Okay so how exactly do I cast eldrich blast as a warlock?

[Rfkannen]

Just makeing sure I got this right. I am a level 2 warlock with 16 charisma. I decide to use eldirch blast. Then what? Not entirly sure, I don't play spell casters that much. It isnt a spell save dc, it is a spell attack roll. So I role something(I am going to assume a d20? and add my spell attack modifier. Then if that is higher than something(not sure what, ac?) I hit, at which point I roll a d10 which is the damage I do. I do not add +3 to that damage but i do if I took agonizing blast?

Sorry for the noob question, any help would be apreciated!

[Madfellow]

Just makeing sure I got this right. I am a level 2 warlock with 16 charisma. I decide to use eldirch blast. Then what? Not entirly sure, I don't play spell casters that much. It isnt a spell save dc, it is a spell attack roll. So I role something(I am going to assume a d20? and add my spell attack modifier. Then if that is higher than something(not sure what, ac?) I hit, at which point I roll a d10 which is the damage I do. I do not add +3 to that damage but i do if I took agonizing blast?

Yep, that's exactly right. You roll 1d20+Cha+Prof vs. your target's AC. Damage is 1d10, but if you have Agonizing Blast it's 1d10+Cha instead.

[Kane0]

So first up just make sure you know the basics of Eldritch blast, which is a cantrip you can find on page 237 in the players handbook.

The most important thing is its action cost (your action), its damage (1d10), its range (120') and how many you get to shoot (1 until you hit level 5 where you get two, then three at level 11 and four at level 17). There are also the components required (verbal and somatic) if it ever comes up.

So when you use your action to cast it you roll to hit your targets AC using a spell attack, which for you is 1d20 + Charisma + Proficiency bonus. Note that you have disadvantage if they are right next to you, prone or otherwise not in an ideal situation to be shot at.

If you hit you roll that 1d10 damage.

The other things to take into account are the invocations Repelling Blast, Agonizing Blast and Eldritch Spear, all of which do something when you cast Eldritch Blast.
Repelling Blast will push your target back 10' if you hit him.
Agonising Blast adds your Charisma bonus to the 1d10 damage roll
Eldritch Spear increases the range to 300' instead of 120'

One uncertain thing you might want to ask your DM is if you can spread out those attacks between movement like weapon users can, or if the volley happens all at once. Might not impact you but worth knowing before it comes up in a fight.

[EvanescentHero]

One uncertain thing you might want to ask your DM is if you can spread out those attacks between movement like weapon users can, or if the volley happens all at once. Might not impact you but worth knowing before it comes up in a fight.

Just out of curiosity, would you allow it?

[Kryx]

would you allow it?

Mechanically it isn't really different from melee ranged.


Duration: Instantaneous
A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage.
The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam

The spell is instantaneous, which by logic means they all go off at once. However there is no mention of all of them striking simultaneously as there is for Magic Missile.

The question really applies to all split spells like Eldritch Blast & Scorching Ray.

Based on the logic that if it applies to one then it applies to all: I, personally, probably wouldn't... maybe though.

[Shining Wrath]

For almost all attack cantrips, 10 + Proficiency + Casting Modifier + [Dis]Advantage must meet or exceed target AC; cover usually applies (AFB but IIRC Sacred Flame ignores cover).

As to splitting the attacks up, I believe that lies in the realm of DM fiat. I think it depends upon how you visualize the attack / move sequence.

If, in your mind's eye, this is a discrete process: move 10', blast, move 5', blast, move 10', blast, move 5' - then I'd say no. You get one casting of the cantrip, not 3.

If, in your mind's eye, this is a continuous process: move 30' firing off blasts as you go like a character in an action flick - then I'd say yes. You cast the cantrip once and as you run you fling blasts like a gunfighter firing bullets from a pistol.

As a DM, I think Rule of Cool supports the latter interpretation, with the standard provisio that as you do unto my monsters, so shall my monsters do unto you.

[Feldarove]

Also...total noob here

We have been playing in my group that cantrips that get more dice as you level simple increase the damage, not create another attack bolt (or whatever)

So simply your eldritch blast now does 2d10 damage.

