanted to finish off. This assumes, of course, that the game world has something like real world causality, where information only spreads forward in time unless specialized magic is used. Given that eldritch blast is an evocation, not a divination, I don't think it should be allowed to violate causality.

Thus, the distinction is even more consequential than your post explicitly gives it credit for.

As to why they do not specify one way or the other whether the attacks are simultaneous, I believe it is a matter of style. I would be surprised if you can find a single piece of crunch in the whole book that specifies an amount of time measured in smaller units than turns. It simply does not measure time in smaller slices.

Perhaps this is just another piece of ambiguity in the book. The book intentionally goes for a looser style than some previous editions. It does not try to answer every question a reader might have. I am not a fan of the new style, but it is there. (It is certainly possible to produce technical writing that is easily legible, solidly unambiguous in its meaning, and interesting to read. That is perhaps even the very definition of good technical writing.)