Is it two separate attacks? Can you aim those attacks at different targets?

Since none of this is laid out, we simply thought the damage went up.

[Demonic Spoon]

The extra bolts is a specific feature of Eldritch Blast, not of other attack cantrips.

[MeeposFire]

Also...total noob here

We have been playing in my group that cantrips that get more dice as you level simple increase the damage, not create another attack bolt (or whatever)

So simply your eldritch blast now does 2d10 damage.

Is it two separate attacks? Can you aim those attacks at different targets?

Since none of this is laid out, we simply thought the damage went up.

Eldritch blast is a specifically different cantrip as other cantrips increase the damage of their attack but EB does not. Its damage stays at 1d10 but it says you get an additional blast at certain levels. Due to this it means that each blast is less powerful than the other cantrips but the overall damage assuming all hits are the same. Of course this changes when you add abilities that increase damage per hit which is where EB shines.

[Osiris]

Eldritch blast is a specifically different cantrip as other cantrips increase the damage of their attack but EB does not. Its damage stays at 1d10 but it says you get an additional blast at certain levels. Due to this it means that each blast is less powerful than the other cantrips but the overall damage assuming all hits are the same. Of course this changes when you add abilities that increase damage per hit which is where EB shines.

Indeed. Unless you took the Blade pact and then became a warrior-type warlock, you'll want to pick up agonizing blast. This way, you oculd start with 1d10 +3, and at the end of your career, you would have 4 1d10 +5 rays, leading to 4d10 + 20.

[Dalebert]

I'm pretty sure it's RAW that you can move between bolts. Any spell that has an attack roll which can miss (as opposed to a save for instance) is treated as an attack for all practical purposes. The rules specifically say you can move any portion of your movement between your attacks. The same would apply to other attack spells where you would get more than one attack from it.

[EvanescentHero]

I'm pretty sure it's RAW that you can move between bolts. Any spell that has an attack roll which can miss (as opposed to a save for instance) is treated as an attack for all practical purposes. The rules specifically say you can move any portion of your movement between your attacks. The same would apply to other attack spells where you would get more than one attack from it.

This is what I was thinking, and why I would allow it.

[Demonic Spoon]

nope. The relevant passage from the rules is this:


If you take an action that includes more than one
weapon attack, you can break up your movement even
further by moving between those attacks. For example,
a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra
Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could
move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then
attack again.

[Dalebert]

I seem to recall a statement somewhere that spells that require an attack are treated as a weapon attack actually. Could be wrong. I'll try to find it.

EDIT: I think I recalled this statement incorrectly and somehow concluded the movement thing applied to spell attacks as well. Our DM is treating it that way but I don't think I can find anything in the PHB to show it as the default. Maybe it just seemed intuitive because everything else seems to be resolved similarly, like whether and when a spell crits, etc.

PHB pg. 194

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.

[Kryx]

I'm pretty sure it's RAW that you can move between bolts. Any spell that has an attack roll which can miss (as opposed to a save for instance) is treated as an attack for all practical purposes. The rules specifically say you can move any portion of your movement between your attacks. The same would apply to other attack spells where you would get more than one attack from it.

If you rule this way then the character should probably have to concentrate (as they aren't casting it multiple times, they cast it once). The character would then make concentration saves if they get hit by opportunity attacks.

[Dalebert]

If you rule this way then the character should probably have to concentrate (as they aren't casting it multiple times, they cast it once). The character would then make concentration saves if they get hit by opportunity attacks.

Not necessarily. If you've decided to allow it at all, of course it's fine to add that complication if you feel it's needed. That said, it's not a readied spell. It's still all taking place within your normal turn without waiting for any triggers. If casting the spell in the first place doesn't break your concentration, and moving doesn't, then why would releasing the energy that you've already summoned between short moves or while moving? It just makes it consistent with how attack spells are treated like other attacks in all other respects. At least this is the only exception I know of. It seems no more complicated than running while throwing daggers which doesn't break concentration. Everything seemed so consistent and less complicated before I learned of this. I'd rather have less exceptions unless they're truly necessary for balance reasons.

[Kryx]

Not necessarily

But the spell clearly says it is one spell which creates 1-4 beams instantaneously that you fire. They are not spread out in time by RAW.

How do they cast them with time in between? That's DM fiat and up to the individual DM. The only example of such would be concentration.

[Demonic Spoon]

If you simultaneously rule that Agonizing Blast grants bonus damage to each beam, and you can move between beams, then the Warlock is really stepping on the toes of martial characters. I'd say no on that basis alone.

[Dalebert]

But the spell clearly says it is one spell which creates 1-4 beams instantaneously that you fire. They are not spread out in time by RAW.

You can't move between them by RAW. I conceded that almost immediately when I looked into it.


How do they cast them with time in between? That's DM fiat and up to the individual DM. The only example of such would be concentration.

Then do that. Or don't allow it at all. Whatever. Make your game as complicated as you are comfortable with.


If you simultaneously rule that Agonizing Blast grants bonus damage to each beam, and you can move between beams, then the Warlock is really stepping on the toes of martial characters. I'd say no on that basis alone.

But not when a blade lock creates any weapon and is automatically proficient with it and gets an extra attack and extra magical damage. *shrug* Okay. I'm just picturing the once in a blue moon when it will be relevant for an attack with so much range and having a hard time imagining it having much impact at all. It's really melee weapons that this rule matters most for. Yes, there are some unusual scenarios when it will matter for ranged attacks also but they will be rare.

That's why if a DM allows this, it's a tiny bit of icing. If he doesn't, I don't give a flip. It's not worth an ounce of debate.

[CrusaderJoe]

If you simultaneously rule that Agonizing Blast grants bonus damage to each beam, and you can move between beams, then the Warlock is really stepping on the toes of martial characters. I'd say no on that basis alone.

....

Little late for that, martial's toes have been crushed so much already that it isn't funny. Martials are pretty much *do damage* and casters can not only do buffs, debuffs, and utility... But now can do the thing that they fell behind in 3.5 which is *do damage*.

Note that you don't have to be king of smack to reliably kill things. As long as your average damage is high enough it doesn't matter if you deal 50 average damage or 100 average damage. If both can kill 90% of the creatures in the same number of turns then being "better" doesn't mean much. Especially since 0 HP = monster death or monster KO)

There is nothing wrong with magic being able to *do damage*, we all love Black Mage for a reason.


But yeah ruling both is a bit much, my thoughts.

All rays get all effects tied to the rays such as added damage or pushing. There is no reason that I'm aware of that prevent this. Also it passrs the rule of cool (pushing invocation).

Moving between rays is a no. Between the wording of cantrip and move and attacking its mostly clear that no, you can not.

Though, I see this being an invocation at some point. Mobile EB or whatever it will be called.

I'm actually quite excited for a Warlock Invocation book...

[Shining Wrath]

But the Warlock is the least general of the full casters, so much so that I sometimes debate with myself (YOU DO NOT! DO SO! SHUT UP! MAKE ME!) whether they should be counted as full casters at all. A warlock can cast 8 spells per day; 4 using a 5th level slot, and then one each 6th thru 9th via Mystic Arcanum; those 6th thru 9th never change once chosen.

Making a warlock slightly better at dealing damage with their signature cantrip doesn't really alter the martial / caster balance, as warlocks are already pretty much blasters dealing damage and not the Batman Wizard, or even the Sorcerer.

[Tenmujiin]

But the Warlock is the least general of the full casters, so much so that I sometimes debate with myself (YOU DO NOT! DO SO! SHUT UP! MAKE ME!) whether they should be counted as full casters at all. A warlock can cast 8 spells per day; 4 using a 5th level slot, and then one each 6th thru 9th via Mystic Arcanum; those 6th thru 9th never change once chosen.

Making a warlock slightly better at dealing damage with their signature cantrip doesn't really alter the martial / caster balance, as warlocks are already pretty much blasters dealing damage and not the Batman Wizard, or even the Sorcerer.

4 spells per short rest, that works out at 8-12 a day assuming you rest 1-2 times a day (2 short rests a day is assumed by game balance)

[Kane0]

Just out of curiosity, would you allow it?

I would. I love warlocks, and Eldritch Blast is their go to tool in a fight. If you have the extra attack feature you can move between attacks when you take the attack action, so I extrapolate that to apply to a warlock using EB as their 'attack action', as EB gives an equivalent of the extra attack feature as opposed to other cantrips dealing increased damage. 5e is nice in that its more freeing than 3.5 where you had a ruling for little differences things that, here you just do what makes sense and the group agrees on.


But the spell clearly says it is one spell which creates 1-4 beams instantaneously that you fire. They are not spread out in time by RAW.


Not quite. If you want to get technical and go the RAW direction the spells duration is instantaneous, how the blasts themselves operate are not specified beyond the word 'beam'. It is again open to interpretation, which is kind of the point in this edition apparently.



Eldritch Blast
Evocation Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V,S
Duration: Instantaneous

A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage.
The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones. Make a separate attack roll for each beam.

[GiantOctopodes]

actually imho the main thing moving between attacks in eldritch blast would do is allow them to carefully reposition enemies using repelling blast, which in addition to being able to move 4 enemies per turn, push one enemy up to 40 feet, and offering no save, would then also allow them to easily guide enemies into the correct position and push them into place, making them an absolutely phenomenal controller of enemy position. Would I allow that? You bet! It's cool and awesome!

[Kane0]

It opens up fantastic opportunities yes, but personally I think a save should have been attached to the push effect, moreso if if happens more than once per casting (which i believe is the intent).

[Kryx]

Not quite. If you want to get technical and go the RAW direction the spells duration is instantaneous, how the blasts themselves operate are not specified beyond the word 'beam'. It is again open to interpretation, which is kind of the point in this edition apparently.

So by that logic I should also be able to move while I burning hands?

Nonsense. instantaneous is instantaneous, not seconds later.

[Demonic Spoon]

Mass cure wounds doesn't specify how the burst operates beyond that it's a burst. Does that mean that I can cast it and use my movement to run around during my turn to affect targets beyond its immediate range?

[Kane0]

So by that logic I should also be able to move while I burning hands?

Nonsense. instantaneous is instantaneous, not seconds later.

Burning hands is one attack, eldritch blast is four. How fast can you say "Pew, pew, pew pew"? Thats how fast i throw my beams at you.

[Demonic Spoon]

Burning hands is one attack, eldritch blast is four. How fast can you say "Pew, pew, pew pew"? Thats how fast i throw my beams at you.

I can say that fast enough that I could not travel any meaningful distance between pews.

The burning hands example makes sense. Some were arguing that, aside from the very-clear duration, nothing says that all blasts fire at the same time and thus you have time to move between them.

If that's true, then nothing says that the flame from my hands doesn't last the whole round, so I can run around and keep tagging people with it for my whole movement.

[Kane0]

Which would actually be pretty cool, like a little flamethrower. I'd let you do that.

[Kryx]

Which would actually be pretty cool, like a little flamethrower. I'd let you do that.

And that kind of ruling would turn a 15 ft cone into a much larger area.

This mindset would definitely unbalance spells.

[Kane0]

And that kind of ruling would turn a 15 ft cone into a much larger area.

This mindset would definitely unbalance spells.

This is true, but at this point I think I'll just agree with Dalebert. We all have the ability to choose our rulings in 5e, and we choose differently. Neither is wrong, and the point isnt worth arguing over if everybody is happy with said rulings.

[Kryx]

This is true, but at this point I think I'll just agree with Dalebert. We all have the ability to choose our rulings in 5e, and we choose differently. Neither is wrong, and the point isnt worth arguing over if everybody is happy with said rulings.

It's not wrong, it's just unbalanced toward spells that can be much more powerful based on how a player moves. It can double (or more) the effectiveness of some spells.

If your group is ok with that then that's your choice. 5e set a limit on the power of spells and I like that limit.

[Dalebert]

Burning Hands and Cure Wounds are clearly not attacks. BH is save-based; no to-hit roll. My motivations are about treating attacks consistently in order to have fewer exceptions and thus less complicated rules. If I really think that's going to give an unfair benefit, then I would probably go ahead and deny it. It's just so trivial though. It's going to make a difference in 1 out of a 100 situations, maybe.

When someone mentioned having an invocation to allow EB to allow movement between blasts, I laughed. No one is going to take that! It ain't worth a crap for an attack that has 120 ft range compared to your 25-45ft move rate. When they pointedly said "weapon attacks" when they have everywhere else treated all attacks consistently, I imagine they were thinking that's the only time it really matters, mainly melee weapons as opposed to ranged but they didn't care if people did it with ranged weapons so didn't specify. I also doubt they care if people do it with ranged ray attacks but they were thinking of melee attacks because that's when it matters.

When someone brought up the pushing evocation (10 ft), it gave me a little pause, but even then, I'm hard-pressed to envision a scenario where that is particularly helpful. You typically have 30 ft of movement. I guess you could run in an arc around creatures to cluster them tighter for an AoE or something, but... if they're far apart, that takes a lot of movement plus plenty of space to encircle enemies. It then also generally requires another caster ready to blast BEFORE enemies get a move. Consider you need to be in just the right position +5 ft away or Disadvantage for ranged. That will mean typically at least a 45 degree arc to get in position after pushing one creature, which may also have required part of your move to get in position for. Yeah, it's possible it will be useful sometime, but again, conditions have to be just right, and even rarer still when you could move more than just two creatures. If it's only one creature, the ability to move between rays doesn't even matter. It's still not going to be a common scenario. You can do some things to help a little like Longstrider (small help) or even Haste (larger help) but those represent additional expenditure of resources, particularly wasting Haste on the warlock instead of on a martial. I'm inclined to reward players for tactical uses of their resources instead of generic uses anyway.

But if you can convince me that this is going to commonly provide a considerable advantage to the lock, maybe by describing scenarios I haven't thought of, then I would be more inclined to care one way or the other. As it is...

Me: "Do you allow movement between EB attacks?"
DM: "Sure."
Me: "Cool."

or

Me: "Do you allow movement between EB attacks?"
DM: "No, because I feel that..."
Me: "Noted. I won't do that then."

or

Me: "Do you allow movement between EB attacks?"
DM: "No, but I've home-brewed an evocation you can take to do that."
Me: "He he. Ha ha ha. HA HA HA HA! No. I'm good."

[Kryx]

Burning Hands and Cure Wounds are clearly not attacks. BH is save-based; no to-hit roll. My motivations are about treating attacks consistently in order to have fewer exceptions and thus less complicated rules. If I really think that's going to give an unfair benefit, then I would probably go ahead and deny it. It's just so trivial though. It's going to make a difference in 1 out of a 100 situations, maybe.

Ya, your motivations are much different than what Kane said he'd do above. EB with moving in between fits with martial attacks. It's seemingly intended to be treated differently, but changing that isn't much of a buff.

However allowing movement on spells like Burning Hands is a HUUUUUUUGE buff to those spells and massively unbalances them.



When someone mentioned having an invocation to allow EB to allow movement between blasts, I laughed. No one is going to take that! It ain't worth a crap for an attack that has 120 ft range compared to your 25-45ft move rate. When they pointedly said "weapon attacks" when they have everywhere else treated all attacks consistently, I imagine they were thinking that's the only time it really matters, mainly melee weapons as opposed to ranged but they didn't care if people did it with ranged weapons so didn't specify. I also doubt they care if people do it with ranged ray attacks but they were thinking of melee attacks because that's when it matters.

I think they would've specified if they wanted to allow spell attacks to be moved in between. Maybe you're right and they missed it. I sent a twitter question to Crawford - he'll respond eventually.



When someone brought up the pushing evocation (10 ft), it gave me a little pause, but even then, I'm hard-pressed to envision a scenario where that is particularly helpful.

Pushing is minisculely different if you let the caster move in between attack. It's fine in that regard.
I, personally, agree with an earlier poster that the push should have a similar save as the open hand monk (str vs spell dc).



But if you can convince me that this is going to commonly provide a considerable advantage to the lock, maybe by describing scenarios I haven't thought of, then I would be more inclined to care one way or the other. As it is...

I think it's definitely better if the Lock can move in between attacks. They could shoot 1 bolt from cover, then if the target falls move around the corner to attack the next guy - the same stuff a martial could do.
Kill 1 guy in front of the pillar, move to get a better shot at the guy behind.

There are many scenarios where moving in between would be better. I interpret the caster to attack as per RAW which is different (more limited) than martials. It's not huge, but it's definitely relevant.

[Dalebert]

I think they would've specified if they wanted to allow spell attacks to be moved in between. Maybe you're right and they missed it. I sent a twitter question to Crawford - he'll respond eventually.

Not so much missed it as just didn't care much and didn't give a thought to it. Again, the ones who really benefit from this ability are melee folk and so that's what they had in mind when they wrote it. Whether you can do it with a ranged attack or spell (that's clearly an attack) just doesn't seem that important. In fact, EB is the only case I can think of where it might become relevant so I am inclined to file it with a lot of things that they didn't really think through with regard to all the things that might be affected by it. I suppose Scorching Ray might be also but I can't recall exactly. Do you get extra rays at higher slots? *shrug*


I, personally, agree with an earlier poster that the push should have a similar save as the open hand monk (str vs spell dc).

Yeah, I can see that. It does seem weird that you can automatically push a Tarrasque back up to 40 feet!


I think it's definitely better if the Lock can move in between attacks. They could shoot 1 bolt from cover, then if the target falls move around the corner to attack the next guy - the same stuff a martial could do.
Kill 1 guy in front of the pillar, move to get a better shot at the guy behind.

It doesn't help to shoot from cover. It only matters if you end up back behind cover before the next attack. And "if the attacker falls" once again reduces the frequency of this scenario. It's another factor that has to coincide with a bunch of others in exactly the right terrain/layout/enemy positioning/initiative order, with enemies spread out but not TOO spread out because you can only move so far anyway, etc.

Seriously, lay out a VERY specific scenario--terrain, enemy positions, initiative order, even figure in Repelling Blast and having another caster with an AoE, and I bet you'll find that you have to twiddle it quite a bit for it to end up being of particular benefit. The more you have to twiddle it, the less likely/often that scenario is actually going to present itself. Then you'll realize it's not all that big a deal one way or the other. At least that's my prediction. I admit I'm going mainly off of feels. But in my defense, there are SO many scenarios, in fact most of the ones I've dealt with in-game, where it doesn't make a difference that I feel like the burden of proof is not on me.

[Kryx]

I suppose Scorching Ray might be also but I can't recall exactly. Do you get extra rays at higher slots? *shrug*

Scorching ray gets 3 by default and an additional 1 for each level above 2.



It doesn't help to shoot from cover. It only matters if you end up back behind cover before the next attack. And "if the attacker falls" once again reduces the frequency of this scenario. It's another factor that has to coincide with a bunch of others in exactly the right terrain/layout/enemy positioning/initiative order, with enemies spread out but not TOO spread out because you can only move so far anyway, etc.

You're reading too much into what I'm saying about cover. See below for the situation I loosely outlined.



Seriously, lay out a VERY specific scenario

I already laid out the scenarios - they're the same as an archer.

Here is a specific one if you want.
Say you're in a tunnel and 10 ft away in a mob.

You kill mob with first shot
You move to the crossroads of a tunnel
You shoot another creature that is down a side tunnel


This is not allowed by the strict reading of the spells. You now get to use your extra X amount of blasts whereas if you couldn't move then you wouldn't.

It is a significant thing - it definitely increases the usability/power of spell casters compared to the strict reading. You think that's intended, I'm inclined to say that it is not.